Social Psych Exam 3
Call Kai
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
Flashcards
Knowt Play1/125
There's no tags or description
Looks like no tags are added yet.
126 Terms
Injunctive
A(n) __________ norm has to do with what we think other people will approve or disapprove of.
A) prescriptive
B) injunctive
C) descriptive
D) deductive
Normative Social Influence
Going along with the crowd because of a fear of social exclusion is an example of __________.
A) social impact
B) normative social influence
C) social dominance
D) informational social influence
The Door-In-The-Face Technique
A social influence strategy in which first asking people for a large request will make them more likely to agree to a second, smaller request is called __________.
A) the foot-in-the-door technique
B) minority influence
C) the door-in-the-face technique
D) idiosyncrasy credits
Informational Social Influence
Victor goes to a fancy French restaurant. There are utensils on the table that he’s never even seen before, and more spoons and forks than he’s ever seen on one table. Eager to dine in an appropriate and sophisticated way, Victor secretly watches other diners to see what they do. This is an example of __________.
A) normative social influence
B) situational interdependence
C) informational social influence
D) normative conformity
Ask someone to work every Sunday for the next three months, then ask that person to work July 4th
Mr. Hidecki needs someone to work the very undesirable Fourth of July shift in his restaurant. If he uses the door-in-the-face technique, how should he approach his staff?
A) Ask someone to work July 4th, and then ask if they can also work the following three days
B) Ask someone to work every Sunday for the next three months, then ask that person to work July 4th
C) Ask someone to work a few extra minutes today, then ask the person to work July 4th
D) Ask someone to work July 4th because he (Mr. Hidecki) is also working that day
Conformity
Change in perception, opinion, or behavior due to the real or imagined influence of others
Why do People Conform
Evolutionarily adaptive
Serves a purpose, makes social interaction go more smoothly
Person required for success, opportunity to survive and thrive is increased when youre around other ppl
Makes more likely were gonna like and get along w/those around us
When we go along w/other ppl makes interaction go more smoothly, increase odds that we’ll like each other
“Chameleon Effect”
Need to know what’s right (1930s, older)
Understand environment, take in what sense tell us and accurately perceive what’s going on
World can be ambiguous, might assume that ppl know as much as us maybe better, they help disambiguate situations, other ppl give us info to figure things out
“Informational” social influence
Often leads to private acceptance
Most likely when situation is ambiguous, a crisis, & when others are experts
Autokinetic effect
Need to be liked or accepted
Wanna fit in; conform to other ppl to increase those odds
“Normative” social influence
Often results in public (not private) acceptance
Informational Social Influence
Conform to get info; bc we have a need to know what the right answer is; we presume these ppl know better than we do
Often leads to private acceptance
When change answer to conform bc that’s what they really believed was happening, privately accepted info, they believe what they were saying
If brought back a 3rd time by themselves, should look like response at end of session 2, not like at end of session 1
Most likely when situation is ambiguous, a crisis, & when others are experts
Not clear what right answer is
Stakes are high move quick so feel ambiguous
When think experts, more confidence that they do know better than you
Autokinetic Effect
Illusion, visual illusion
If were in completely dark room and point of light on wall and stared at point after a little while
That point of light will move around, think it is even though it isn’t
Bc theres no external reference point to compare if it is or isn’t, is something moving, its your eyeballs
“Normative” Social Influence
Wanna fit in; conform to other ppl to increase those odds
Often results in public (not private) acceptance
Saying what need to say to fit in but in hearts don’t believe it, no private acceptance; just public compliance
Conditions that Lead to Conformity
Awareness of the norm
Even when wrong!
Pluralistic ignorance
Group size
No allies in the group
Personality characteristics
Awareness of the Norm
Leads to conformity
Even when wrong!
Ppl are gonna mis perceive what the norm is, whether follow it depends on what perceive norm to be not what the actual norm is
Pluralistic ignorance:
Ppl mistakenly believe own thoughts & feelings are diff from others, even though everyone’s behavior the same
Think reasons for doing things are special and unique, but they aren’t
Group Size
Leads to conformity
Larger the group, the more conformity
Law of diminished return:
Conformity to a larger group up to a point where things seem to flat line
% conform goes up when have 3 compared to 4, etc etc; at some point seems to taper off around 7 or 8 ppl
No Allies in the Group
Leads to conformity
Other ppl who see things the way you do = allies
One other person said right answer, conformity plummeted, even when given wrong answer but give diff wrong answer
Someone going against majority, frees you up a little, more likely to stick to guns
Personality Characteristics
Leads to conformity
Some ppl have an extra need to fit in wanna be accepted, ppl less confident about view of world
As ppl get older less likely to conform
Compliance
A form of conformity
Change in behavior due to a direct request from another person
Often fall prey to various “techniques” (to make it more likely someone will go along)
Compliance Techniques
Foot in the Door
Door in the Face
Low-Balling
Disrupt, then Reframe
Foot in the Door
Ultimately makes request; if start small, make a request that doesn’t involve a lot from person asking; if agreed to small request, make more likely later to comply with subsequent larger request
Key psych = consistency:
Ppl want to seem themselves as consistent; engage in behavior that suggests they care about consumer products; week later when make request to maintain consistent in self-definition, ppl seem to comply
Doesn’t require a ton of effort or ton of money to double compliance
Door in the Face
Start big then go small
If want something; make a big request 1st, assuming turned down; follow up w/comparatively smaller ask; increasing odds will comply
Key psych = Reciprocity: norm of reciprocity:
If someone does something for you, should be some psych pressure to return the favor
Someone’s made a request of you; this person backs off, they’ve given up a whole lot; least you could do is do smaller ask, bc they give up a lot of something should feel some psych pressure to give up a little something
Low-Balling
Induce someone to want a certain outcome/product
Set conditions that are too good to be true; before get thing, change terms; they’ve already agreed
Once they’ve committed and details change, ppl still feel complied to carry through
Key psych = Commitment:
When ppl make choices they double down; commit to course of action, justify things, even if some leg of support is kicked out from under you
Already built additional legs of support bc justified in head this was right thing to do; stick to it; more likely to agree more likely to show up
Disrupt Then Reframe
Discovered at Uark
Key psych = Conflict:
Approach avoidance conflict; someone makes a request, gonna feel some pressure to do 2 things, to approach the situation it’s a good cause, on other hand, its your money, part of you wants to avoid
Want something of you that’s of limited supply, want to help but at same time you don’t
Come up w/script in head to get out of situation and not look like jerk (avoidance script)
Script is disrupted by person making request doing something unexpected (stating amount in pennies) reframing avoidance motivation as approach (it’s a bargain)
Seems to work; doubling compliance
When disrupt but don’t reframe; don’t get bump in compliance; have to also reframe
When start with reframe then disrupt; doesn’t work
1st disrupt avoidance script, then reframe as approach
Obedience to Authority
Behavior change produced by the commands of authority (person making request is an authority figure)
Milgram
He did 27 studies (obediance to authority) (shock experiment)
Had family killed in holocaust trying to get head around how that could have happened
Ordinary ppl will come in and be goaded to do something an ordinary person would do (cause pain to another person)
Asked around what would you do?
Most say quit after 135v; none all the way
Psych profs at Yale say this; psych students agree, no one would go all the way
Psychiatrists: 1/1000 would go all the way
Milgram Obediance to Authority Experiment
The Shock Generator (15-450 volts)
The Procedure:
2 ppl in room, 1 real person, 1 confederate
Experimenter is there; always male (learning under aversive conditions)
Gonna draw straws, one will be teacher other will be learner
Teacher will read word pairs, learner will try to learn pairs by repeating them out loud
When mistakes happen teacher will administer electric shock to learner
As mistakes continue voltage of shocks will increase
Rigged, participant is always gonna be the teacher; take learn to adjacent room, strap into equipment
Around 75 or 90 volts hear person scream out, ow that hurts; around 100 smth, say I have heart condition should be here
135 person pounds on table screams out in pain, says let me out of here im done (hasn’t said anything in last 5 mins)
There is no IV; this isn’t an experiment; it’s a demonstration; 27 diff version of same demonstration
The Results:
When voltage low, everyone giving electric shocks
As voltages goes up, fewer and fewer participants agree to deliver shock
Up to 450, danger xxx, its not at 0 or 1 in 1000; 63-65%, 28 out of 40 ppl went all the way
Participants weren’t happy, didn’t wanna give these shocks; very uncomfortable
Repeatedly tried to get out of situation, all did was repeat himself w/ 4 prods
The Four Prods
Please continue
The experiment requires that you go on
It is absolutely essential that you continue
You have no other choice, you must go on
3 Important Factors that Increase/Decrease Obedience
Authority Figure
When remove or delegitimizing authority figure from situation; obedience goes down
No random assignment or manipulation; take w/grain of salt
Victim
In almost all variants, victim was always a male
Person administering was that much closer or further
Procedure
2 aspects seem important:
Personal responsibility & chain of command
Gradual escalation
Authority Figure
When remove or delegitimizing authority figure from situation; obedience goes down
No random assignment or manipulation; take w/grain of salt
Lab moved to rundown office (no mention of yale) (gotten rid of some of the prestige and legitimacy of the institution)
Down to 48% (little dip)
E replaced by another P (instead of having experimenter prod; theres now another “participant” who goads the participants)
Down to 20%
Experimenter issues commands by phone (need to go to other building on campus gonna call and give by phone)
Down to 21%
Victim
In almost all variants, victim was always a male
Person administering was that much closer or further
Learner seated in same room as Participant (right next to them)
Down 40%
Ps required to physically grasp victim’s hand & force it onto metal plate (in same room, to complete circuit have to hold down to completely an electric shock)
Down to 30%
Procedure
2 aspects seem important:
Personal responsibility & chain of command:
To extend feel responsible for whats happening, gonna back off (participants would frequently say don’t wanna be responsible, experimenter would say im responsible please continue)
Transfer orders, 54%; execute order, down to 28% (if have to pass message on, higher amount; if actually doing; lower)
Gradual escalation:
Starts w/15 volts; gradual escalation prob something to do with why went all the way
Start small and then go a little bigger and then go a little bigger, etc
The Power of the Situation
Is this about aggression?
Experimenter demands P stop while learner demands P to continue – down to 0%!
Everyone obedient to authority so no one goes to 450 volts; follow experimenter (not driven by ppl just wanting to release some urges)
What about the presence of others?
1 out at 150v; other at 210v – down to 10%
3 teachers, 2 confederates, plus confederate learner; one confederates drop out after 150, 2nd drops out at 210; allies in group can reduce obedience ot authority
Could it happen today? (should find neg correlation if ppl are getting nicer over the years; don’t find that)
No correlation between obedience & year of study
No relationship
The Banality of Evil
What would you do?
The trouble w/Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, & that the many many were neither perverted no sadistic; that they were, & still are, terribly, & terrifyingly normal.
From the viewpoint of our legal institutions, & of our moral standards of judgement, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together
Regular ppl when put in bad situation can do some bad things (power of situation)
Ethics
Should these studies have been conducted? (did take steps to make sure participants were okay)
What if the results indicated that everyone disobeyed?
In survey sent to Ps, 84% glad to have participated, 15% neutral, & 1.3% had negative feelings toward experiment (majority thought experience was a good one)
Minority Influence
The case where a minority of group members influences the behavior or beliefs of the majority
Process by which dissenters produce change within a group
How?
Consistency
People with minority views must express the same view over time, and different members of the minority must agree with one another
Normative vs informational influence
Private vs. public acceptance
Chameleon Effect Study
Participant go to room and complete some questionaries (packet)
While there, another person; that other person is a confederate (person doesn’t know that)
Going through own questionaries packet
Don’t communicate don’t interact
Other person is done they leave; you finish & you leave
Hidden camera in room trained on participant
Watch videos to code number of times participant
Rubs their face
Shakes their foot
Confederate had been trained to depending on condition; to do either to rub face or to shake foot
Do one or the other depending on condition
If confederate trained to do 1 of those things, participant is significantly likely to do 1 of those things
Experimenter speaks with participant askes questions “notice anything weird, doing anything that stood out”
Participants said nah doesn’t sound familiar
Tells them they were confederate; tells them about study, does sound familiar?
Participant says no
Says think youre gonna mimic person in room w/you, did you, sound familiar?
Participant says no I don’t think so
Says we videoed you gonna look at them will you sign, & do you wanna change your mind?
Participants have no conscious recognition of person doing anything or them conforming
Follow up
Comes to lab; packet of questionnaires, confederate in room doing same thing
Confederate instructed to either occasionally mimic participant vs control conditioned where trained to completely ignore, don’t mimic in anyway
Wanna know how participant feels about person who has mimicked them or not
Experimenter hands other questionnaire, how much think have in common w/ person, to what extent could you be friends, would get along
Participants believe more similar to other person, more in common, more likely to be friends when other person conformed to other person compared to control when didn’t mimic
When ppl conform we think we like them more, more in common, get along more
Autokinetic Effect Study
Participant told gonna help w/visual perception task, room will become dark, point of light on wall, stare at, and when it starts to move, estimate how much, give guess, it will disappear, then other dot, several trials
A week later return, gonna do the same task; only thing that’s diff is there are 2 other participants in room w/ you (not confederates), doing it together, take turns giving evidence
How much think is moving around on avg
Avg estimate at time 1, avg estimate at time 2
In group of 3, by end seem to be conforming to one another, their estimates converge, consensus and agreement giving almost same answer by time session 2 is over
Conform bc didn’t know what right answer was; ambiguous situation, to disambiguate, lean on other ppl; conform by informational social influence
Session 3, by themselves
Participants gave response that looked like responses at end of session 2
What were conforming to is what they really thought
Normative Social Influence Study
Asch
Immigrant, liked idea of individualism; a little concerned thinking ppl would go around conforming to other ppl willingly; made point other study, things were ambiguous
If give diff type of visual perceptual task where clear what right answer, ppl wouldn’t conform, would stick to guns
Participants show up for visual perception task (told gonna see, 1st on a card, a standard line, followed by another card that has 3 comparison line)
Pick comparison line that matches the standard
Person comes in and sits next to you, like 8 ppl
Gonna have 18 trials where have each of you go around room and answer simple question
Which matches
Give right answers and so on
Round three, 1st person gives whats clearly a wrong answer, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 all same wrong answer; person after you same wrong answer
Other 7 ppl are confederates; all trained on 12 of 18 to give same erroneous response; what do participants do?
75% of participants conformed at least once; only 25% never conformed
38% of the time participants conform
Normative social influence; in order to fit in, to be liked and accepted, you conform
In another version, participant shows up 6 ppl at table; only 6 plus you (no one comes in after); same task
Since you came in last, write down everyone else’s response and yours instead of giving answer out loud
No one will know what you think/wrote down
Conformity plummets, almost no one conforms
When ppl conforming in first one, don’t actually believe that
Informational and Normative Social Influence Study
Uni of Michigan; large Greek population (sororities)
All participants are sorority women; pass out questionnaires
Asked a couple of questions, about eating habits
Want to know how often that woman engages in unhealthy eating (eating a lot and then vomiting it, bingeing and purging behavior)
Other part, lists every woman in house, indicate how much you like everyone (rate and rank them in terms of fondness)
Diff houses on campus seem to have diff norms for binging and purging
Some houses seemed normative, other houses were counter normative (most didn’t do it) (across houses there was a range)
How much women in house liked you was a function of how close your binge/purge behavior was to the norm
The closer, the more women liked you
The farther binging and pure behavior was to norm of house, the less you were liked
Look around to see what others are doing, informational social influence; when learned now normative social influence (choose to follow norm or not and deal with each consequence)
Informational and normative social influence are operating in tandem
Pluralistic Ignorance Study
Confused in class and don’t raise hand bc don’t wanna look stupid and no one else is raising hand
Think they understand not bc they also don’t wanna look stupid
College students and alcohol consumption
Alot seem to like drinking it a whole lot; maybe drink as much as you do bc want to fit in, falsely assuming everyone else is drinking for a diff reason, not bc they want to fit in too
Ppls behavior isn’t gonna follow what norm actually is but what they perceive norm to be
Misperception can have cons and important implications
Research study, done at Princeton, one of the top party schools in state
For ½ tell them the truth (done surveys, turns out, avg comfortable drink 1 maybe 2 beers a weekend)
½ give info about over drinking, scare straight
Wait couple month follow up, find out how much drinking
Group given accurate info change behavior to meet the norm
Ppl are good at following the norm even when the misperceive it
Foot in the Door Study
Women, at home, one day receiving a phone call
Were apart of org that evaluates household products; want to come over to house on following Sunday and rummage through cupboards and kitchen for 3 or 4 hours
Most say no thank you; 20% say sure
Control condition: base line is those who said yes
Small request first condition: everything is same; 2 to 3 weeks earlier same person gets a call from a diff person from diff org making simple request, quick phone survey 2-3 questions do you have 5 secs
When someone calls from diff org asking to go through kitchen, compliance nearly doubles (around 50%)
Can double the chances someone will comply w/request you really want by starting small; initial small request first, increase odds that will agree to bigger ask
Ask to put big sign in yard; most say no; but if 2-3 weeks earlier promoting driver safety, ask to put little sticker in front window; when knocks on door asking about large sign, compliance doubles
Doesn’t require a ton of effort or ton of money to double compliance
Door in the Face Study
Park goers randomly approached by stranger
Control: looking for volunteers, will spend 2-3 hours this Sunday taking delinquents out to zoo, would you be willing?
16-17% agree
Other Condition: volunteers to spend 2-3 hours on Sunday, would you be willing to volunteer for 1 year, every Sunday; no? how about just this Sunday?
Compliance more than doubles; twice as many ppl agree
Norm of Reciprocity
Low-Balling Study
Get phone call, RA on other line; running an experiment; would you like to participate starts at 7am
30% agree to participate in exchange for credit
Other Condition: phone call; research study running today or tomorrow would you like to participate, yes? Super it starts at 7
Get comply first then tell unfavorable aspects
Before hang up about twice as many ppl say yes ill participate
Next day really is experiment at 7am; twice as many who were lowballed show up for experiment than participants in control
Disrupt Then Reframe Study
Data collected around Fayetteville; send RA out to knock on doors to sell greeting cards
Control: working at homeless shelter, selling greeting cards to make money; they’re 3 dollars
About 33-34% buy
Other condition: sorry to bother, working with homeless shelter, raise money by selling greeting cards, theyre 3 dollars, that’s 300 pennies, it’s a bargain, would you like to buy any
Compliance doubles, twice as many about 70% agree to buy greeting cards
Public Compliance
Conforming to other people’s behavior publicly without necessarily believing in what the other people are doing or saying
Private Acceptance
Conforming to other people’s behavior out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right
Injunctive Norms
People’s perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others
Descriptive Norms
People’s perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others
What is a Group?
Psychologists have a hard time coming up w/a good definition of what constitutes a group
2 or more ppl who interact & are interdependent, in the sense that their goals cause them to influence one another
Have characteristics of:
Interactions among members over time
Shared fate, identity, or set of goals (shared sense of something)
Why Join a Group?
You didn’t
Many groups of which you are apart that you didn’t chose to be apart of (ascribed groups: nationality, race/ethnicity, biological sex)
Need to belong
All of us have need to fit in bc it’s evolutionarily adaptive; survival and thriving = other ppl are really useful
Accomplish goals that can’t be individually achieved
Things you want to achieve but can’t do alone, if join group things have better chance of getting done (proximal goals, individual goals; join groups to achieve)
Social identity
All have identity; how feel about self based on groups we are apart: can confer value, pride, meaning; join a group to get those things that you like that you value, to provide some meaning (basking in reflective glory = ppl trying to achieve pos social identity)
Two Essential Components of Groups
Norms
Rules of conduct for members (things you should do)
Which norms you follow depends on role you have in that group
Roles
Norms that apply to ppl in particular position (within group)
Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave
Social Facilitation
When Others Arouse Us
Presence of others may increase performance (seem to perform better, try harder around other ppl compared to when alone)
But type of task makes a difference! (dogs eat more in presence of other dogs) (there are times when we’re around other ppl and our performance tanks)
Model has 3 parts, solved issue (tell us when ppls performance will get better or worse when around other ppl compared too alone) social facilitation
When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated the tendency to perform better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks
3 Steps From Presence to Performance
Step 1: Presence of others creates physiological arousal that energizes behavior
Increase in basic arousal, in almost a fight or flight kinda sense; nervous system a little more alert, a little more vigilant
Step 2: Arousal enhances tendency to perform dominant response
Reaction elicited most quickly/easily by stimulus
Step 3: Quality of performance then varies depending on type of task…
Going to depend on if task youre trying to preform is easy or difficult
Peformance Depends on Type of Task
On easy (simple or well-learned) tasks, dominant response usually correct; performance improves
On difficult (complex or unfamiliar) tasks, dominant response often incorrect; performance gets worse
What’s Arousing About the Presence of Others?
Mere presence/alertness (vigilance)
Bc increases basic physiological arousal
Evaluation apprehension
Other ppl can evaluate and judge us, gonna increase our arousal
Distraction
Other ppl are distracting which can increase our arousal
All have support! (all these things can make a diff)
Social Loafing
When Others Relax Us (performance isn’t isolated but instead pooled)
When individuals’ contributions to group cannot be evaluated, often work less hard than they would alone (not easy to single out your contribution)
When around other ppl seems to calm us down, nudges us to slack off; when performance pooled, ppl do less well, ppl try less hard
When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated, the tendency to perform worse on simple or unimportant tasks but better on complex or important tasks
When is Social Loafing Likely?
When ppl believe their own performance cannot be identified
Ppl wont know your exact contribution, how hard you tried personally
No strong incentive to perform well
Ppl are unmotivated, don’t care much
With men
Effects stronger with men than women; men more likely to loaf socially
Individualistic cultures
More likely to slack off when can get away w/it compared to collectivists
Arousal & the Presence of Others
When individual contributions identified (social facilitation) presence of others increases arousal & possibility of being evaluated
When individuals contributions are pooled (social loafing), presence of others decreases arousal & possibility of being evaluated (not know how hard tried, gonna take some of pressure off)
How Arousal & Possible Evaluation Affect Performance
When the presence of others increases possibility of evaluation:
Performance on easy tasks is enhanced bc person is motivated
Performance on difficult tasks is impaired bc pressure gets to the person
When the presence of others decreases possibility of evaluation: (pooled)
Performance on easy tasks is impaired bc ppl are uninspired
Performance on difficult tasks is enhanced bc being lost in the crowd frees ppl from anxiety
What Happens When We’re “Lost in a Crowd”
To be a member of a crowd is closely akin to alcohol intoxication
When around 100s or 1000s of other ppl, lose inhibitions, do stupid things get into trouble; things wouldn’t do by yourself
Being immersed in the crowd “descends several rungs in the ladder of civilization”
Our psych changes, not for good; gonna do stupid, deviant, antinormative kinds of thing
24 hours of invisibility?
Ask to take piece of paper right out in paragraph or two what they would do for the next 24 hours if they were invisible
Doing a bunch of deviant stuff, anti-normative, illegal, sometimes mean and hurtful things to others
Deindividuation
Loss of person’s sense of individuality, & the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior
Corresponding loss of norms that makes it more likely that ppl will do some deviant stuff
Opposite of self awareness; don’t recognize self as object as attention; lost in a crowd, no one can identify you
The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people can’t be identified (such as when they are in a crowd)
Deviance in the Dark Study
What would you do in a room with 7 strangers for 90 minutes in the dark
How do environments impact our behavior
Gonna show up, meet experimenter, ask you to go in room, in room 7 ppl you don’t know; gonna spend 90 mins with them
Wanna know what happens, what will ppl say, do
Things are staggered, ppl come and go every 15 mins, someone replaces, always 7 ppl
IV: whether in room in pitch dark or not (only additional instructions if you feel uncomfy and need to leave early theres red dot on wall and you can leave)
How does what they do and what they feel differ based on whether the room is pitch dark or not
Touched someone else: a lot in dark who intentionally touched someone else
Hugged someone else: who was more in dark who hugged someone else
Where you sexually arouse (self report): in dark room number more than doubles
Deindividuation & Group Norms
It’s not that there’s a loss of norms, but instead a shift in norms (shift in whats normative)
Research argues that deindividuation doesn’t result in loss of normative constraints, but instead a shift in what’s normally appropriate
Calibrated different on context, depending on group in which sense of self has been lost (change in whats moral, don’t loose moral compass)
Group Decision Making Study
Carol is a successful teacher at a college…makes a good salary…enjoys work. But she has always wanted to own a restaurant. A year ago, she found a chef…prime location…talked to loan officers. To run a restaurant, Carol must quit her job and use all savings. If successful, Carol will realize her dream and make a good income. But Carol knows that many new businesses fail.
Imagine you’re Carol. What’s the lowest probability that you would consider acceptable for Carol to open her restaurant?
Research shows that when participants consider this, find on avg, answer is about 30% success rate
Then same participants get together w/other participants and talked about it, then make a group decision, as a group what is the percentage you would be willing to accept
The number is diff then when decide by self: on avg become a lot more risky as a group on avg only a 10% success rate
Only half right, is true seem to make diff decisions, not always that they’re riskier
Sometimes group decisions are more conservative compared to alone
Not that its risky or more conservative; theyre more polarized than individual decisions
As group members more likely to go to extremes on one side of pole or other, depending on initial leanings of the group
Group Polarization
Tendency for groups to make more extreme decisions than initial inclinations of its members
Group discussion exaggerates initial leanings of group, in either direction!
Jury recommendations, judgments of people and consumer products, gambling bets…
Results in acceptance, not just compliance
Private acceptance, give new group judgements, privately accepted shift in their opinion
Group Polarization 2 Explanations
Persuasive arguments theory
More numerous and persuasive arguments in favor of position, more likely to be adopted
Informational social influence
Ppl wanna know that the right answer is
Gonna hear info from other ppl, and hear arguments in favor of a certain direction; so more extreme response
Get together with other ppl, you listen to what they have to say
Gonna hear arguments, ideas, that aren’t balanced or equal on either side
Other ppl, what they have to say, is skewed in direction that they as individuals were leaning to before
Add to arguments and ideas from the way you were leaning before
Social comparison theory
Gonna hear arguments, ideas, that aren’t balanced or equal on either side
Ppl seem to like norms and follow them
As it become more clear what the norm is, gonna shift to make sure youre being consistent w/ the norm, go in direction group is already leaning
Adopt position of group as you see it
Process Loss
Pitfall
Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good performance (less optimal performance)
Can happen w/group decision making (any aspect that makes decision making less optimal)
Shared knowledge (things that most ppl already know) what if person has knowledge that is unique
In groups what often find, disportortante amount of time talking about shared knowledge often at expense of unique knowledge
Group Think
Pitfall
Occurs when group members seek unanimity more than best possible alternative
Other pressures put on group like win approval of strong directive leader (motivated to appease that person rather than trying to ultimately come up with best solution or answer)
Kind of decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner
Standford Prison Study
Power of social roles; interested in psychology of prison life
Flyers 22 well adjusted men
Flip coin, to randomly determine role, prisoner or guard
Guard: Give uniform night stick, your job to enforce rules of prison (you determine rules) given schedules
Prisoner: squad car; arrested; taken down, finger printed; blind folded driven back to Stanford, enter mock prison; put on uniform; referred to by number not your name
Mid day 2 and mid day 3; prisoners decide to have a revolt for fun
Take on role seriously and do what think is required of them as guard; berate prisoners
Appears one prisoner starts to have break down; wants to be let out
Grad students supervising are complaining, prisoners complaining, stop on day 6 even tho supposed to be two weeks
In situation where everyone knows is temporary, got ppl embracing roles w/some degree of seriousness
Power of roles can be important
Cockroach Study
Participants are cockroaches
Build box, box with a runway, one side = start line; other end = finish line: task cockroach will undertake 1
Shine light to get roach to go from start to finish line; see how long it takes them
IV: presence of other conspecifics; whether does task by itself or in the presence of 5 other cockroaches, placed in test tube as spectators on side of box, unable to run themselves
Roaches run at quicker pace; get to finish line soon, in presence of other roaches compared to when do task by themselves
Task is easy
Follows up experiment, makes task difficult this time
Another box, to go from light to dark, to get to safe spot/finish line, half way down needs to make a hard right turn 90 degrees (difficult for roach)
Does by self or in presence of spectators
Roaches do worse in presence of other roaches compared to when do task alone
Experiments provide support for model of social facilitation
Basic arousal increases then pushes to elicit dominant response and it’s gonna improve performance on easy tasks but worsen on tasks that are difficult
Social Faciliation Study
Pool players; RA s in pool hall; task is to walk around hall quietly observe ppl playing and identify players who seem to be pretty good at it or pool players that tend to be kinda bad at playing pool
Later team of 4 research assistants goes up to table and stares at person playing pool (what % of shots do they make)
Compare how well perform when playing by self to how well perform when have an audience of 4 staring at them
Poor pool players tend to not make most shots (difficult task for them); in presence of others performance should get worse
Accuracy drops 24 percent
Good pool players (easier task for them) around other ppl performance should improve
Accuracy goes up to 81% (social facilitation of dominant response)
Social Loafing Study
Students, in own cubicle, on cue (when light comes on) they should cheer or clap as loud as they can
IV: whether you think youre alone in cubical w/no one else present or whether you think theres other ppl in their own cubicles around you
DV: how loud they cheer/perform on task
When other ppl are around and the more other ppl are around, the less hard you try (what if just not used to cheering and are self-conscious w/other ppl around?)
Do follow up participants w/cheer squad (ppl who are used to cheering infront of others)
Results are the same
Social Loafing Archival Research
Archival research providing evidence for social loafing among musicians
Can find 162 songs written 7 performed by John Lennon and McCartney or authorship was shared
Compare song quality when contribution was clear guy OR guy compared to quality when performance is pool guy AND guy
Song quality should be worse for the songs where credit is jointly attributed (performance is pooled)
For song quality 2 operationalizations
Did record company think good enough to release as single and if released as single how high did it chart
others bring up perspectives or issues that the individual hadn’t considered
Group discussion often pushes people’s initial individual decisions to the extreme, producing group polarization. According to the persuasive arguments interpretation, this is because __________.
A) individuals are motivated to be accepted by other members of the group
B) individuals bolster their initial beliefs when they make their case to others
C) individuals work to reduce the dissonance aroused when other people disagree with them
D) others bring up perspectives or issues that the individual hadn’t considered
process loss
Lars is part of a group organized to increase blood donations in a local community. As a social psychologist, Lars has a relevant background in persuasion tactics, but his group members fail to realize the important contributions he could make. This scenario is an example of __________.
A) a task orientation to problem solving
B) poor leadership
C) process loss
D) intragroup conflict
Tara, an expert bowler, bowling in a crowded alley with an audience of friends
Which person will probably be most successful at performing their task?
A) Raymond, a novice pool player, making shots in a crowded bar
B) Leon, an expert basketball player, throwing free throws alone in the gym
C) Tara, an expert bowler, bowling in a crowded alley with an audience of friends
D) Lindsay, a novice archer, shooting at practice targets as her coach watches
social loafing
When a crowd of people clap or cheer, it is difficult to tell just how loud each individual is applauding or cheering. If people tend to clap louder when they are alone than when they are in a crowd, they are probably engaging in __________.
A) social loafing
B) social facilitation
C) cognitive dissonance
D) groupthink
women who wore a nurse uniform administered the least number of electric shocks.
Recall that Johnson and Downing (1970) had groups of three undergraduate women participate in a study where they eventually had the opportunity to administer (bogus) electric shocks to a confederate. Each group of women was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: they either donned white hoods and oversized lab coats, nurses’ outfits, or were individually identified throughout the study while wearing their own clothing. The most important finding from this study was that...
A) women who wore their own clothes while being individually identified administered the least number of electric shocks.
B) women who wore either a nurse uniform or white hoods administered the greatest number of electric shocks.
C) women who wore their own clothes while being individually identified administered the greatest number of electric shocks.
D) women who wore a nurse uniform administered the least number of electric shocks.
Suicide Bating Study
Interested in studying the antecedents of suicide baiting
Ppl who are considering taking own lives, one way or another communicate publicly, ppl become aware of person and intentions
Sometimes observers decide to encourage person to take own life
On top of building, whether ppl encourage person to jump or not
Interested in newspaper accounts, description of someone who publicly communicated wanting to take own life
Want to know if there were factors in place that made it more likely for someone in crowd to say “jump, youre right life sucks”
Archival research
Idea that it has something to do with deindividuation; 2 factors/variables
How big is the crowd? Hard to be lost when its you and one other person, easier to get lost if its you and 500 ppl
Was crowd smaller or greater than 300 ppl
What time was it? As a proxy for whether it would be dark outside or light out
Before or after 6pm
If in big crowd under cover of night gonna be more deindividuated if youre in a small group and/or its light outside
Did newspaper indicate whether there was suicide baiting?
Did the variables predict suicide baiting?
Twice as likely if it was after 6pm and a large crowd compared to any of other conditions
Hard data suggesting that when ppl have loss of sense of individuality, more likely to do deviant stuff
Halloween Study
Field research, involves over 10,000 trick or treaters
Kids going out at night, when its dark, in costumes, usually among a group of other kids
Take advantage of context, get whole bunch of households to participate
Participant opens the door to trick or treaters
Assume at start when knocked on door where deindividuated
1st IV: ½ person says “hi, what’s your name, where are you from”; ½ doesn’t
Kids who would be deindividuated and individuating them, make sure the kid thinks you know who they are; kids who are individuated vs kids who aren’t
2nd IV: quasi IV; person also notices how many kids on front step
Is it a group of kids or is it one kid
Expecting kids will be more deindividuated when not asked who they are and where theyre from and in a group
DV: here’s a bowl of candy please take one and they walk away
Do any of kids present take more than 1 piece of candy
There is a bowl of loose change, do the kids steal some money?
Person behind curtain watching unfold, keep track
Results:
Kids are more likely to transgress when not individuated when compared to individuated when alone and when in group
In group more likely to transgress compared to by themselves
If in group and not individuated = way more likely transgress compared to kids in other 3 conditions
Psych changes when we are deindividuated; doing something bad when lose sense of individuality, when lost in crowd
Zimbardo Study
Set up paradigm; participants come to lab and participate in study which they thought was learning under aversive conditions
Teachers and learners, word pairs, mistake = shock
Twist = there’s not 1 participant, there’s 3 (plus 1s a confederate); 3 of 4 ppl will be teachers 1 will be learner. (Confederate is always learner )
Get to decide how intense electric shocks are (DV)
IV: whether 3 actual participants when giving electric shocks, always women, whether theyre deindividuated or not
Individuated condition: stay in street clothes, referred to by actual names
Deindividuation condition: never address by actual name, given number, oversized lab coast and pillowcase over heads so no one else in experiment will know who you are
Prediction that deindividuated ppl will give more intense shocks (correct)
When deindividuated, gonna do some bad stuff
Group Norms Study
Same as Zimbardo but add one condition
Outfits remind you of KKK, whats normative for a hate group = hate, bad stuff
Changes in participants behavior, not based on deindividuated, but based on what group deindividuated to
If in context that reminds you of a hate group, gonna be mean and hateful and give more intensive shocks
If deindividuated to group that helpful, like nurses, think for helping ppl
IV:
1st: street clothes
2nd: dressed up as basically KKK members
3rd: nurses outfit
DV: see the amount of electric shock give to confederates based on 3 conditions
Street clothes: control
Kkk members: most amount of electric shock; give more, are more hurtful
Nurse outfit: least amount given, a decrease
Our psych changes when were lost in crowd, whether change is good or bad should depend on the groups relevant in that context, to whom you have been deindividuated to
Contingency Theory of Leadership
The idea that the effectiveness of a leader depends both on how task-or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control the leader has over the group
Task-Oriented Leaders
Leaders who are concerned more with getting the job done than with workers’ feelings and relationships
Relationship-Oriented Leader
Leaders who are concerned more with workers’ feelings and relationships
Social Dilemma
A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Scenario in which two (literal) partners in crime have been captured by police and are being held separately
Both criminals are offered the same deal: betray your partner and confess to the crime, and you’ll receive a lighter sentence
The dilemma is that the precise sentence that both criminals receive depends on what their partner chooses to do
If they both decide to keep quiet, remaining loyal to each other, the police only have enough evidence to send them to prison for a short time
If they both betray each other, their sentence will be a bit longer
What if one confesses while the other stays quiet?
Excitation Transfer
Relevant to attraction
Arousal caused by one stimulus is added to arousal from 2nd stimulus and combined arousal is attributed to 2nd stimulus
Mistakenly attribute arousal from one stimulus to a different one
Situations find self in where aroused by some situation some stimulus and misattribute that arousal to someone who’s near/someone we’re with
Ride rollercoaster together = more likely have interest
Familiarity
Relevant to attraction
We’re attracted to those we see and are familiar with (more familiar we are = more attracted we are to them)
2 factors:
Proximity
How close physically is someone to you
Closeness, physical closeness is positively related to attraction
Propinquity effect: more attracted to those who are physically close
Exposure
Closer you are to someone, the more likely you are to be exposed to them, to see them, frequently & regularly
Pos relationship between frequency of exposure & liking
More see someone the more you like them
How Important are Looks?
Teachers rate better-looking children as smarter, more likely to succeed
Judges set lower bails and impose smaller fines on attractive subjects
Across occupations, attractive people earn more money
Why are Looks so Important
“What’s beautiful is good” stereotype:
Assume physically attractive people possess desirable personality traits
Positive assumptions about ppl who are physically attractive
For attractive people…
True: more friends, better social skills, more sex
False: more intelligent, better personality, better adjusted, higher self-esteem
Radiating effect of Beauty
When around or close to those who are physically attractive, maybe we benefit and we are cast into a better more positive way
Getting Acquainted
Proximity increases odds we’ll meet someone
Familiarity puts us at ease
Beauty draws us in
What determines whether sparks fly in getting acquainted stage?
Similarity
Reciprocal liking
Playing hard to get
Being hard to get
Similarity
Big deal when it comes to psychology; we prefer similar others
Why important? (similarity when comes to interest and attraction to others)
Usually rewarding
Nice to talk to someone who agrees w/you; its validating, support, reward having ideas, attitudes, opinions supported
Similarity is “matched”
Ppl looking for a date try to find most attractive person who they think they can actually get, ppl who are like them in terms of physical attractiveness
Implicit egotism
Implicit Egotism
Positive associations linked to self spill over to enhance attraction to things similar to self
Ppl seem to like ourselves and we have a strange tendency then in turn like those things, other ppl who remind us of ourselves
Excitation Transfer Study
Large parks, lots of ppl hang out
Send out RA to pass out questionnaires to ppl at park
Takes place on a bridge (tourist attraction)
Large suspension bridge, scary
Approach ppl in middle of bridge ask to complete questionnaire
Or 2nd bridge, shorter, closer to ground, sturdy, less anxiety provoking
How respond to RA depending on local (arousing scary bridge, non arousing sturdy bridge)
After complete RA returns says want to tell more about research; here’s my number call if you can more info
DV = how many call up RA, suggesting maybe romantic attraction
IV: 1st = bridge; 2nd = male or female
RA identified as fairly attractive
How many call based on whether women or men and whether took place on arousing producing bridge or non arousing
More than 2x as likely to call when RA is female on scary bridge
Suggesting misattributing arousal on scary bridge to research assistant that much more interesting/attractive bc misattributing their arousal
Follow-up Study
Always female experimenter, approaches on either bridge
DV: contained within questionnaire; participants asked to complete
All participants shown an ambiguous photo of women looking at self brushing hair in a mirror
Asked to write a story about whats taking place
Male participants write stories w/ more sexual content when approached by attractive female on scary bridge compared to on sturdy, non-anxiety-producing bridge
Proximity Study
For grad students attending MIT, housing available through uni, number of building that were all the same in terms of construction
Each had 10 apartments, 5 on 1st floor, 5 on second; build in same way
Randomly assigned to one of units in one of buildings
Send RAs to apartments and ask questions
Who do you like the most (terms of ppl in building); who do you spend most time with
Is relationship in where ppl live in building relative to your apartment in building and how much you like them and how much time spend with them
Physically closer = more likely gonna be someone you like and spend more time with
How close someone lived to you was positively related to who you wanted to spend time with and who you like
Should find similar effect for functional distance (spend more time with practically)
Right below or above is closer but is functionally further away
Ppl who lived near mailbox, more liked, more want to spend time w/bc everyone spends time at mailbox
Functional distance close = time spent and liking = higher
Exposure Study
Women, 4 volunteers, go to profs office
1st women: Got a 15 week course, like you to show up to class for all 15 weeks, show up for every class, pretend like you’re a student
2nd women: same thing, but don’t come for 15 come for 10 weeks instead
3rd: same thing but please only show up for 5 weeks
4th: don’t need to come to class at all
Camera, take photo of each women
Very last class of semester, at start of class puts the photos of 4 women
All students asked to rate each of 4 women based on photo
How attractive, how likely to be friends, how likely want to spend time with them
DV: avg of questions, overall measure of liking
More often participants were exposed to this person, the more they liked them; more exposure more liking
What’s Beautiful is Good Study
2 participants: 1 male, 1 female, both single
Never actually meet other person bc taken to opposite places, research concerns 1st impression, interacting over microphone & headphones
Men told gonna give photo so have idea of what person looks like
Women told not gonna show pic of other person but theyre gonna see pic of you, take pic of women
Experimenter doesn’t give the men the photo they took of women, instead, experimenter shows photo of diff women (one who is either pretty attractive or one who isn’t)
When listening to convo, women are rated as more outgoing better natured having better social skills more friendly, when they interact w/man who thinks theyre physically attractive compared to when interact w/ men who think they are unattractive
Naïve RA listen to convo and rate the women based on hearing the convo
Why this happens: when listen to male part of convo, these men elicited behavior from women when thought women was more attractive
Men showed better social skills more outgoing etc compared to when thought women wasn’t hot
Expectations ended up eliciting behavior consistent w/expectations
Radiating Effect of Beauty Study
Participants watch a video, theres a target person, person who later participants is gonna evaluate
Target is interacting w/2nd person
IV: is 2nd person physically attractive or not
If radiating effect of beauty effect is correct = participants rate target as more attractive with attractive person
2nd IV: whether you are told 2 ppl on video are really good friends or strangers
Whether beauty radiated on target depends on whether those two people are described as friends or strangers
When described as friends think target = more attractive when interacting with person who is attractive
When strangers rate less attractive target when with attractive person
Close to attractive ppl can confer the benefits of their beauty, can radiate on to us
Another reason why we like/value attractive ppl
Looks Matter in Relationship Study
Freshman entering large state uni
Letter in mail from prof in psych department; freshman orientation dance
If interested would love to randomly assign you to a person of opposite sex to meet as a date for this dance
Randomly paired w/other person of opposite sex
Before dance given a battery of questionnaires so we know about you
How smart, self esteem, what kind of personality
There are grad students there who supposed to rate in humble opinion, the physical attractiveness of all attendees
Avg physical attractiveness of all the men and all the women
After dance over questionnaire
DV: would you like to have a 2nd date with this person
What factors determine if person wants a second date
Single best predictor if wanted date number 2 = how hot was your date (not any other quality, like humor or smarts etc)
Replicate study but focused exclusively as LGBTQ+ community and find exact same pattern
Similarity Study
Incoming freshman entering large university
Letter in mail before starting, would you like to be in research study, gonna take the whole first year but if you participate will pay for room and board
Complete a bunch of questionaries, learn about them
They’re randomly assigned to a roommate based on condition
Similar to you or not
In terms or attitudes or opinions OR in terms of demographics
Very end of study asked a bunch of questions: how much do you like them, how much time you spent, would live with them next year
Participants like roommate more, spend more time with them, and are interested in living with them when roommate is similar to them compared to dissimilar
Similar in terms of attitudes and opinions but also demographic similarity
Similarity increases liking
Implicit Egotism Study
Show up, told gonna be interacting w/other person online, shown photo of person before interacting, all men straight, single
Interacting with somewhat attractive women
In pic of women shes wearing a shirt w/number on front, manipulate what number is on womans chest
For ½, number is date of birth
For ½ control, theres a random number on womens shirt
Rate women, attractiveness, excitement
More attractive and more excited when date of birth compared to when not
High self-esteem
Low self esteem, don’t find effect bc implicit egotism (have to like self)