Social Psychology 1st Year PDF

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Lecture 1= Study of complex, ever-changing, inherently social world by means of human nature. History: Greek philosophers Plato’s – Socio-centered approach: collectives controlled by state, behavior a result of social systems (e.g. education): ‘crowd mind’ (macr...

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Lecture 1= Study of complex, ever-changing, inherently social world by means of human nature. History: Greek philosophers Plato’s – Socio-centered approach: collectives controlled by state, behavior a result of social systems (e.g. education): ‘crowd mind’ (macro?) Aristotle (student) – individal-centered approach: individual activity, innate, inherently ‘social’ (micro?) Auguste Comte (1798-1857) Father of sociology – systematic observation (institutions and social order, as well as chaos and revolutions at time) Early social psych: Late 19th and early 20th – European approach: Volkerpsychologie: Germany (folk) psychology of people: {founders Lazarus (1824-1903), Steinthal (1823-99). Wundt (1832-1920)first lab: culture and language)} Crowd Psychology: France, political and social concerns e.g. riots- mobs (primitive) {Le Bon (1841- 1931), Tarde (1823-1904)} First Experiment: Triplett Competition/paced Arousal caused by mere presence of other- more effort Confirmed in lab McDougall (english – individual focused), Ross (American – Group Focused) in 1908 identified Social psych as separate sub-field. But tension remained e.g. Allport (1924) – behaviorism, individuals and Gestalt - relationships, group, organisations. Uncertainity remained KEY EVENTS The Great Depression 1920s -30s = social unrest, market crash, migrated to avoid persecution. Psychological study of social issues (SPSSI) created in 1936 Lewin “no research without action, and no action without research” to solve problems. WW2 30s-40s: Social psych working on wartime programmes, morale and officer selection Rapid expansion after ww2. European and americans working together to understand why it happened. BPS social section founded- 1953. Adorno 1950 – authoritative personality, Milgram 1963 – obedience, Asch 1956 confirmity, Hatfield 1966 – relationships, Latane and Darley 1968 – bystander intervention. Methods and Perspectives: Sampson (1991) two approaches: The conventionalist view: Through scientific method, as scientific knowledge mirrors reality (dominant) The sociohistorical view: Cultural and historical factors, science is a story that proposes specific accounts and versions of reality. Lecture 2 = Social Influence: Based on how others influence one’s behavior Confederates effect or influence on other people based on their number. An increase in number of confederates show significant effect. Known as informational social influence (they think confederates know something that they don’t showing an intriguing behavior) Mere presence effect – Triplett (1898) Experiment on social facilitation tasks Based on others influence e.g. competition Helps to motivate you towards your goal Also applies to other creatures (e.g. rats in group eat more, cockroaches run fast etc) Presence of others always improve us – Allport (1920) Experiments included vowel removal, multiplicatio and word association Participants were told to collaborate Social facilitation was evident 2 effects : Co-action effect (participants engaged in same task- more work in group setting) : Audience effect ( passive and unresponsive audience can lead to performance increase but not with novel tasks) Contardicted by Pessin (1933): Proposed that presence of others create inhibition  Verbal learning task was slower when an observer was there and also when one is not proficient in task. Robert Zajonc (1965) re-energised this research by ‘dominant response’ (the reaction elicited most easily by stimuli): Alert/excited when under observation by others If dominant response in consistent (learned task), it facilitates the performance. If inconsistent, inhibition follows. Factors: ✓ Individuals coping with stress ✓ Mood of person ✓ Perception of audience (attentive or not) A contradictory drive theory Cottrell (1972) Evaluation: Proposed that in life we very quickly learn how rewards/punishments are based, on evaluations from others. Our performance can be improved or inhibited dependent on audience and task (uncomfortable). Confirmity: A change in our own behaviors based on opinions of others (Western trend) Kelman (1958) proposed: Normitive – trying to be accepted by others Informational – feeling lacking in knowledge and group is correct. Compliance – Quiet life, having opposite opinion but agreeing publicly Norm Formation= accepted rules that determine and set the standards for our group behaviors Sherif (1936): Autokinetic effect – optical illusion (dot moved experiment on participants) A point of light that subjectively appears to be moving, but objectively it is not. 3 step experiment on measurements: Formed norm (alone) – estimates varied from 20 to 80cms Norm challenged in group – answers converged Norm requested again whilst alone – estimate stayed with group, as group is right When in vague situation, people seek others opinions. Reasons may include lack of information, influence of others responses and informational influence seeking data from others in terms of authenticity. Asch Line study (1951) – visual discrimination: People went along with them afraid to be opposed. Few believed their group to be true regardless, believing group to be informed. Factors: ✓ Size of groups ✓ More confederates = more conformity ✓ Social power is broken once ✓ Unanimity – one opinion rises ✓ Complexity of task ✓ Commitment and status Influencing: Minority: Moscovici (1976) Consistency was the key. It tends to be surrounding changes due to conflict and not driven by rewards. To involve informational influence and private acceptance (internalisation). Takes time against dominant social norms. Obedience: “It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” Milgrim (1974) Milgrim study (1963) based on electricution of a person on wrong answers by participants Factors: ✓ Graduated commitment – voltage ✓ Presence of authority ✓ Legit authority as by wearing uniform ✓ Social support – responsibility Stanford Prison Study (1973): De-individuation of participants, social roles given to them, environment and personality etc. (Derren brown did this but in friendly way) Lecture 3 = Reactance: brehm (1966) An averse motivational arousal/reaction to suggestion, people or rules that we feel may threaten our personal freedom. That may limit our choices leading to prohibition. Occurred when someone is being pressured to accept something. It strengthens their view to the contrary. To prevent this, reverse psych is used. Factors leading to reactance: ✓ Reactance – knowing that it is potential persuasion attempt leading us to rebel. May harm relations and lead to demonstration publicly. ✓ Being forewarned that you are being persuaded. Prior knowledge gives time to counter. E.g. if five advice on using phones while driving instead talk about driving tips. ✓ Selective avoidance – chosing to ignore any advice or persuasion that challenge existing views. E.g. health messages like smoking is injurious. Inoculation theory Mcguire (1961): Regarding how existing attitudes and beliefs can be kept in face of attempt to change them e.g. peer pressure against smoking. Weak counter arguments against existing knowledge and beliefs can generate resistance. Stregthened inner belief within them. (like the vaccine) Strength in numbers Gamson et al. (1982) – social support A study on rebellion: An imaginary company Encounter and participants were paid to be involved for upcoming case (scenario). They were asked to sign an affidavit that tapes of conversations could be used. Also agreeing it to be edited by company. Tapes were stopped and changed to favor of the company showing offence of Mr. C. It lead to rebellion; 16 refused to sign, in 9 groups majority refused, in 8 they signed but rebelled, only 4 groups no resistance was showed. At last, only 33 out of 80 were performed. In conclusion, when asked to perform a task that is against their moral judgement they are less likely to comply if they have the support of others. Contrary to milgrim study as confederates were there and one participant. Resisting influence – Social Loafing: Ringelmann effect (1913): Exerting less effort to achieve a task when working in a group than when you are working alone (size increases: effort reduced) termed by Latane and Harkin (1979) Latane (1981) – Social Impact theory: Likeliness dependent to happen in a group; Less likely – if task or importance of people matters More likely – If there is lack of immediacy as group is far from you. Both are dependent on size Karau and Williams (1993) – Collective effort model as alternative to loafing: Peoples motivation lowered when they realised that their efforts would not be recognised on an individual level. Prevention: Individual output matter Increasing commitment to success – cohesion Importance of task Defined roles in members Feedback or appreciation It occurs in both genders and different age groups in variable working conditions. Limitations: Variations between different cultures. Relates to collectivists and individualistic Influence of others on our decisions: Decision making is the process of combining available information to decide on one course of action out of several possibilities (Baron et al, 2008 pp 48) Group polarisation: Stoner (1961): Found that groups made consistently more risky decisions. E.g. a moderate protestor becomes more violent in environmental beliefs groups. Passer et al (2009) gave 3 reasons: Normative influence – adopting risky choice to fit with group Informational – perspectives heard in group not considered previously Compliance – referring to most typical position of group even if you do not agree. Alternative findings by McCaulay et al (1973): Individual gamblers prefer low odds and high pay outs and group gamblers prefer to bet on safe bet – high odds and low pay out in race track. As by means, individual approach is seen as matter that reflects your position to score the best. Janis (1982) – Group Think: When the desire to reach a unanimous agreement overrides the rational decision making process. E.g. cults and gangs, pearl harbor (1941), allied invasion of iraq (2003) etc. Causes: ✓ Cohesiveness ✓ Isolation of group from others ✓ A dictator or directive leader ✓ Stressful situations Preventions: ✓ Encourage critical evaluation on group thought ✓ Sub-divide the group, then reunite to share ✓ Consult outside/ third-party ✓ Second chance meeting to think on the decision made without irrational step taking Hogg and Vaughan (2008) – leadership: Represent the group norms and steering in new directions Good leader: Being conformist and gradually introducing new ideas Having good relations within Lecture 4 = Prejudice: Hogg and Vaughan (2014) Prejudice is responsible for or associated with much of the pain and human suffering in the world Making assumptions – form typical views – mere presence. Common Features: Stereotyped beliefs Discriminatory behavior – racism - scapegoats Negative, derogatory assumptions Implicit Prejudice: Hidden from public view unless social situation permits. e.g. implicit association test: to associate pleasant with black/white (condition dependent) – like with brown/blue eyes Importance: Involved in many areas of psychology related to gender, race, self-esteem, ethnicity, physical and metal attributes, relationships etc. Reflecting Societal norms Richard LaPiere (1934): Travelled USA with chinese couple for 2 years, 51 hotels refused service. 92% replied no, 1% said yes, under certain conditions. Attitudes do not always predict behavior. Robber’s Cave studies Muzafer Sherif et al. (1961): A camp holding groups, ‘eagles’ and ‘rattlers’. Competetion and prizes like trophy and penknives for winners ony. Behavior changed as more agression and conflict towards opposing group increased. To estinguish it, cooperation and reconciliation was done resulting in evident change. Reasons: Limited resources Goals Intergroup attitudes Realistic group conflict theory Theories of prejudice: Instinct - Blood and guts model Lorenz (1974-76): Inherent, aggressive, and social groups fighting for survival of fittest. Maybe there is biological source of irrationality in human nature. Theories of prejudice: Personality – Authoritarian personal Adorno et al. (1950): Prejudice towards minority, admiring the authority and obsessing over power and status resulting in harshness on inferior. Intolerance and strict culture, relations or rules. Reducing: Education Awareness Contact Hypothesis – Allport (1954) = equal status, interactions, cooperation influence social norms. Simulation and practice diminishing the bias and racism  Denying being racist or prejudiced and avoiding this issue leads to new form of racisms. Difference of ideals and cultures also. As by changed form – Hogg and Vaughn (2014) Baron et al. (2008) Lecture 5 = Impressions: Judgements based on different impressions about someone. Mistaken/correct Asch Configural model (1946): biases include: Primary effects – first impression carrying more weight on judgements Recency effects = traits later recognized Halo effect – overall judgement attempt - more accurate Formation models: Anderson’s (1974) - judgements could simply be combined in value (some traits over others) Algebraic model Brewer’s (!988): based on prior associations – more effortful (dual process model) data driven Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990): Prioritizing traits based on categories; cognitively efficient than piecemeal – continuum model. Physical appearances: influential, noticed first, can be accurate (Zebrowitz and Collins 1997) likely related to halo effects to consider a person likeable and friendly (appearance approach) Pervasive negative impressions: Once set and unchanged Impression formed over-time (accurate) – attracts attention – assuming disproportionate importance Nonverbal communication: Gives us away = replaces verbal, signals when to speak. E.g. boredom, head on pal, drooping eyes, staring into space, tapping, clicking, yawning etc. Management of impressions: The desire to make favorable impression on others. Includes tactics: Self enhancement – personal improvement Other enhancement – Make others feel good and comfortable (over-nice can lead to slime effect) leech Fake smile and real one called “Duchene smile” contraction of oculi muscles Spotting liar: Micro-impressions: fleeting low SES more likely to be prosocial (Baron) – status and thinking down on others Reaction to help: Gratitude = prosocial, grateful, less hostile, likely to help etc. Resentment = not wanting help, self-esteem threatened, helping too much or volunteer why? Why help? 1. Evolution = Genetic basis. Explanations of cooperative behavior: Mutualism btw species Kin selection favors reproductive success of relatives {our genes live on} Selfish gene (Dawkins,1976 etc.) - Unity of individual as organism an illusion, alliance between warring genes. - Adaptation at gene level, genetic selection can drive evolution of altruism - Own survival as selfish Social exchange theory: Maximizing outcomes and minimizing costs Cost-benefit analysis = rewards and costs Social Learning theory: Observing a behavior promoting prosocial attitudes Like children shows Lecture 7: Aggression: Physical, mental and verbal behavior resulting in personal injury or destruction of property (Bandura, 1973). Intended to harm another of same species (Scherer et al., 1975) Negative phenomenon? As self-defense promoted, functional when appropriately expressed (reach aims, protection etc.) Direct purpose in well-being. Berkowitz (1993): Aggression = less extreme physical means/verbal means to do harm Violence = extreme and brutal form of physical behavior Humanists – Maslow, 1968 and rogers et al., 1996: Natural/positive aggression: self-defense, forms of social justice (demonstration) Pathological: individual means being distorted, frustrated (consistent aggression) termed as inappropriate levels of aggression (PTSD ADHD substance abuse etc.) Hostile: hot, temperamental to hurt someone on desires Instrumental: cold, not aiming to hurt just to achieve something (these are useful in development of aggression theories, but fails to consider these behaviors based on multiple motives, both unclear how separate are these two, inappropriate forms attracts most attention, excessive aggression is when threat do not justify response of action) Theories: BIOLOGICAL: 1. Instinct: Psychodynamic – Freud (1920) Battle between Eros (life, love instinct) Thanatos (aggressive instinct) Aggression Results from energy created by Thanatos Builds up until ‘let off steam’ People experience trauma and re-enact that experience Catharsis - expends aggression so calm. Ethological approach – Lorenz (1966): Survival response to act aggressive, innate instinct, must control it (sports etc.), build up of energy until overflows and must be discharged. 2. Evolutionary: Biochemicals as high testosterone, low serotonin (passer et al., 2009) Sociobiological as gene survival, adaptive Limitations: (Hogg and Vaughan, 2011)  - Difficult to measure - Innate or due to situations - Role of learning (bobo doll) DRIVE: 1. Frustration-aggression: Biosocial = biological and social context. Frustration-aggression model (Dollard et al. 1939): - Innate potential for aggression - Behavior triggered by external - Revise – frustration to aggression, but situational factors prevent aggressive behavior (learned inhibitions such as laws {court}, fear of retaliation) 2. Aggressive-Cue: Berkowitz (1962, 1968) changes: Frustration leading to aggression Not objective frustration but feeling Past/present experiences Cues: violent films, weapons, advanced form of conditioning (BOBO DOLL EXPERIMENT) 1973 Bandura Social Learning theory: Active individual – environment and society Behavior -learned though: - Direct experience - Imitation, modeling (rewarding) We know, when people become targets for aggression, what actions provoke retaliation? What situations are associated? Unlike others (not innate) so possibility to change. Causes of aggression: ✓ Social or influential like bobo doll ✓ Jealousy ✓ Disinhibition, deindividuation, crowds etc. ✓ Personality type = Glass, 1977, Strube, 1989 - A (high strung) - B (easy)  ✓ Hostile bias: tendency to perceive other’s actions as hostile, even when they are not. ✓ Self-esteem, hormones ✓ Social media i.e. Freud/Lorenz – instinctual (vicarious catharsis) ✓ Learning through example ✓ Media not sufficient ✓ Poverty, unemployment, illegal drugs/ weapons Controlling: Baron et al., 2008 Catharsis= - Freud, builds up, must discharged e.g. sports, could increase aggression Punishment= - Prompt, strong, seen as justified/deserved - A fair hearing or trial takes time Implications in culture: Hogg and Vaughan (2011) Attitudes towards aggression varies in time between cultures Sociocultural artefacts (cultural values). E.g. emphasis on democracy, rights, non-violence Variations in level of aggression, ground rules early in life Engage in experience to cope with values to conceal aggression Culture of violence theory (1967): Wolfgang and Ferracuti - Some model aggression, others do not. - SLT explains differences Amount and type varies: - Honor culture 2003 Vandello and Cohen, female infidelity damages man’s reputation, restored by retribution - Cultural norms: female loyalty, male honor - Validates abuse/violence, rewards women ‘soldiering on’ Lecture 8: Affiliation: Schacter hypothesized anxiety would increase affiliation. Two conditions: High anxiety – expected pain of shock {63% high anxiety wanted to be together} Low anxiety – nearly painless. {33% wanted to be together in low anxiety condition} Affiliation has adaptive value Affiliation differences: Duck (1988-2007) More affiliative in certain circumstances Schachter (1959) … Love 2 kinds = Passionate and companionate Hatfield & Walster (1981) Intimacy, passion and commitment (Sternberg’s triangular theory, 1986;1988} LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT? Proximity: (out of mind, out of sight) Frequent contact, physical location, difficulty to sustain etc. LOVE ONLINE? Match – cross-culture Opposites or differences attracting Reciprocity – important in all types of relationships, mutual liking, wanting to be liked, maintaining the relation. The breakdown happens due to many factors like lower SES, education, early marriage, background, history etc. Divorce predictors as criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling (Gottman et al. 1998) Lecture 9: Crisis in Social Psych. Racked by a number of intersecting crisis (Parker, 1989; 9) What the social support around it is? Methodological Crisis: Hypothetico-deductivism: Psychiatric diagnosis When we got quantitative methods, using other methods. Experimentation can be subjective? Problem of measurement: Indirect measurement, reification {tendency to treat hypothetical contructs as if they were ‘real’ – representation?} Issue of meaning: Subjectivity cannot be avoided. All research is informed by values. Biased? “There is no theory that is not contradicted by some experiment.” (Weinberg, 1992) Other crisis: Ethical crisis – ethics of deception and previous research, betterment of humankind? Applied crisis – over-generalization of findings, experimental setting, and ecological validity. Addressing the crisis: Not assuming universal theories Alternative methodologies Focus and reflexivity – identifying issues. Acknowledgement of diversity in Psych, (teaching, research, applying) Guiding Principles: Smith (1995) Research in ‘real world’, recognizes central role of language. Dynamic interactions research, be concerned with persons and individuals, rather than statistics and variables.