Social Psychology PDF

460 CHAPTER 12 Social Influence Chapter One defined psychology as the scientific study of behavior and mental pro- cesses, including how people th...

460 CHAPTER 12 Social Influence Chapter One defined psychology as the scientific study of behavior and mental pro- cesses, including how people think and feel. The field of social psychology also looks at behavior and mental processes but includes as well the social world in which we exist, as we are surrounded by others to whom we are connected and by whom we are influenced in so many ways. It is the scientific study of how a person’s behavior, thoughts, and feel- ings influence and are influenced by social groups. Each of us lives in a world filled with other people. An infant is born into a world with adults who have an impact on the infant’s actions, personality, and growth. Adults must interact with others on a daily basis. Such interactions provide ample opportunity for the presence of other people to directly or indirectly influence the behavior, feelings, and thoughts of each individual in a process called social influence. There are many forms of social influence. People can influence others to follow along with their own actions or thoughts, to agree to do things even when the person might prefer to do otherwise, and to be obedient to authorities. The mere presence of others, whether real or merely implied, can even influence the way people perform tasks successfully or unsuccessfully. CONFORMITY 12.1 Identify factors that influence people or groups to conform to the actions of others. Have you ever noticed someone looking up at something? Did the urge to look up to see what that person was looking at become so strong that you actually found yourself look- “Sure, I follow the herd—not out of brainless ing up? This common practical joke always works, even when people suspect that it’s a obedience, mind you, but out of a deep and joke. It clearly demonstrates the power of conformity: changing one’s own behavior to abiding respect for the concept of community.” © The New Yorker Collection 2003 Alex Gregory more closely match the actions of others. from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved. In 1936, social psychologist Muzafer Sherif conducted a study in which participants were shown into a darkened room and exposed to a single point of light. Under those con- ditions, a point of light will seem to move because of tiny, involuntary movements of the eye. to Learning Objective 3.3. The participants were not told of this effect and reported the light moved anywhere from a few inches to several feet. When a confederate (a person chosen by the experimenter to deliberately manipulate the situation) also gave estimates, the original participants began to make estimates of motion that were more and more similar to those of the confederate (Sherif, 1936). This early experiment on confor- mity has been criticized because the judgments being made were ambiguous* (i.e., the light social psychology wasn’t really moving, so any estimate within reason would sound good). Would partici- the scientific study of how a person’s pants be so easily swayed if the judgments were more specifically measurable and certain? thoughts, feelings, and behavior Solomon Asch (1951) conducted the first of his classic studies on conformity by having influence and are influenced by social seven participants gather in a room. They were told that they were participating in an exper- groups; area of psychology in which iment on visual judgment. They were then shown a white card with only one line on it fol- psychologists focus on how human lowed by another white card with three lines of varying lengths. The task was to determine behavior is affected by the presence which line on the second card was most similar to the line on the first card (see Figure 12.1). of other eo le. In reality, only the next-to-the-last person in the group was a real participant. The others were all confederates who, after responding with the correct answer on a few tri- social influence als, were instructed by the experimenter to start picking the same incorrect line from the the process through which the real or comparison lines. Would the real participant, having heard the others pick what seemed implied presence of others can directly to be the wrong answer, change to conform to the group’s opinion? Surprisingly, the par- or indirectly influence the thoughts, ticipants conformed to the group answer a little more than one third of the time. Asch feelings and ehavior of an individual. also found that the number of confederates mattered: Conformity increased with each conformity changing one’s own behavior to match *ambiguous: having no clear interpretation or able to be interpreted in many ways rather than that of other eo le. just one way.  Social Psychology 461 Interactive 1 2 3 Standard line Comparison lines Figure 12.1 Stimuli Used in Asch’s Study Participants in Asch’s famous study on conformity were first shown the standard line. They were then shown the three comparison lines and asked to determine which of the three was the standard line most similar. Which line would you pick? What if you were one of several people, and everyone who answered ahead of you chose line 3? How would that affect your answer? SOURCE: Adapted from Asch (1956). new confederate until there were four confederates; more than that did not increase the participants’ tendency to conform (Asch, 1951). In a later experiment, Asch (1956) found that conformity greatly decreased if there was just one confederate who gave the correct answer—apparently, if participants knew that there was at least one other person whose answer agreed with their own, the evidence of their own eyes won out over the pressure to conform to the group. Subsequent research in the United States has found less conformity among partici- pants, perhaps suggesting that the Asch conformity effect was due to the more conform- ing nature of people in the era and culture of the United States in the 1950s (Lalancette & Standing, 1990; Nicholson et al., 1985; Perrin & Spencer, 1980, 1981). In other cultures, however, studies have found conformity effects similar to those in Asch’s study (Neto, 1995). Still others have found even greater effects of conformity in collectivist cultures, such as Hong Kong, Japan, and Zimbabwe (Bond & Smith, 1996; Kim & Markus, 1999). This cultural difference may exist only when face-to-face contact is a part of the task, however. One study found that when the Asch judgment task is presented in an online format (participants were in communication but not able to see each other), the cultural difference disappears (Cinnirella & Green, 2007). What about gender—are men or women more conforming? Research shows that gender differences are practically nonexistent unless the sit- uation involves behavior that is not private. If it is possible to give responses in private, 462 CHAPTER 12 conformity is no greater for women than for men, but if a public response is required, women do tend to show more conformity than men (Eagly, 1987; Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly & Carli, 2007). This effect may be due to the socialization that women receive in being agreeable and supportive; however, the difference in conformity is quite small. Why do people feel the need to conform at all? One factor at work is normative social influence, the need to act in ways that we feel will let us be liked and accepted by others (Hewlin, 2009; Kaplan & Miller, 1987). We use the behavior and attitudes of other people as our “measuring stick” of what is “normal.” We then judge how we are doing against that “norm.” Have you ever laughed at a joke you really didn’t get because everyone else was laughing? That’s an example of normative social influence. Another factor at work is informational social influence, in which we take our cues for how to behave from other peo- ple when we are in a situation that is not clear or is ambiguous (Isenberg, 1986). In this case, the behavior of the people around us provides us with information about how we should act, and so we conform to their actions. Another possible explanation for some conform- ing behavior may involve individuals confusing their own behavior with the behavior of others, resulting in a kind of “mental averaging” of that behavior (Kim & Hommel, 2015). GROUP BEHAVIOR 12.2 Explain how our behavior is impacted by the presence of others. Social influence is clearly seen in the behavior of people within a group, as Asch’s classic study illustrated. But conformity is only one way in which a group can influence the behavior of an individual. Here are just a few others. THE HAZARDS OF GROUPTHINK Shortly after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York, President George W. Bush and his administration made the decision to invade Iraq. Although there were advisors who thought the action to be a mistake, no one person was willing to stand up to the rest of the group and challenge the group’s decision and assumptions. Many now see this decision as a prime example of groupthink. Groupthink occurs when peo- ple within a group feel it is more important to maintain the group’s cohesive- ness than to consider the facts realistically (Hogg & Hains, 1998; Janis, 1972, 1982; Kamau & Harorimana, 2008; Schafer & Crichlow, 1996). Other examples include the sinking of the Titanic in 1912 (the group responsible for designing and build- ing the ship assumed she was unsinkable and did not even bother to include On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on the enough lifeboats on board for all the passengers), the Challenger disaster of 1986 Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil flowed into the Gulf for 3 months, but the in which a part on the shuttle was known by a few to be unacceptable (but no one environmental impact will no doubt be felt for years. spoke up to delay the launch), the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba during How might groupthink apply in this situation? the Kennedy administration, and the Deepwater Horizon oil explosion of 2010. Why does groupthink happen? Social psychologist Irving Janis (1972, 1982), who orig- inally gave this phenomenon its name, lists several “symptoms” of groupthink. For exam- ple, group members may come to feel that the group can do no wrong, is morally correct, and will always succeed, creating the illusion of invulnerability.* Group members also tend to hold stereotyped views of those who disagree with the group’s opinions, causing mem- bers to think that those who oppose the group have no worthwhile opinions. They exert pressure on individual members to conform to group opinion, prevent those who might dis- agree from speaking up, and even censor themselves so that the group’s mindset will not be disturbed in a “don’t rock the boat” mentality. Self-appointed “mind guards” work to groupthink protect the leader of the group from contrary viewpoints. (See Table 12.1.) kind of thinking that occurs when Several things can be done to minimize the possibility of groupthink (Hart, 1998; people place more importance on McCauley, 1998; Moorhead et al., 1998). For example, leaders should remain impartial, maintaining group cohesiveness than and the entire group should seek the opinions of people outside the group. Any voting on assessing the facts of the problem with which the grou is concerned. *invulnerability: quality of being unable to be attacked or harmed.  Social Psychology 463 Interactive Table 12.1 Characteristics of Groupthink Characteristic Description Invulnerability Members feel they cannot fail. Rationalization Members explain away warning signs and help each other rationalize their decision. Lack of introspection Members do not examine the ethical implications of their decision because they believe that they cannot make immoral choices. Stereotyping Members stereotype their enemies as weak, stupid, or unreasonable. Pressure Members pressure each other not to question the prevailing opinion. Lack of disagreement Members do not express opinions that differ from the group consensus. Self-deception Members share in the illusion that they all agree with the decision. Insularity Members prevent the group from hearing disruptive but potentially useful information from people who are outside the group. SOURCE: Janis (1972, 1982). should be done by secret ballots rather than by a show of hands, and it should be made clear that group members will be held responsible for decisions made by the group. THINKING CRITICALLY Can you think of a time when you conformed with the actions of a group of friends, even though you disagreed with their actions? Based on Asch’s studies and studies on groupthink, what might have kept you from objecting? The response entered here will be saved to your notes and may be collected by your instructor if he/she requires it. Submit GROUP POLARIZATION Once called the “risky shift” phenomenon, group polarization is the tendency for members involved in a group discussion to take somewhat more extreme positions and suggest riskier actions when compared to individuals who have not partic- ipated in a group discussion (Bossert & Schworm, 2008; Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969). A good example of group polarization can occur when a jury tries to decide on punitive dam- ages during a civil trial: Studies have found that if members of a jury individually favored a relatively low amount of punitive damages before deliberation, after deliberation the amount usually lessened further. Similarly, if the individual jurors favored stiffer penal- group polarization ties, the deliberation process resulted in even higher penalties (MacCoun & Kerr, 1988). the tendency for members involved in If information is provided in an online forum such as a social networking group, group a group discussion to take somewhat polarization can become even more pronounced because group members are exposed to more extreme positions and suggest only the information fitting their worldview (Hansen et al., 2013). Group polarization is riskier actions when compared to thought to be due to both normative social influence and informational social influence. individuals who have not participated in a grou discussion. SOCIAL FACILITATION AND SOCIAL LOAFING Social influence can affect the success or fail- ure of an individual’s task performance within a group. The perceived difficulty of the task social facilitation seems to determine the particular effect of the presence of others as well: If a task is perceived the tendency for the presence of other as easy, the presence of other people seems to improve performance. If the task is perceived people to have a positive impact on as difficult, the presence of others actually has a negative effect on performance. The positive the erformance of an easy tas. influence of others on performance is called social facilitation, whereas the negative influ- ence is called social impairment (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001; Michaels et al., 1982; Zajonc, 1965). social impairment In both social facilitation and social impairment, the presence of other people acts to the tendency for the presence of other increase arousal (Rosenbloom et al., 2007; Zajonc, 1965, 1968; Zajonc et al., 1970). Social facili- people to have a negative impact on tation occurs because the presence of others creates just enough increased arousal to improve the erformance of a difficult tas. 464 CHAPTER 12 performance. But the presence of others when the task is difficult produces too high a level of arousal, resulting in impaired performance. to Learning Objective 9.4. Interestingly, people who are lazy tend not to do as well when other people are also working on the same task, but they can do quite well when working on their own. This phenomenon is called social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993, 1997; Latané et al., 1979; Suleiman & Watson, 2008). The reason for this is that it is easier for a lazy person (a “loafer”) to hide laziness when working in a group of people, because it is less likely that the individual will be evaluated alone. But when the social loafer is working alone, the focus of evaluation will be on that person only. In that case, the loafer works harder While the other people in this picture appear to be working, the man in the foreground because there is no one else to whom the work can be shifted. seems to be engaged in a game on his Social loafing depends heavily on the assumption that personal responsibility for phone. This is called social loafing. How do a task is severely lessened when working with a group of other people. One study sug- you think his colleagues who are working gests that although Americans may readily make that assumption, Chinese people, who might feel about his behavior? come from a more interdependent cultural viewpoint, tend to assume that each individ- ual within the group is still nearly as responsible for the group’s outcome as the group at large (Menon et al., 1999). Chinese people may, therefore, be less likely to exhibit social loafing than are people in the United States. DEINDIVIDUATION Finally, when people are gathered in a group, there is often a tendency for each individual in the group to experience deindividuation, the lessening of their sense of personal identity and personal responsibility (Diener et al., 1980). This can result in a lack of self-control when in the group that would not be as likely to occur if the individual were acting alone. People in a crowd feel a degree of anonymity—being unknown and unidenti- fied—and are more likely to act impulsively as a result. One only has to think about behavior of people in a riot or even the actions of groups like the Ku Klux Klan to see examples of deindividuation. The Stanford prison experiment, discussed later in this chapter, is an excel- lent study of deindividuation in action (Zimbardo, 1970, 1971; Zimbardo et al., 2000). Players in online games often play anonymously, and research results suggest that this anonymity results in greater deindividuation, leading to increased cheating and other deviant behavior online (Chen & Wu, 2013). It also allows trolling, which is the posting of deliberately inflam- matory comments in online communities (Buckels et al., 2014). Online trolls would not be likely to say the things they post if they were not anonymous. In 2014, a harassment campaign against female gamers, and particularly a few female game developers, was begun using the Twitter hashtag #Gamergate (Chess & Shaw, 2015; Heron et al., 2014). The harassment included threats of rape and death threats by people hiding under the cloak of anonymity. social loafing COMPLIANCE the tendency for people to put less effort into a simple task when working 12.3 Compare and contrast three compliance techniques. with others on that tas. I have a friend who watches all those infomercials on the shopping deindividuation channels and buys stuff that isn’t worth the money or that doesn’t work the lessening of personal identity, like it’s supposed to work. Why do people fall for pitches like that? self-restraint, and the sense of ersonal res onsi ility that can Marketing products is really very much a psychological process. In fact, the whole area occur within a grou. of consumer psychology is devoted to figuring out how to get people to buy things that someone is selling. to Learning Objective B.7. But infomercials are not the only consumer psychology means by which people try to get others to do what they want them to do. Compliance branch of psychology that studies occurs when people change their behavior as a result of another person or group asking the habits of consumers in the or directing them to change. The person or group asking for the change in behavior typi- mar et lace. cally doesn’t have any real authority or power to command a change; when that author- compliance ity does exist and behavior is changed as a result, it is called obedience, which is the topic changing one’s behavior as a result of the next major section of this chapter. of other eo le directing or as ing for A number of techniques that people use to get the compliance of others clearly the change. show the relationship of compliance to the world of marketing, as they refer to techniques  Social Psychology 465 that salespersons would commonly use. A common example of these techniques will also occur to anyone who has ever bought a car, as the video Compliance Techniques explains. CC Watch the Video Compliance Techniques FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE A neighbor asks you to keep an eye on his house while he is on vacation. It’s a small request, so you agree. Later that day the neigh- bor asks if you would kindly water his plants while he’s gone. This is a little bit more involved and requires more of your time and energy—will you do it? If you are like most people, you probably will comply with this second, larger request. When compliance with a smaller request is followed by a larger request, people are quite likely to comply because they have already agreed to the smaller one and they want to behave consistently with their previous response (Cialdini et al., 1995; Dillard, 1990, 1991; Freedman & Fraser, 1966; Meineri & Guéguen, 2008). This is called the foot-in-the-door technique because the first small request acts as an opener. (Door-to- door salespeople once literally stuck a foot in the door to prevent the occupant from shut- ting it so they could continue their sales pitch; hence the name.) DOOR-IN-THE-FACE TECHNIQUE Closely related to the foot-in-the-door technique is its opposite: the door-in-the-face technique (Cialdini et al., 1975). In this method, the larger request comes first, which is usually refused. This is followed by a second smaller and more reasonable request that often gets compliance. An example of this would be if the neighbor first asked you to take care of his dog and cat in your home. After you refused to do so, the neighbor might ask if you would at least water his plants, which you would now be more foot-in-the-door technique likely to do. This technique may not be as effective with people who are abstract thinkers, asking for a small commitment and, however. You may remember the discussion concerning abstract versus concrete thinking after gaining compliance, asking for a in an earlier chapter. to Learning Objective 8.7. While a concrete thinker would igger commitment. look at an American flag and see the material and the red and white stripes, for example, an abstract thinker might look at the same flag and think about the concept of freedom. In one door-in-the-face technique study, the door-in-the-face technique proved to be as effective as making a direct request asking for a large commitment and for concrete thinkers, but abstract thinkers were less likely to comply with that technique being refused and then asking for a (Henderson & Burgoon, 2013). This may be due to the tendency of abstract thinkers to have smaller commitment. a more global perception of themselves when turning down the larger request as somewhat lowball technique selfish, which then makes them more likely to also turn down the smaller request. getting a commitment from a person LOWBALL TECHNIQUE Another compliance technique, also common in the world of sales, is and then raising the cost of that called the lowball technique (Bator & Cialdini, 2006; Burger & Petty, 1981; Weyant, 1996). In commitment. 466 CHAPTER 12 this technique that is related to the foot-in-the-door technique, once a commitment is made, the cost of that commitment is increased. (In the sense used here, cost does not necessarily mean money; cost can also mean time, effort, or other kinds of sacrifices.) A common example of this is the way in which cable companies will advertise low prices in order to get people to sign up for their particular service. Once the service is established, the consumer is often unpleasantly surprised by the number of additional fees, surcharges, and taxes added onto the bill. A more common example will occur to anyone who has ever bought a car. The commitment to buy the car at one low price is quickly followed by the addition of other costs: extended warranties, additional options, taxes and fees, and so on, causing the buyer to spend more money than originally intended. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMPLIANCE Cultural differences exist in people’s suscep- tibility to these techniques. For the foot-in-the door technique in particular, research has shown that people in individualistic cultures (such as the United States) are more likely to comply with the second request than are people in collectivistic cultures (such as Japan). The research suggests that people in collectivistic cultures are not as concerned with being con- sistent with previous behavior because they are less focused on their inner motivation than are people in individualistic cultures, who are more concerned with their inner motives and consistency (Cialdini et al., 1999; Petrova et al., 2007). to Learning Objective 13.13. The concept of compliance, along with conformity, also figures heavily in cult behavior, and both concepts can interfere with thinking critically about cult activities. The APA Goal 2: Scientific Reasoning and Critical Thinking feature has more information about cults. OBEDIENCE 12.4 Identify factors that make obedience more likely. There is a difference between the concepts of compliance, which is agreeing to change one’s behavior because someone else asks for the change, and obedience, which is changing one’s behavior at the direct order of an authority figure. A salesperson who wants a person to buy a car has no real power to force that person to buy, but an authority figure is a person with social power—such as a police officer, a teacher, or a work supervisor—who has the right to demand certain behavior from the people under the authority figure’s command or supervision. How far will people go in obeying the commands of an authority figure? What fac- tors make obedience more or less likely? These are some of the questions that researchers have been investigating for many years. The answers to these questions became very important not only to researchers but also to people everywhere after the atrocities com- mitted by the soldiers in Nazi Germany—soldiers who were “just following orders.” MILGRAM’S SHOCKING RESEARCH In what is now a classic study, social psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to find answers to these questions. He was aware of Asch’s studies of conformity and wondered how much impact social influence could have on a behavior that was more meaningful than judging the length of lines on cards. He designed what has become one of the most famous (even notorious*) experiments in the history of psychology. Through ads placed in the local newspaper, Milgram recruited people who were told that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning behavior (Milgram, 1963, 1974). Although there were several different forms of this experiment with different participants, the basic premise was the same: The par- ticipants believed that they had randomly been assigned to either the “teacher” role or the “learner” role, when in fact the learner was a confederate already aware of the situa- tion. The task for the learner was a simple memory test for paired words. The teacher was seated in front of a machine through which the shocks would be admin- istered and the level of the shocks changed. (See Figure 12.2.) For each mistake made by the learner, the teacher was instructed to increase the level of shock by 15 volts. The learner (who obedience was not actually shocked) followed a carefully arranged script by pounding on the wall and changing one’s behavior at the command of an authority figure. *notorious: widely and unfavorably known.  Social Psychology 467 playing a series of recorded audio responses (sounds of discomfort, asking for the experiment to end, screaming) or remained silent as if unconscious—or dead. (See Figure 12.2 for samples similar to the scripted responses of the learner.) As the teachers became reluctant to continue administering the shocks, the experimenter in his authoritative white lab coat said, for exam- ple, “The experiment requires you to continue” or “You must continue” and reminded the teacher that the experimenter would take full responsibility for the safety of the learner. Interactive Sample Script Items Similar to Those in Milgram’s Classic Experiment Voltage of “Shock” Statements Similar to the Learner’s Script 120 “Ouch! Experimenter, let me out of here, I’m through! Please, I have heart trouble, I don’t want to go on.” 150 “That’s it, enough! I will not be part of this experiment, let me out now!” 300 (Scream of pain heard in the background) ”I am not doing this anymore, you can’t make me stay here. Get me out, get me out!” 330 (Louder and longer scream of pain) ”Get me out, get me out, my heart, my heart! My chest hurts, get me out of here, let me out of here, you have no right to do this! Let me out of here!” Adapted from: Milgram (1963, 1974). Figure 12.2 Milgram’s Classic Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s classic study on obedience, the participants were presented with a control panel like this one. Each participant (“teacher”) was instructed to give electric shocks to another person (the “learner,” who only pretended to be shocked by pounding on the wall and playing a recorded audiotape of grunts, protests, and screams). At what point do you think you would have refused to continue the experiment? How many of the participants continued to administer what they believed were real shocks? Milgram surveyed psychiatrists, college students, and other adults prior to the experiments for their opinions on how far the participants would go in administering shocks. Everyone predicted that the participants would all refuse to go on at some point, with most believing that the majority of the participants would start refusing as soon as the learner protested—150 volts. None of those he surveyed believed that any participant would go all the way to the highest voltage. So were they right? Far from it—in the first set of experiments, 65 percent of the teachers went all the way through the experiment’s final 450-volt shock level, although many were obviously uncomfortable and begged to be allowed to stop. Of those teachers who did protest and finally stopped, not one of them quit before reaching 300 volts! So what happened? Were those people sadists? Why would they keep shocking someone like that? No one was more stunned than Milgram himself. He had not believed that his experiments would show such a huge effect of obedience to authority. These results do 468 CHAPTER 12 not appear to be some random “fluke” resulting from a large population of cruel peo- ple residing in the area. These experiments have been repeated at various times, in the United States and in other countries, and the percentage of participants who went all the way consistently remained between 61 and 66 percent (Blass, 1999; Slater et al., 2006). That’s incredible—I just don’t believe that I could do something like that to someone else. EVALUATION OF MILGRAM’S RESEARCH Researchers have looked for particular personality traits that might be associated with high levels of obedience but have not found any one trait or group of traits that consistently predicts who will obey and who will not in experiments similar to Milgram’s original studies (Blass, 1991). The people who “went all the way” were not necessarily more dependent or susceptible to being controlled by others; they were sim- ply people like most other people, caught in a situation of “obey or disobey” the authority. Some have suggested that Milgram’s results may have been due to the same kind of foot-in- the-door technique of compliance as discussed earlier, with participants more likely to go on with each next demanding step of the experiment because they had already agreed to the smaller increments of shock (Gilbert, 1981). Gradually increasing the size of follow-up requests is helpful in changing behavior or attitudes, and participants may have actually come to see themselves as the type of person that follows the experimenter’s instructions (Burger, 1999, 2009; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Milgram’s research also raised a serious ethical question: How far should researchers be willing to go to answer a question of interest? Some have argued that the participants in Milgram’s studies may have suffered damaged self-esteem and serious psychological stress from the realization that they were willing to administer shocks great enough to kill another person, just on the say-so of an experimenter (Baumrind, 1964). Milgram (1964) responded to the criticism by citing his follow-up study of the participants, in which he found that 84 per- cent of the participants were glad to have been a part of the experiment and only 1.3 percent said that they were sorry they had been in the experiment. A follow-up psychiatric exam 1 year later also found no signs of harm or trauma in the participants. Even so, most psycholo- gists do agree that under the current ethical rules that exist for such research, this exact study would never be allowed to happen today. to Learning Objective 1.10. There has been at least one attempt to replicate Milgram’s study in recent years, although the shock was limited to only 150 volts (Burger, 2009). In that study, the confederates asked to end the study at 150 volts and the participants were asked whether they should continue or not. Regardless of their answer, the study was ended at that point. The results showed that the participants were only slightly less likely to obey than those in Milgram’s study. Other research has suggested that these studies may not actually examine “obedience” as most often portrayed. A follow-up study to the 2009 replication (Burger et al., 2011) found none of the participants continued with the experiment when the highest of the four prompts the experimenter used was reached. This was the only prompt readily seen as an actual order, “You have no other choice, you must go on.” The more the prompts came across as an order, the less likely the teachers “obeyed” (Burger et al., 2011). Furthermore, it has been suggested that instead of obedience, the outcomes of the Milgram paradigm may be more about social identity. The participants identified themselves more in line with the experimenter than the learner and acted in a way that demonstrated their commitment to the larger scientific process rather than to the ordinary community (Reicher et al., 2012). Instead of blindly following orders, the partici- pants were actively working to reach a goal established by the leader or, in this case, the experi- menter. The people in this study and others may have obeyed because they came to believe that what they were doing was right—with help in developing that belief from the authority figure (Frimer et al., 2014; Haslam & Reicher, 2012; Reicher et al., 2012). They were decent people who did something terrible because they believed they were doing the right thing in the long run. These possible reformulations will certainly offer social psychologists additional ways to further investigate the complex topic of obedience in the future.  Social Psychology 469 Interactive Concept Map L.O. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4 several classic studies (i.e., Sherif, Asch) suggest that individuals conformity will change their behaviors to conform to those of a group changing one’s own behavior may be influenced by private vs. face-to-face contact, gender, or culture to more closely match the actions of others groupthink: occurs when people within a group feel it is more important to maintain group cohesiveness rather than critically evaluate facts when making decisions often with dire consequences presence of others group polarization increases extreme group behavior risky shift phenomenon positions social facilitation = positive influence presence of others increases arousal social impairment = negative influence task performance can be affected by social influence social loafing occurs when people do not work hard when others are also working; easy to “hide” in a group deindividuation group members may feel anonymous and experience less personal responsibility Social Influence (the ways in which a person’s behavior can be affected by other people) foot-in-the-door technique compliance persons changing their behavior due to door-in-the-face technique another person or group asking or directing lowball technique them to change, often in the absence of any real authority or power; susceptibility to various techniques can vary by culture a classic study by Milgram (i.e., teacher/learner electrical shock study) indicated that 65% of “teachers” went all obedience the way through shock levels, changing one’s behavior at despite protest from “learners” the direct order of an authority figure Reset Practice Quiz How much do you remember? Pick the best answer. 1. In Asch’s study, conformity decreased when 3. One of the keys to deindividuation is a. at least four confederates were present. a. group polarization. c. conformity. b. at least one confederate agreed with the participant. b. group protection. d. anonymity. c. the participant was a male. 4. Conner needs just $20 more to go out with his friends. He asks his d. the participant had high self-esteem. mother for $50, but she tells him he can have $30 instead. In the 2. Which of the following would not be effective in minimizing end, Conner ended up with $10 more than he originally planned. groupthink? What technique did Connor use? a. Caroline wants her team to openly vote by a show of hands a. foot-in-the-door technique c. lowball technique either for or against her business plan. b. door-in-the-face technique d. planned obedience b. Karen openly invites input from all team members and even 5. Follow-up research to Stanley Milgram’s original study has found those outside her team. that ___________ of “teachers” will deliver shocks up to the point c. Annina reminds her team that everyone will be held responsible of being lethal. for the ultimate decision of her group. a. less than 30 percent c. 65 percent d. Juanita works hard to remain impartial to all ideas no matter b. 40 percent d. 80 percent what they are. 470 CHAPTER 12 APA Goal 2: Scientific Inquiry and Critical Thinking Cults and the Failure of Critical Thinking Addresses APA Learning Objective 2.3: Engage in innovative and integrative thinking and problem-solving. The term cult literally refers to any group of people with a particular religious or philo- sophical set of beliefs and identity. In the strictest sense of the word, the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism are cults within the larger religion of Christianity. But most peo- ple associate the term cult with a negative connotation* : a group of people whose religious or philosophical beliefs and behavior are so different from that of mainstream organizations that they are viewed with suspicion and seen as existing on the fringes of socially accept- able behavior. Although many cults exist without much notice from more mainstream groups, at times members of cults have horrified the public with their actions, as was the case in 1997, when the followers of the Heaven’s Gate cult, who believed that aliens in a spaceship were coming in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet, committed suicide under the leadership of Marshall Applewhite. They believed that their souls would be taken up by the comet aliens. The splinter group calling itself ISIS in the Middle East is also an example of a cult, one that commits acts of extreme violence and destruction (Hassan, 2014). Why would any person get so caught up in cult beliefs that suicide, and in some cases murder, becomes a desired behavior? What happened to their ability to think criti- cally about ideas that, to those of us on the outside, seem obviously foolish and danger- ous? The most likely targets of cult recruitment are people who are under a lot of stress, dissatisfied with their lives, unassertive, gullible, dependent, who feel a desire to belong to a group, and who are unrealistically idealistic (“We can solve all the world’s problems if everyone will just love each other”; Langone, 1996). Young people rebelling against paren- tal authority or trying to become independent of families are therefore prime targets. Cult leaders have certain techniques for gaining compliance that are common to most cult organizations. The first step may be something called “love-bombing” by current cult members, who shower the recruits with affection and attention and claim to understand just how the potential cult members feel. Second, efforts are made to isolate the recruits from family and friends who might talk them out of joining. This is accomplished in part by keeping the recruits so busy with rigid rituals, ways of dress, meditations, and other activ- ities that they do not allow the recruits time to think about what is happening. Third, cults also teach their members how to stop questioning thoughts or criticisms, which are typi- cally seen as sins or extremely undesirable behavior. In other words, cults promote a high degree of conformity and compliance (Singer & Lalich, 1995; Zimbardo & Hartley, 1985). Commitments to the cult are small at first, such as attending a music concert or some other cult function. (Notice that this is the foot-in-the-door technique.) Eventually, a major step is requested by the cult, such as quitting one’s job, turning over money or property to the cult, or similar commitments. Leaving a cult is quite difficult, as members of the cult in good standing will often track down a “deserter.” Actress Leah Remini has written a detailed and frank account of her struggles with Scientology and the difficulties of leaving that organization (Remini, 2015). Cults have existed all through recorded history and will probably continue to exist in cult the future. Most cults do not pose a physical threat to their members or others, but the any group of people with a particular religious or philosophical set of beliefs *connotation: the meaning of a word or concept that is more suggestive than directly and identity. stated.  Social Psychology 471 examples of the followers of Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh (the Waco, Texas, disaster in 1993), and ISIS clearly demonstrate that cults, like any group of people, can become deadly. Social Cognition Social cognition focuses on the ways in which people think about other people and how those cognitions influence behavior toward those other people. In this section, we’ll con- centrate on how we perceive others and form our first impressions of them, as well as how we explain the behavior of others and ourselves. ATTITUDES 12.5 Identify the three components of an attitude and how attitudes are formed. One area of social cognition concerns the formation and influence of attitudes on the behavior and perceptions of others. An attitude can be defined as a tendency to respond positively or negatively toward a certain idea, person, object, or situation (Triandis, 1971). This tendency, developed through people’s experiences as they live and work with others, can affect the way they behave toward those ideas, people, objects, and situations and can include opinions, beliefs, and biases. In fact, attitudes influence the way people view these things before they’ve actually been exposed to them (Petty et al., 2003). social cognition the mental processes that people use to make sense of the social world What do you mean—how can an attitude have an effect on around them. something that hasn’t happened yet? attitude Attitudes are not something people have when they are born. They are learned through a tendency to respond positively or experiences and contact with others and even through direct instruction from parents, teach- negatively toward a certain person, ers, and other important people in a person’s life. Because attitudes involve a positive or o ect idea or situation. 472 CHAPTER 12 negative evaluation of things, it’s possible to go into a new situation, meet a new person, or be exposed to a new idea with one’s “mind already made up” to like or dislike, agree or disagree, and so on (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty et al., 2003; Petty & Briñol, 2015). For example, chil- dren are known for making up their minds about certain foods before ever tasting them, sim- ply because the foods are “green.” Those children may have tried a green food in the past and disliked it and now are predisposed* to dislike any green food whether they’ve tasted it or not. THE ABC MODEL OF ATTITUDES Attitudes are actually made up of three different parts, or components, as shown in Figure 12.3. These components should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been reading the other chapters in this text because, throughout the text, references have been made to personality and traits being com- posed of the ways people think, feel, and act. By using certain terms to describe these three things, psychologists have come up with a handy way to describe the three com- ponents of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1998; Fazio & Olson, 2003). AFFECTIVE COMPONENT The affective component of an attitude is the way a person feels toward the object, person, or situation. Affect is used in psychology to mean “emotions” or “feelings,” so the affective component is the emotional component. For example, some people might feel that country music is fun and uplifting. BEHAVIOR COMPONENT The behavior component of an attitude is the action that a person takes in regard to the person, object, or situation. For example, a person who feels that country music is fun is likely to listen to a country music station, buy country music MP3s, or go to a country music concert. Interactive Attitude toward country music Affect Behavior Cognition (feelings) (actions) (thoughts) I like country I buy country I think music; it’s fun music MP3s every country music and uplifting. chance I get. is better than I only listen to any other kind country music; of music I hear. I’m going to a country music concert soon. Figure 12.3 Three Components of an Attitude Attitudes consist of the way a person feels and thinks about something, as well as the way the person chooses to behave. If you like country music, you are also likely to think that country music is good music. You are also more likely to listen to this style of music, buy this type of music, and even go to a performance. Each of the three components influences the other two. *predisposed: referring to a tendency to respond in a particular way based on previous experience.  Social Psychology 473 COGNITIVE COMPONENT Finally, the cognitive component of an attitude is the way a person thinks about himself or herself, an object, or a situation. These thoughts, or cogni- tions, include beliefs and ideas about the focus of the attitude. For example, the country music lover might believe that country music is superior to other forms of music. So if you know what someone thinks or feels about something, you can predict what that person will do, right? Oddly enough, attitudes turn out to be pretty poor predictors of actual behavior in a number of controlled research studies. The results of several decades of research indicate that what people say and what people do are often two very different things (van de Gar- de-Perik et al., 2008; Wicker, 1971). Studies have found that attitudes predict behavior only under certain conditions. For example, in one study, researchers found that a randomly chosen sample of people indicated in a survey that they believed in protecting the envi- ronment and would be willing to pay more for fruits and vegetables raised under environ- mentally friendly conditions. When the people of that same sample were studied for their actual buying habits, the only sample members who bought the ecofriendly fruit did so in grocery stores in areas of higher income levels. These consumers actually had the financial means to “put their money where their mouth was” (A. Clarke et al., 1999). Those members of the sample who did not live in a higher-income area gave what they probably saw as a socially desirable answer on the survey, but in practice, their lower income influenced their actual behavior—they did NOT buy the more expensive ecofriendly fruit. While many people may believe in helping Another factor in matching attitudes and behavior concerns how specific the atti- the environment by using organically grown tude itself is. People may hold a general attitude about something without reflecting that products, one study found that only those with the money to buy these more expensive attitude in their actual behavior. For example, doctors generally hold the attitude that products did so. people should do everything they can to protect their health and promote wellness, yet many doctors still smoke tobacco, fail to exercise, and often get too little sleep. But a very specific attitude, such as “exercise is important to my immediate health,” will more likely be associated with the behavior of exercising (Ajzen, 2001; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). Even playing a simulation game in which players control a character within a fictional health care setting, making specific decisions about health behavior, has been shown to have a positive effect on attitudes toward health care in those players (Kaufman et al., 2015). Some attitudes are stronger than others, and strong attitudes are more likely to pre- dict behavior than weak ones. A person who quit smoking because of failing health might have a stronger attitude toward secondhand smoke than someone who quit smoking on a dare, for example. The importance, or salience*, of a particular attitude in a given situa- tion also has an impact on behavior—the more important the attitude appears, the more likely the behavior will match the attitude. Someone who is antismoking might be more likely to confront a smoker breaking the rules in a hospital, for example, than they would a smoker outside the building (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998). ATTITUDE FORMATION Attitude formation is the result of a number of different influ- ences with only one thing in common: They are all forms of learning. DIRECT CONTACT One way in which attitudes are formed is by direct contact with the person, idea, situation, or object that is the focus of the attitude. For example, a child who tries and dislikes brussels sprouts will form a negative attitude about brussels sprouts. DIRECT INSTRUCTION Another way attitudes are formed is through direct instruction, either by parents or some other individual. Parents may tell their children that smoking cigarettes is dangerous and unhealthy, for example. *salience: importance or having the quality of being obvious or easily seen. 474 CHAPTER 12 INTERACTION WITH OTHERS Sometimes attitudes are formed because the person is around other people with that attitude. If a person’s friends, for example, all hold the attitude that smoking is cool, that person is more likely to think that smoking is cool as well (Brenner, 2007; Eddy et al., 2000; Hill, 1990; Shean et al., 1994). VICARIOUS CONDITIONING (OBSERVATIONAL LEARNING) Many attitudes are learned through the observation of other people’s actions and reactions to various objects, people, or situations. Just as a child whose mother shows a fear of dogs may develop a similar fear, to Learning Objective 5.3, a child whose mother or father shows a positive attitude toward classical music may grow into an adult with a similarly positive attitude. Attitudes are not only influenced by other people in a person’s immediate world but also by the larger world of the educational system (many attitudes may be learned in school or through reading books) and the mass media of social networking sites, maga- zines, television, and the movies—a fact of which advertisers and marketing experts are well aware (Gresham & Shimp, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1986; Visser & Mirabile, 2004). ATTITUDE CHANGE: THE ART OF PERSUASION 12.6 Describe how attitudes can be changed. Sometimes people learn attitudes that aren’t necessarily good ones, right? So can attitudes change? Because attitudes are learned, they are also subject to change with new learning. The world is full of people, companies, and other organizations that want to change people’s attitudes. It’s all about the art of persuasion, the process by which one person tries to change the belief, opinion, position, or course of action of another person through argument, pleading, or explanation. Persuasion is not a simple matter. There are several factors that become important in predicting how successful any persuasive effort at attitude change might be. These factors include the following: Source: The communicator is the person delivering the message. There is a strong tendency to give more weight to people who are perceived as experts, as well as those who seem trustworthy, attractive, and similar to the person receiving the message (Eagly & Chaiken, 1975; O’Keefe, 2009; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, 1996; Priester & Petty, 1995). Message: The actual message should be clear and well organized (Booth-Butterfield, 1996). It is usually more effective to present both sides of an argument to an audi- ence that has not yet committed to one side or the other (Crowley & Hoyer, 1994; O’Keefe, 2009; Petty & Cacioppo, 1996; Petty et al., 2003). Messages that are directed at producing fear have been thought to be more effective if they produce only a moderate amount of fear and also provide information about how to avoid the fear-provoking consequences (Kleinot & Rogers, 1982; Meyrick, 2001; Petty, 1995; Rogers & Mewborn, 1976). More recent research suggests that fear messages with a higher amount of fear may be very effective when they not only provide infor- mation about how to avoid the consequences but also stress the severity of those consequences, particularly among women (Tannenbaum et al., 2015). persuasion Target Audience: The characteristics of the people who are the intended target the process by which one person of the message of persuasion are also important in determining the effective- tries to change the belief, opinion, ness of the message. The age of the audience members can be a factor, for exam- position, or course of action of another person through argument, pleading, or ple. Researchers have found that people who are in the young adult stage of the e lanation. late teens to the mid-20s are more susceptible to persuasion than are older people (O’Keefe, 2009; Visser & Krosnick, 1998).  Social Psychology 475 Medium: The form through which a person receives a message is also important. For example, seeing and hearing a politician’s speech on television may have a very different effect than simply reading about it in the newspaper or online. The visual impact of the television coverage is particularly important because it provides an opportunity for the source of the message to be seen as attractive, for example. How easily influenced a person is will also be related to the way people tend to process information. In the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Briñol & Petty, 2015; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), it is assumed that people either elaborate (add details and information) based on what they hear (the facts of the message), or they do not elaborate How the jurors in this courtroom interpret at all, preferring to pay attention to the surface characteristics of the message (length, and process the information they are given who delivers it, how attractive the message deliverer is, etc.). Two types of processing will determine the outcome of the trial. Those who listen carefully to what is said are hypothesized in this model: central-route processing, in which people attend to the by persons involved in the trial are using content of the message; and peripheral-route processing, a style of information process- central-route processing. There may be some ing that relies on peripheral cues (cues outside of the message content itself), such as jurors, however, who are more affected by the expertise of the message source, the length of the message, and other factors that the appearance, dress, attractiveness, or have nothing to do with the message content. This style of processing causes people tone of voice of the lawyers, defendant, and witnesses. When people are persuaded by not to pay attention to the message itself but instead to base their decisions on those factors other than the message itself, it is peripheral factors (Briñol & Petty, 2015; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Stiff & Mongeau, 2002). called peripheral-route processing. For example, the author once participated on a jury panel in which one woman voted “guilty” because the defendant had “shifty eyes” and not because of any of the evidence presented. THINKING CRITICALLY Imagine that you are asked to create a television commercial to sell a new product. Given what you know of the factors that effectively influence persuasion, how might you persuade a customer? The response entered here will be saved to your notes and may be collected by your instructor if he/she requires it. elaboration likelihood model model of persuasion stating that Submit people will either elaborate on the persuasive message or fail to elaborate on it and that the future actions COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: WHEN ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR CLASH of those who do ela orate are more 12.7 Explain how people react when attitudes differ from behavior. redicta le than those who do not. central-route processing As stated earlier, sometimes what people say and what they do type of information processing that are very different. I once pointed this out to a friend of mine who involves attending to the content was behaving this way, and he got really upset over it. Why did he of the message itself. get so upset? peripheral-route processing When adults find themselves doing things or saying things that don’t match their type of information processing that idea of themselves as smart, nice, or moral, for example, they experience an emo- involves attending to factors not involved in the message, such as tional discomfort (and physiological arousal) known as cognitive dissonance (Aron- the appearance of the source of the son, 1997; Festinger, 1957; Kelly et al., 1997). When people are confronted with the message, the length of the message, knowledge that something they have done or said was dumb, immoral, or illogical, and other noncontent factors. they suffer an inconsistency in cognitions. For example, they may have a cognition that says “I’m pretty smart” but also the cognition “That was a dumb thing to do,” cognitive dissonance which causes a dissonance. (Dissonance is a term referring to an inconsistency or lack sense of discomfort or distress that of agreement.) occurs when a person’s behavior When people experience cognitive dissonance, the resulting tension and arousal are does not correspond to that person’s unpleasant, and their motivation is to change something so that the unpleasant feelings attitudes. 476 CHAPTER 12 and tension are reduced or eliminated. There are three basic things that people can do to reduce cognitive dissonance: 1. Change their conflicting behavior to make it match their attitude. 2. Change their current conflicting cognition to justify their behavior. 3. Form new cognitions to justify their behavior. Take the example of Larry, who is a college graduate and a cigarette smoker. On one hand, Larry is educated enough to know that cigarette smoking is extremely harmful, causing lung problems, cancer, and eventually death. On the other hand, Larry enjoys smoking, feeling that it calms him and helps him deal with stress—not to mention the fact that he’s thoroughly addicted and finds it difficult to quit. His attitude (smoking is bad for you) doesn’t match his behavior. Larry is experiencing cognitive dissonance and knows he needs to do something to resolve his dilemma. If Larry chooses the first way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, he’ll quit smok- ing, no matter how difficult it is (Option 1). As long as he is working at changing the conflicting behavior, his dissonance will be reduced. But what if he can’t quit? He might decide that smoking isn’t as bad as everyone says it is, which changes his original conflict- ing attitude (Option 2). He might also form a new attitude by deciding that if he smokes “light” cigarettes, he’s reducing his risk enough to justify continuing smoking (Option 3). In a classic experiment conducted at Stanford University by psychologist Leon Festinger and colleague James Carlsmith (1959), each male student volunteer was given an hour-long, very boring task of sorting wooden spools and turning wooden pegs. After the hour, the experimenters asked the participant to tell the female volunteer in the wait- ing room that the task was enjoyable. While half of the participants were paid only $1 to try to convince the waiting woman, the other participants were paid $20. (In the late 1950s, $20 was a considerable sum of money—the average income was $5,000, the aver- age car cost $3,000, and gas was only 25 cents a gallon.) At the time of this study, many researchers would have predicted that the more the participants were paid to lie, the more they would come to like the task, because they were getting more reinforcement ($20) for doing so. But what actually happened was that those participants who were paid only $1 for lying actually convinced themselves that the task was interesting and fun. The reason is cognitive dissonance: Participants who were paid only $1 experienced discomfort at thinking that they would lie to someone for only a dollar. Therefore, they must not be lying—the task really was pretty interesting, after all, and fun, Inducement Attitude too! Those who were paid more experienced no dissonance, because they knew exactly $1 +1.35 why they were lying—for lots of money—and the money was a sufficient amount to $20 – 0.5 explain their behavior to their satisfaction. Although most people don’t want to be thought Control –.45 of as liars, back then, getting paid enough money to fill the gas tank of one’s car three or *Based on a –5 to +5 scale, where four times over was incentive enough to tell what probably seemed to be a harmless fib. –5 means ”extremely boring” and Those who were paid only $1 had to change their attitude toward the task so that they +5 means “extremely interesting” would not really be lying and could maintain their self-image of honesty. (See Figure 12.4.) There is evidence that cognitive dissonance occurs in children as young as 4 years of age, but the basic strategy for dealing with dissonance seems to be different for them Figure 12.4 Cognitive Dissonance: Attitude than for older children and adults. Researchers compared the behavior of 4- and 6-year- Toward a Task old children by having them complete tasks to earn stickers (Benozio & Diesendruck, After completing a boring task, some participants 2015). In one group, children of both ages had to work very hard to get stickers, while in were paid $1 and some $20 to convince others another group, the tasks were very easy. The stickers they earned were also of two types, waiting to do the same task that the task was highly desirable (current cartoon characters) and unattractive (e.g., a plant sticker or a interesting and fun. Surprisingly, the participants princess sticker for a boy). After earning 10 stickers each, the children were told they were who were paid only $1 seemed to change their own attitude toward the task, rating it as interesting, going to play a game in which they had to decide how many stickers they wanted to give whereas those who were paid $20 rated the task no to a child they had seen in a video (a later variation had them giving stickers to a box to differently than a control group did. avoid possible social concerns). While both age groups gave away fewer of the attractive SOURCE: Adapted from Festinger and Carlsmith (1959). stickers, the 6-year-olds gave away far fewer unattractive stickers if they had been hard to  Social Psychology 477 get. This suggests that the older children changed their cognition, with effort changing the desirability of the stickers, like the adults in the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study. But the younger children gave away significantly more unattractive stickers that were hard to earn compared to those that were easily earned, suggesting that they chose to change their conflicting behavior rather than their cognition. It may be that changing one’s cogni- tions requires a little more brain maturation than the younger children possessed. Cognitive dissonance theory has been challenged over the last 50 years by other possi- ble explanations. Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory says that instead of experiencing negative tension, people look at their own actions and then infer their attitudes from those actions (Bem, 1972). New research on dissonance still occurs, much of it focusing on finding the areas of the brain that seem to be involved when people are experiencing dissonance. These studies have found that the left frontal cortex (where language and much of our decision making occurs) is particularly active when people have made a decision that reduces dis- sonance and then acted upon that decision (Harmon-Jones, 2000, 2004, 2006; Harmon-Jones et al., 2008, 2011). Since reducing cognitive dissonance is mainly a function of people “talking” themselves into or out of a particular course of action, this neurological finding is not surprising. But researchers at Yale University have found surprising evidence for cogni- tive dissonance in both 4-year-old humans and capuchin monkeys—two groups that are not normally associated with having the developed higher-level mental abilities thought to be in use during the resolution of dissonance (Egan et al., 2007; Egan et al., 2010). Are monkeys and preschool humans more complex thinkers than we had assumed? Or are the cognitive processes used to resolve dissonance a lot simpler than previously indicated? Obviously, there are still questions to be answered with new research in cognitive dissonance. IMPRESSION FORMATION impression formation 12.8 Describe how people form impressions of others. the forming of the first knowledge When one person meets another for the first time, it is the first opportunity either person that a person has concerning another erson. will have to make initial evaluations and judgments about the other. That first opportu- nity is a very important one in impression formation, the forming of the first knowledge social categorization a person has about another person. Impression formation includes assigning the other the assignment of a person one person to a number of categories and drawing conclusions about what that person is has just met to a category based on likely to do—it’s really all about prediction. In a sense, when first meeting another per- characteristics the new person has in son, the observer goes through a process of concept formation similar to that discussed in common with other people with whom Chapter Seven. Impression formation is another kind of social cognition. one has had e erience in the ast. There is a primacy effect in impression formation: The first time people meet some- one, they form an impression of that person, often based on physical appearance alone, that persists even though they may later have other contradictory information about that person (DeCoster & Claypool, 2004; Lorenzo et al., 2010; Luchins, 1957; Macrae & Quadflieg, 2010). So the old saying is pretty much on target: First impressions do count. SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION One of the processes that occur when people meet some- one new is the assignment of that person to some kind of category or group. This assignment is usually based on characteristics the new person has in common with other people or groups with whom the perceiver has had prior experience. This social categorization is mostly automatic and occurs without conscious awareness of the process (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000; Vernon et al., 2014). Although this is a natural process (human beings are just born categorizers, to Learning Objective 7.2), sometimes it can cause problems. When the characteristics used to categorize the per- At this job fair in Shanghai, China, thousands son are superficial* ones that have become improperly attached to certain ideas, such of applicants wait hopefully in line for an opportunity to as “red hair equals a bad temper,” social categorization can result in a stereotype, a get a job interview. Making a good first impression is important in any job interview situation, but when the belief that a set of characteristics is shared by all members of a particular social category competition numbers in the thousands, the people who will most likely get interviews are those who are neatly *superficial: on the surface. dressed and well groomed. 478 CHAPTER 12 (Fiske, 1998). Stereotypes (although not always negative) are very limiting, causing people to misjudge what others are like and often to treat them differently as a result. Add the process of stereotyping to the primacy effect and it becomes easy to see how important first impressions really are. That first impression not only has more importance than any other information gathered about a person later on but may include a stereotype that is resistant to change as well (Hall et al., 2013; Hilton & von Hipple, 1996; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003). It sounds as though we’d be better off if people didn’t use social categorization. Social categorization does have an important place in the perception of others. It allows people to access a great deal of information that can be useful about others, as well as helping people remember and organize information about the characteristics of others (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). The way to avoid falling into the trap of negatively stereo- typing someone is to be aware of existing stereotypes and apply a little critical thinking: “Okay, so he’s a guy with a lot of piercings. That doesn’t mean that he’s overly aggres- sive—it just means he has a lot of piercings.” IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES The categories into which people place others are based on something called an implicit personality theory. Implicit personality theories are sets of assumptions that people have about how different types of people, personal-