Social psych exam 3

Conformity

change in perception, opinion, or
behavior due to the real or imagined
influence of others

Why do people conform?

-evolutionary adaptation

This is considered “The chameleon affect” where people unconsciously mimic the behaviors of others in their social environment

Chartrand & Bargh, 1999

This study was based on the chameleon affect. This counted hoe many times a person would rub their face or shake their foot based on someone else’s actions.

What is a second reason that people conform?

-They need to know whats right aka:'“informational” social influence"‘

-This caused a study for the auto-kinetic effect- Sherif, 1936

-Often leads to PRIVATE acceptance

-Most likely when situation is ambiguous, a crisis, and when others are experts.

What is a third reason for conformity?

-Need to be liked or accepted: aka “normative” social influence

Asch,1951

-Often results in public acceptance

-Both types operate jointly

-Crandall ,1988

Sherif, 1936

Based on the auto-kinetic effect (an optical illusion that causes a stationary object to appear to move), individuals in the experiment gradually adjusted their answers to align more closely with the group's consensus.

Asch, 1951

Experiment based on normative social influence

Asch’s sample consisted of 50 male students from Swarthmore College in America, who believed they were taking part in a vision test. Asch used a line judgement task, where he placed on real naïve participants in a room with seven confederates (actors), who had agreed their answers in advance. The real participant was deceived and was led to believe that the other seven people were also real participants. The real participant always sat second to last.

In turn, each person had to say out loud which line (A, B or C) was most like the target line in length.

Crandall, 1988

clear evidence of group norms about appropriate binge-eating behavior was found; in one sorority, the more one binged, the more popular one was. In the other, popularity was associated with binging the right amount: Those who binged too much or too little were less popular than those who binged at the mean. Evidence of social pressures to binge eat were found as well.

What are some conditions that lead to conformity?

-Awareness of the norm

-Group size

-No allies in the group

-personality characteristics

Awareness of the norm

-Even when wrong!

-Pluralistic ignorance: people mistakenly believe their own thoughts & feelings are different from others, even though everyones behaviors are the same

-Our class; Prentice & Miller, 1996

Prentice & Miller, 1996

Showed the pluralistic ignorance at Arkansas- the comfort drinking. Showed You being lower than the average UofA student.

Compliance

• change in behavior due to a direct request from another person

• often fall prey to various “techniques”

Compliance Techniques

• Foot in the Door

• Door in the Face

• Low-balling

• Disrupt, then Reframe

Freedman & Fraser, 1966

Foot in the Door-

More people complied when given a SMALL request rather than controlled

Cialdini et al., 1975

Door in the face-

More people complied when given a LARGE request rather than controlled

Cialdini et al., 1978

Low-Balling-

More people complied when they agreed first rather than controlled

David & Knowles, 1999

Disrupt then reframe-

More people complied when they disrupted then reframed rather than controlled

Obedience to Authority

• behavior change produced by the commands of authority

  • Milgram, 1963; 1965; 1974

• what would you do?

  • most say quit after 135v; none all the way 

  • psychiatrists: 1/1000 would go all the way  

• Milgram, 1963; 1965; 1974

The experiments involved deceiving participants into thinking they were shocking a learner for giving wrong answers. The learner was actually an actor who gave wrong answers on purpose. The teacher was told to increase the shock level each time the learner made a mistake. The shock generator had 30 switches, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts.

The Four Prods

• Please continue

• The experiment requires that you go on

• It is absolutely essential that you continue

• You have no other choice, you must go on

3 Important Factors that Increase/Decrease Obedience  

• Authority Figure

• Victim

• Procedure

• Hofling, 1966  

The procedure involved a field experiment involving 22 (real) night nurses. Dr. Smith (the researcher) phoned the nurses at a psychiatric hospital (on night duty) and asked them to check the medicine cabinet to see if they had the drug astroten. 21/22 obeyed.

Authority Figure

• • lab moved to rundown suburban office

    • down to 48%

  • E replaced by another P

    • down to 20%

  • E issues commands by phone

    • down to 21%

  • consider field experiment: Hofling, 1966  

Victim

• learner seated in                                   same room as P

  • down to 40%

  • Ps required to physically grasp victim’s hand and force it onto metal plate

    • down to 30%

• procedure

• • two aspects seem                         important:

  • personal responsibility and chain of command

    • transfer orders, 54%; execute order, down to 28%

    • gradual escalation

The Power of the Situation 

• is this about aggression?

  • E demands P stop while learner demands P to continue - down to 0%!

• what about presence of others?

  • 1 out at 150v; other at 210v - down to 10%

• could it happen today?

  • no correlation b/n obedience and year of study

The Banality of Evil  

• what would you do?

  • the trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic; that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions, and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together

- Arendt, 1963 

Ethics  

• should these studies have been conducted?

• what if results indicated that everyone disobeyed

• in survey sent to Ps, 84% glad to have participated, 15% neutral, and 1.3% had negative feelings toward experiment 

Minority Influence

• process by which dissenters produce change within a group

• how?

• consistency 

  • Moscovici et al., 1969

-normative vs. informational influence- private vs public acceptance

• Moscovici et al., 1969

studied the influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a colour perception task. The experiment found that a consistent minority can have a significant impact on the opinions and behaviour of a majority, even when the minority is outnumbered. The findings showed that the minority’s influence increased when the majority was uncertain or ambivalent about their own opinions.

What is a Group?

2 or more people who interact and are
interdependent, in sense that their needs
and goals cause them to influence one
another
• have characteristics of
– interactions among members over time
– shared common fate, identity, or set of goals

Why Join a Group?

• need to belong
  • accomplish goals that can’t be
  individually achieved
  • social identity

Two Essential Components of Groups

• norms
– rules of conduct for members
• make behavior predictable, reduce uncertainty
• roles
– norms that apply to people in particular
position
• Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973

Social Facilitation:
When Others Arouse Us

• presence of others may increase
performance
• Triplet, 1898
• but type of task makes a difference!
• Zajonc, 1969
• why?
– 3 steps from presence to performance…

3 Steps from Presence to Performance

• presence of others creates physiological
arousal that energizes behavior
• this arousal enhances tendency to perform
dominant response (reaction elicited most
quickly and easily by given stimulus)
• quality of performance then varies
depending on type of task…

Performance Depends on Type of Task…

• on easy (simple or well-learned) tasks,
dominant response usually correct
• on difficult (complex or unfamiliar)
tasks), dominant response often
incorrect
• how do we know?

What’s Arousing About the
Presence of Others?

• mere presence/alertness (vigilance)
• evaluation apprehension
• distraction
• all have support!

Social Loafing:
When Others Relax Us

• when individuals’ contributions to
group cannot be evaluated, often work
less hard than they would alone
– Latane et al., 1979

Latane et al., 1979

participants attempted to make as much noise as possible, by yelling and clapping, while wearing blindfolds and listening to masking noise through headphones. Compared to the amount of noise that they generated alone, participants made only about 82 per cent as much noise when they believed they were working in pairs and 74 per cent as much noise when they believed they were part of a group of six people working together. The phenomenon has been replicated across a variety of tasks, and evidence has shown that it is greatly reduced by making individual contributions identifiable within the group.

When is Social Loafing Likely to Occur?

• when people believe their own
performance cannot be identified
• no strong incentive to perform well
• with men
• individualistic Cultures

Unifying the Paradigms:
Arousal & the Presence of Others

• when individual contributions identified
(social facilitation) presence of others
increases arousal and possibility of
being evaluated
• when individual contributions are
pooled (social loafing), presence of
others decreases arousal and possibility
of being evaluated

How do Arousal and Possible Evaluation
affect Performance

• when presence of others increases
possibility of evaluation:
– performance on easy tasks is enhanced
because person is motivated
– performance on difficult tasks is impaired
because pressure gets to the person

Or How do Arousal and Possible Evaluation
affect Performance

• when presence of others decreases
possibility of evaluation:
– performance on easy tasks is impaired
because people are uninspired
– performance on difficult tasks is enhanced
because being lost in the crowd frees
people from anxiety

What Happens when
we’re “Lost in a Crowd”

• to be a member of a crowd is closely akin
to alcohol intoxication
• Huxley
• being immersed in the crowd “descends
several rungs in the ladder of civilization”
• Le Bon
24 hours of invisibility?

Deindividuation

• loss of person’s sense of individuality,
and the reduction of normal constraints
against deviant behavior
– suicide baiting (Mann, 1981)
– Halloween study (Diener et al., 1976)

Mann, 1981

Suicide baiting-

when individuals are anonymous and part of a group, they are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, like stealing, compared to when they are alone and identifiable

Diener et al., 1976

Halloween study-

• 1,300 children trick or treaters on Halloween were observed.

• They were in three conditions:

  • Anonymous (e.g. mask).

  • Non-anonymous.

  • Alone or in a group.

• The children were given the opportunity to steal money and sweets.

• Results

  • 57% of those who were anonymous and in a group stole, compared to just 21% that were alone and not anonymous.

• Conclusion

  • Being anonymous in a group (deindividuation) leads to more antisocial behaviour, as there is less risk of being caught and identified.

Deviance in the Dark
Gergen et al, 1973

• what would you do in a room with 7
strangers for 90 minutes…
• …in the dark?
– “…Beth came up and we started to play touchy
face and touchy body and started to neck. We
expressed it as showing love to each other.
Shortly before I was taken out we decided to
pass our love on, to share it with other people.
We had just started touchy face and touchy body
and kissed a few times before I was tapped to
leave.”

Deindividuation & Group Norms

• it’s not that there’s a loss of norms, but
instead a shift in norms
– Johnson & Downing, 1979

Johnson & Downing, 1979

Anonymity, an important feature of computer-mediated communication (CMC), is embedded in this new technology. With the penetration of the Internet in society, many daily activities involve online interactions. Anonymity affects both the task and social aspects of online communication including information exchange, decision making, and relationship development. This review examines the effects of anonymity on human behavior. Nurses, identified, kkk hoods- amount of shock administered

Group Polarization

• tendency for groups to make more
extreme decisions than initial
inclinations of its members
– group discussion exaggerate initial
leanings of group, in either direction
– jury recommendations, judgments of
people & consumer products, gambling
bets…
– results in acceptance, not just compliance

2 Reasons for Group Polarization

• persuasive arguments theory
– more numerous and persuasive arguments
in favor of position, more likely to be
adopted
– informational social influence
• social comparison theory
– doing better than the norm…

More on Group Decisions

• are 2 (or more) heads better than 1?
– process loss
• any aspect of group interaction that
inhibits good performance
– groupthink
• occurs when group members seek unanimity
more than best possible alternative

Social Identity

• part of person’s self-concept that
derives from knowing s/he is member
of a social group
– influences how we see ourselves…
• Cialdini et al., 1976
– and how we treat others!

Cialdini et al., 1976

After a football match, they interviewed students, asked them about the performance of their football team. Cialdini observed the student clothing on a day when there was a big football game. The researcher looked if the team's supporters would change their behaviour due to the result of the game.

When “Me” becomes “We”

• divide the world into “ingroups” and
“outgroups”
– tend to display ingroup favoritism…
– …but not always!
• Eidelman et al., 2006

Eidelman et al., 2006

The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism.

Deviance in Groups

• Ps evaluate deviant, before or after
opportunity to exclude deviant from
group

The Initial Attraction: Arousal

The Initial Attraction: Arousal
• excitation transfer
– arousal caused by one stimulus is added to
arousal from second stimulus and
combined arousal is attributed to second
stimulus
• Dutton & Aron (1974)

Dutton & Aron (1974)

In this study, male participants were approached by an attractive female researcher after crossing one of two different bridges. One bridge was a high, shaky suspension bridge located over a deep ravine, while the other was a stable, low, solid bridge in a park. The key independent variable here was the type of bridge, as it influenced the physiological arousal experienced by the participants.

1. High Bridge (Fear-Inducing Condition): The participants crossing the high, shaky bridge were likely to experience a heightened physiological response (e.g., increased heart rate) due to fear and anxiety induced by the instability of the bridge and the height.

2. Low Bridge (Control Condition): The participants crossing the stable, low bridge were less likely to experience these heightened emotions or physiological arousal, as the situation was not as fear-inducing.

After crossing the bridge, participants were approached by the female researcher, who gave them her phone number and invited them to contact her for further information regarding the study. The dependent variable was the likelihood that the participants would call the researcher after the encounter.

Results

The findings were striking: Participants who had crossed the high, shaky bridge were significantly more likely to call the researcher afterward. This result suggested that the heightened physiological arousal they experienced from fear (the "misattribution" part) was misattributed to their feelings of attraction toward the researcher. In contrast, those who crossed the low bridge were less likely to call the researcher, indicating that lower levels of arousal (or a less intense emotional experience) did not lead to the same effect.

The Initial Attraction:
Familiarity

• we’re attracted to those we see and are
familiar with
• two factors
– proximity
• Festinger et al., 1950
– exposure

Festinger et al., 1950

• Participants: The study involved 270 residents of the Westgate Housing Project, which included married student couples living in the same complex.

• Observational Study: The researchers conducted participant observation within the housing project, examining the social interactions among residents. They also asked residents to rate their neighbors' social and personality traits, which allowed researchers to study the nature of social comparison.

• Social Networks: The study specifically focused on how friendships formed within the complex. Researchers tracked where people lived within the building, which factors contributed to the formation of friendships, and how people compared themselves to others in their immediate social environment.Participants: The study involved 270 residents of the Westgate Housing Project, which included married student couples living in the same complex.

• Observational Study: The researchers conducted participant observation within the housing project, examining the social interactions among residents. They also asked residents to rate their neighbors' social and personality traits, which allowed researchers to study the nature of social comparison.

• Social Networks: The study specifically focused on how friendships formed within the complex. Researchers tracked where people lived within the building, which factors contributed to the formation of friendships, and how people compared themselves to others in their immediate social environment.

Physical Attractiveness:
How Important are looks?

• teachers rate better-looking children as
smarter, more likely to succeed
• judges set lower bails and impose smaller
fines on attractive suspects
• across occupations, attractive people earn
more money

Why Are Looks So Important

• “what’s beautiful is good” stereotype:
– assume physically attractive people possess
desirable personality traits
• Snyder et al., 1977
– true:
• more friends, better social skills, more sex
– false:
• more intelligent, better personality, better
adjusted, higher self-esteem

Snyder et al., 1977

The importance of looks in social psychology is primarily because of the power that physical appearance holds in influencing social judgments, interpersonal attraction, self-esteem, and cultural expectations. Social psychologists explore why and how these judgments are formed, how they affect behavior, and the long-term consequences of such judgments for individuals and society.

Another Reason Why We Like
Attractive People

• “radiating effect” of beauty
• Kernis & Wheeler, 1981
• do looks matter in relationship?
• Walster et al., 1966; Sergios & Cody, 1985
– by the way:
• little/no relationship b/n looks in youth and
latter happiness

Kernis and Wheeler

Kernis and Wheeler hypothesized that:

• Internal attributions (e.g., "I am attractive because of my effort, my hard work") would be associated with higher self-esteem and a more positive body image.

• External attributions (e.g., "I am attractive because of external factors, like genetics or luck") would be linked to lower self-esteem and a less stable body image, as the individual might feel less control over their appearance.

Study Design and Methodology

• Participants: The study involved college students, both men and women, as participants.

• Procedure: Participants were asked to evaluate and respond to feedback about their own physical appearance. They were then asked to make attributions about why they looked the way they did. Specifically, they were prompted to explain whether they believed their appearance was a result of internal factors (like personal effort, willpower, or health practices) or external factors (such as genetic inheritance, or luck).

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted

– proximity increases odds we’ll meet
someone
– familiarity puts us at ease
– beauty draws us in
– what determines whether sparks fly
in getting acquainted stage?

First Encounters:
Getting Acquainted I

• similarity
– Newcomb, 1961
• why important?
– usually rewarding
– similarity is “matched”
– implicit egotism

Newcomb, 1961

Newcomb conducted a longitudinal study with college students, observing the formation and development of relationships in a college dormitory setting. This allowed for the observation of real-life interactions over a period of time, making the study an early and influential example of social psychological research conducted in naturalistic settings.

• Participants: The study involved college students, living in a residential setting, with the goal of examining how friendships and acquaintanceships developed among them over time.

• Procedure: Newcomb’s study focused on peer interactions and how relationships developed based on mutual attraction and common interests. His research explored how attitudes and values aligned between individuals as they became acquainted with each other.

Newcomb, 1961

• Setting: The study took place in a college dormitory setting, where the participants were freshmen students who were living in close quarters for the first time, providing a natural environment for observing the development of relationships.

• Participants: Newcomb worked with 96 male college students, who were initially strangers to one another. They were assigned to dormitory rooms and participated in various group activities, providing opportunities for interaction and acquaintance.

• Procedure:

  • Newcomb used a longitudinal approach, observing and measuring the development of friendships over a period of time (several months).

  • He examined how attitudes about a variety of issues (e.g., politics, religion, social issues) influenced interactions and friendships. He measured attitudinal similarity at the beginning and end of the study to track how interpersonal attraction developed.

  • The study also assessed how the development of these relationships was influenced by factors like proximity (living near each other) and the frequency of interaction between participants.

Similarity and Implicit Egotism

• implicit egotism
– positive associations linked to self spill
over to enhance attraction to things
similar to self
• Jones, Pelham, et al., 2004

Similarity and Implicit Egotism

Similarity and implicit egotism are key factors in understanding interpersonal attraction and relationship development. While similarity, especially in attitudes and values, plays a conscious role in shaping relationships, implicit egotism reveals how subtle, subconscious factors related to one's self-concept (such as shared initials or names) also influence our preferences and behaviors. These processes help explain why we are often drawn to those who resemble us in various ways, whether consciously or unconsciously. Both concepts highlight the powerful influence of the self in shaping our social interactions.

First Encounters:
Getting Acquainted II

• reciprocal liking
– people like those who like them…
– …and who come to like us even more!
– Aronson & Linder, 1965

Aronson & Linder, 1965

Aronson and Linder's 1965 study provides important insights into the psychology of interpersonal attraction. Their findings show that people are more attracted to others who initially dislike them but gradually begin to like them, supporting the gain-loss hypothesis. This suggests that the evolution of relationships, particularly when attitudes change from negative to positive, plays a key role in increasing attraction and fostering deeper connections.

The study has broad implications for understanding how relationship dynamics work, from romantic relationships to friendships and even persuasion techniques, and it emphasizes the power of change in human interactions.

First Encounters:
Getting Acquainted I!I

• playing hard to get
– phenomenon is hard to get!
– seems we like those who are selective
– Eastwick & Finkel, 2008

First Encounters:
Getting Acquainted IV

• being hard to get
– closing time
• Pennebaker et al., 1979

First Encounters:
More Getting Acquainted IV

• being hard to get
– keeping secrets
• Wegner et al; 1994

Mate Selection:
Evolution of Desire?

• are men and women attracted to
different things in a mate?
– attribute choice; age discrepancies
• Buss, 1989
– jealousy
• Buss et al., 1992

More on Mate Selection

• why do men and woman want different
things in a mate?
– evolutionary pressure?
• Gangstead, 1993

Close(r) Relationships

• how do we move from those initial
encounters that we talked about, to
close, more intimate relationships?
• one answer: rewards
– as rewards pile up, we become more
attached

Social Exchange Theory

• people motivated by desire to maximize
profit and minimize loss in their social
relationships
– basic premise: relationships that provide
more rewards and fewer costs will be
more satisfying and endure longer

Social Exchange Theory
Four Basic Concepts

• rewards
– gratifying aspects of relationship
• costs
– work it takes to maintain relationship
• comparison level
– what expect in terms of rewards/costs
• comparison level/alternatives
– likelihood you could do better

Extensions/Corrections to Social Exchange
Theory

• people most content with relationships
when ratio between what they get out
of it and what put into it is similar for
both partners
• equity theory
– over and under-benefited

\More Extensions/Corrections to Social
Exchange Theory

• something else to consider – our
investments in relationship…
– anything put into relationship that will be
lost if we leave
– Rusbult & Martz, 1995

Exchange & Communal Relationships

• In exchange relationships, people operate
based on reward model characterized by
immediate tit-for-tat repayment of
benefits
• in communal relationships, partners
respond to other’s needs over time,
without regard for whether they give or
receive benefit
– Clark & Mills, 1979