Wrap Up SP (Social Psychology) Wrap Up

Social psychology Structure model of Theme-Centered Interaction Outside influences Triangle within sphere representing the four factors “I”, “We”, “It” and “Globe”, respectively. 1. Social groups and group processes 1.1 What is a group? Group size: 2-30 persons Sense of connectedness: —> enables face-to-face contact/ The degree of how much a interaction group of people seems to Dyad = 2 persons be united as one team Small group = 3-6 a sense of belonging Group = 3-30 together 1.1.1 Types of groups Intimacy group - family members, friends, romantic partners… Formal vs. informal group - structured from without vs. spontaneous group formation In group vs. out group / rival group - a group one is affiliated with / part of vs. group one is not part of Task group - sports team, cast of play, team at work Social category - such as “women”, “Black people”, “Germans” Loose association - people at a bus stop, living in the same area 1.1.2 Groups and sense of connectedness High connectedness is associated with… …higher levels of interaction …group members consider the group important …common goals and outcomes are pursued and shared …group members perceive themselves as similar, they identify with the group …longer duration of group —> sense of security, control, strength 1.1.3 Reasons for forming and joining groups Nijstad (2020): Sociobiological- evolutionarily built in, self-preservation, attachment, “need to belong” Cognitive - understanding of the world Utilitarian - to gain benefits, “need for achievement” Schmithüsen/Steffgen (2015): Social comparison yields relevant information about self Social exchange and advantages through affiliation with a group Satisfaction of the need to bond and experience connectedness Satisfaction of the need to have high self-esteem and clear social identity Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs 1.2 Group dynamics and stages of group development 1.2.1 Stages of group development - classic model (Tuckman) Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning Group Group Group Group Group members members get members members members work leave the group: to know each resist share a together Feelings of other: influences: common towards their accomplish- high disagreement purpose: goal: ment or failure. uncertainty and high High Performance- Sometimes grief conflict friendship and oriented or relief cohesion relation —> not all groups have all five stages; can always “hop around” between all stages 1.2.3 Model of group socialization (Moreland & Levine, 1982) —> focuses on the ways new potential members enter, stay in, or leave existing groups —> 5 stages accompanied by 4 role transitions —> considers positive and negative outcomes (i.e. mutual satisfaction or dissatisfaction ne Group commitment: psychological bond of a group member with the group and its goals including the desire to maintain group relationship —> when a group values a (possible) member, the group will encourage the person to become or stay a member of the group = the group is committed to the member 1. Entry: (sometimes) initial rituals - to welcome or test the new/prospective members 2. Socialization: new members learn norms (rules) and may acquire necessary knowledge and skills to function as a group member. 2-way-street: both parties try to influence the other 3. Being in a group - Maintenance and role negotiation: high group commitment makes the relationship rewarding for both the group and individuals. Role negotiation assigns fitting roles, like a team leader 4. Leaving a group -Divergence and exit: A disinterested or disappointing member is seen as “deviant” (=abweichend) and marginalized (=ausgegrenzt). Full members must prove they’re “good” to avoid this 5. Resocialization and exit: Attempt from both parties to assimilate and/or accommodate. When these fail —>member leaves group or is expelled 6. Remembrance: Ex-member and the group retrospectively evaluate each other (good or bad memories) 1.3 Onboarding: Applied social psychology (= Organizational socialization = Sozialisierung im UN) —> process through which employees move from becoming outsider to becoming organizational outsider —> process takes time (4 to 6 months) —> requires effort from both sides (organization and new member) 1.3.1 Process Model of organizational socialization => = 2. Introduction to Social Psychology and Methods in Social Psychology 2.1 Definition and first approach Social Psychology = scientific attempt to understand and explain how thoughts, feelings and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of other human beings “Actual presence” = people are physically present “Imagined presence” = the influence of people important to us, whose expectations might influence our behavior - they don’t need to be physically present “Implied presence” = much of our behavior is shaped by social roles and cultural norms (broadest presence) 2.1.2 Interaction = two-way street 2.1.3 Asch’s experiment: social influence Study: every participant was an actor, but one of them was a “real” participant who had no idea what the experiment was really about They saw to posters —> one with one line and one with three lines (one matched the single one) The person that had no clue was last in line to decide which one was fitting Actors: chose all the same wrong answers Many have changed they’re answer and also picked the wrong one (but they often were thinking very long) Group pressure —> influenced by the group 2.1.4 Ways to think about the results Social psychology perspective: Does the rate of conformity increase if we increase the number of majority members who give incorrect judgments (does group size have an impact)? Does the conformity rate decrease if participants are allowed to give their judgement anonymously? —> Generally speaking: What impact do characteristics of the social situation have on thoughts and behaviors? * Personality psychology perspective: Why are some participants influenced by the incorrect judgements of the majority while others are not? —> What personality traits are responsible for different individual reactions? How and why do these individual differences develop? Des untere kommt glaub ich auch noch bei Persönlichkeitspsychologie 2.2 Research strategies and methods 2.2.1 “Science” in social psychology Goals: Understand cognitive and emotional processes occurring in scientifically defined situations, which lead to certain behavioral reactions To identify casual relations, if possible Theory: A set of abstract concepts (e.g. social influence) together with propositions about how those constructs are related to one another Methods: Tools used to test theoretical ideas 2.2.2 Experiment = a method in which the researcher introduces some change into a setting to examine the consequences of that change —> only way to definitely identify cause and effect (=“via regia” (Königsweg) of empirical research) Example: Do aggressive video games lead to increased aggressive behavior of players in situations outside of the game? Two groups Experimental group Control group = video game = no video games There are different variables: Independent/manipulated variable (you can control it): Playing aggressive video games Dependent/measured variable (davon ausgehend): Aggressive behavior (here: in a structured social situation/in the lab) “Hypothesis”: Prediction/assumption derived from a theory concerning the relationship between variables —> H0 = null hypothesis: there is no difference between the two groups —> H1 = hypothesis: Participants in the experimental group will show more aggressive behavior in subsequent group situation. Not simple or trivial: Operationalization: What do we mean by “aggressive behavior”? —> || is the way in which a theoretical construct is turned into a measurable dependent variable or manipulable independent variable in a particular study Randomization: How can we be sure that the two groups are not biased —> Participants are distributed/allocated to experimental group and control group by chance Validity: Can we trust the result? How meaningful are they?… —> main criterion of psychometric quality 2.2.3 Quasi-Experiment/Quasi-experimental research an experiment/research —> participants aren’t randomly allocated to different experimental conditions, because of factors beyond the control of the researchers —> due to practical and/or ethical considerations researchers cannot generally control or manipulate the independent variable Field research typically takes the form of quasi-experimental research Example: A study by Black & Bevan, 1992: moviegoers who watched violent films had higher aggression levels both before and after the film, while those who watched non-violent films did not. Suggestion of the study: violent films can increase aggressive tendencies, especially in people already drawn to such content => there are many other variables that could lead to this result like f.e. pre-existing aggression in viewers of violent films 2.2.4 Survey research research strategy involves interviewing or administering a questionnaire to a sample of respondents who are selected so as to be representative of the population from which they are drawn General goal = identifying associations or cause-and-effect relationships between variables But = measures different levels of existing variables —> doesn’t manipulate them. => claims about casual relationships aren’t really possible. —> taking additional variables into account in statistical analyses Example: Study by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994: study on SDO (=social dominance orientation) which means that the individual person prefers unequal status relations between social categories Hypothesis 1: Person scoring high in SDO should also score high on sexism (=positive correlation) and low on support for racial equality (=negative correlation) to examine the possibility that correlations are due to other variables, the authors also controlled for the effect of political conservatism Result: The expected correlations (H1) remained significant —> SDO is not simply an expression of political conversation, but reflects a real personality trait 2.2.5 Observational methods Behavior observation (f.e.) is an important element in the research repertoire of social psychology Goal of behavior observation= identifying and recording actions and behaviors Two types of observation: 1. Overt (= offene Beobachtung) —> Participants know they are being observed. Participant researcher (teilnehmender Forscher): Action Research; used in applied social psychology, mostly with an emancipatory aim Non-participant researcher: Even when participants know they're being observed, they get so absorbed in their actions that they have less chance to adjust their behavior than with a questionnaire. 2. Covert (=verdeckte Beobachtung) —> Participants unaware that they’re being observed Participant researcher: A method of observation in which the researcher studies the target group or community from within, making careful records of what he or she observes Non-participant researcher: Observation of naturally occurring behavior 2.2.6 Qualitative methods/approach data are usually textual and focus on the content and meaning of the statements/ answers of participants Used: 1. For explorative purpose —> to generate hypothesis that can be tested in experiments later 2. When experimental or quantitative methods aren’t possible due to practical or ethical reasons Qualitative techniques (f.e. interviews) give different insights than quantitative research on psychological phenomena. They can complement or extend quantitative research or yield completely different insights Disadvantages: > Cause and effect can usually not be disentangled > Susceptible to subjective distortion or bias (of researchers and/or participants) > No quantifiable or objectively comparable results are generated 2.3 Ethical considerations Most important ethical demand: Research participants must not come to harm - neither psychologically nor physically This means: Researchers inform the institution in which the work about the intended study/ research (“Ethikantrag”) Participants in studies provide informed consent (they receive information on what they can expect/what is expected of them, and they have the possibility to withdraw their participation) Deception (f.e. cover stories) may only be used when it can be scientifically justified and no alternative is available Participants should be debriefed on the true nature of the research Researchers report their findings truthfully. Mistakes (in publication) are corrected as soon as they are discovered 3. Self, self-concept and social identity 3.1 Where self-knowledge comes from Two sources: 3.1.1 Personal source Introspection: = the process by which one observes and examines one’s internal states (mental and emotional) for behaving in a certain way Information based on introspection is often not accurate: > process lots of information simultaneously, much without conscious awareness > we would like to keep unwanted thoughts and feelings out of consciousness > we tend to overestimate our positive aspects and think that we are better than average = sign of psychological health —>but a more self-accurate view might be needed Self-perception theory (Bern, 1972): =Selbstwahrnehmungstheorie theory assumes that when inner states are ambiguous or difficult to interpret, people can infer these states by observing their own behavior - as if watching themselves from outside The condition under which the behavior is shown are considered. —> Example: You will not assume you love reading when this is required for school or your study 3.1.2 Social source Attachment processes, Social appraisal, Social comparison, Social identity Attachment theory: Consistent, responsive behavior towards infant —> Positive self-concept Neglectful, unresponsive, abusive behavior —> Child learns that it isn’t worthy and others cannot be trusted “Working models” of ourselves and others (our expectations of others’ behavior) become a lens through which we interpret and react to other people’s responses throughout our lives Before Attachment theory - Harlow’s monkeys (1958): Infant monkeys preferred the soft “surrogate mother” over the cold figure giving milk He also noted serious deficits in behavior among monkeys raised without contact to real live mother figures His research demonstrated the need for physical safety and comfort. It paved the way for John Bowlby’s attachment theory Attachment: An emotional relationship or bond with a specific person that lasts in space and time. Most often, attachment is discussed in terms of relationship between young children and their caregivers, but also occurs in adulthood Attachment theory: The theory based in John Bowlby’s (1907-1990) work that the biological predisposition of children to develop attachments to caregivers serves to increase their own chances of survivals Responsiveness: In developmental research, parental responsiveness, defined in terms of behavior that is sensitive to the child’s needs, is thought be central to the child’s development of a sense of security and positive self-concept. Secure base, circle of security, responsiveness: Secure base: A place of safety, represented by an attachment figure (e.g., a parent), that an infant uses as a base from which to explore a new, unfamiliar environment. The infant often returns or looks back to the parent before continuing to explore ( + (2) Attachment styles in children: People are Trustworthy Being afraid of other people Attachment styles in adults: What is the relevance of attachment styles in adults? influences our characters - intro vs extroverted How we interact with other people How we think about ourselves How healthy our relationships are - choice of partner Our subconscious reactions to situations How we respond to change and surprises Relevance for possible mental disorders Parenting style Decisions risk-taking behavior ? Overthinking? How we deal with emotions Social comparison: = A process of comparing ourself with others in order to evaluate one’s own abilities and opinions —> we use others as benchmark often occurs without our noticing it = automatically Even when objective criteria to evaluate our abilities are available (f.e. points scored on a test), we still have a strong tendency to refer to social criteria (f.e. our ranking among the people taking the test) 1. Downward social comparison: We compare ourself with someone who is worse off/ weaker/less capable than we are —> Make us feel better 2. Upward social comparison: We judge ourself against someone “better” - this makes sense to inspire us to reach the next level, but only when the ability of the “better” person is realistically within our reach Social identity: Social identity and self-categorization Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) The Social groups we identify with are also incorporated into our self-concept (gender, ethnicity, religion, profession, political membership etc.) Key assumption: need for positive social identity —> “motivated process”, meaning that we are motivated to contrast our ingroup(s) favorably with any outgroups —> positive effect: rise in ingroup member’s self-esteem —> negative effect: intergroup discrimination and conflict Self-categorization theory (Turner 1985; Turner & Reynolds 2011) world = divided into “us” and “them” —> not as result of a motivated process, but simply because it happens automatically at the perceptual level Self-categorization: the tendency of individuals to think of themselves as representing a social group Experiencing a coherent self: Autobiographical memories: Recollections of the sequences of events in our lives and how we experience them —> “These memories shape who we are by connecting the past to the present and giving us a sense of continuity” (Morf 2020, p.200) These memories are not objective and not completely accurate Self as narrative (=Erzählung): Autobiographical memories are woven together to tell a story about ourselves and our lives —> “stories” make meaning out of our experiences and are constantly evolving, changing as we move through life; shaped by cultural norms 3.2 The self as mental representation 3.2.1 Two ways to view oneself Self-concept Self-esteem Cognitive representation Affective evaluation —> know the difference of the self of the self 3.2.1.1 Cognitive representation: self-concept Self-concept:. The cognitive representation of our self-knowledge consisting of a sum total of all beliefs we have about ourselves. It gives coherence and meaning to one’s experience, including one’s relations to other people Self-reference effect: The tendency to process and remember self-related information better than other information. The self is our “home base” from which everything else assessed and classified Self-schemas/self-schemata: Mental structures that help us organize and guide the processing of self-related information Example: experiment by Markus (1977) —> he had “schematic” vs. “aschematic” participants rate adjectives as descriptive of themselves (or not) Schema in the study was “independence - dependence” “Schematic” participants more quickly judge relevant words than aschematic participants —> we process information that is relevant to our self-concept quickly and remember it well Working self-concept: Subset of relevant self-knowledge that is activated (“turned on”) and guides our behavior in a given situation (Markus & Kunda, 1986) Not all self-knowledge is active all of the time Some factors determined by the situational context are familiar for most people —> Example: Our religious side is more likely to be “turned on” in church than in the cinema Distinctiveness: If we have some feature that sets us apart and makes us different/ unique in a certain environment, then this aspect of ourself is more likely to be activated —> Example: Ethnicity (if we are from a minority group within our school or workplace) Which parts of the self-concept are activated in response to situational cues is different across individuals and depends on which domains are especially important to a person 3.2.1.2 Affective evaluation: self-esteem Self-esteem: = the overall evaluation that we have of ourselves along a positive-negative dimension People differ in their feelings of self-worth and goodness High self-esteem —> People see themselves more strongly positive, have fewer negative self-views, are more confident and optimistic that things will go their way Low self-esteem —> the opposite! Global self-esteem encompasses the sum total how we feel about ourselves in different domains, e.g. social abilities, accomplishments and performance, our looks, etc. Top-down: Our global self-esteem directs how we feel about more specific domains People differ concerning which life domains are important for their self-esteem Desired selves: Possible/potential selves are the selves we would like to become - or want to avoid motivate us to change to the positive (e.g.: work out and on our eating habits to become physically fit) or behave in a way that negative outcomes can be avoided (e.g. diet to avoid becoming overweight) Ideal selves: The self that represents our (or significant others’) wishes and hopes for how we would like to be motivate us to work actively to achieve goals and aspirations Ought self: The self that responds to perceived duties and obligations motivate us to avoid negative outcomes Self-esteem: actual, ideal and ought self Affective consequences of discrepancies between actual and ideal or ought self Sadness 7 Ideal self > Disappointment L Depression Actual self Frustration Discrepancy Worry - - Ought self 7 Anxiety/Fear Agitation Guilt 3.3 The motivational function of the self 3.3.1 Know thyself: Self-assessment motive Self-assessment motive: The striving to reach an accurate and objective understanding of the self Socrates (470-399 BC): Self-knowledge is the highest human virtue (see “emotional competence”!) However, people often show less eagerness to learn about their weaknesses than about their strengths This is attributed to our basic need to see ourselves positively, that is our need for positive self-esteem Self-verification motive: The motivation to affirm strongly held self-beliefs, arising from a desire for stable and coherent self-views 3.3.2 Self-recognition Study by Epley/Whitchurch (2008) in which they focus on how people tend to see themselves more positively than reality might suggest: people recognize attractively altered versions of their own faces as more accurate representations of themselves, even though these images are objectively “better” than reality experiment: faces were digitally morphed to appear more or less attractive —> participants were more likely to select enhanced versions of themselves as looking the most like them the enhancement bias (=Voreingenommemheit) appeared with images of participants own faces and friends faces but not with strangers faces The tendency to choose more attractive self-images was linked to implicit (automatic) self-esteem rather than explicit (conscious) self-esteem, suggesting it’s an unconscious bias 3.3.3 Self-enhancement motive Self enhancement motive: = motivation to enhance the positivity of our self-conceptions, often over what would be objectively warranted Goals of self-enhancement: > To fulfill the need for self-esteem and protect the self from negative information > To look good! = convey a favorable image of our self to others Self-enhancement is largely implicit = we aren’t consciously aware of the influence of self-enhancement on our thoughts and behavior Research has found that persons or objects that are associated with the self are often evaluated more positively, even if this association lacks meaning —> Examples: we like the things we own; we like letters of the alphabet better when they are part of our name; we evaluate people more favorably when they share their date of birth with us 3.3.4 How do we self-enhance? Strategies: Self-presentation: A range of strategies that we use in order to shape with others think of us Self-handicapping: = a strategy/tactic in self-presentation —> describes the tendency to use self-defeating behaviors in order to provide a subsequent excuse for failure We claim or create suboptimal conditions for showing good performance. If we “fail” or do not fulfill (others’) expectations, we have a good excuse. If we “win”, this proves how good we really are, since we were not optimally prepared Such self-defeating behaviors include alcohol or drug abuse and procrastination Self-handicapping prevents us from testing our limits and finding out how good we really are 3.3.5 Why do we self-enhance? Our feelings of self-esteem signal the degree to which we fell accepted (or rejected) by other members of our social groups - sociometer theory “sociometer” = social barometer (a tool used for diagnostic or prognostic purposes) Self-esteem helps individuals to find their way in their social environment Rejection = self-esteem decreases —> we try to restore positive Acceptance = helps to self-esteem through self- maintain positive self-esteem enhancing behavior Terror management theory: Theory assumes that people cope with the fear of their own dead by constructing worldviews that help to preserve their self-esteem (Greenberg et al., 1997) theory suggests that the deep reason why we self-enhance is because having a positive self helps us to overcome our deepest existential fears Strategy: Assuming and investing in the values of our culture, which gives meaning and order to our life. Culture can give us ways to achieve immortality: either through the prospect of an afterlife or by symbolically identifying with values that transcend our individual existence 3.3.6 Self-compassion = Being kind to oneself, rather than overly self-critical, and mindful that failure is part of the common human experience Self-compassion has the same benefits to health, but without the negative aspects: “Self-compassion results in more motivation to change for the better, try harder to learn, repair past harms and avoid repeating past mistakes”. (Morf 2020) 3.4 The self in control 3.4.1 Self-awareness Self-awareness: is a psychological state in which one’s attention is directed at the self Self-focus occurs when we look in the mirror, see a video recording of ourself, when our name is mentioned, when we are in some aspect “different” from other people around us, or when we are being monitored by an audience. The self becomes the object of our attention Self-awareness/self-focus —> we work harder at difficult tasks, give more help to people who need this, suppress undesirable stereotypes Self-efficacy: Our beliefs about wether we are capable of acting in a certain manner to achieve certain goals (Bandura, 1977) self-efficacy = high —> we invest more energy and time to achieve our goals 3.4.2 Self-regulation = The process of controlling and directing one’s behavior in order to achieve desired thoughts, feelings, and goals Carver & Scheier (1981, 1998) describe self-regulation as a cybernetic system that compares the status quo with a desired standard = cybernetic theory of self-regulation We self-regulate by monitoring how closely we live up to standards. When we do not reach the standards, we take some form of action to bring us closer to the standards This process can apply to any type of goal we might have (social behavior, health- related behavior, expectations of others etc.) In order to stick with our plans, it is more beneficial to think about the “why” of a goal than about the “how” 3.4.3 Benefits of self-regulation Delay of gratification: Ability to resist the temptation of an immediate reward and wait for a larger reward This ability can be learned and practiced in childhood (marshmallow test) It is associated with a wide variety of positive outcomes and attributes: > Better grades in college > Better ability to cope with stress > Higher self-worth and self-esteem > Less physical and verbal aggression > Less drug abuse > Less psychopathology 3.4.4 Overregulation In high-pressure situations, we might try to control our behavior in a step-by-step way which disrupts our showing skills we otherwise master well (“choking under pressure”) (Excessive) self-regulation can get us stuck in negative patterns - when we compare ourselves against standards, realize we don’t live up to them (we seldom really do) and feel badly for this reason To escape this negative feeling of overwhelm, people sometimes show self- destructive behavior such as drinking, binge-eating, even suicide Antidotes? Self-distancing: Trying to get a third-person perspective. Self-distancing allows us to focus on our feelings without being overwhelmed When goals turn out to be unrealistic, it is healthier to abandon self-regulation in their service 3.4.5 Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) The concept that the regulation of behavior moves along a continuum from externally controlled (e.g. to obtain rewards or avoid punishment) to autonomous or intrinsically motivated (e.g. to have fun or explore interests) Self-regulation demands more energy when it is externally motivated than driven by intrinsic motivations According to self-determination theory, we have three basic psychological needs: > The need for autonomy (Eigenständigkeit) > The need for success and competence (Erfolg) > The need for social connectedness and relatedness (Eingebundenheit) 4. Social perception and attribution 4.1 Some biases in social perception 4.1.1 Impressions of people based on central traits Asch (1946) found huge difference in research participants‘ descriptions of a (fictive) target person characterized as “warm” vs. “cold”, but much smaller differences when he chose “polite” vs.”blunt” in his wird lists Intelligent - skillful - industrious - warm - determined - practical - cautious Intelligent - skillful - industrious - cold - determined - practical - cautious —> “Warmth” is seen as a central trait that alters the whole perception of the target person. In contrast, “politeness” is a more peripheral trait 4.1.2 Primacy effect earlier information = stronger influence on social perception, interpretation the tendency for facts, impressions, or items that are presented first to be better learned or remembered than materials presented later in the sequence Effect can occur in both formal learning situations and social contexts Example: it can result in a first-impression bias, in which the first information gained about a person has an inordinate influence on later impressions and evaluations of that person Also called: law (or principal) of primacy 4.1.3 Compare: Recency effect A memory phenomenon —> the most recently presented facts, impressions, or items are learned or remembered better than material presented earlier Effect can occur in both formal learning situations and social contexts Example: can result in inaccurate ratings of a person’s abilities due to the inordinate influence of the most recent information received about that person Also called: law of recency; principle of recency; recency error 4.1.4 Self-fulfilling prophecy A belief or expectation that helps to bring about its own fulfillment, as, for example, when a person expects nervousness to impair his or her performance in a job interview or when a teacher’s preconceptions about a student’s ability influence the child’s achievement for better or worse (How) Do high-potential employee programs work? Simply naming someone as “high potential” changes their performance, by changing others’ expectations of them Telling employees or their managers about their high-potential status raises employees’ self-expectation —> Self-fulfilling prophecy 4.1.5 Non-verbal information in social perception Looks - e.g. baby face schema - people are perceived as less dominant, more naïve Voice - e.g. people with louder or higher-pitched voice are perceived as more extraverted Movement cues - e.g. adults with a younger-seeming walk are perceived as more energetic —> How impressions are gained is not only influenced through verbal information about other people, but also by non-verbal cues 4.1.6 What is “social perception”? A more narrow definition: The processes by which a person uses the behavior of others to form opinions or make inferences about those individuals, particularly regarding their motives, attitudes, or values —> also called interpersonal perception A broader, more inclusive definition: The process of collecting and interpreting information about another person’s individual characteristics 4.2 Attribution (What causes behavior? How is behavior explained?) 4.2.1 Casual attribution we tend to see motives and intentions even in the movements of inanimate objects (Heider & Simmel, 1944) · All the more so do we respond in this way to human behavior “Casual attribution” = the inference (Schlussfolgerung) regarding the cause of a person’s behavior or other interpersonal events > Our own behavior: In this case the “actor” (person behaving in a certain way) and the “observer” are the same person = self-attribution > Behavior of others: The “observer” tries to explain the “actor’s” behavior Example: Your friends (“actor”) buys a really expensive camera (and you haven’t known her/him/them as a geek so far). What are possible reasons for this? 4.2.2 Attribution and achievement Weiner (1979, 1985): “Attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion” Attribution theory tries to explain how people work out the causes of events, especially when other people are involved We have a deep-seated need to interpret/understand successes and failure - of other people and our own Inferences/casual attributions of success and failure directly influence future expectations, motivations, and emotions According to Weiner, we can attribute achievement to > internal vs. external factors (locus) - & außere Faktoren innere > stable vs. unstable factors (stability) gleichbleibende & rechselnde Faktoren = > controllable vs. incontrollable factors (controllability) kontrollierbare & unkontrollierbare Faktoren = 4.2.3 Attribution for success or failure —> Example: Let’s say you get a good grade on an exam 4.2.4 Attribution and depression Learned helplessness theory (Seligman, 1975) Central premise: Depression results from learning that nothing you do makes any difference to the outcomes you experience —> You give up trying But: We encounter many uncontrollable situations in everyday life without becoming depressed —> Other factors need to be considered Clinically depressed people have exaggerated sense of personal responsibility for negative outcomes Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale (1978) “Learned helplessness in humans”: Helplessness only makes people feel chronically depressed when they attribute it (their inability to affect a positive outcome = helplessness) to: > permanent (vs. temporary) and > pervasive (durchdringend, allumfassend) (vs. limited, restricted) aspects… > …of their own character (internal vs. external) Example: A woman is romantically interested in a certain man, but he has rejected her In our example: The least threatening to self(-esteem) would be that the rejection is caused by something external, unstable, and specific People who attribute uncontrollable events to internal, stable, and global causes have greater risk of developing chronic depression Research confirms that this is indeed a casual factor: Negative thinking style —> Subsequent depressive episodes 4.3 Some more biases 4.3.1 The opposite pattern: Self-serving attributional biases Self-serving biases are shown when the person has a strong desire to maintain self- esteem Different types of self-serving biases exist: > Self-enhancing bias: Success is attributed to internal factors (e.g. one’s own innate ability) > Self-protective bias: Failure is attributes to external factors (e.g. distraction) Self-serving biases are weaker for depressed than non-depressed persons 4.3.2 The Power of the situation vs. dispositional attributions Actor-observer difference (also called actor-observer bias): People generally tend to explain their own behavior in situational terms, but the behavior of others in more dispositional/trait terms Example: You are at a party, acting lively > You (=the actor) know that you aren’t always so extraverted. Therefore, you might infer/conclude that you aren’t consistently a lively person; this behavior has to do with the situation (party) > The observer might only see you in a restricted range of situations and therefore infer/conclude that your acting lively reflects your internal disposition A second explanation for the actor-observer difference: > When we observe another person’s behavior, we concentrate on the person rather than the situation. This is because the person is the most salient (ins Auge springend) feature of the situation > When we ourselves are behaving in a certain situation, our attention tends to be focused outwards Cultural difference: The described actor-observer difference is typical for members of individualistic cultures (e.g. USA, northern European countries). They tend to underestimate the impact of situational factors on behavior. Members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to attribute behavior of the “actor” to situational factors. 4.3.3 Fundamental attribution error (AFE) in attribution theory, the tendency to overestimate the degree to which an individual’s behavior is determined by their abiding personal characteristics, attitudes, or beliefs and, correspondingly, to minimize the influence of the surrounding situation in that behavior (e.g., financial or social pressure). There is evidence that this tendency is more common in some societies than in others. Also called correspondence bias; over attribution bias. Der Fundamentale Attributionsfehler ist die Tendenz, das Verhalten einer Person eher auf ihre Persönlichkeit oder Einstellungen zurückzuführen und den Einfluss der Situation zu unterschätzen. Zum Beispiel wird jemand, der zu spät kommt, oft als unzuverlässig wahrgenommen, ohne mögliche äußere Gründe (z. B. Verkehr) zu beachten. Dieser Denkfehler tritt häufiger in individualistischen Kulturen (wie westlichen Gesellschaften) auf, wo individuelle Eigenschaften stärker betont werden. 4.4 Attribution and growth mindset The Growth Mindset: Dweck (2006): “Mindset: The new psychology of success” Attributions about success and failure make a real difference to our expectations and motivation A growth mindset sees abilities and skills as variable, controllable, and malleable (beeinflussbar) The opposite is a “fixed mindset” Attributing success to internal, stable, and uncontrollable factors is part of a fixed mindset and has negative consequences for life-long development Importance of feedback: People are encouraged to extend themselves and develop their talents and strengths when they are: > praised in a specific way: focus on the effort > also criticized in a specific way: focus on steps to further improvement 5. Attitudes and behavior 5.1 Attitudes What is an attitude? = „an overall evaluation of an object that is based on cognitive, affective and behavioral information“ Attitudes are relatively stable „object“ = can basically be any „thing“, concept, person, situation,… Multicomponent model of attitudes (Zanna & Rempel, 1988): Cognitive component Affective component Behavioral component Cognitive component of attitudes: Beliefs, thoughts and attributes associated with an attitude object. What were your thoughts about the COVID-19 Sexample pandemic in 2020? What do you think about the pandemic and about COVID-19 today? How can you explain any difference? Affective component of attitudes: Feelings or emotions associated with an attitude object. How did you feel about the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020? What is your emotional response to the pandemic today? To COVID-19? How can you explain the difference? Behavioral component of attitudes: Past, present and (anticipated) future behaviors associated with an attitude object. What behaviors did the pandemic cause you to show? = What did you do? Is there any difference to the way you are responding to the situation today? How can you explain any difference? Multi- or 3-component model of attitudes: The three components can be balanced. —> Consistent or homogeneous attitudes They can contradict each other —> Inconsistent or ambivalent attitudes Inconsistent attitudes occur very often! They are less stable —> easier to influence Multicomponent model of attitudes (Zanna & Rempel, 1988): „a model of attitudes that conceptualizes attitudes as summary evaluations that have cognitive, affective and behavioral antecedents“ Inconsistencies Inconsistencies between the components —> Example: You know that smoking is unhealthy (cognitive), but you smoke anyway (behavioral) Inconsistencies within the components —> Example: You know that producing and consuming new clothing is harmful to the environment. You also know that a small boutique in your town is dependent on the sales, otherwise it risks going out of business. Both aspects are in the realm of cognitive. Functions of attitudes (Why do we have attitudes?) Object-appraisal function: when attitudes help serve as an energy-saving device (being quick) —> Example: An individual‘s attitude towards healthy eating helps them organize and guide their dietary choices Utilitarian function: when attitudes help us maximize rewards and minimize costs/ discomfort —> Example: A person likes ice cream because it tastes good = reward; it also causes indigestion = cost/something unpleasant => Choice of lactose-free ice cream = positive attitude to this type of product Social adjustment function: when attitudes help us identify with liked others —> Example: A person develops a positive attitude towards a political viewpoint because it aligns with the views of their friends and family Ego-defensive function: when attitudes help to protect our self-esteem —> Example: An individual insecure about their intellectual abilities develops a negative attitude towards academic institutions, viewing them as elitist Value-expressive function: when attitudes help express our values (comes from outside of you) —> Example: An individual who values environmental sustainability expresses a positive attitude toward recycling 5.2 Explicit and implicit attitudes Explicit attitude: Implicit attitude: conscious level unconscious level deliberately formed involuntarily formed easy to self-report unknown to us —> Implicit attitudes can contradict explicit attitudes Implicit bias: consciously rejects stereotypes holds negative associations unconsciously -> Bias impacts behavior -> Most people have implicit biases —> Bias can be reduced!: move from guilt and move to Action (unconscious and formed based on things we have been exposed to in the world around us) Learn about bias Learn about other people Form deep relationships with those who are different from you 5.3 Attitudes and behavior Classic study: Traveling with a Chinese couple - in the 1930s LaPiere (1934) When actually on the road in the USA —> 199 (of 200) hotels rented a room to the Chinese couple. When the same hotels were asked to reserve a room for a Chinese couple —> 92% refused Can attitudes predict behavior? Attitudes and behavior are correlated, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that attitudes predict behavior casually - it can also be the other way around! attitude behavior Behavior is also hard to predict based on attitudes because components of an attitude are often contradictory. Attitudes and behavior often occur or are shown subconsciously/without conscious control (implicit attitudes). Attitudes can predict behavior when there is correspondence between attitudinal and behavioral measures —> Example: General questions about attitudes toward birth control do not predict the actual use of birth-control pills in the following 2 years, but specific questions („Do you plan to take the pill within the next 2 years?“) fair better It depends on the domain of behavior —> Example: Low correlation between individuals attitudes towards donating blood and actually doing so It depends on person variables —> Example: Researchers typically use students as participants in their studies. However, students show lower attitude-behavior relations compared to non-students (which are often older and could have more crystallized attitudes) Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) Theory of planned behavior - definition The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) deals with the relationship between attitude and behavior. According to the theory, behavior is best predicted by a concrete behavioral intention. In turn, the best predictors of this behavioral intention are: one‘s own attitude toward the behavior, the social norm, and perceived behavioral control. Research confirms that forming an „implementation intention“ increases likelihood of actually performing a desired behavior. 6. Aggression 6.1 Workplace bullying Bullying/Mobbing = aggressive behavior directed at victims who cannot defend themselves (Commonly in schools and at the workplace) Workplace bullying = make another person feel miserable at work over longer periods of time; target can’t defend themselves due to an imbalance of power Categories of workplace bullying 5 categories (Leymann) —> they include attacks/assaults and harmful effects on the victims: · 1. possibilities to communicate adequately/Attacks on the possibilities to express oneself (e.g. you are silenced, supervisor restricts opportunities to express oneself; one is constantly interrupted; yelling or loud scolding; constant criticism of personal life; telephone terror; verbal/written threats;…) 2. possibilities to maintain social contacts (e.g. you are isolated; one no longer speaks to the person concerned; colleagues refuse to be spoken to; transfer to a room far away from colleagues; work colleagues are forbidden to speak to the affected person; the person is treated „like air“; ignored) 3. possibilities to maintain their personal reputation (e.g. gossiping about you; spreading rumors; one makes someone ridiculous; one makes fun of privat life/nationality; one questions the decisions of the person concerned;…) 4. occupational situation (e.g. you’re given meaningless work tasks; „offending“ tasks; he is constantly given new tasks; tasks far below his actual ability;…) 5. physical health (e.g. you’re given dangerous work tasks; forcing to do work that is harmful to health; threats of physical violence; physical abuse; one causes costs to the victim in order to harm him/her; sexual assault;…) Cyberbullying in the workplace Cyberbullying: verbally threatening or harassing behavior through electronic technology (f.e. cell phones, email, text messaging) Often occurs under the cloak of anonymity Category is highly relevant Effects of workplace bullying - victim Health-related problems (44% of mobbing victims) —> f.e. Depression, Cardiovascular illnesses, range of unspecific symptoms like self-doubt, feelings of powerlessness and guilt, irritability, deficits in concentration, headache, etc. Inability to continue working due to insecurity and negative emotions Negative effects on private life (familial crises, sexual problems, separation/divorces) Higher risk of suicide Bullying and mental disorders Possible relation between mental disorders and mobbing = Interdependence Effects of workplace bullying - for the business/company and for society at large: Negative effects on the company’s culture and competitiveness Economically, the costs for each case of workplace bullying are estimated at €30.000 for the company/employer. —> due to more days missing work, high fluctuation, loss of quality and reduced productivity German national economy damage = € 15 billion (Milliarden) per year due to: Sick leave Physicians fees Psychotherapy Clinic stays/hospitalization Early retirement from the workforce Unemployment Loss of productivity both from mobbing targets and bullies 6.2 What is Aggression? Definitions of aggression: In general = intentional infliction (=Zufügen) of harm or pain on another person Instrumental aggression = use of aggressive behavior to achieve another goal Hostile aggression = serves solely to harm another person Both forms: can be expressed verbally or physically or directly or indirectly —> Any form of behavior intended to harm or injure another living being, who is motivated to avoid such treatment Characteristics of aggression characterized by its underlying motivation (to harm), not by its consequences. —> Example: A shot fired from a firearm that misses its target is nonetheless an aggressive act. A hole drilled in a tooth by a dentist is not intended as harm and its therefore not an aggressive behavior perpetrator must have the understanding that the behavior in question has the potential to harm —> Harm or injury to others may be due to carelessness or incompetence - this is not aggressive behavior Defining aggression as behavior that the target wants to avoid excludes acts or behaviors performed by the target‘s request, such as painful medical procedures or sadomasochistic sexual practices Aggression and related terms Violence: Behaviors carried out with intention to cause serious harm that involve the use or threat of physical force Intimate partner violence: Physical or sexual violence in the context of an intimate relationship Terrorism: Politically motivated violence, intended to spread fear and terror among members of a society in order to influence the decision-making or behavior of political agents Bullying/Mobbing: Aggressive behavior directed toward targets who cannot defend themselves Types/subcategories of aggression Physical aggression: Behavior intended to cause physical harm to another person Verbal aggression: Use of verbal means, such as insults, to cause harm Direct aggression: is directed immediately at the target (such as hitting or shouting abuse) Indirect aggression: is delivered behind the person‘s back by damaging their social relationships (e.g. through spreading rumors) Relational aggression: Behaviors carried out that is intended to harm the target person through damaging their social relationships Instrumental aggression: Aggressive behavior performed to reach a certain goal, as a means to an end Hostile aggression (feindselige Aggression): Aggressive behavior motivated by the desire to express anger and hostile feelings Proactive aggression: Aggressive behavior shown without a prior provocation Reactive aggression: is shown in response to a provocation Sexual aggression: Making someone engage in sexual activities against their will through a range of coercive strategies (threat, physical force, exploitation,…) 6.3 Theories of aggression —> Theories of aggression explore different biopsychosocial factors Frustration-aggression hypothesis Original formulation (Dollard et al., 1939): the experience of frustration leads to aggressive behavior performed Later formulation (Berkowitz, 1989): frustration seen in the context of negative feelings, which in turn trigger aggression cognitive-neoassociationist model: frustration leads to aggressive behavior when negative feelings are associated with it —> this model explains aggressive behavior as the result of negative affect that is subjected to cognitive processing and activates a network of aggression-related thoughts and feelings Role of „frustration“ Model assumes that frustration (=a blockage of a goal-directed activity) increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior Aggression = not the only possible answer to frustration - this depends on additional variables in the individual and the situation Example of causes of frustration: > Perceived unfairness and/or interpersonal rejection > Social isolation presents a major risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior Frustration and displaced aggression displaced aggression: when aggression cannot be shown directly due to fear of punishment or unavailability of the frustrator, the impulse is often directed at a third person (or an object) who is less threatening and just happens to be there Instrumental function of displaced aggression: It can restore a sense of competence after a goal-directed behavior has been blocked Displaced aggression may be reduced if the person can manage to restore competence and self-efficacy by other, non-aggressive behaviors Frustration-aggression hypothesis and weapons effect weapons effect is the finding that persons who were previously frustrated show more aggressive behavior in the presence of weapons than in the presence of neutral objects The weapons effect is also found among unprovoked study participants Weapons effect Weapons Effect: Weapons act as situational aggressive cues. Aggressive Cognitions: Weapons increase the accessibility of aggressive thoughts (priming). Priming Effect: Prior exposure to a stimulus influences later behavior or interpretation of similar stimuli. —> Example: Weapons increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Quote by Berkowitz (1968): "The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger." The general aggression model - GAM (Anderson & Dill, 2000) = integrative theoretical framework that explains how personal and situational input variables lead to aggressive behavior via cognitive appraisal, negative affect and psychological arousal Assumes two types of input variables: dispositional/ personal variables and situational factors and how they combine together to explain the outcome of aggressive behavior as 6.3.1 Stanford prison experiment (SPE), Zimbardo 1969 Power of the situation Study design created two groups: prison guards and prisoner Observed aggression: intergroup aggression Study participants were randomly assigned to the roles and asked to enact these roles Z. aborted the experiment after five days (statt 2 Wochen), as the „guards“ behaved increasingly cruelly and some of the „prisoners“ developed severe trauma symptoms Why the massive intergroup aggression? experiment investigates the phenomenon of „deindividuation“ (= a state in which persons lose their sense of an individual identity and are more likely to behave in an extreme manner, often antisocially and violating norms) Deindividuation is promoted by anonymity, diffusion of responsibility and large group size (Zimbardo, 1969), as well as by a shifting of one’s attention away from oneself and instead onto group norms (Diener, 1980) —> achieved by wearing uniforms, robbing people of their own clothing and personal style, addressing them as numbers instead of with their names, etc. intergroup aggression shown in the experiment can also be interpreted as the result of the psychological need to establish and maintain a positive identity Todays perspective SPE also has been criticized (f.e. for ethical reasons) Latest criticism: it was massively biased and flawed, and therefore not valid (Le Texier, 2019) Among the problems: Biased and incomplete data collection and inaccurate reporting Design based on a prison experiment previously devised by Z.‘s students Guards received precise instructions on how to behave, but where not told that they were subjects 6.4 Personal an situational variables affecting aggressive behavior Personal factors Individual differences in aggressive behavior Trait aggressiveness - (Highly) Stable difference between individuals in the likelihood and intensity of aggressive behavior —> Measurement: Aggression Questionnaire AQ AQ includes: Physical aggression, Verbal aggression, Anger, Hostility Hostile attribution bias - Tendency to attribute hostile intentions to a person who has caused damage when it is unclear whether this was accidental or intentional Gender difference - Males tend to show more aggressive behavior ->But: mixed evidence Situational factors/influences Alcohol - Even moderate amounts lead to aggressive behavior „Alcohol myopia“: alcohol has an indirect effect on aggression by reducing the attentional capacity of a person —> situational cues can no longer be comprehensively appraised High temperature - aggression increases with higher temperatures Violent media contents - exposure to violent media contents makes media users more aggressive (films, video games, violent lyrics in music) Easy access to firearms - Having guns at hands increases risk that intentions to kill will result in death or severe injury. Also: Weapons effect - aggressive priming Media violence exposure and aggression - no „catharsis effect“! 6.5 Strategies to prevent aggression Psychological prevention and intervention not good idea: Catharsis (release of aggressive tension through symbolic engagement in aggressive behavior - such as playing violent video games) Geht so: Punishment (may be effective but carries a problematic message) Best: De-escalation - introducing responses incompatible with aggression, such as prosocial behavior (e.g. in prosocial video games), using „pleasant“ music, sitting in a relaxed position —> comfort seems to be an important factor 7. Changing attitudes and behavior 7.1 Attitudes Siehe 5. —> Seite 22 bis 25 7.2 Intro: Changing attitudes Can they be changed? Yes! —> cognitive dissonance Maybe. —> Reactance theory Yes! —> All three components of attitudes need to be targeted: affective, cognitive, behavioral 7.3 Cognitive dissonance theory Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) Cognitive dissonance: An averse motivational state that occurs as the result of contradictory cognitions or an inconsistency between cognitions and behaviors When the behavior shown contradicts or threatens one’s beliefs, this causes cognitive = > dissonance People can change their attitudes in order to be consistent with behaviors that they have performed When behavior and the cognitive and affective components of attitudes are aligned (= consonant), this is of course unnecessary —> Examples of cognitive dissonance: health behavior: smoker knows smoking is bad but continues diet and lifestyle: A person committed to healthy eating eats junk food, justifying it with, „I’ve been eating healthy all week; I deserve a treat.“ Environmental Awareness: Someone concerned about climate change drives a gas-guzzling car, justifying it by claiming they recycle or use energy- efficient appliances Not becoming vegetarian and justifying it by saying „Das bringt nichts wenn ich vegetarische esse weil die Tiere sterben ja sowieso.“ Interpersonal relationships: Staying in a toxic relationship despite knowing it‘s unhealthy, rationalizing with, „They will change eventually.“ Cognitive dissonance: People generally feel the need to perceive their life and situations in a consonant, non- contradictory way Cognitive dissonance = highly unpleasant feeling which people want to avoid and can be downright threatening to self-concept and self-esteem When a person is confronted with information that contradicts or threatens her/his positive view of self, the motivation is strong to try to reestablish a sense of adequacy or decency Resulting behavior or strategies can be conceived as „rationalization“: A defense strategy to restore this basic balance and satisfaction with the self in the sense of finding justification or excuses Strategies to reduce cognitive dissonance According to Frey/Gaska (2009), there are five different ways to reduce dissonance: 1. You can add constant cognitions (I.e. thoughts and arguments that are in alignment with the shown behavior) 2. You can subtract or avoid dissonant cognitions or information (Meidung von bestimmten Informationen) 3. You can substitute dissonant cognitions with consonant cognitions (emphasizing positive areas in life that unrelated to the dissonance) - Selbstversicherung 4. You can increase or elevate the importance of consonant cognitions 5. You can reduce or minimize the importance of dissonant cognitions/information - Trivialisierung —> Example: Sunbathing 1. „I want to get a nice tan“ 2. Ignoring the latest research on long-term skin damage caused by UV exposition „What research?“ 3. „Unprotected sun exposure may be harmful, but otherwise I live a very health- conscious life: I do a lot of sports and eat healthy!“ 4. „Long exposure to the sun is unhealthy, but it’s important to me that I can relax!“ 5. „I don’t believe the results of medical research“ 7.3.1 Forced compliance paradigm: The 20 $ experiment Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) 7.3.2 Free choice paradigm (Brehm, 1956) Choosing between two cars Before choosing: Greater uncertainty about both options = higher dissonance After choosing: Less discrepancy, since a decision once made is hard to reverse. The chosen alternative is rated more positively than the rejected options. This is called „spreading apart of alternatives“. —> 7.3.1 & 7.3.2 combined with the example of COVID-19 - To vaccinate or not? Free choice paradigm: As long as there are no legal sanctions for being vaccinated (or not), the decision to get vaccinated can be considered a free choice. Once decided on, the „spreading apart of alternatives“ should occur, with finding arguments to justify one’s decision. (Besides: As long as a person is healthy/not infected, the decision not to get the vaccination can be revised any time). Forced compliance paradigm: When legal sanctions apply to vaccination status, the incentives must be severe enough to persuade people to get vaccinated. Former vaccination skeptics therefore might NOT experience dissonance with the enforced vaccination, since the price they pay is high enough to justify their behavior and also a change in their attitude towards vaccination. However: Legal sanctions or positive incentives can have paradox effects on attitudes = psychological reactance. 7.4 Reactance theory Psychological reactance theory Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) Psychological reactance: a motivational state characterized by distress, anxiety, resistance - and the desire to restore freedom. This state occurs in response to a perceived threat to or loss of behavioral freedom Central assumption of reactance theory: People have a desire to feel in control of their lives and they resist having their freedom restricted Attempts to influence them can therefore be perceived as (intentional) restriction of their freedom of choice important behavior. —> Reactance is an averse state that is assumed to motivate the individual to re-establish the restricted freedom Reactance theory Reactance can be shown both in the case of legal sanctions (= „punishment“ in the terminology of operant conditioning) and when using positive incentives (= „reinforcement“ in operant conditioning) Reactance can occur in form of resistance, listlessness or diminished interest when a behavior that was originally shown without being reinforced from without (= intrinsically motivated) is externally rewarded (= extrinsic motivation) Problem with strategies that try to influence behavior via negative sanctions or incentives: They can only be used for behavior that can be monitored. Also: Do cognitive and affective components of attitudes change as well? —> Use of persuasion is a better strategy (or can be used to flank other measures). Reactance theory, learning and leading: Carl Roger’s formulated ten principles of learning. One of them is important in the context of reactance theory = „Learning which involves a change in self organization - in the perception of oneself - is threatening and tends to be resisted.“ 7.5 Persuasion (and advertising) Cognitive response model of persuasion (Greenwald, 1968, Petty et al., 1981) Central assumption: Attitude change is brought about by the thoughts/cognitive responses which people generate as they receive and reflect upon persuasive communications It’s not simply the reception of the arguments but the cognitive processing that counts: > The person generates her/his own thoughts for or against the arguments presented in the communication > The person might consider thoughts that are not contained in the persuasive message, but e.g. that she/he heard about in the radio previously Message favorable thoughts unfavorable thoughts attitude change no or negative change Thoughts are responses to persuasive arguments and therefore likely to be influenced by the quality of these arguments Petty at el. (1976): Experiment on persuasion of students to support a raise of tuition fees with strong vs. weak arguments > Strong argument: Improvement in the teaching facility through increase of the salaries for teachers > Weak argument: Better lighting was needed in classrooms to reduce students‘ headaches Strong arguments are coherent and make sense. They lead to cognitive responses that are predominantly favorable to the position argued. Weak arguments lead to unfavorable responses Dual-process theory of persuasion - Two models Elaboration-Likelihood-Model Heuristic-Systematic Model of Persuasion ELM HSM Petty & Cacioppo (1986) Chaiken et al. (1989) Dual-process models = an extension of the cognitive response model of persuasion because they not only consider the importance of argument-relevant thinking, but also describe how people sometimes take shortcuts and make decisions without the lengthy scrutinizing of arguments. These models specify the conditions in which people will tend to one or the other process ELM 2 routes to influence attitudes: 1. Central route requiring high motivation and ability to process information 2. Peripheral route (in the case of low motivation and/or processing abilities) HSM Systemic route (corresponds to central route in ELM) Heuristic route (corresponds to peripheral route) (Heuristics = efficient rules, learned or inculcated by evolutionary processes, that have been proposed to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information) = = * Some concepts in dual-process theory of persuasion „Elaboration“ = the extent of which a person thinks about the arguments contained in a persuasive message „Likelihood“ = the probability that the person will critically evaluate the arguments; depends on the person‘s processing motivation and processing ability „Processing motivation“ = determined by situational factors like personal relevance of the attitude object/issue and individual differences „Processing ability“ = determined by factors like time, distraction or reputation of the persuasive message —> Attitudes formed by non-systematic processing tend to be relatively weak —> According to the ELM, people will only choose the central route of systematic information processing if they are both motivated and able to do so 8. Social influence 8.1 Milgram‘s obedience paradigm = demonstrated how individuals often comply with authority, even when it conflicts with their morals Participants were instructed to administer increasing electric shocks to a "learner" for mistakes, revealing a strong tendency to obey authority figures despite causing apparent harm Original study „Behavioral study of obedience“ published 1963 Intention: To understand the influence and effect of authority on obedient behavior More than 60% participants —> willing to administer the maximum shock of 450 volts a truly shocking and unexpected result 8.1.1 Why do we obey? · Milgram argues: Sociocultural perspective on authority: We are taught to obey authorities: parents, teachers, police officers Obedience more likely to be rewarded than disobedience, resistance or rebellion We expect authority figures to be legitimate and trustworthy Milgram argues: Sociocultural perspective on authority: We are taught to obey authorities: parents, teachers, police officers Obedience more likely to be rewarded than disobedience, resistance or rebellion We expect authority figures to be legitimate and trustworthy Binding factors: = create psychological barriers to disobedience: Milgram describes this as “entrapment“ (Wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen). The 150-volt level seemed to be a critical decision point at which the participants felt that the “learner’s“ right to end the experiment should override their obedience to the experimenter Participants entered the experiment voluntarily and felt a sense of obligation Responsibility: (“Agentic shift“) Subordinates in a hierarchical system don’t accept personal responsibility for their own actions. They allocate responsibility to the person with higher status or authority instead they (can) switch off their own conscience Since they’re merely following orders, they view themselves as agents for carrying out the wishes of another person who is entitled or legitimized Situational factors: General principle: Some situations are so „strong“ that they dominate individual differences in personality and make us behave Proximity/closeness, e.g. visual contact between teacher and student Place/venue of action Symbols of authority of the experimenter The participants were alone in the unfamiliar situation - no possibility to discuss the ambiguities with others Conflicting demands: To support scientific progress vs. to avoid harming others —> Variations in Milgram‘s experiment: Situational determinants of obedience in this and later studies: Physical proximity (closeness) between the „teacher“ and the „learner“ in the experiment voluntarily —> The less proximity, the more obedience Physical proximity between the „experimenter“ and the „teacher“ —> The less proximity, the less obedience The authority of the „experimenter“, underscored by the surroundings in which the experiment was carried out (prestigious uni vs. room in a run-down hotel) —> Drop in maximum obedience, but still 48% The behavior of other peers (confederates, unbeknownst to the naïve participants) —> Obedience depended on whether the peers supported obedience or disobedience IMPORTANT: Acknowledging the power of the situation does NOT excuse people for showing immoral or evil behavior Alternative/Further research on authority obedience: Other studies employed the obedience paradigm… …with puppies (not real shocks) …in interrupting job interviews …in carrying out physically strenuous tasks to comply with orders from an authority More recent development: obedience paradigm in immersive virtual environments Obedience in immersive virtual environments Application of the obedience paradigm in immersive virtual environments: Although participants know that the “learners“ aren’t real, they behave similarly to the „teachers“ in Milgram‘s experiments (Slater et al., 2006) Ethical issues Milgram was severely criticized for inducing suffering, stress, and anxiety in his participants Apparently, counter to his claims, many of Milgram’s, participants weren’t immediately debriefed and suffered for weeks, assuming that they’d administered real shocks Even after debriefing, many reported high levels of anxiety and stress after the study since they believed that they were really capable of such destructive obedience Ethical standards and regulations in research were established, also as a reaction to these criticisms 8.2 Techniques to induce compliance Compliance (=Regelbefolgung, Einhaltung, Zustimmung, Folgsamkeit): 1. Submission to the demands, wishes, or suggestions of others. See also conformity 2. A change in a person’s behavior in response to a direct request. A variety of techniques have been developed to enhance compliance with requests. Although some techniques may enhance compliance by producing attitude change, behavioral change is the primary goal of these techniques Door-in-the-face technique Also called „reciprocal concessions“ procedure Requester begins with an extreme request —> usually refused —> Requester retreats to a more moderate request (Example: Can you donate €50 -> No -> Ok, how about €10?) Technique works effectively in commercial settings and is widely used for fundraising Why does it work? > When a requester makes a concession (=backs down), it’s normative for the consumer to reciprocate > When the consumer makes a concession, she/he has re-established equality (=Gerechtigkeit) with the salesperson That’s-not-all technique 1. Initial Large Request: Present a substantial or challenging request. 2. Modified Target Request: Before the person can respond, reduce the request to a smaller, more reasonable one or add a benefit. Effect: Compliance increases compared to presenting the smaller request alone. Reason: The initial request makes the smaller request seem more reasonable or appealing in comparison. Disrupt then reframe technique 1. Odd Request: Present an unusual or confusing statement (e.g., "300 pennies"). 2. Reframed Request: Clarify or reframe it in simpler, more appealing terms (e.g., "That’s $3. It’s a bargain"). Effect: Nearly doubles compliance compared to a straightforward pitch. Reason: The initial confusion disrupts usual resistance, making the reframe more persuasive. Foot-in-the-door technique Requester begins with a small request or favor —> usually granted —> Requester follows up with a larger, related favor (Example: Respondents who agree to wear a small lapel pin promoting a local charity are more likely to give money to that charity when asked at a later point in time) Why does it work? > The success of the foot-in-the-door technique relies on the general idea of consistency. The person wearing the pin will wish to appear and behave consistently when contacted later > See self-perception theory (Bem, 1972): Respondents/customers infer from their own behavior(wearing the pin and thus saying something positive about the charity) that they obviously support charity (and so they donate some money) Lowballing technique Compliance to an initial attempt is followed by a more costly and less beneficial version of the same request Example: A car-dealer = requester offers a customer a low price for a certain model —> Customer agrees —> Car-dealer goes back on the deal and gives some reason why the car is no longer available at the agreed price —> Usually, customer pays up Why does it work? > Customer = target feels an unfulfilled obligation to the requester (despite being duped!) > Target was already psychologically committed to the purchase, so proceeds anyway > Works best when used by a single requester and when the target freely makes the initial commitment 8.3 Social influence and norms Social influence: = the effect of a person or a group on the feelings, thoughts and behavior of another person (or group of people) (Fischer et al., 2018) = The change of attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values and behavior as a result of being exposed to other person‘s attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values and behavior (Hewstone/Martin, 2020) Social norms, values and sanctions Social norms are belief systems about how (not) to behave. They guide behavior and reflect group members‘ shared expectations about typical or desirable activities Norms reflected values (Example: The norm „waiting your turn“ and standing in line is an (often) unwritten rule. Some of the values reflected in this norm are politeness and fairness.) Value —> Norm The fulfillment of or complying with norms can be sanctioned positively (= rewarded or reinforced) when norms are followed. Example: You offer your seat on the bus to an elderly person —> She/he thanks you Violating norms often leads to negative responses or sanctions. These can be mild (e.g. raised eyebrows) to severe (e.g. physical punishment, even death penalty) Why norms? Descriptive norms = how others will act in similar situations (e.g. what most people eat for breakfast in England) Injunctive norms = what behavior should be performed (e.g. what healthy food options you should be choosing) Norms make our lives simpler and more predictable Norms can complicate things, especially when situations are ambiguous and multiple (contradictory) social norms may apply. In such cases, people feel the need to turn to others as sources of information to find out how they should behave How are norms transmitted? Three routes: Deliberate instruction, demonstrations, rituals (e.g. we’re taught how to behave in places of worship) nonverbal behavior/reactions and implicit activation of normative standards (e.g. visiting a church on holiday, you realize from people‘s frowns that your clothing isn’t adequate and that you should cover up) inferring the norms from the behavior of others around us (e.g. visiting a mosque you notice that everyone else has removed their shoes, so you remove yours) Normative or informational social influence Normative influence: Influence based on conforming to the expectations of others: people avoid behaving in ways that will lead to disapproval or social punishment. Main goal: Satisfactory relationships with others Informational influence: Influence based in accepting the information obtained from others as evidence about reality Main goal: To reduce uncertainty Conformity The adjustment of one’s opinions, judgments, or actions so that they become more consistent with (a) the opinions, judgements, or actions of other people or (b) the normative standards of a social group or situation. Conformity includes temporary outward acquiescence (compliance) as well as more enduring private acceptance (conversion). Compare anticonformity; nonconformity. See also majority influence; peer pressure 8.4 Studies on social influence through peers 9. Prosocial behavior 9.1 The Values in Theme-Centered Interaction: Axioms The “TCI-house” Values and understanding of humanity The existential-anthropological axiom Human beings are psychobiological entities and a part of the universe They’re equally autonomous and interdependent The autonomy of the individual is all the much larger, the greater they’re aware of their independence with all and everything The ethical axiom Respect is due all living things and their development Respect for development is what stands behind value-based decisions What is humane is valuable, what is inhumane is threatening The pragmatic-political axiom Free will occurs within certain internal and external limitations, though these limitations may be extended We judge freedom as given when we are healthy, intelligent, materially secure, and mentally mature; better than being sick, hampered or poor and suffering from violence or a lack of maturity Being aware of our universal interdependence is the basis of all humane responsibility 9.2 Prosocial behavior and related concepts Prosocial behavior: Diverse behaviors e.g. cooperation, services, helping behavior Helping behavior: Intention to improve situation of another person on need of help. Not professionally motivated. Selfish or selfless motivations Altruism: Selfless behavior intended to benefit others without expectation of reciprocity Prosocial behavior = a collective term for all forms of interpersonal support that are profitable or beneficial for others; encompasses diverse behaviors such as cooperation, helping behavior, services, sharing, donating, etc. (= Sammelbegriff für alle Formen zwischenmenschlicher Unterstützung, die gewinnbringend bwz. vorteilhaft für anderes sind; umfasst diverse Verhaltensweisen wie Kooperation, Hilfeverhalten, Dienstleistungen, Teilen, Spenden etc.) —> refers to behavior as beneficial to other people; excludes behavior that’s motivated by professional obligation and may be driven by more selfish (egoistic) and/or selfless (altruistic) motivations Helping behavior = refers to all behaviors that a person engages in with the intention of improving the well- being of another person (in need of help); behavior can be based on different motives, but it isn’t professionally motivated Helping behavior: Actions that are intended to provide some benefit to or improve the well-being of others Altruism = selfless and altruistic (=uneigennützig) behavior, which can be associated with more disadvantages than advantages; can also be regarded as the opposite of selfish behavior —> refers to behavior carried out to benefit others without anticipation of external rewards; it’s driven by exclusively empathic motivation Some forms of prosocial behavior: Cooperation: People Act together and each person may benefit Courageous resistance (Zivilcourage): Selfless, deliberate behavior in which there is risk to the helper Volunteering: Any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or organization Emergency intervention: Taking action in response to an urgent, unpredictable, risky situation Bystander intervention: Helping in an emergency that one observes 9.3 Situational and personality factors of prosocial behavior Bystander decision model of bystander intervention Latané & Darley, 1970 Auf Deutsch siehe Präsentation „Prosocial_behavior“ Folie 19 bystander responds by considering costs and rewards of helping or not helping —> Piliavin, Rodin & Piliabin, 1969 Victim and bystander characteristics influencing helping behavior Victim characteristics: Bystander characteristics: Ingroup or outgroup member? Is there a „helping norm“ in the Is the victim a personal bystander‘s ingroup? acquaintance? What is the psychological Family member/relative? relationship between the bystanders Gender? (among other questions: Ingroup or Causal attribution of the emergency outgroup members)? situation/need for help (victim‘s own Prosocial personality? Altruism? fault vs. not under her/his control)? Different motivations for helping The egoist: „Yuck! He’s hideous and makes me feel bad. I should help him to make me feel better.“ —> Helping in order to relieve one‘s own distress The Altruist: „Poor man, he must feel awful. I’ve got to help him so that he feels better.“ —> Helping to benefits others without expectation of personal benefits Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson et al., 1991): Central statement states that people only act altruistically if they feel empathy in a certain situation (high empathy, low cost) If people help without feeling empathy, other factors are decisive, such as the expectation of negative consequences (low empathy, high cost); this isn’t altruism Batson et al. (1981): The „Elaine“ study Goal: to test if empathy leads to altruistic (helping others) or egoistic (self-serving) motivation Method: Participants could help „Elaine“ (receiving electric shocks) by taking her place —> Variables: Empathy (low vs. high) and Ease of Escape (easy vs. difficult) Result: > High empathy: Helped regardless of escape ease —> Altruistic motivation > Low empathy: Helped more when escape was difficult —> Egoistic motivation Conclusion: Empathy fosters altruistic behavior, challenging purely egoistic theories Motivation and possibility of escape Prosocial personality = an enduring tendency to think about the rights and welfare of others, to feel concern and empathy, and to act in a way that benefits them Study of prosocial personality emerged rather through looking at long-term helping (as a volunteerism) than helping in emergency situations Assessing the prosocial personality Prosocial Personality Battery PSB (Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger & Freifeld, 1995): 2 versions of the PSB (long form with 56 items, short form with 30 items) 2 factors: „Other-oriented empathy“ and „Helpfulness“ People feel concern and People,are likely to report a responsibility for welfare history of helpful activities of others Does pure altruism exist? In both altruism and prosocial personality the question of motivation arises Perhaps altruistic people don’t expect direct reciprocity, but they might hope to feel good emotions - receive gratitude - personal salvation („going to heaven“) According to the „negative-state-relief model“ (Cialdini et al., 1987), people have an innate urge or drive to reduce their own negative moods. Helping behavior can elevate mood —> In this case, people also help for egoistic rather than altruistic reasons 9.4 Empathy, compassion and prosocial modeling 9.4.1 Empathy Ability to emphasize with, understand and comprehend the emotional and mental state of another person. Cognitive Emotional Motor-mimic Empathy = ability to empathize with the emotional and mental state of another person, or to understand and comprehend it —> At the same time: there’s a boundary to the other person (I.e., it’s possible to distinguish between one’s own person and the other person) different components: distinction made between cognitive, emotional and motor (mimic) empathy Empathy: The experience of understanding or sharing the emotional and mental of another person understanding a person from his/her frame of reference rather than one’s own, or vicariously experiencing that person‘s feelings, perceptions, and thoughts Empathy doesn’t (of itself) entail motivation to be of assistance, although it may turn into sympathy or personal distress, which may result in action In psychotherapy: therapist empathy for the client can be a path to comprehension of the client’s cognitions, affects, motivations, or behaviors Empathic concern: An emotional state consisting of emotions such as compassion, warmth and concern for another person 9.4.2 Daniel Goleman on helping and compassion Compassion: A strong feeling of sympathy with another person’s feelings of sorrow of distress, usually involving a desire to help or comfort that person (adj.: compassionate) In the video "Why Aren't We All Good Samaritans?" by Daniel Goleman, he explores the psychological factors that influence whether individuals choose to help others in need. Goleman discusses the concept of "compassionate response" and how situational variables, such as time pressure and social context, can impact our likelihood to act altruistically. He emphasizes the importance of self-awareness and mindfulness in overcoming these barriers to become more compassionate and responsive to others' suffering. 9.4.3 Prosocial modeling Bandura‘s (1986) social learning theory states and explains how human behavior is guided by observing, modeling and imitating the behavior the behavior of others Observing models who benefit others can increase prosocial behavior works in the case of direct, real-life observation, but also through media exposure Media exposure includes TV/films, music with prosocial lyrics, cooperative video games Meta-analyses confirm a significant effect of prosocial modeling on helping behavior (Coyne et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2020) Examples: When a child’s parents do volunteer work, the daughter/son is more likely to do so as well One study showed that drivers were significantly more likely to help a woman change a flat tire if they had passed just

Wrap Up SP (Social Psychology) Wrap Up

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue