Social Psychology (Unit 3)

What does it take for Minority Influence?

• consistency

  • majority wears down

• confidence

  • gets respect of majority

• independence/objectivity

Johnny Rocco Study

• Jury for juvenile criminal, minority against harsh punishment

• 85% moved to majority

More likely to become a leader

• leaders not chosen from those high in neuroticism

• attractive ppl, taller ppl

Table Study on Leadership

• randomly assigned ppl to seats on a table

• like a jury come to decision, oftne needs a leader

• noted who got addressed the most, asked the most

• those at head of table more likley to speak mroe, and be asked more questions

• then after ppl select who should be leader, and often chose those at head of table

• not personality characteristic, just a heuristic about rectangular tables

• no one spot chosen as leader in round table

Jury Trial Heuristics Choosing Leadership

• in jury, most ppl dressed khaki/nice shirt

• business casual mostly

• on the fourth day, one guy dressed in a suit & sat at head of table

• that day supposed to elect foreman, and elected that guy bc he looked most like he’d be a good foreman

Leadership Contingency Model

two types of leadership styles:

• socio-emotional leadership

  • good listeners

  • liked being worked for

  • make good mood

• task leadership

  • good at making ppl get things done

  • keep ppl on task

People tend to gravitate to one of these, but high self-monitoring can have both skills & are good at spotting when to be which leader

Large Intragroup Behavior

• size of this class or baltimore or hopkins

• Crowd behavior

Crowd Behavior

• Panic Events

  • survival instinct kicks in

  • fight or flight behavior

  • autonomic nervous system arousal

  • people do irrational things bc trying to get out

  • Itaewon Crowd Crush on Halloween

• Destructive Events

  • purposeful negative behavior

  • property destruction, violence, looting

  • 2011 Vancouver Riot after NL Game loss

    • rioting & property damage

    • people got swept up in the momentum of other ppl do it

• When embedded in large group, energy causes ppl to act in ways wouldn’t normally act

Social Rage Approach

• systemic issues (racism, polic misconduct) or dramatic events

• causes frustration or outrage that leads to a collective prtoests

• turns into a large scale destructive behavior

But this doesn’t explain how:

• Most gatherings are peaceful

• destructive events are episodic, but systemic is continuous

• destructive can happen after good news too

How Destructive Events Develop

• Unifying Event

• Convergent Norm

• The instigator

How Destructive Events Unfold

• Contagion

• Emergent Norm

• Deindividuation

Contagion (Crowd)

• energy of the large group is contagious

• destructive energy becomes contagious and exhilirating or exciting

• causes you to do something wouldn’t normally do

• adrenaline and dopamine rush

Emergent Norm (Destructive Event)

• what becomes acceptable behavior changes

• as more ppl do destructive events, becomes more normal

• so ppl feel like they can join in

Deindividuation (Destructive Event)

• no one will tie my behavior to my identity

• no one will know i was the oen who broke that window bc there was so much chaos

Unifying Event (Destructive)

• why ppl come together

• can be spontaneous or planned

• can be open (everyone) or closed (only ppl from community) or mixed (ppl take advantage that lootign is going on0

Convergent Norm (Destructive)

• must be enough ppl that would be in favor of destructive behavior

• someone does something dramatic like braking a window, and enough ppl must join

• potential instigator must have confidence that others will join them

The Instigator (Destructive)

• instigator must be willing to risk it anyway, not try to make a calculation about whether they might get caught

  • weighs risk of getting caught (ratio of crowd to police)

  • prob everyone will join

Social Dilemmas

the conflict between wanting to maximize self-interesta dn interst of the group as a whole

• Commons Dilemmas

• Public Goods Dilemma

• General Social Dilemmas

Commons Dilemmas

• natural resources that are shared

• taking from a resource

• if used up too much, ruins for everyone

• in towns with not a lot of good grazxing, town sets asside common area everyone can graze in

• if too many farmers brough livestock, woudl be demolished and woudl need to wait

• water usage in a drought

• whaling & hunting, where iv overharvesting of whales or oysters not enough time to replenish the resource and let whales reproduce

Public Goods Dilemma

• must contribute to the resource

• if too many ppl listen to NPR for free and don’t give in annual pledge drives, it goes bankrupt and goes under

• must give money to survive

• recycling is also

  • keep track of bottles and put it in to the blue bin

  • extra effort to keep track of it

  • of too many ppl say recycling is a hassle, then repercussions in landfills being filled + harvesting trees etc

General Social Dilemmas (Example)

• tension wanting to max urs vs groups but not taking or contributing to greater good

• Ex. Created HOV lanes. if too many ppl with single occupancy use HOV it doesn’t bypass traffic anymore!

• if see other ppl taking HOV even wo, may create temptation to go against the rule

• beaten down path in the grass in between paths bc too many ppl start taking shortcut to cut down extra 20 steps

Reducing Selfish Behavior

• Normative issues:

  • normative and informative social influence (trying to fit in or be right)

  • descriptive & injunctive norms

• Smaller Groups

  • ppl show more restraint bc feel like they have greater impact on the group

• Deindividuation & IDentifiability

  • in small groups easier to keep track of who is acting selfishly and who is not

  • easier to identify behavior in smaller groups

• Operant Conditioning

  • rewards and costs for showing restraint

• Legal measures

  • form of punishment (fine) if found being selfish!

  • weigh probability of getting caught

Normative Influence to Stop Selfish Behavior

• someone wrote a letter that complained about a David Robinson who was using water for lawn in the drought in Dallas

• the guy wrote a letter back explaining that the pipe broke thats why it was green

• recycling is normative now

• might shame or say something to someone going against it or make a

Informative Social influence Example

• following norm to be correct

• orange sticker saying please shut off lights bc it saves energy

• gives info to make the correct decision

Descriptive Norm (example)

• how do most ppl behave?

• this is how you should behave too

Injunctive Norm

• how you ought to behave?

• what do ppl you are about think about this behavior?

• social ramifications if ppl see that im not acting taht way

• David Robinson: didnt want public to see him watering his lawn

Deindividuation to Reduce Selfish Behavior

• in small groups, or if said randomly call 50 ppl to say how many points wrote down, less pppl write 10 bc don’t want that behavior to be identified to class

Operant Conditiong to Reduce Selfish Behavior (Example)

• in the summer will have a degree day that says if u used less energy this Wednesday than previous 4 wednesday, we will give a dollar less for each watt less u use

• rewards more effective than punishment

Legal Measures to Reduce Selfish Behavior (example)

• could only harvest lobster of certain size that refelcted age

• if get caught x number too small woudl get a big fine

• when 30K boats, and only 4 patrol, fisherman willingly took risk bc less likelihood of getting caught

• so increased # patrol boats

• rates of ppl blowing through intersection during a red decrease when a camera is there, but rate of accidents at intersectiosn w no camera goes up

Intergroup Behavior

• Discontinuity Effect

Discontinuity Effect

intergroup behavior is more competitive than inter-individual behavior

Prisoner’s Dilemma Game (example)

represents dif motives wihtin interindividual vs intergroup behavior

• two ppl report to lab or 6 ppl, assigned group A or Group B

• each individual or group think 30 sec what to choose for each trial then meet in the middle to talk to other

• go back to room and chooses x or y

• individuals will choose X 95% time

• groups choose X 50% of time

• X is cooperative (goal is for other group to chose x)

• Y is competitive (bc get a lot if other chooses X)

• best strategy is to choose X each time

• individuals feel regret over screwing each other, but groups enjoy it

• choosing Y over fear or greed?

• created PDG Alt

  • now 3rd choice of Z, regardless of if other group chooses X or Y get 2 poitns

  • basically fear response

• Two individuals choose X 95%. Groups choose 50% X. 25% Y AND 25% Z

Reasons for intergroup competition

• schemas of fear & greed

• social support for greed

• diffusion of responsibility

• deindiviudation

• reciprocity effect

• in group vs outgroup bias

• social identity theory

Schemas of Fear & Greed in Intergroup Competition

• around school age, kids think in terms of cooperation at first then in competitions in gym or class, start thinking dif about intergroup vs individual competition as dif

• in intergroup its ok to be greedy, but fear other gorup being greedy

• dont get that with inter-individual

Social Support for Greed

in PDG, in the group had a confederate that either:

• acted neutral

• or push to screw the other group over

• when there was a cofnederate the rate of competition went up bc of social support fo greed

• someone in grou voices the greed
  

Diffusion of responsibility (example)

• in PDG individuals are hte one who chose to screw the other one over

• but in group, responsibility is diffused

• spokesperson convinces that they will choose x, then screw over. next person will say that hte other person outvoted them.

Deindividuation for Intergroup Comeptition (example)

• in PDG, each subject has to wear nametag

• if wearing nametag same cooperation of individuals but in the group hte cooperation increases to 70%

Reciprocity Effect in Intergroup Competition

• strong tit for tat

• once one group convincces other to choose X and htey choose Y. the next tiem the other group will try to do the same thing

• the individuals will feel guilty and let the other person do the same thing

• after one act of greed, immediately other group does it back

• if its aggression (amount of white noise) blasted into headphone + duration, levels adn intensity of aggression will continue to icnrease

In Group vs Outgroup Bias

• think our group as being more moral, better ppl

• think of outgroup as less moral, worse ppl

• escalates differences when something is at stake adn competition is involved

In Grroup vs OUtgroup Bias Example

• stydy looking at ethnic stereoptyes

• saw that when two ethnic group were competition for same jobs, thats when vitriol got most extreme about each other

Social Identity Theory

• part of our self esteem comes from the group membership and social groups

• since part of self esteem comes from group, want our group to do better than other groups

• want hopkins to be ranked higher

• leads to if intergroup competition

Social Identity Theory (Minimal Group Example)

• randomly assigned to green or red group (minimal group)

• take individuals out and told they can distribute money to strangers in the study but not to yourself

• most ppl give most of the 100 to their own group even if groups have no meaning

Reduction of Intergroup Competition

• Simple Contact Effects

• Higher Level Goals

• jigsaw classroom

Simple Contact Effects

• to reduce intergorup competition & in/outgroup bias

• just bring ppl together and have contact on equal footing

• black and white kids doing task together, eliminated intergroup bias

• true for little kids bc schemas not firmly established yet

Robber’s Cave Study

• recruited same background kids all across city

• could we create intergroup competition thenr educe it?

• placed kids into two dif groups and let them name themselves

  • created identity

• group lived together and had competitions between them for a trophy

• food fights in kitchen

• stole trophy back, pranks, at each other throat

• tried simple contact and mixed up the cabins

• during meal times, made them sit and talk to each other

• didn’t help!

• so created higher level goals, where groups need to come together to solve

• camp didnt have water supply of its own had a water truck

  • truck got stuck

  • gave rattler sa wrench adn eagles a chain

  • both needed to get the truck out and figured out needed to work together

  • working together reduced intergroup bias

• Robbers Cave vs the other camp competition

  • also made them identify with robbers cave

Jigsaw Classroom

• usually kdis responsible for own grades

• put kid in groups, each kid w own subtopic and learns their part and teach other kids

• become dependent on other kids to do their work

• was effective as jigsaw kdis did better

• in mixed grousp (gender, ethnicity) reduced ingroup bias

Positive Intergroup Examples

• brought college aged into minimal blue and green teams

• did competitive and cooperative activities

• took one person from each group adn had them itneract one on one. these ppl could choose to be competitive or cooperative

  • tended to be cooperative

• then found that ppl who had positive expereince told their group that which reduced the ingroup outgroup bais

• more effective if it was a leader or popular person

Interpersonal Attraction

• First Impressions

• Physiological Approaches

• Learning Theory

• Social Exchagne Theory

• Contact Effects

Why do First Impresions Matter?

• Primacy Effect: first thing we see dominates overall

• Confirmation Bias: tend to look for what stays consistent w schema we have of someone

• Overconfidence: overestimate how much we know about someone based on small interactions

Married Couple Overconfidence

• study shows that couples think they really know romantic partner

• but if not talking about internal stuff and just spend time to gehter

• dont actually know each other!

Physiological Approaches

• pheromones: chemical smell we give off affects on if ppl are attracted

• take arousal as a cue

• Missattribution of Arousal

  • Bridge Study

  • Secrets

  • Could be classical conditioning

Pheromones Study (White Shirt)

• men wore cotton shirt for a week adn could not take it off

• did not bathe, slept in it

• female subjects was randomly assigned one shirt to smell

• then brought hte 20 womena dn men to have a speed dating (w/o letting them know it was these men)

• this didnt work (did not choose pheromone match)

Pheromones Study (Periods)

• in two groups of women roomates, took sawps of pheromones and took to other group

• swabbed udner their nose

• even wo interaction, those women got on same cycle as the other!

Arousal

• feel adrenaline, excitement, heart rate

• take this as a cue that we like them

Bridge Study

• at one part of park, had a plank and rope ladder bridge to cross

• at other had a sturdy bridge

• took a female RA and put her in park uniform wiht trainee badge

• would stop men as crossing and say if she could ask questiosn about experience at park

• at end of bridge, another confederate and ask if they could give feedback for the trainee

  • did you find her attractive?

  • do you want her phone number?

• on rickety bridge, actually more likely to get phone number and rate her more attractive

• that adrenaline of walking across misattributed

• but what if its dif between men who choose to walk across rickety bridge

Misattribution of Arousal Study (Shocks)

• in lab, told will get intense or mild shock if fail memory

• female confederate in waiting room asks about experience

• men who were expecting to get intense shock rated the confederate as more attractive

• when reversed, same results

Misattribution of Arousal Study (Failing Couples)

• half of couples told had to do pleasing things togheter or exciting things together

• saw that couples who did exciting thing reinvigorated their relationship

• must be together!

“Secrets” Study

• having to keep a secret can be excitied

• randomly paired off so men and women are paired

• one person will look at a card w shape and color and should think hard enough so other can guess what it is

• in the one condition: men and owmen in one table should be touching feet under table

• in other condition, touch feet but keep it a secret

• those ppl rated attraction to other person higher bc secret can be exciting and labeled arousal as attraction

• people in secret relationships are more excited

Learning Theory

• when we get rewarded for being around someone, tend to be more attracted to them more

• operant conditioning

• reciprocity effects

• flattery effects

Flattery Effects

• more likely to like someone if they flatter, even if hint is that flattery is for something (not genuine)

Reciproicty Effects (Attraction)

• if someone knows you like them, more likely to like you back

• bc it makes u feel good about yourself

Social Exchange Theory

• extension of operant conditioning (reward or cost of being around someone)

• but also probability of getting those rewards or costs

• communal relationships where some leevl of closeness and expect that will interact in the future

• exchange are mroe transactional and don’t expect future interactiosn (plumber)

• if meeting and expect going to have a long term relationship, could increase effort you put in

Social Exchange (Prob of Outcome)

• probability of a women saying yes

• men had to be 75% sure they woudl say yes to ask her out

Social Exchange Study (Prob of Outcome)

• all men open to seeing someone in future

• signed up to do motor coordination study

• sort cards of dif sizes with subject at dif table doing same task (but was female)

• in one condition, men not told anything

• in another, told she’s a transfer student and in a relationship

• in another told she’s transfer, she’s new, not dating and open to being in relationship

• cards scatter from her table (she drops cards)

  • if new to school and not interested, more guys go up to help

  • bc odds are up she woudl find you attractive and be willing to date

Contact Effects

• proximity

• mere exposure

• familiarity

Proximity

• can only have itneraction w ppl near us

• matters in terms of attraction!

• tend to be attracted to ppl who we have mroe interactions with

Familiarity

• like ppl who reminds us of someone we have a positive relationship w in the past

• can reduce stress

Familiarity Photo Study

• rate photos of ppl who seems familiar, tend to rate higher

Familiarity Stress Reduction Study

• have ppl conducting interviews

• when ppl went in expecting a familiar face, stress reduced

Familiarity Effect Example

• in fifth grade, had a friend who was a girl

• after moved an hour away, started middle school

• had a girl who looked like that old friend

• gravitated to her and started dating

• even if she was mean

Mere Exposure

• more exposed we are to something, more likely to like it

• if like it, like more

• if dislike, dislike more

• friends w ppl you interact with more in freshman year

Contact Effect (MIT) Study

• post WW2, increase student population

• had to make more housing

• quad of buildigns with all new students, and rated everyone in each of those quads

• ppl tended to like best ppl we saw more often and lived in same dorm

• ppl liked most ppl who lived by the door bc had the most interactiosn with other people

More Exposure Study

• study w non Chinese speaking udnergrads

• told study on perception

• give slides with chinese characters

• get one slide 20 times, randomly assigned

• then gave ratings a week later after slide presented one time

• like the slide saw 20 times the most

Trait Approaches

• physical appearance (Halo Effect)

• matching hypothesis

• Similarity

• Positivity Effects

• Small Imperfection

Examples of Physical Appearance

• strongly predicts how much others enjoy spending time w others

• preferred pretty ppl n hiring, or for criminal cases, or for professors ratings

• social interactions w opposite sex is higher for attractive ppl (S

• cuter little kids are more likely to be called on and get individual attention

• cuter lil kids were also more persuasive (less attractive needed to use reasoning or threats of violence)

Computer Dance Study

• survey to incoming freshman measuring attitudes, demographics, background, politics, personality

• during orientation, set up a dance

• assign someone to get to know

• sent headshots to a dif uni where rated for appearance

• after hour is up, make ratings about how fun dance is

  • how much you like the person u were paired w

• physical attractiveness predicted most whether ppl enjoyed the other

• in superficial convo, other parts not gleaned only physical attractiveness

Moms & Cute Kid Study

• mom is called in to feed baby

• ratings of kids always high from their mom but cuter infants had moms spend more time w them

Matching Hypothesis

• tend to end up w ppl of same level attractiveness

• Social Marketplace

• Pair Off

Social Marketplace Theory of Matching

know our level of attractiveness and seek out someone of same level bc want to avoid inequality

Pair Off

everyone seeks out most attractive, but the most attractive pair off first then go down the line

• or when younger first seek out most attractive. after experience, we seek out ppl at same level

Similarity in Traits

• similarity of attitudes matters a lot

• makes interaction more pleasing bc mutually rewarded

• Opposites do attract, but initial excitement become thing you like the least about them after honeymoon

• similarity in demographics matter (not as powerful as attitudes)

• personality similarity is least

  • extro do prefer extro but not as strong

  • not neurotic!!

Positivity Effects

• like ppl who are more sunny and positive

• like happier ppl and have a roll with attitude

Example of Small Imperfection

• had person do a ted talk perfectly lecture

• and in other section w ten min left, accidentally knocks water over and gets flustered

• then goes back to perfection

• got even better ratings after knocking down water bc it made them relatable

Interpersonal Relationship Theories

• Evolutionary Appraoches

• Social Cognition

• Interdependence Theory

• Investment Model

Evolutionary Approaches

• survival (need adaptations to survive) and reproduction is important aspect of our species

• differential parental investment

• Mate preferences

• jealousy

• child abuse

Differential Parental Investment

• women are sure genes in offspring

• go through traumatic physiological experience

• less window of fertility

• makes mom more invested in offspring

• men are less sure of their offspring

• men can have children with as many partners and have long window of fertility and are less invested

Gender Differences on Mate Preference

• at the top, everyone wants someone they love and lvoes them

• someone they are close to

• men prefer for physical attractiveness of female more than women value for men

• women prefer for men to have resources more than men prefer about women do

• men prefer physical attractiveness bc sign of good genes

• women prefer resources bc will have enough resources for offspring to survive

Gender Differences on Age of Marriage

• women tend to be 2 or 3 yrs younger

• man has more time to accrue resources

• younger women has larger fertility window

• old rich guy and young attractive women

Gender Differences on Jealousy

• told in study you are matche dup w someone

• if someone else also matched, had to make video to convince

• men tended to emphasize resources

• denigrated rival saying he’s poor

• women try to say the rival is ugly or a slut

• male are more upset thinking a partner cheated on them

Study on Gender Differences Jealousy

• measured physiological responses for couples made to imagien their partner either falling in love w someone else or having sex w someone else

• men are more upset w women having sex w someone

  • offspring unsureness

• women more upset about men falling in lvoe w someone

  • sign they will take resources elsewhere

Male Sexual Jealousy & Homicide

• most common reason women got murdered were by ex-partners

• bc suspected of cheating or her trying to leave him

Genetics & Treatment of Children

• step more likely to be abused then not

• bc if have genes less likely to harm

• and give help to those related to us more often

Social Cognition: Illusion vs Accuracy

• illusion about you and your traits is a good thing

• see you as higher on certain traits than you think

• strengthen desire to be with that partner and changes how they behave to make you more like that person

• or oppsite!

• Michelangelo Effect

• accuracy matters for understanding partners attitudes

Michaelangelo Effect

• let the ideal form come out

• shows that traits we value but don’t think we have, having a partner that sees us as having those traits makes them behave in ways that create a behavioral confirmation

• they would encourage us to exercise those traits that move us towards that ideal self

Study on Illusion vs Accuracy in a Relationship

• both memebers of coupel rate traits

• third party rated relationship and how they behaved towards each other about these traits

• observable process

Self-Enhancement vs Self-Verification

• at first in relatinship want self-enhancement

• later in relationship, want verification

Social Cognition: Attribution Effects

• couples doing well make internal attributions for partners good behavior and external for their bad behavior

• see the best in partner

• couples not functioning well make internal attributions for bad behavior

  • flip attribution bias

• in relationships, when things get rock and flip attribution bias, goes downhill very quickly

Social Cognition Approaches

• illusion v accuracy

• Michaelangelo Effect

• Attribtuion Effects

• “yes, but” hierarchy

• Replationship specific Identity

“Yes but”

• couples doing better see faults as in service of heir virtues

• scatter brained but bc he’s creative

• couples not doing well focus on faults

"“yes but” study

• couples given cue card of positive and negative traits and told to sort into piles

• stick some of the faults being associated with all the other great traits

• could be excusing bad behavior for good?