The Self and the Group PDF

The self and the group Today: A brief primer in social psychology - - How are thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influenced by the (perceived) social context? -> wahrgenommener Sozialer kontext Social psychology as the scientific research of how human thoughts, feelings, and actions are influenced...

The self and the group Today: A brief primer in social psychology - - How are thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influenced by the (perceived) social context? -> wahrgenommener Sozialer kontext Social psychology as the scientific research of how human thoughts, feelings, and actions are influenced by a real of phantasized presence of other humans (Allport, 1953) Construction: How to people perceive, understand, and make sense of their social world? Social psychology is by large an experimental science: o Testing of social psychological hypotheses in ▪ Lab experiments, Field experiments, Correlational studies Social psychologists are convinced of the importance of the social situation as a driver of behavior and deemphasize the role of personality -> ex. If someone points a gun at me, i am more willingly to compromise. The fundamental attribution error (correspondence bias, actor-observer bias) - People interpret causes of behavior differently depending on whether they themselves are the actor or someone else is the actor (wheterer they are the actor themselves or the observer) o o - Own behavior is typically attributed to the external forces driving behavior ▪ „I crossed the red light, because the yellow phase was somewhat shorter than usual“ -> or because he had to go to class Others‘ behavior is typically attributed to the inherent personality of the agent. ▪ „He crossed the red light because he is a notorious rule breaker.“ Own behavior does not resemble the „true self“ -> I am stressed in the exam phase, but normally i am calm Others‘ behavior is an indicator of their true identity. New meta-analytical evidence suggest that this effect particularly holds for situation when the self is involved in negative situations -> Self-serving bias Two different motives are in conflict with each other -> Exam - People want to be accurate (social cognition) (genau) People want to hold a favorable view of themselves (motive for positive self-image) Problem: These two are in conflict o „Oh my god, I am such a good cliff-diver“ o „Am I really? -> Because if i’m not, i would jump and hit a rock, but you want to be good for social reasons The self -> Nicht Prüfungsrelevant - - There is a duality of the self o The self as the sum of our thoughts, feelings, and our beliefs -> I am myself o We are our selves, but we are also able to reflect about ourselve Self-concept: content of our self, the knowledge about who we are Self-attention: process of thinking about ourself Cultural differences in the „self“ Someone who comes from mexico would see others as part of themselves (right). People from USA, Sweden etc. would see themselves more independent Theory of cognitive dissonance (Leon Festinger) - Stress when people hold more than one opposing view about the world Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that people seek psychological consistency between their expectations of life and the existential reality of the world. People continually reduce their cognitive dissonance in order to align their cognitions (perceptions of the world) with their actions. The creation and establishment of psychological consistency allows the person afflicted with cognitive dissonance to lessen mental stress by actions that reduce the magnitude of the dissonance In practice, people reduce the magnitude of their cognitive dissonance in four ways: o Change the behavior or the cognition (“For next week, I’ll prepare a perfect lecture”) o Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition (“Not every week needs to be perfect”) o Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new cognitions (“I’ll write a paper instead...”) o Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs (“Teaching is overrated anyway.") Group processes: Conformity - - Sherif Studies (Mustafa Sherif, 1936) Study 1: 2 conditions o Individual experiments o Group experiments Light shown on wall of totally dark room (autokinetic effect) Participant is told that light is moving and asked to identify how much in inches In individual experiments, participants settle on some personal standard estimate of movement Group experiments (1936, Sherif) - - Two or three person groups Participants gave judgments of light movement in random order Two kinds of influence observed o Within trial: estimates earlier in trial affect later estimates o Across trials: general tendency to settle on a range Some sessions started as an individual session, then group, and vice versa Some results from Sherif People reported they see the same thing when they are in a group Sherif‘s conformity studies: Conclusions - Individuals established a personal range of answers In groups, they used the other members to establish this range Influence persisted after individuals left the group In uncertain situations, group influence is high Asch‘s conformity studies (1956) - Groups of 8 interacted o One pas a participant, all others were confederates o Central question: Which line fits the target best? Asch‘s results: Conformity is frequently, but not always happening No one made twelve conforming responses. Thirteen subjects made no conforming responses at all. However, of fifty subjects, the average subject conformed to 32% of the trials. When Asch tested individual subjects alone, none made errors. Conformity: A really important distinction (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) - There are two forms of conformity o Normative influence: ▪ Conformity to the views of expectations of others in pursuit of social approval (avoidance of disapproval) -> What happened in the Ash studies after his opinion o Informational influence: ▪ Use of others‘ behavior or attitudes as information or evidence about reality -> When Mr. Berger says this is relevant for the exam, we would follow it because he knows more than we What factors affect normative influence? - Group size Group unanimity Group cohesion The individual‘s identification with the group The status of the individual relative to other group members What factors affect informational influence? - Perceived intelligence or competence of others relative to oneself Number of others Unanimity of others One‘s own uncertainty The more positive one‘s sentiments to other group members, the more likely they are to conform o Is this a result of normative of informational social influence? Group processes: Group think - Phenomenon that groups sometimes do not seem to aggregate their views properly Groupthink and the Challenger Disaster: Starship form the NASA exploded a few seconds after the start -> it came out that group think was the cause of the disaster. One of the engineers knew that there was a problem, but hesitated to tell the others Antecedents of groupthink - Cohesion of the group Insulation from external forces Various leadership dynamics Homogenous group membership Poor handling of information Stress and time pressure -> Premature agreements Prevevting groupthink - - Establishing standards of control o Oversight o Challenging group decisions o Appoint a devil‘s advocate ▪ Blames the role Encourage voice (procedural justice) Make committee voting anonymous Group processes: Pluralistic ignorance Infamous example: The murder of Kitty Genovese -> A woman was murdered, groups dont think rationally Group processes: Pluralistic Ignorance - - Pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but go along with it because they incorrectly assume that most others accept it. This is also described as "no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes". Pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by the members of that social group. Pluralistic ignorance may help to explain the bystander effect. o If no-one acts, onlookers may believe others believe action is incorrect, and may therefore themselves refrain from acting. In terms of game theory, pluralistic ignorance is a problem of private versus common knowledge The importance of norms: The case of breaching - - Breaching is the purposeful breaking of social norms o Useful for identifying what is and what is not a social norm o Studying how norms and conformity are upheld in a society o Examples of breaching: Shake your head when you say „yes“, Stand backwards in a elevator, Wear two different shoes, Eat your dessert first when dining with friends etc. What is a norm? o Rules about which there is some degree of consensus, that are enforced through social sanctions Roles impact behavior - Set of expectations for appropriate behavior associated with a social role Zimbardo: people enact their roles quickly (Stanford Prison Experiment) Role taking o Strong expectation of role consistent behavior o Dissonace not enacting the role What is identity? - - - Different selves that an individual may take on in a social situation Overall self is organized in multiple identities Personal identities o Personality o Emotional styles etc. Role identities o Positions in groups prescribed expectations for behavior o Ex. Professor, Dad, Husband Social identities o Groups that we are a member of o Shared identity: Nationality, race, political affiliation Role identity -> Not for the exam, but the reallife - Role conflict (Being sane in an insane place) o Dissonance and frustration o Example he needed to cross the redlight to me in time after bringing is son to friends, it was a conflict between his roles as a dad and as a professor Social identity theory (another big theory) - - Offers many insights into group processes and intergroup conflict Explains group identification processes o How people come to identify with groups o The consequences of group identification Some principles: o People have a natural tendency to categorize when they see contrast o Contrast is necessary for group formation -> When he is in switzerland, ist very easy for him to identify as a german, because he sees the difference, the contrast ▪ There is no perceiving of light without dark, no rural without urban, no rich without poor ▪ Bertold Brecht (1934): Reicher Mann und armer Mann standen da und sah’n sich an. Und der arme sagte bleich, wär ich nicht arm, wärst du nicht reich. Minimal group paradigm -> Group enhancement task: Identification of Painter -> Not on the Exam First the group is shown the left picture and they form two groups, the Klee fans and the Kadinsky fans Then they are shown a picture and have to decide who painted it Information cascade game Basic Structure of the game Basic structure of each round A very homogeneus group has a higher likelyness to conform to this problem -> Diversity can prevent this problem Peer effects and the impact on productivity Individuals tend to have high problems with respect to procrastination and groups may help to overcome this (i.e., they act as “commitment device”) Working with another person, would increase the performance Peer effects vs. free-riding? - Pairing with a productive partner can also yield negative effects due to free-riding o Peer effect opposes the strategic incentive to free-ride off a highly productive worker But what is the empirical reality? Mas & Moretti (2009, American Economic Review) study this effect in a retail shop Pairing with a high-productivity peers increases productivity The effect is largest for low-productivity worker here is no negative effect for high-productivity workers They use a “big-data” approach, i.e., the numbers of items scanned per second The effect of group-level payments Beauty contests between individuals and teams - Basically, in the stock market you don’t have to know what a company is worth, you just have to know what others believe it to be worth The beauty contest captures that strategic nature Everybody chooses a number between 0 and 100! The person, who is closest to 2/3*average number wins the contest and earns a prize! What is the optimal answer? Lowest possible winning number Teams decide with higher strategic sophistication The „Linda Problem“ Groups may inhibit welfare maximization Centipede game: Groups “take” earlier