Social Psychology

(not complete)

Social Psychology

the scientific study of the way in which people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others

random assignment + blind experimentation

social psychology experiments focus a lot on _______ and __________

less

if people are watching, an action would be (more/less) altruistic

correspondence bias

the general tendency to explain others’ behavior in terms of dispositions rather than situations

actor-observer asymmetry in attribution negative

our own behaviors are seen as more situational; others’ actions are seen as more dispositional

actor-observer asymmetry in attribution positive

own behavior are seen as more dispositional; others actions are seen as more situational 

self-serving bias

the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner

basic social motives

(1) we want to feel good about ourselves (2) we want to be accurate about the social world -we want to feel good about ourselves based on the truth

naive realism 

the tendency to believe that we see the world objectively; the belief we are always right and think about everything correctly

naive realism corollary

people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased

false consensus effect

the tendency to overestimate the number of people who share our belief

• ex: I love pop music, everyone must love pop too

Ross, Green, and House, 1977

ask people at college campus 2 things

1. would YOU be willing to walk around campus wearing a sandwich board that says “Eat at Joe’s”

2. what percentage of OTHER PEOPLE would be willing to wear a sandwich board that says, “Eat at Joe’s”

Results:

• people who say “yes”, 62% of them think other people would say “yes”

• people who said “no”, 67% of them think other people would say “no”

Takeaway: people assume that other people would make the same decision of them

construal

the way in which people perceive, comprehend, and interpret our social world

• social psychologist are more concerned with this

• ex: Sarah asks her best friend Jenna, whether she kissed Jason. Jenna replies yes, but that wasn’t a romantic kiss, just a friend one - on the forehead. Sarah asks Jason, Jason said yes, and it was a very steamy kiss

conscious introspection is limited

we don’t have conscious access to many of our thought processes

• we do not really know where are thoughts come frm

• ex: “why don’t you like rock music” and you respond “it sounds like noise, rock bands aren't relatable”. Maybe this is NOT the true cause, (1) maybe you weren’t exposed to it as a kid

science

a set of values and methods when determining what is true to not 

hindsight bias

the tendency to exaggerate foresight of an outcome after knowing that it happened

Brigham 1986, the 1985 Super Bowl

• Predictions before Super Bowl: Dolphins vs 49ers

  • 81% of people think dolphins will will, 40% more than 10 points

  • 19% of people think 49ers will win

• Predictions after Super Bowl:

  • 42% of people think dolphins would win, 0% by more than 10 points

  • 58% of people think 49ers would win

• 40% of people misremembered what they predicted!

frequency, association, causal 

3 types of scientific claims 

frequency claims

how often or how much something happens

• answer is a number, average, or percent

• relating to ONE variable

• ex: how many teens text while driving; average American sees how many ads per day

association claims

whether two variable move together (or correlate)

• the relationship between 2 variables

• does increasing one increase the other? does increasing one decrease the other?

• does NOT say why something happens

causal claims

whether one variable causes change in another variable

• ex: texting while diving causes car cashes, racial prejudice reduces support for Black Lives Matter

• explains why on variable happens

construct, external, statistical, internal

the four types of validity

validity

the appropriateness of a claim

construct validity 

how well the variables are measured or manipulated 

operationalization

how a concept Is converted into a variable for a study

external validity

degree to which the results generalize to other populations, times, or situations

statistical validity 

the degree to which the results generalize to other populations, times, or situations

statistical validity

the degree to which statistical conclusions support their claim

internal validity

degree to which the evidence supports a causal claim

questionable research practices

directions that artificially increase the likelihood of achieving publishable results

• ex: use small samples and capitalizing on chance

reproducibility project 2015

Large-scale replication of 100 studies from 3 top-tier journals

• close/exact replications

• Contacted original study authors

• Open materials and date

  • Reduces likelihoods of "unknown differences” effect 

• You would not expect 0% replication, nor 100% replication

Result: only 36% studies replicated, 64% did not

differences between studies, the original effect didn’t exist 

why didn’t studies replicate?

differences between studies

Society could have changed, environment could have changed

• a reason studies don’t replicate

• Ex: Obama’s approval rating will change over the course of the situation + what he does → legit study, results change

file drawer problem

the tendency for significant results to be published at a disproportionate rate → if you find a result/exciting result you are more likely to successfully get it published

• the original sample was too small and just got “lucky”

• a reason studies don’t replicate (the original effect didn’t exist)

be a skeptical reader

consider the type of claim, consider the 4 validates, be patient + see if a study replicates 

pay attention to sample size

how big is the sample? how big should the effect be?

social influence

 the many ways that people influence one another, including changes in attitudes, beliefs, feelings, or behaviors resulting from the real or imagined presence of other people

• forms: conformity, compliance, obedience

conformity 

change in beliefs/behavior to align with the beliefs/behavior of the group

• tool for cooperation

• can be negative

• Ex: fashion trends 

  • Through watching what other people do, they change their own behavior

norms

unwritten social rules for what people believe or do

• what we conform to 

descriptive norm

perceptions of what people tend to believe or do (what people are doing) → ex: bunch of trash nearby, the norm tends to be to litter, so you litter

prescriptive norm

perspectives of what beliefs/behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others → ex: bunch of trash nearby, but do not litter

informative social influence 

conformity resulting from a motivation to obtain accurate info about reality

• perceptions of descriptive + prescriptive norms cause 

the autokinetic illusion

 in a dark room, a stationary point of light will appear to move around, but does not

normative social influence

conformity resulting from motivation to fit in socially

• how prescriptive norms cause conformity

Line Judgement Study (Asch 1956)

Which one of these three lines is the same height as the line on the right?

• When all participants are actors besides one, the actors purposely say the wrong answer 

• the one will conform to the actors even though they know it is the wrong answer

Results: how often  people conformed on average: 37%; people who conformed at least once: 75%

internalization is guaranteed

descriptive + prescriptive norms cause conformity through informational social influence so …

• accurate information → accept it to be true

internalization is NOT guaranteed

prescriptive norms cause conformity through normative social influence…

• fitting in + believing it → acceptance, fitting in + thinking it’s lame → rejection 

internalization of norms

norms that are internalized change beliefs/behavior for longer periods than norms that are privately rejected

• you belong to a species of bird that can change color. You see a bunch of people wearing blue so you wear blue. Private Acceptance (internalization) → wears blue even when others aren’t around (conforming when others aren't around). Private Rejection → wear red when alone (not conforming when others aren't around)

the group, the society, the situation

factors that influence conformity

solo status

more conformity when one has NO allies in a group; its difficult to be the lone dissenter 

• “the group” influence conformity factor

• Variation on original Asch line judgement

  • 6 of 7 actors selected incorrect line

  • 1 of 7 actors was an “ally” who selected correct line

  • Conformity dropped to 6%

expertise + status

high status or expert group members have more social influence

• “the group” influence conformity factor

• WHO is in the group matters

  • experts exert more informational social influence → more likely to have accurate social info

    • ex: police officers

  • high status people exert more normative social influence

    • ex: royals

group size

conformity rates increase as group size increases, but there are diminishing returns

• “the group” influence conformity factor

• Asch’s Line Study

  • With less actors, there is less conformity to the wrong answer 

  • When there are 2 vs 3 actors the number of errors increases

difficulty or ambiguity of task

in hard or ambiguous tasks, people look to others for information about what to do (ex informational social influence)

• “the situation” influence conformity factor

• when you do NOT know what to do, people look to others to learn

• ex: 9/11 many people did not know what to do or what was going on so they followed others to ferries → relied on others for information

anonymity

people are less susceptible to normative social influence when decisions are made anonymously

• “the situation” influence conformity factor

• nothing at stake, nothing can be traced back to you, so people do not succumb to the norms → feel like safety blanket as no one know it is you

• ex: social media, you can say whatever you want under a username and no one will know it is you

culture 

compared to people from independent culture, people from interdependent culture are more concerned about fitting in + conform more in everyday life

• “the society” influence conformity factor

• Ex: in Japan you do not want to be sticking out, you want to be like everyone else (interdependent)

• Ex: in America everyone is sticking out and different (independent)

compliance

following the DIRECT REQUEST of another person, regardless of the person’s status

• doesn’t necessarily mean you personally agree with the request

• the person does NOT need to be a superior

• ex: a young child asking you for a cookie, a care salesman trying to get you to buy a car

obedience

following the direct requests of someone who is HIGHER IN POWER

• Ex: boss telling you to do something, police officer pulling you over, a parent telling you to do something

Langer, Blank, Chanowitz

How often will people let the actor cut in line?

• (1) Actors walks up to people making copies, “excuse me, may I use the Xerox machine”

  • 60% of people let person cut in line

  • Blank request → no reason

• (2) Actors walks up to people making copies, “excuse me, may I use the Xerox machine… because I’m in a rush”

  • 94% of people let person cut in line

  • Gives a reason

• (3) Actors walks up to people making copies, “excuse me, may I use the Xerox machine… because I need to make some copies”

  • 93% of people let the person cut in line

  • Nonexistent reason and they still complied

• Takeaway: we’re inclined to comply when asked something

  • In this study, just saying because makes people more likely to agree to your requests

commitment/consistency, norm of reciprocity, social proof, scarcity 

compliance techniques

commitment/consistency

increases compliance by targeting identity, sense of commitment, and sense of internal consistency

• taking advantage of something we have/a value we hold

foot-in-the-door

make a small request that is accepted, followed by a large request

• commitment/consistency compliance

• step 1- gain target’s compliance with a small request

  • ex: would you sign a petition to help feed people with homelessness?

• step 2- make a related, larger request

  • ex: would you work for 2 weeks in the soup kitchen?

• as you already told them you care about this issue, you cannot go against what you just said

• it would be inconsistent with self-image

low-ball

after making a choice, people are more likely to stick with that choice even when the conditions change

• commitment/consistency compliance

• Ex: when someone says “Can you do me a favor” and you agree, and then it is a HUGE FAVOR 

• Step 1: get an agreement to a specific arrangement

  • Ex: get customer to agree to buy a new car for $15,000

• Step 2: change the terms of the arrangement

  • Ex: “oh you wanted new safety features? Then that’ll be $15,999” 

• Why it works: People take “mental possession” of their choice and it becomes part of their identity; it easier to stick with the commitment 

labeling

giving a person a label makes them more likely to comply with request that are consistent with with that label

• commitment/consistency compliance

• People feel more obligated to stay true to the label to stay consistent

• Step 1: assign the target a label

  • Ex: an activist says "you are a very generous person” 

• Step 2: label-consistent request

  • Ex: “can you contribute to the environment fund?”

    • You feel more obligated to follow along and donate cause you are a generous person, and if you don’t you are no longer generous

• Why it works:

  • The label activates a favorable self-image

    • Can also be sued with a negative self-image

      • “You do not want to be rude and not donate to the kids”

  • This motivates the person to act in ways that are consistent with that self-image

norm of reciprocity

feeling of obligation to repay someone who has given to us; even when given something small, may feel obligated by a later request

• why it works: social norms, feeling obligated

door-in-the-face

make a large request that is refused, followed by a smaller request

• ex: ask “can I borrow $100” person replies “no” then ask “can I borrow $10”  person replies “yes”

Cialdini et al 1975 Passerby at University

• LARGE request: “Would you be willing to volunteer to counsel juvenile delinquents for 2 hours a week for 2 years?”

• SMALL request: “Would you be willing to chaperone juvenile delinquents on a 1-day trip to the zoo?”

• Results:

  • Small ONLY: less than 20% said yes

  • Large then Small: about 50% said yes

• Why it works? Reciprocal concession

  • You compromised with me, so I’ll compromise with you

social proof

changes in attitudes or behavior from learning about others’ revealed opinions

• ex: P1- “I want to see the Long Walk this weekend”, P2 “It is not good”, P1 now waits until it comes out on streaming services

scarcity 

 people tend to perceive things as more attractive when availability is limited

• Ex: Labor Day Sale, Black Friday Sale, Chick-fil-A closing on Sundays, 24k Gold Labubu

• Can be rareness or limited time, the general idea is it is limited

obedience 

following the direct requests of someone who is HIGHER IN POWER

• Most direct pressure on the individual 

• Comes from a source of power over the individual