Social Psychology

What is Social Psychology?

How the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport)

Attribution

process through which we seek to identify the causes of our own or others' behavior

Internal (dispositional) attribution

inference that a person's behavior is caused by something about the person

External (situational) attribution

inference that a person's behavior is caused by something about the situation

Fundamental attribution error

tendency to make internal attributions for others' behavior, even when situational causes are apparent

jones and harris 1967 castro essay study

Participants: University students.

Method: Participants read essays either supporting or opposing Fidel Castro.

Conditions: In one condition, participants were told the writers freely chose their topic. In a second condition, they were told the writer's position was assigned, often by a coin toss.

Task: Participants were asked to estimate the writer's true attitude toward Castro.

Key findings

Free choice: When participants believed the writer chose their stance, they attributed attitudes consistent with the essay's content.

No choice: Even when told the writer had no choice, participants still attributed attitudes consistent with the essay's content. They found it difficult to disregard the situational constraint and instead attributed the writer's position to their internal beliefs.

Conclusion: This demonstrated the fundamental attribution error, showing people's tendency to over-attribute behavior to disposition (personal belief) rather than the situation (assigned position).

Actor-observer effect (bias) (Jones & Nisbett, 1972)

tendency to attribute our own mistakes mainly to situational causes, but the mistakes of others mainly to dispositional causes

Self-serving attribution (bias)

tendency to attribute one's positive outcomes to internal causes but negative outcomes to external causes

Social role

behavior that is expected of a person who is in a specific social position

Stanford prison experiment - Philip Zimbardo (1971)

Setup: A mock prison was set up in the basement of Stanford University's psychology building. Participants were screened for psychological stability before being randomly assigned to be either a guard or a prisoner.

Prisoner experience: Prisoners were arrested by real police, stripped, and issued a uniform and a number, which was used instead of their name. They experienced emotional stress, anxiety, depression, and dehumanization.

Guard behavior: Guards were given uniforms and instructed to enforce a list of rules, which led to cruel, tyrannical, and abusive behavior. Zimbardo concluded that the guards' behavior was a result of the power given to them by the situation.

Experiment conclusion: The experiment was terminated early because the situation was "out of control" and the psychological harm to participants was becoming too severe.

Cognitive dissonance

unpleasant psychological state that results from inconsistencies between one's attitudes and behavior

- Can lead to attitude change - people change their attitudesto align with their behaviors

Counterattitudinal behavior

behavior that is inconsistent with person's attitudes

insufficient justification

when people perform a counter attitudinal behavior with inadequate reason, they may develop more positive attitudes toward that behavior

where does cognitive dissonance come from?

Counterattitudinal behavior

Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959

The setup: Participants performed a tedious task. Afterward, some were paid $1 and others $20 to tell the next person that the task was interesting and fun.

The dissonance: Participants who lied for only $1 experienced dissonance between their belief that the task was boring and their action of saying it was fun.

The resolution: To resolve the discomfort, the $1 group changed their attitude, rating the task as more enjoyable than they originally found it.

The control group: Participants paid $20 had a clear external reason (the money) for lying, so they didn't need to change their attitude and reported the task was still boring.

Social norms

guidelines for how to behave in a social context

Normative social influence

social influence based on the desire to be liked or accepted

Informational social influence

social influence based on the desire to be correct

Asch's (1955) conformity study

The Task: Participants were shown a card with a single line and another card with three lines, and asked to identify which of the three lines matched the length of the first line. This was an easy and unambiguous task.

The Setup: All but one participant were "confederates," or actors who were in on the experiment. The real participant was always seated so they would answer last.

The "Critical Trials": For the first two rounds, the confederates gave correct answers. On the third round, all the confederates gave the same, clearly wrong answer, and continued to do so for most of the remaining trials.

The Results:36.8% Conformity: The real participants conformed to the incorrect answer about one-third of the time.Compliance vs. Belief: While participants outwardly gave the wrong answer, interviews revealed that most did not suddenly believe the wrong answer was correct; they simply didn't want to stand out from the group, a behavior known as normative social influence.Minority Influence: The power of the group to influence was significantly weakened if even one other person in the group gave the correct answer.

Participants asked to judge which comparison line best matched the standard line:

Confederates unanimously chose incorrect line →75% participants chose incorrect line at least once•

Important factor: presence of an ally→ Unanimity of social group → important to conformity

Milgram (1963)

Participants: Volunteers who believed they were participating in a study about learning and punishment.

Roles: The true participant was the "teacher," and a confederate (an actor) was the "learner".

Procedure: The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock to the learner for each incorrect answer. The shocks were pre-set to increase in voltage with each mistake, reaching a maximum of 450 volts, labeled "Danger: Severe Shock".

Goal: To observe how the teacher would react to the experimenter's commands, which pressured them to continue delivering shocks despite the learner's protests.

Social loafing

reductions in motivation and effort when individuals work collectively in a group

Deindividuation

psychological state characterized by reduced self-awareness and reduced social identity

- Increased feeling of anonymity

- Decreased feeling of responsibility or accountability

- Follow norms of group

Group polarization

tendency of groups to make more extreme decisions than do individuals alone

Groupthink

pattern in group decision-making inwhich members assume their decision will becorrect (Janis, 1972)

- Collective state of mind

- Group members unwilling to hear disagreeing views

Prejudice

a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people

Stereotype

a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group

Discrimination

differential actions toward members of specific social groups

Explicit prejudice

prejudice that can be overtly expressed

Implicit prejudice

prejudice that the individual may not be aware of and/or cannot overtly express

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

measures implicit prejudice

Just-world phenomenon

Blaming the victim - tendency to blame individuals (make dispositional attributions) for being a target

- root of prejudice

Realistic conflict theory

idea that competition for limited resources leads to conflict between groups and results in increased prejudice and discrimination

- Sherif's Robber's cave experiment

Sherif's Robber's cave experiment

showed that group conflict arises from competition for limited resources, and it can be reduced when groups work together on shared, superordinate goals. The experiment involved two groups of boys at a summer camp who were manipulated to become hostile towards each other through a series of competitions, but later, their prejudice was lessened when they had to cooperate to solve problems like getting a stuck truck unstuck.

basically: bonding through activities, competition/animosity through competitive activities, cooperation/reduced animosity through shared goals

Social identity theory

root of prejudice

- individuals' self-esteem partially depends on identifying with social groups

- In-group bias (favoritism)

In-group bias (favoritism)

positive feelings and behavior toward people in our in-group

Minimal groups

groups united by trivial similarities

(Tajfel,1971)

Trivial criteria: Strangers were randomly assigned to groups based on arbitrary factors, such as over- or under-estimating the number of dots on a slide.

In-group favoritism: When distributing points or money, participants consistently favored members of their own group.

Maximizing in-group profit: Participants chose to maximize the difference in reward between their in-group and the out-group, even if it meant their in-group received fewer total points than if they had simply maximized the profit for everyone.

Anonymous distribution: Participants did not know the identities of the individuals they were awarding points to, which further emphasizes that the group membership itself was the key factor, not personal relationships.

Social identity and self-esteem: The results suggested that people categorize themselves and others into groups to enhance their social identity and self-esteem. By favoring their in-group, they create a more positive social identity.

Jane Elliot's blue-eyed and brown-eyed experiment

divide third grade class into brown/blue eyes

1. brown eyes were superior & blue eyes had restrictions

2. roles reversed, students were inferior/superior based on roles

3. prejudice is taught and learned

Categorization

our brains automatically classify information into categories

- Our brains have a limited capacity

Confirmation bias

tendency to notice and remember events that are consistent with our existing beliefs

Contact hypothesis

social psychology theory: prejudice/discrimination can be reduced through direct/positive contact between social groups

Cooperative interdependence

relationship in which the outcomes of multiple people or groups depend on each others' actions

- Jigsaw classroom

Jigsaw classroom

to eliminate competition and introduce cooperation in classrooms

- Groups of students: each has unique skill or piece of information

- Must cooperate to succeed

Aggression

harm inflicted on another person

Drive theory

aggression results from situations that stimulate the internal motive to harm others

Catharsis

notion that expressing aggression or watching others engage in aggressive behaviors reduces aggressive drive (not supported)•

- However, committing or watching acts of aggression increases tendency toward future aggression

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

frustration increases probability of aggressive behavior

Social learning theory

aggression is learned by observation

- E.g., Bandura's Bobo doll study

Bandura's Bobo doll study

preschool divided, half watched aggression towards doll, half watched nonaggresion, children displayed the actions they saw with the doll

Similarity

"birds of a feather flock together"

Proximity

liking those who are near us

Mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 2001)

repeated exposure to a person increases our liking for the person

mirror image study

a person's reflection is often perceived as more attractive to themselves due to familiarity

Bystander effect (Latané & Darley, 1970)

the presence of other people makes it less likely that anyone will help a stranger in distress

Diffusion of responsibility

the presence of other people makes each individual feel less personally responsible

- Seizure study (Latané & Darley, 1970)

- Seizure study (Latané & Darley, 1970)

participants were less likely to help a person having a seizure when they believed others were also present, a phenomenon known as the bystander effect. When participants were alone, 85% helped, but only 31% did so when they thought four other people were listening, demonstrating that the "diffusion of responsibility" makes individuals feel less personally accountable to act in a group setting.

Pluralistic ignorance

bystanders assume nothing is wrong in an emergency because other bystanders don't appear concerned• Smoke-filled room study (Latané & Darley, 1970)

Smoke-filled room study (Latané & Darley, 1970)

smoke-filled room study,

participants in a room noticed smoke less quickly and were less likely to report it when other people were present compared to when they were alone.

Evaluation apprehension

concern about social approval or disapproval