Psych1001- Ch.13

social psychology

an area of psychology that studies how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. -Gordon Allport

“It is not so much the kind of person a man is, as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” -Stanley Milgram

Social cognition

the way in which people perceive and interpret themselves and others in their social world

Attitudes- relatively stable and enduring evaluations of things and people. They can influence how we think about and act toward others

Several Questions:

1. What comprises attitudes?

2. How do they develop (strengthen or change)?

3. Do they influence our behaviour?

4. Are we always aware of our attitudes?

5. Are we always aware of our attitudes?

6. How do attitudes toward groups arise?

What comprises attitudes?

-ABC model of attitudes

• The affective component-how we feel toward something

• The behavioural component-how we behave toward it

• The cognitive component-what we believe about it /

External factors

• Some (many) develop early on through socialization by parents, peers, schools, and media (learning)

• e.g. positive reinforcement e.g. praise for adopting parents’ values; acceptance in social circle

• Or, adopt attitudes to avoid being rejected by parents or peers (in social settings)

• Vicarious learning- from watching rewards and punishments of others who express attitudes

Internal factors

-Our own thinking shapes attitudes

• The more time we spend thinking about something, the stronger our attitudes become

• Mere thought effect: Merely thinking about something inflates its importance and therefore strengthens our attitude toward it

• Note: we may also experience increased confidence as more favouring arguments are considered (confirmation bias may also be at play)

-Our behaviour shapes (and can even change) attitudes!!

• Attitudes may determine our behaviours but much evidence that attitudes often follow behaviours

• When we engage in behaviours we develop attitudes consistent with the behaviour

• You buy an EV, so you develop stronger attitudes about climate change

• You give small donation to PeTA, so you develop pro-animal rights attitudes (Must believe what they say since I supported them)

Classic study: Leon Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

Showed that attitudes follow behaviour especially when there is no other justification for the behaviour

• Gave participants long boring tasks (e.g. turning pegs for hours)

• Then told study was over but asked to help researchers by telling the next participant that the experiment was really exciting (obviously not true)

• Offered either $1 ($10 today) or $20 ($200 today) for talking up the experiment

• They were then asked to rate their own enjoyment of the task

-Those paid less money, found the task more enjoyable!

Cognitive dissonance theory

We experience discomfort (dissonance) when we are inconsistent, e.g. when we are aware that our action is not consistent with our attitudes

-To relieve ourselves of this tension we develop an attitude that is consistent with our actions (can’t change the fact that we engaged in the behaviour)

-If you told someone an activity was exciting even though you thought it was boring, there would be distance…to reduce dissonance you change your attitude toward the activity (I guess I enjoyed it)

-If the behaviour appears justified (paid $200), there is less dissonance so you don’t need to adjust you attitude

The self-perception alternative

suggests that attitudes follow behaviour because we infer (deduce) our attitudes by examining our own behaviour (not to reduce dissonance)

• Especially explains situations in which our attitudes are uncertain to begin with

• our behaviours serve as clues for our attitudes

• Example: What do you think about homeless crisis? Well, I usually give homeless people a few dollars. I even gave one guy my gloves so, yeah, we should do way more!

Persuasion

the act of casting people to do or believe something

-Involves source, message, and receiver

-Two paths to persuasion:

1. Central route

2. Peripheral route

Central route persuasion

relies on content, factual information, and/or logic to change attitudes

peripheral route

focuses on superficial features of speaker (e.g. appearance) to change attitudes

Foot-in-the-door (persuasion technique)

get them to agree to something small so they will agree to something larger later

-Someone asks if you will put a campaign sign on your lawn. A week later, the ask if you would be willing to donate money to the campaign

Door-in-the-face (persuasion technique)

ask for something very big knowing you will get turned down, but then ask for the smaller item you really wanted

-”Dad, can I have $500? No. Well how about $50?”

Do attitudes influence behaviour?

• Intuition would suggest yes…We have negative attitudes toward smoking (cause cancer) so we don’t smoke

• However, some studies suggest expressed attitudes fail to predict behaviour

• Example: LaPiere (1934). Mailed survey to hotels and restaurants across U.S. 90% said they wouldn't accommodate Chinese persons. He then had a Chinese couple visit 250 locations across U.S. Only one refused them service!

• Surveys indicate most people who believe eating healthy is a good thing, eat first food anyway

• What people say and do are often not the same

• However, two factors increase how well attitudes predict behaviour: attitude specificity, attitude strength

attitude specificity

the more specific an attitude, the more likely it is to predict behaviour (example, what is your attitude toward use of stimulant drugs may not predict how much coffee you drink…your attitude toward coffee would better predict coffee intake)

attitude strength

stronger attitudes predict behaviour more accurately than weak or vague attitudes (attitudes that are well entrenched and significant to a person are likely to predict behaviour)

Are people honest about their attitudes?

• sometimes not and difficult to ascertain

• may explain inability to often predict behaviour from stated attitudes

• two reasons people misrepresent attitudes: social desirability factor, implicit attitudes

social desirability factor

like personality assessments, people may not want to disclose how they really feel (the ugly truth)

-Bogus pipeline procedure: leads people to believe you can tell if they are lying, more truthful responses

implicit attitudes

unconscious attitudes people possess and which may guide behaviour (unknowingly)

-Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but only his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But there are other things which a man is afraid to tell even to himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away in his brain -Fyodor Dostoyevsky

-How to assess? Implicit Association Test

stereotypes

generalized impressions based on social categories

• may be positive or negative

• Examples: age, race, beliefs

prejudice

negative stereotypical attitudes toward all members of a group

• Examples: racism, sexism, ageism

realistic conflict theory

• Robbers Cave experiment

• Amount of actual conflict between groups determines the amount of prejudice between groups (conflict over resources)

• direct experience with rival group is necessary

Social identity theory

-Involves identify processes:

• social categorization: naturally form categories to organize thinking about world (black-white, liberal-conservative) -mere categorization effect

• social identity: personally identify with a social group -Adopt/maintain norms/attitudes of group

• social comparison: bolster self-image by perceiving your group as better -can lead to negative attitudes

Note: Competition often over which group is best

How do we explain behaviour of others (and ourselves)?

Examples:

• How would you explain a person who is absent from work every other day?

• How would you explain someone cutting you off on the Outer Ring?

• What about a Nazi who killed and tortured people in death camps?

Attribution theory

Fritz Heider (1958)

-Considered how people explain the behaviour of others…We make attributions: casual explanation of behaviour

-We either attribute behaviour to internal factors of a person (dispositional attributions) or to external factors (situational attributions)

fundamental attribution error

We are more likely to make dispositional than situational attributions when explaining the behaviour of others

-The result is that we are more likely to “blame” a person for the behaviour (attribute it to their character)

-Example: See someone drop a dish…More likely to conclude they are clumsy (dispositional attribution) than the fact that the dish was slippery (for example)

-Someone speeding is reckless (not off to emergency room)

Famous study (Jones and Harris, 1967):

subject asked to rate how pro-Castro speechwriters were

• despite being told speechwriters were randomly assigned, still made dispositional attributions

actor-observer effect

as the doer of the action (actor) we are more aware of contributing factors for our own behaviour (and therefore make situational attributions)

-as observers of others’ behaviour, we are less aware of contributing factors and so assume dispositional influences

Self-serving bias

We tend to make dispositional attributions when evaluating our success (and situational dispositions for our failures)

• E.g. Did well on math test because I am smart…failed the math test because I had another exam that day

• Also when looking back on remote past behaviour, we make dispositional attributions (like we were another person)

The effects of attribution

Marriage (Heaven or hell): happy couples make situational attributions to explain negative behaviour of other

-Miserable couples make dispositional ones (I can’t believe I married that jerk)

Specific persuasion techniques

Foot in the door phenomenon: tendency for people who have agreed to a small request to comply later to a larger one

-Freedman and Fraser (1966)

-Pretended to be charity promoting safe driving

-Asked homeowners to place large sign on lawn only 17% said yes

-Asked others to place 3” sign on lawn most agreed

-2 weeks later made request to place the large sign

-76% said yes!

Chameleon effect

tendency to unconsciously mimic the expressions, gestures, and postures of others

-exmaples: yawn, laugh, look-up, rub face, shake foot, etc

Many social forces at work which influence our behaviour in social contexts (some subtle some not so subtle):

• Social Norms (rules)

• Conformity (peer pressure)

• Social Roles (expectations and duties)

• Obedience (compliance with direct commands)

Norms

social rules about how members of a society are expected to act

-Provide order and predictably

-Some norms are explicit (openly stated)

• e.g. No smoking on campus!

-Others are implicit (not openly stashed)

• e.g. How you ride in an elevator

conformity

the tendency to yield to social pressure

• Solomon Asch (1955): subjects (participants) recruited to take part in a “participation” study

• Real purpose of study was to study conformity

• subjects were placed at a table in room with several other subjects and given a simple judgement task

main factors affecting conformity

-Unanimity (if even one other person goes against group, others may not conform as well)

-Size of group (effect peaks with 3 others in group); over 4-5 people no greater effect

other factors (that increase conformity):

• if one is made to feel incompetent or insecure

• if person admires the groups status and attricteness

• fear of reprisals from group (normative social influence)

• in situations of uncertainty (informational social influence)

social role

a set of norms ascribed to a persons social position

for example:

• teacher should be organized, dedicated, responsible

• judges should be fair, impartial, etc

• positive effect: society functions smoothly

• negative effect: people are often limited by their prescribed social roles (e.g. men less likely to seek therapy/counselling when needed…men should be tough)

-All the worlds a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts… -Bill Shakespeare

Power of roles-The Stanford Prison Experiment:

Philip Zimbardo (1971)

famous experiment examined the power of roles in shaping behaviour

-Demonstrated how quickly and dramatically people can be transformed by roles “demanded” by social situations

obedience

The act of following direct commands, usually given by an authority figure

Many people comply with social pressures but how do they respond to outright commands?

-Stanly Milgram (1963)

• perhaps most famous social psychology experiment

• studied obedience of ordinary people to authority figures who instructed them to inflict harm on another person

• conducted at Yale University

• participants recruited from local newspaper ad…”Persons needed for a study of memory”

Milgram methods

-participant(“s”) met by experimenter in lab coat

-only one participant (other person was a confederate)

-told study examined effects of punishment on memory

-one participant would be the “teacher”, the other the “learner”

-learner given a list of word-pairs to memorize, then asked to recall paired word when one word given

-if wrong, would receive a shock

-rigged: participant always teacher (who would administer the “shock”)

• To more convincing, teacher given a 75 volt shock. The learner (actor “Mr. Wallace”) was then strapped in chair and hooked to shocker. Experimenter and teacher (subject) sat in adjacent room

Milgram study (Yale university)

• teacher seated in front of “shock controller”

• teacher told to increase shock intensity with each incorrect response

• 15 volts increments from 15 volts up to 450 volts!

• learner heard screaming/objecting in next room (silence after 300 volts)

-what percentage of particapants delivered all shocks up to 450 volts?

• 15 percent

• 30 percent

• 65 percent

• 85 percent

-Milgram surveyed 100 psychiatrists…no more than 1% and these would be deranged psychopaths

verbal prompts given by experimenter

• please continue

• the experiment requires that you continue

• it is absolutely essential that you continue

• you have no other choice, you must go on

• (in some instances, the experimenter states he will “take responsibility”)

Milgram study results

26 out of 40 participants administrated all shocks (65%)!

follow-up studies (examined additional factors)

1. women: same rate of obedience…65%

2. moved from Yale university to downtown office…41%

3. subject told to place learner’s hand on shock plate…30%

4. two others teachers, both refused at some point…10%

5. conflicting authority figures (experimenters)…0%

Milgram Study lessons learned

• Milgram interested in conduct of Germans in Nazi death camps

• implied ordinary Americans capable of same atrocities if placed in similar circumstances

• we all face moral dilemmas…do we adhere to our standards or comply with those of others (however evil)?

• Milgram: “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents of a terrible destructive process”

• Note downplay of personality factors…

group

an organized, stable collection of individuals who share a common identity and in which the members are aware of influence one another

group dynamics

how memberships or participation in a group influences our thoughts and behaviours

social facilitation

improvement in performance because others are present. Operates for both physical and mental tasks (Norman Triplett, 1890)

social loafing

tendency to exert less effort in a group task than one would if working alone

• increased with group size (more diffusion of responsibility)

• reduced if individual efforts are made known to group

group polarization

intensification of initial attitudes following discussions within groups

• when a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions and attitudes

• opposing groups become more polarized

• strengthens with time and isolation

• explains strengthening of prejudices, political views, etc

groupthink

faulty (disastrous) group decision making as a result of trying too hard to agree

Conditions setting the stage for groupthink:

1. high group cohesiveness (similar goals and attitudes)

2. high perceived threat (elevated stress)

3. insulated from outside influence (other perspectives)

4. directive leader

5. high emphasis on unanimity

-often direct pressure to conform (opposing views suppressed)

-dispel each others doubts

-results in illusion of invulnerability (overconfidence)

-Famous example: Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)

-other groupthink examples; 2003 invasion of IRAQ, NASA Columbia Disaster (2003)

-groupthink is less likely if group encourages expression of dissenting or opposing opinions!!!

Deindividuation

loss of self-identity or self-restraint in group setting (crowd)

-due to arousal of group coupled with diminished sense of personal responsibility

-uninhabited behaviour from wild cheering at sports event to vandalism in riot

alturism

self-sacrificing behaviour carried out for the benefit of others

-factors increasing altruistic behaviour:

1. if you identify with person in need (similarity)

2. if you are in a close relationship (more caring?)

3. people who are generally more trusting of others (low neuroticism, high agreeableness?)

Arland Williams Jr.

bystander effect (apathy)

the tendency to refrain from helping someone in need of help due to the presence of others

-Diffusion of responsibility- the perception that we are less personally responsible when others are present

-Case of Kitty Genovese: at least 38 witness to NY stabbing (lasting over 30 min). No one called for help

-Latane and Darley (1968): studied participants in variety of situations requiring helping action e.g. smoke, someone having seizure, witness to a theft

-Discovered people more likely to respond if alone, less helping behaviour as number of others increase

To intervene, bystanders must:

1. notice the event

2. interpret the event as an emergency

3. feel personal responsibility for acting

4. consider what form of assistance is needed and act accordingly

Important: if someone is singled out in crowd, and asked for help directly, person more likely to respond

Interpersonal attraction

what makes us attracted to others?

• like attitudes, three components of attraction: cognitive (thinking), affective (feeling), behavioural

• Liking: fondness and affection for another person

• Loving: more extreme affection perhaps

1. physical appearance

2. similarity

3. proximity

4. self-disclosure

5. situational factors

Sternberg’s triangular theory of love

posits that love is composed of three interconnected components—intimacy, passion, and commitment—which form the vertices of a triangle. These components combine to create eight different types of love, ranging from non-love to the ideal "consummate love," which requires a balance of all three.

social neuroscience

study of brain systems involved in social thinking and behaving

what areas of the brain are active?

1. pre-frontal cortex: evaluating intentions of others, emotional state, facial expressions, moral reasoning and assessments, empathy

2. insula (below pre-frontal cortex): active when we observe others in pain (empathy)

3. amygdala (temporal lobe): assess potential threats (identification of harmful stimuli)