Mid Term Textbook Chapters 6, 7, and 9

Conformity

a change in behavior or belief to accord with others, whether through real or imagined pressure

compliance

conforming to an explicit or implicit request while privately disagreeing (public conformity)

acceptance (internalization)

conforming both publicly and privately, because you believe it

obedience

acting in accord with a direct order

norm

an understood rule for accepted and expected behavior

classic study of conformity: Sherif’s autokinetic effect

norm formation

• Participants judged how far a stationary point of light appeared to “move” in a dark room

• Alone, estimates were unstable; in groups, estimates converged on a shared group norm

• The norm persisted even when participants were later tested alone

• It was passed on to new participants across “generations”

• The task was ambiguous, so people relied on others for information

classic study of conformity: Asch’s line-judgment studies

• participants judged which of three lines matched a standard line, in a group of confederates who unanimously gave wrong answers on critical trials

• about 1/3 of critical-trial responses conformed

• about ¾ of participants conformed at least once

• key point: conformity occurred even when the task was clear; many participants reported feeling doubt or distress

with group size….

conformity rises up to about 3-5 people, then levels off

with unanimity…

one dissenter, even one who gives a wrong answer different fromt he majority, sharply cuts conformity

with cohesion…

people conform more to groups they feel attached to or identify with

with status…

higher-status group members have more influence in conformity

with public response…

conformity is greater when responses are public rather than written privately

with no prior commitment…

people who have already stated a position conform less

why do we conform: normatice influence

going along to gain approval or avoid rejection (leads to compliance)

why we conform: informational influence

going along because others’ views are evidence about reality (leads to acceptance); it is strongest when a situation is ambiguous, a crisis, or others seem to be experts

culture

Conformity is generally higher in collectivist cultures, which value harmony and obligation

personality and self-esteem

low self-esteem, a strong need for social approval, and a low sense of control are linked to higher conformity

social roles

roles can shape behavior and attitudes

gender

differences in conformity are small and depend heavily on context and the topic’s familiarity

resisting pressure - reactance

a motive to protect or restore one’s sense of freedom; when freedom is threatened, people may do the opposite of what they are pressured to do

resisting pressure: need for uniqueness

people prefer to see themselves as distinct; uniqueness is more valued in individualist cultures

we conform, but we

also value independence, and context decides which wins

Milgram’s obedience studies

• Procedure: participants (the “teacher”) were told to deliver increasingly strong shocks, up to 450 volts, to a “learner” (a confederate) for wrong answers; shocks were not real

• Baseline result: about 65% went all the way to 450 V, despite the learner’s protests and apparent distress

• Reality check: the experiment was a real moral dilemma; participants showed signs of stress, but most continued under pressure from an authority

What affected obedience in Milgram’s variations: victim’s distance

obedience dropped as the victim became more present (closer, in the same room, or physically touching)

What affected obedience in Milgram’s variations: authority’s closeness and legitimacy

obedience fell when the experimenter gave orders by phone or was seen as less legitimate; obedience was lower in a rundown offie than a presigious place like Yale

What affected obedience in Milgram’s variations: liberating effects of group influence

with two defiant fellows “teachers” obedience dropped sharply; seeing others disobey makes disobedience easier

What affected obedience in Milgram’s variations: personal characteristics

person differences matter less than the situation, though some traits, like authoritariaism, are linked to obedience

authoritarianism

style of rule centered on concentrated, centralized power, the rejection of pluralism and suppression of individual freedoms, civil liberties, and the rule of law

reflection on Milgram: behavior and attitudes

small intitial steps (starting at a smaller voltage) create self-jsutification and c ommitment, so the next step feels natural; this si the foot-in-the-door effect

reflection on Milgram: ethics

the studies raised major concerns about stress, deception, and the right to withdraw, which helped shape modern sthics standards (informed consent, debriefing)

reflection on Milgram: replications

Burger’s partial replication stopped at 150V and found that about 70% were still willing to continue at that point

reflection on Milgram: engaged followership

a critique that participants did not obey blindly but identified with the scientific goal and the experimenter’s cause

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study

• student volunteers randomly assigned to guard or prisoner roles in a simulated prison

• Guards became abusive, and prisoners became passive, so the study was stopped early

• it was taken as evidence that roles and situations shape behavior

• Criticisms: the guards were coached by researchers, demand characteristics may have shaped behaviour, and there was no control for selection; it is generally seen as a weaker demonstration than originally claimed.

strong situations can

override personal values and dispositions

evil acts often arise

gradually, one small step at a time

disobedience often needs support:

a dissenting voice or peer who defies authority

responsibility and conscience matter:

people feel pressure to resist when the victim is real and near

group

two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with and influence one another and think of themselves as “us”; can affect individual performance, individual behavior, and group decisions

social facilitation and the presence of others: Cyclist example

cyclists raced faster against others than alone

social faciliation

improved performance on simple or well-learned tasks in the presence of others

Zajonc’s key insight on social facilitation

others’ presence is arousing, and arousal strengthens whatever response is dominant (most likely) for the task:

• easy or well-learned task → dominant response is correct → performance improves

• difficult or novel task → dominant response is incorrect → performance suffers

easy or well-learned tasks in sociak facilitation

• your instincts are usually right, so pressure can help

• you’ve practiced many times

• Automatic response is usually correct

• other people’s presence increases arousal, strengthening the correct response - performance improves

difficult or unfamilar tasks in social facilitation

• your instincts may be wrong, so pressure can hurt

• haven’t practiced much, or the task is challenging

• your automatic response is more likely to be incorrect

• others’ presence increases arousal, strengthening incorrect responses → performance worsens

source of arousal: evaluation apprehension

concern about being evaluated

source of arousal: diistraction

confliuct between attending to the task and to others

source of arousal: mere presence

arousal even without evaluation

crowding

the presence of many others increases arousal, which also strengthens dominant responses (helps simple tasks, hurts complex ones)

why aroused with a crowd?

both evaluation and distraction contribute, and some arousal appears with mere presence

social loafing

The tendency for people to exert less effort when in a group, pooling efforts toward a common goal, than when individually accountable

Origin of social loafing: Ringelmann’s rope-pulling experiment

as group size increased, each individual contributed less effort to pulling a rope

Latane’s shoutting and clappoing experiments

found that people produced less noise individually when they believed they were part of a group compared to when performing alone

as group size increases,

individual effort often decreases because people feel less personally responsible for the group’s overall performance

why does social loafing occur

• individual contributions are not identifiable (diffusion of responsibility)

• people assume others will carry the load (free riding)

• reduced evaluation apprehension: no individual accountability

reducing loafing

• make individual contributions identifiable

• make tasks challenging, appealing, or involving

• increase group cohesion and commitment

• set group goals and reward individual contributions

culture and social loafing

it it weaker in collectivist cultures; women tend to loaf less than men, perhaps because of greater relationship focus

social loafing and contrast with facilitation

facilitation happens when individual performance can be evaluated; loafing happens when it cannot be

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension, occurring in group situations that foster anonymity and diminish personal responsibility

conditions that encourage deindividuation

• group size (larger groups)

• physical anonymity (masks, uniforms, darkness)

• arousing and distracting activities (ex. chanting, dancing)

deindividuation can make you

Impulsive, uninhibited, and sometimes antisocial behaviour (ex. aggressionm vandalism, mob behavior); it can also amplify prosocial norms if cues point that way

deindividuation study: Zimbardo

women in hoods gave longer shocks than those wearing name tags

deindividuation study: Diener’s Halloween study

children took more candy when anonymous and in groups

mecahnism of deindividuation

reduced self awareness, so people stop monitoring behavior against personal standards

deindividuation is about

a reduced sense of self, not merely being in a crowd; context and cues matter

group polarizaiton

group discussion strengthens the members’ initial tendencies; it is an enhancement of the average view, not a move toward the middle

origin of group polarization

the “risky shift” (Stoner) - groups tended to make riskier decisions than the average of the individuals making them separately, later shown to be one case of a broader polarization effect (cautious groups became more cautious)

• discussion intensified prejudice among prejudiced students

• groups with similar views (ex. ideological communities, juries, extreme movements) become more extreme

• terrorist groups and online echo chambers can intensify attitudes

why group polarization: informational influence

in discussion, people hear more arguments favoring the dominant view and persuasive arguments tilt group opinion

why group polarization: normative influence (social comparison)

people want to be seen favorably and shift to appear more strongly aligned with the group’s tendency

role of the internet in group polarization

online communities make it easy to find like-minded others and strengthen shared views

applications: group polarization

can intensify both positive and negative group tendencies, which is useful for understanding ideological extremism and decision making in juries and committees

Groupthink (Janis)

a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, when the members’ striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives

Groupthink Case Studies

Bay of Pigs invasion, escalation in Vietnam, Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Challenger launch decision. Janis contrasted these with the more careful Cuban Missile Crisis decision

antecedents (what comes before) groupthink

high cohesion, isolation from dissenting viewpoints, a directive leader who signals a preferred outcome, and stress

symptoms of groupthink

• overestimation of the group

  • illusion of invulnerability

  • belief in the group’s inherent morality

• close-mindedness

  • collective rationalization

  • stereotyped views of out groups

• pressures toward uniformity

  • conformity pressure

  • self-censorship

  • illusion of unanimity

  • “mind guards” shielding the group from dissenting information

consequences of groupthink

poor decisions, incomplete information search, failure to consider alternatives and risks

critiques of groupthink

the evidence is mostly retrospective case studies, and some research finds that cohesion alone does not cause groupthink

preventing groupthink

• the leader stays impartial and does not state a preference early

• encourage open dissent and assign a devil’s advocate

• seek outside expert opinion and subdivide the group

• hold a “second-chance” meeting before the final decision

the power of individuals: minority influence

Moscovici - a minority can sway the majority when it is consistent and persistent

key factors of minority influence

• consistency - unwavering position signals confidence and conviction

• self-confidence - a minority that seems certain makes the majority reconsider

• defections from the majority - when majority members switch, others follow

majority vs minority processes

majorities tend to produce compliance through normative pressure, while minorities provoke deeper thinking and sometimes private acceptance

why minority influence matters

many social changes started with committed minorities

aggression

physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone; defined by intent not outcome

hostile (affective) aggression

driven by anger and aimed at hurting the target

instrumental aggression

hurting is a means to some other end (money, power, social goals)

relational aggression

harming others through social exclusion, gossip, or damaging relationships

frustration

the blocking of goal-directed behavior

catharsis

emotional release, the idea that venting aggression reduces later aggression

biological influences of aggression: instinct view

• Freud and Lorenz saw aggression as an innate drive that builds up and must be released

• largely rejected - aggression varies hugely across cultures and situations, and there is no evidence of a fixed energy that must be discharged

biological influences of aggression: neural influences

• no single “aggression center,” but the amygdala and other limbic areas are involved

• the frontal lobes help regulate and inhibit aggression; damage or impaired functioning there is linked to violent behavior

• violent offenders sometimes show reduced frontal activity and abnormal brain function

biological influences of aggression: genetic influences

• twin studies show aggressiveness is partly heritable

• animals can be selectively bred for aggressiveness

• genes interact with the environment (ex. MAOA gene variants and childhood maltreatment)

biological influences of aggression: biochemical influences

• testosterone: higher levels are modestly correlated with irritability, impulsiveness, and aggression, but the effect is complex and bidirectional

• serotonin: low levels are linked to impulsive aggression

• alcohol: disinhibits aggression and impairs how people interpret provocation; it works through physiological effects and expectations

evolutionary perspective of aggression

• it may have been adaptive in competition for status, mates, and resources

• men commit more violence than women, and differences are most pronounced in physical aggression

• critics note that culture and learning cause big variations that a purely evolutionary view cannot explain

frustration - aggression

• Dollard et al. (1939): frustration creates anger, which can spark aggression

• Berkowitz’s revision: frustration produces anger (readiness to aggress), but aggression needs cues (aggression-related stimuli) to trigger it - weapons effect idea: guns can prime aggressive thoughts

• frustration is strongest when blocking is unexpected, illegitimate, or when the goal was close

• displaced aggression

displaced aggression

frustration is redirected onto an innocent or safer target

pain and aggression

physical pain triggers hostility

heat and aggression

hotter temps. are linked to more aggression (violent crimes rises with heat, hot seasons, hot years; also baseball batters getting hit by pitches in hotter games)

other examples of aversive stimuli for aggression

noise, crowding, foul odors, and personal attacks

provocation and insult and aggression

retaliation is common, and aggression can escalate in tit-for-tat spirals

social learning theory (Bandura)

• aggression is learned through observation and reinforcement

• Bobo doll studies: children who watched adults hit a doll imitated the aggression

• Family patterns: children who are rewarded for aggression or who are abused or neglected are more aggreessive

• Coercive family interactions: can reinforce aggression (ex. giving in to tantrums)

• aggression is more likely when it’s expected to pay off

social scripts and cognition

• people develop scripts for how to act in particular situations

• hostile attribution bias (assuming others have hostile intent) and rumination on slights increase aggression

culture of honor and aggression

in some regions ( ex. the Southern US), insults threaten reputation and are seen as justifying retaliation; may come from herding economies where reputation protected livelihood