Social Psych Exam 3

Conformity

A change in behavior due to the perceived influence of others (peers)

Compliance

Following commands of authority figures due to normative influence

Normative influence

the desire to be accepted, involves public compliance, without private acceptance of norm

Informational influence

the desire to be correct/accurate. Involved private acceptance of norm

Norm

a rule of standard for what is acceptable/appropriate/correct in terms of judgement, value, perception, belief, or behavior

Sherif’s emergence and perseverance of group norms experiment

demonstrated how social norms naturally emerge in ambiguous situations and persist even after the original group members are replaced. By placing participants in a completely dark room with a stationary pinpoint of light, Sherif proved that people rely on one another to establish a shared frame of reference when reality is unclear.

• Minimal pressure to conform

• Norm persevered through multiple trials

• Informational influence

Asch’s Conformity research

Normative influence- line length was reality/unambigious

• Around 75% of participants conformed at least once during the critical trials. Only about 25% to 26%completely resisted group pressure and stayed independent every time.

• When alone—> subjects chose correct line 90% of time

• Normative Social Influence: They knew the group was wrong, but they went along with it anyway to fit in, avoid embarrassment, or prevent ridicule.

• Conformity will drop when there is 1 other person who doesn’t also conform

Increase in group=_____

Increase in conformity (harder to do with 8+ people)

Conformity increases when:

Subject is solitary dissenter

The behavior is public

People are unsure of a situation, or it’s a crisis

Group size increases (up to a point)

Group is ‘important’ to the person

People are of lower status

The motivation to be accurate is high (informational influence) and ambiguity is high

Does need to be accurate increase informational influence? Depends on level of ambiguity

Subjects watch a video of a crime

• Half of the subjects get a really good look at the suspect (low ambiguity condition)

• Other half didn’t see the suspect well (high ambiguity condition)

• Now they have to pick the suspect from a lineup with 2 others (who purposely pick the wrong suspect), paid if they got it right or not paid at all.

• Didn’t get paid: both high and low ambiguity group agreed around 30-40% with the incorrect majority

• Did get paid: high ambiguity agreed with incorrect majority 50%, low ambiguity agreed 15%

Mindless compliance

the role of automaticity in compliance

2 techniques in obtaining compliance with requests

• Foot in the door

• Door in the face

Foot in the door

Get people to say yes to small requests—> more likely to say yes to bigger requests

Door in the face

Going to ask for something you know they will say no to—> then you ask for a easier/simpler request which they are more likely to say yes to

Foot in the door experiment

Asked to put an ugly sign on their law= 18% complied

Asked to sign a petition, then asked to put an ugly sign= 50% complied

People don’t want to be hypocritical or inconsistent

Door in the face experiment

Moderate request= 25% complied

Moderate request then large request= 50% complied

The target perceives the requester's downward shift from a massive demand to a smaller favor as a concession. To maintain social fairness, the target feels a pressure to "concede" in return by saying yes

Obedience: compliance with authority: Milgram shock study

Milgram tested obedience to authority by having a subject (assigned to role of “teacher”) shock a learner (his confederate) with increasingly stronger shocks for errors (teacher and student in different rooms)

The confederate first complains, then screams, ceases responding

Experimenter orders subject to continue the shocks

How far would Ss go? How far would you go?

Big dropout when confederate pleads to be let out, another big dropout after confederate doesn’t answer to shocks. 60% of people would go to the highest shock level

Explanations for Milgram Experiment

• People trust the experimenter

• External attribution: saying they aren’t responsible and they were made to by experimenter

Varying the conditions for the Milgram experiment

1. Distance of authority: different rooms?—> compliance would decrease

2. Distance of the victim: sat next to each other?—> compliance decreases

3. Status of authority: change where the study was carried (not at an esteemed university) but by a marketing firm?—> compliance plummets

4. Status of individual: 1st person to drop out of study was a priest and high status people because they were less likely to comply to orders cause they’re used to giving them

5. Presence of others: less likely to go to 450 if another person didn’t go there

Implications of Milgrams Findings

Ss were “weak” or sadistic people - fundamental attribution error

“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and

without any particular hostility, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”

External Validity?

Ethical issues in this experiment - long-term follow up with Ss

Other variables affecting compliance + conformity in group contexts

1. Unanimity

2. Group cohesion

3. Public vs. Private behavior

4. Prior commitment

5. Novelty/ambiguity of situation: opens door to informational influence

Individual Differences in Compliance and Conformity

Gender: women were more compliant/conformist

Personality factors

1. Agreeableness, Conscientiousness: want to do the right thing + avoid the wrong thing

2. Would we resist such influence or are we deluded?

Cultural factors (Individualist vs. Collectivist)

Injunctive vs. Descriptive Norms

D: What do people actually do (or refrain from doing), driving on the parkway where nobody drives the speed limit

I: What should people do (or refrain from doing), following the speed limit- not faster

What is a group

3 or more people who interact and are interdependent

• We biologically desire to be in groups- cavemen, reproduction

Benefits of a group

- Facilitate goal achievement

–Provide information - social comparison & ambiguity resolution

–Identity

–Establishing social norms and rules.

Composition of groups

Members tend to be similar because people are attracted to similar others and because

groups operate in ways that encourage similarity among members.

• Influential aspects of groups

– Norms

– Roles

– Group cohesiveness

Similarity-attraction principle: more comfortable with same interests/values

Social facilitation

Triplett’s observations – performance improves in the presence of others

Zajonc: Performance enhanced on simple, well-learned tasks, impaired on complex,

poorly-learned ones

Skilled vs. Unskilled Pool Shooters - Social Facilitation

Skilled players perform better in larger audiences (70% accuracy alone- 80% not alone)

Unskilled players already play bad, but even worse when there is an audience

For skilled players, the correct shot is the dominant, well-learned response, so higher arousal boosts their performance (social facilitation).

For unskilled players, the correct shot is not well-learned; higher arousal increases errors and the dominant response is to mess up, impairing performance (social inhibition)

Zajonc Arousal facilitates dominant response; WHY

1. Attentional diversion: presence of others, takes attention away from task

2. Evaluation apprehension: when others are present it causes anxiety/judgement

3. Mere presence: physiological arousal

Social loafing

Groups outperform individuals: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts – True

or False?

• FALSE

Performance and effort declines as group size increases

Ingram rope pull experiment: Social loafing

One half told that they are only measuring the collective

Other half told they are measuring individually: they pull the rope harder

Social loafing is less pronounced if:

- Challenging, involving tasks

– Group consists of friends (high cohesion)

– Culture is collectivist (interdependent self)

– People believe their individual contribution can be monitored

Deindividuation

When you aren’t yourself anymore around other people

• Sporting events: rowdy fans, alcohol, fighting fans of other team

Abandoning restraint and loss of sense of individual responsibility

– Increased responsiveness to situational cues: what everyone around you is doing

– Decreased accessibility & influence of personal values (diminished self-awareness)

– Loss of evaluation apprehension: let impulses run wild

– Increased impulsivity / decreased self-regulation (disinhibition)

Deindividuation: moderating variables

Larger group size: higher likelihood of deindividuation

Arousal and diminished self-awareness

Anonymity: anonymous female subjects administered more intense shocks for longer duration than identified women

Deiner’s trick or treaters: Deindividuation on Halloween

Parents left them with a bowl of candy and told them to take one

1. One group: asked what their names were

2. Other group: anonymous, weren’t asked names: 55% of the anons in groups took extra candy, alone only 20%

Group polarization

interaction and discussion strengthens average inclination of group members

Before group discussion: most people in neutral/low direction spread out

After group discussion: all moved to the lower side, their opinions strengthened after discussion

High & Low Prejudice Groups before and after Group Discussion study

Asked about views on African Americans

Low prejudice: before discussion= 1, after=0.5

High prejudice: before=2.75, after=3.5

What causes group polarization

• Normative Influence (social comparison explanation)

– To gain approval (or to avoid rejection, embarrassment, or conflict), we look to other group members for cues about what attitudes we should hold

• Informational Influence (persuasive arguments explanation)

– In our desire to be accurate, we look to others as sources of information, and alter our attitudes accordingly

Groupthink

Suppressing dissent/disagreement in the interest of group harmony that results in faulty decision-making

• Premature consensus seeking causing a failure to explore alternatives and critically

examine proposed course of action

Causes of groupthink

• High group cohesiveness, especially based on interpersonal liking

• Directive leadership: high authority

• Insularity of group

• Lack of formal method and procedures for exploring alternatives and critically evaluating decisions

• High stress

• Low expectation of finding suitable alternatives

Symptoms of groupthink

• Illusion of invulnerability

• Conviction of moral superiority

• Negative stereotyping of out-groups (opponents and/or dissenters)

• Mindguarding

• Normative influence - conformity pressure

• Self-censorship

• Illusion of unanimity

Preventing groupthink

• Leader refrains from endorsing and evaluating solutions

• Encouraging dissent - appointing a devil’s advocate and increasing diversity of group

• Permitting outside scrutiny and input

• Exhaustively search alternatives and criticize preferred course of action

• Prepare contingency plans (prepare for failure)

Majority & Minority Influence in Groups

• Majority influence:

– Normative conformity (public compliance)

• Minority influence:

– Persuasion thru informational influence (private acceptance)

– Consistency, confidence, & reasonableness can sway majority through central route

persuasion – genuine belief change

The great person theory

Much research has focused on what makes a good leader. The theory states

that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation.

Simonton view on Leadership in groups

Research indicates that personality traits are surprisingly unrelated to leadership.

Simonton found that only family size, height, and # publications predicted “presidential

effectiveness.”

Social psychologists view on leadership in groups

Rather than deeming personality traits unimportant, social psychologists suggest

that good leadership is determined by a person having the right personality characteristics for the situation.

Task-oriented leader

one who is concerned more with efficient procedures, practices and processes in accomplishing goals than with workers’ feelings and relationships.

Relationship-oriented leader

more. concerned with workers’ feelings and relationships as a means to accomplish

goals

Fielder’s contingency theory of leadership

states that leadership effectiveness depends both on how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group.

Social dilemma

a conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone.

Public goods dilemma

Individuals must contribute to a common pool in order to create or maintain a public good.

Commons dilemma

Everyone takes from a common resource that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will run out if overused. (use of water in a drought)

Aggression

is intentional behavior aimed at causing physical, social or psychological harm in a conspecific.

Hostile aggression

is an act of aggression stemming from feelings of anger and aimed only at inflicting pain.

ex: In a fit of anger, a father spanks his disobedient 6-yr-old

Instrumental aggression

is aggression that serves as a means to some goal just than causing pain.

ex: A woman shoots mace at her attacker to avoid being raped

Aggression: Innate Instinct or Learned Social Custom?

Freud postulated that humans have innate instincts toward life, Eros, and towards death,

Thanatos. Displaced outward, Thanatos becomes aggression toward others. Self-conscious desire to kill ourselves, displaced by moving that desire to kill someone else-not yourself

Amygdala and Hypothalamus

Aggressive behaviors and expressions of hostility/anger/irritation, etc. are mediated by

neural activity in these limbic system structures.

Neural and Hormonal Influences on Aggression

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter in the brain that may inhibit aggressive impulses.

Testosterone is a male sex hormone associated with aggression.

• Violent criminals are linked with having higher T

• Low T men injected with more T didn’t report more conflict/change in behavior and aggression, actually decreased their aggression

Gender Differences in Aggression Violent Crimes (U.S. Dept of Justice)

Murder: Men=85%, women=15%

Assault: men=82%, women=18%

DA: men=80%, women=20%

Rape: men=95%, women=5%

Schoolyard Aggression in Boys and Girls 7-12

Overt aggression: slaps, punches, kicks. Boys had a higher percentage of aggression

Relational: gossip, insults, rumors, embarrassment. Girls had a higher percentage of aggression

Even in the most aggressive-prone species aggression is an _____

Optional strategy determined by previous social experiences and social context

In humans, patterns of behavior are infinitely malleable and highly controlled by social

norms; thus, cultures vary widely in their degree of aggressiveness.

Pain and discomfort as causes of aggression

Both animal and human studies show that pain will increase the probability that an

organism will aggress.

Other forms of bodily or psychological discomfort (insults, crowding, heat, offensive odors) may also act to lower the threshold for aggressive behaviors.

Frustration-aggression theory

posits that frustration, the perception that you are being prevented from obtaining a goal, will result in an aggressive response.

Frustration can also occur due to relative deprivation:

feeling that one has less than one deserves or has been led to expect, or has less than similar others, can increase aggressive behavior.

Egoistic vs Fraternal deprivation

E: comparing myself to someone else/a standard

F: believe that my group is not getting what it deserves

Provocation-Reciprocation

People usually feel the need to reciprocate after they are provoked by aggressive behavior from another person.

Attributional Processes in Aggression: The Influence of Mitigating Circumstances experiment

An assistant insulted all of the subjects from the other side of a wall

One group was told nothing about the assistants mood: they blasted the assistant with noise 20%

The other group was told the assistant failed to get their PHD which is why he insulted them: they only blasted the assistant 13%

Objects as Aggressive Priming Cues Increase Aggression experiment

One group had a gun present in the room: administered the shock 48%

Other group had a racquet present in the room: administered the shock 33%

The presence of an aggressive stimulus can increase probability of aggressive behavior

Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory

that we acquire social behaviors (e.g., aggression) by observing others, and the consequences of their behavior.

Basic principles of social-cognitive learning theory

- Direct tuition via operant procedures

– Observational Learning

– Vicarious reinforcement: observer sees model receive a reward for a behavior and then becomes likely to imitate that behavior

Role for cognitive processes

– Attention - Retention - Reproduction

– Acquisition can occur without performance

– Motivation a function of outcomes expectancies

Banduras Bobo Doll experiment

• Imitation of Aggression: Children who observed the aggressive model exhibited significantly more physical and verbal aggression toward the doll—often mimicking the exact actions and phrases they had seen.

• The Learning-Performance Distinction: Follow-up studies (such as Bandura's 1965 research) showed that children learned the behavior even if they didn't immediately perform it. When children saw the adult model punished for aggression, they were far less likely to act aggressively themselves; however, when offered an incentive (like juice or stickers), those same children were able to reproduce the aggressive acts, proving that observation alone was enough for learning

Exposure to violence in media

A number of long-term studies indicate that the more violence individuals watch on TV

as children, the more violence they exhibit years later as teens and adults.

TV violence: Increasing aggression and attentuating responsivity study

Control group: Low shock intensity administered, high sympathetic nervous system arousal

Ss exposed to violent TV: high intensity shock administered, low sympathetic nervous system arousal

Exposure to aggressive acts has a numbing effect on our sensitivity to those events,

physiologically and behaviorally-desensitization.

Does Punishment prevent Aggressive Behavior?

For children, harsh punishment provides a model of aggression and does not prevent a child from engaging in the forbidden behavior when the child is unsupervised.

The threat of mild punishment, swiftly administered, does seem more effective, consistent with principles of cognitive dissonance, self-perception, and self-justification.

Catharsis and Aggression

MYTH: From Aristotle to Ann Landers, “Letting off steam” or “venting” reduces aggressive energy and is necessary for psychological health.

FACT: Controlled studies suggest that attempting to reduce one’s anger by acting violently increases, rather than decreases, subsequent aggression and hostility.

Catharsis as Self-Defeating Prophecy: Venting Anger = Greater Subsequent Aggression study

Control group: inflicted barely any noise onto the confederate. After one trial= a little more than 0. Average over 25 trials was -0.15

Punching bag group: inflicted noise after one trial= 0.4, average after 25 trials=0.32

Effects of War on Countries’ Homicide Rates

Combatant countries: # of countries increasing in homicide=19%, # of countries decreasing=6%

Non-combatant countries: # of countries increasing in homicide=5%, # of countries decreasing=7%

Societal Level Influences on Aggression: Being at war

• Weakens the population’s inhibitions against aggression

• Leads to imitation of aggression

• Makes more likely perceptions/attributions of threat,hostility,etc.

• Numbs people and makes them unsympathetic toward the victims

• Legitimizes the use of violent solutions to address difficult problems.