Social Psych - Midterm 1

Social Psychology

The study of how ppl feel, think, behave, and interact within a social context

3 tasks of social psychology

How the ABC’s affect

• Affect: feelings/emotions

  • Ex: you feel nervous when meeting new ppl

• Behavior: actions

  • What does the person in result of the feelings (A)

  • Ex: when you feel nervous, you avoid talking to strangers

• Cognition: thoughts/beliefs

  • What does the person think

  • Ex: You think, “They prob won’t like me”

2 Questions social psychologists ask abt the same ABCs

1. When does it happen: They look for the situation that trigger the ABCs

Ex: You feel nervous and stay quiet when you’re around strangers

2. Why does it happen? They look for the reason behind it

Ex: You stay quiet bc you’re worried abt the strangers might judge or dislike you

Why is social psych needed

• Not everyone’s common sense is the same

• even if common sense is the same, it can be wrong

• It is impossible to predict in advance when it will be wrong

• So scientific evidence is needed to understand social beheavior

Case study: “They Saw a Game” - Hastorf & Cantril (1954)

Study: Princeton and Dartmouth students watched the same rough football game and judged which team committed more rule violations

Results: Princeton students blamed Dartmouth more strongly, while Dartmouth students were more likely said both teams were responsible

Concept: Selective perception/ biased social perception

Demonstrate concept: Their affliction with their own school influenced how they interpreted what happened

Prediction: If 2 groups strongly identify with opposing sides, they may interpret the same ambiguous event in the ways that favor their own group

Selective Perception/Biased Social Perception

People can interpret the same event differently depending on their group identity, expectations, or loyalties

Hindsight Bias

After learning an outcome, we tend to believe that “we knew it all along” and the result was more predictable than it really was

Experimentally: Give different groups opposite “research findings.” If both groups say their assigned result seems obvious, that shows hindsight bias

Case Study - Lazarfled American Solider

Hypothesis

A testable proposition that describes a relationship that may exist bwtn events

• allow us to test a theory

• gives direction to reserach

• can make a good theory practical

Theory

an integrated set of principles that explain and predict observed events

• good theories effectively summarize many observations and make clear predictions that can be used

Observational/Descriptive Research

• for non-experimental situations

• observe and systemically record what occurs w/o manipulating variables

• Pros:

• general understanding if how ppl behave in a social context

• useful for generating hypotheses

• Provide information abt natural setting

Cons:

• depends on accuracy of observer —> observer bias

• some behaviors rarely happen

• difficult to be unobtrusive (measures that don’t require reserachers to intrude

• is the sample actually representative of the population and random?

• can’t establish causation

• measurement methods can be unreliable or invalid

What are the descriptive designs?

1. Archival Data

2. Naturalistic Observation

3. Descriptive Surveys

Archival Research

• Studying existing records or data to investigate social behavior

• Allows researchers to study behaviors, populations, or historical patterns that would be difficult to create experimentally

Naturalistic Observation

• Observing behavior as it naturally occurs rather than creating a experimental situation

• good for generating hypotheses

• can not establish causations

Descriptive Surveys

• ask ppl abt attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors

2 functions of observational methods

• Qualitative: Describe behavior in its natural environment

• Quantitative: document the rate or level of some behavior

Properties of measurement

• reliability

• validity

  • measurement

  • construct

Reliability vs. Validity

Reliability: consistency of measurement

Validity: whether the measure actually captures what it is supposed to measure

Ex: A scale that gives the same wrong weight every time is highly reliable but not valid

Construct validity

whether an operational measure actually captures the theoretical concept it claims to measure

What can bias responses in surveys?

Question wording, question order, framing, and social desirability (to be liked be society), so the responses may reflect how a question is presented rather than the person’s actual belief or behavior

Correlation Reserach

the study of the naturally occurring relationships among variables

• correlation shows an association, but it doesn’t establish casuation

• correlation range from -1 to 1 (negative to positive correlation)

  • Positive Correlation: variables move in the same direction (ex: as x increases, y increases)

  • Negative Correlation: variables move in opposite direction (ex: as x increases, y decreases)

  • No Correlation: no relationship bwtn IV and DV

Why can’t correlation establish causation?

due to reverse causality and third-variable problem

Reverse Causality vs. Third-variable problem

Reverse causality: the assumed effect actually cause the assumed caused

Ex: more social media use → more depression ; but it also can be true that more depression → more social media use

Third Variable: another factor may independently influence both variables

Ex: Sleeping w/ your shoes on and waking up with a headache

Its wrong to say: sleep w/ shoes on → headache

Third variable: alcohol use → falling asleep w/ shoes on, alcohol use → headache

Problem with self selection

ppl naturally enter diff groups or experiences instead of being randomly assigned. self-entered groups can create alternative explanations for the correlation

Ex: ppl who exercise regularly are found to have better mental health; These ppl aren’t randomly assigned to exercise. They self-select into being regular exercisers. These ppl may also differ in sleep, income, motivation, diet etc.

Experimental Research

Studies that seek clues to cause-effect relationship by manipulating one ore more factors (independent variables) while controlling others (constant

Indenpendent Variable (IV) vs. Dependent Variable (DV)

IV: can be manipulated and expected to causally influence the DV

DV: the outcome variable

Sampling

• Sample: the ppl who will participate in a study

• Random Sampling: one in which every person in the population being studied has an equal chance of inclusion

• External Validity: how closely the sample represent the population

• Sample Size: the number of participants in a study

Types of External Validity & The External Validity Problem

• Population Validity: generalized from sample to other ppl

• Ecological Validity: generalizes from the study setting to real-world setting

---

External Validity Problem: WEIRD

W: Western

E: Educated

I: Industrialized

R: Rich

D:democratic

**This narrow population may not generalize to all humans

Pre-experimental vs. Quasi-experimental Design

Pre-experimental Design: everyone is treated equally, there is no comparison group

Quasi-experimental Design: comparing 2 groups that exist naturally (boy and girl), no random sampling, possible confounding variables

Confounding Variables

Another factor that differs bwtn conditions and could explain the outcome (if a confound exists, we can’t know whether the IV caused the effect)

Ex: In the headache and sleeping problem, alcohol is a confounding variable

3 key features of experiments

1. Manipulation of the IV

2. Random assignment of participants:

3. Control over extraneous variables

Internal vs. external validity

Internal Validity: Confidence that the IV caused the DV

External Validity: confidence that findings generalize to other ppl, settings, or situations

Random Sampling vs. Random Assignment

Random Sampling: one in which every person in the population being studied has an equal chance of inclusion → increases external validity

Random Assignment: assigning participants to conditions by change to reduce preexisting group differences and strengthen casual conclusions → increases internal validity

Between-subjects vs. within-subjects

Between-subjects: each person experiences one condition

Within-subjects: each person experiences all conditions, allowing comparison within the same participants (introduce possible order/carryover effects)

Factorial Design

an experiment with more than one IV

2 × 2 factorial design

• 2 IV with 2 levels each

• an interaction occurs when the effect of one IV depends on the level of other IV

• Ex: Good Samaritan Study

Good Samaritan Study

Q: What makes ppl more likely to help someone in need? Does being in a hurry affect helping, and does the speech affect helping?

• IV1: Hurry: High hurry vs. low hurry

• IV2: speech topic: Good samaritan speech vs. career speech

• DV: whether the person stop to help person in distress

• Result: hurry strongly affected helping (ppl who were not in a hurry usually helped and vice versa, the speech they gave had no affect on whether they want to help)

Demand Characteristics

• Subtle environmental cues, instructions, or researchers behaviors that lead participants to infer what the study is testing

• Lets them know how they are “expected” to behave

• Threatens the internal validity

How to avoid demand characteristics

• use deception: participants are misinformed or misled abt the study’s methods and purposes

• post-experimental questions

• employ unobtrusive measures

• make the experiment double-blind

• minimize contact bwtn experimenter/subject

• use between subject design

What are the main ethical protections in social psychological research?

IRB (Institutional Review Board) review, informed consent, minimizing harm, protecting privacy, and debriefing, especially when deception is used.

Mundane vs. experimental realism

Mundane: how much the study resembles everyday life

Experimental: how psychologically involving and meaningful the situation feels to participants

• why is it important: It does not need to look exactly like everyday life if participants genuinely experience the psychological process the researcher wants to study

Replication & Replication Crisis

Replication: Repeating studies shows whether an effect can be reliably reproduced. Repeated evidence gives more confidence than a single study

Crisis:Many published psychological findings did not reproduce consistently. The lesson is that one published study should not automatically be treated as established truth

File-drawer Problem

Studies finding no effect may remain unpublished while positive findings are published, making an effect appear stronger or more reliable than it really is

Social influence

How an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors respond to their social world, including tendencies to conform to others, follow social rules, and obey authority figures

3 major kinds of social influence

1. Conformity: change in response to social norms or pressure

2. Compliance: change in response to direct request

3. Obedience: change in response to a command/demand

Compliance vs. Obedience: compliance is responding to a request that doesn’t come from authority

Conformity

A type of implicit social influence where individuals voluntarily change their behavior to imitate the behavior of others

Why: conform bc

1) uncertainty abt what the correct behavior is

2) anxiety abt fitting in

Implicit Expectations Vs. Explicit Expectations

Implicit: the social norms we learn and understand at an unconscious level that affect our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

Explicit: the social norms we learn and understand at conscious level that affects our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Normative: conforming bc you want to fit in, be accepted, or avoid disapproval

• you may not actually believe the group is right

• behavior

Informational: conforming bc you think other ppl may know what is correct

• belief

The Street Corner Experiment

Chameleon Effect

Unconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, facial expressions and other behaviors of one’s interaction partners

Why do we mimic?

Ideomotor Action: the phenomenon whereby thinking about a behavior makes its actual performance more likely.

Social Lubrication: enhances social relationships, increases affiliation and rapport and enhances pro-social behavior

Mimicry also offers a signal to whether others are on the same page emotionally

What evidence suggests mimicry acts as a social lubricant?

People tend to like those who mimic them more, and mimicking others can increase positive social responses, such as larger tips

Auto-Kinetic Effect

An optical illusion that occurs when an individual perceives a stationary object as moving

Sherif’s auto-kinetic illusion

Study Design: Participants estimated the apparent movement of a light first alone and/or with others. Researchers examined whether people's estimates changed toward a shared group judgment
Result: People's initially different estimates gradually converged toward a group norm when judging together

What does it demonstrate: Because the task was ambiguous, participants treated other people's judgments as useful information about what was correct

After being separated, the participants kept the same responses, suggesting internalization

Generalization Influence

A cultural belief or norm that transcends the replacement of people; when individuals continue to conform even when the originator of the behavior is no longer present

Asch Study

Study Design: Participants judged line lengths after hearing a unanimous group of confederates sometimes give an obviously incorrect answer

Result: Many participants sometimes gave an obviously incorrect answer when a unanimous group gave that answer first, despite performing extremely accurately without group pressure

Displays normative Influence

Factors affecting conformity

1. Group Size: Conformity rises as the majority grows, but only up to a relatively small group; Extra opinions add less new information once many people already agree, and social pressure also reaches a point of diminishing returns

2. Dissenter: Conformity drops sharply when one person breaks the majority's unanimity because the participant is no longer psychologically alone (even though if that ally doesn’t share the same answer as the participant)

   1. Informationally, the dissenter suggests “maybe the majority isn't necessarily right.” Normatively, the participant no longer has to stand alone against everyone

What did the Deutsch & Gerard (1955) show?

Participants conformed more when responses were public than private. The extra public conformity showed normative influence, while remaining private conformity showed informational influence.

What is the positive effect of conformity

Social Cascade: large social change in response to the beliefs or actions of a few early visionaries

Obedience

A type of explicit social influence where individuals behave in a particular way because someone of higher status ordered them to do so

Milgram Shock (Demonstration)

Study Design: Participants believed they were “teachers” in a learning study and had to administer increasingly severe shocks to a “learner” for wrong answers. The learner was actually a confederate and was not shocked

Result: Far more participants obeyed all the way to the maximum shock level than experts predicted, showing how powerful situational pressure from authority can be

Takeaway: Harmful obedience cannot be explained simply by saying that obedient people are cruel. Ordinary people can act against their values when authority and the surrounding situation strongly pressure them

Is the Milgram shock an experiment?

• Not exactly

  • Only a single condition

  • No manipulation of independent variable

  • It's more of a "demonstration"

What situational factors increased or decreased obedience in Milgram’s study?

Obedience increased when the authority was close/credible, the victim was distant, peers obeyed, and responsibility was divided. It decreased when the victim was closer, the experimenter was distant or contradicted, or other participants refused to obey

Variations of the Milgram Study

1. Victim/learner distance

   • Remote feedback: learner was far away; only wall pounding was heard.

   • Voice feedback: learner could be clearly heard.

   • Proximity: learner was physically close.

   • Touch proximity: teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate.

   • Result: the closer and more immediate the victim, the lower the obedience

2. Experimenter/authority distance

   • Baseline: experimenter present.

   • Absent experimenter: orders given by telephone.

   • Ordinary person: another participant gave the orders.

   • Two experimenters disagreeing: one told the participant to stop.

   • Result: weakening or contradicting the authority greatly reduced obedience

3. Peer behavior

   • Two other “teachers” refused to continue.

   • Obedience dropped a lot.

   • This shows a conformity effect: seeing others resist makes disobedience easier

4. Institutional prestige

   • Study moved from Yale to a lower-prestige office.

   • Obedience decreased somewhat, suggesting authority credibility matters

5. Learner’s prior condition

   • Learner said beforehand that they would participate only if they could stop on demand.

   • This reduced obedience somewhat, but not dramatically

6. Learner vulnerability / participant sex

   • Learner complained of heart trouble.

   • Female “teachers” were also tested.

   • These did not strongly reduce obedience in the slides’ summary

7. Divided responsibility

   • Participant read the questions, while another person actually administered the shocks.

   • Obedience increased, likely because the participant felt less personally responsible

Why did participants obey in Milgram’s study?

The situation made obedience easier through

• gradual step-by-step escalation (shock level go up one by one)

• obligation to finish(since they already agreed to participant in this study)

• trust in the experimenter (believe that the experimenter won’t harm the learner

• reduced personal responsibility (experimenter said they would take full responsibility)

• discomfort with disobeying (if you disobey, signals that you think they are incompetent, immoral, or both)

• an unfamiliar/confusing situation.

Stanford Zimbardo Prison Experiment

Study Design: Psychologically screened young men were randomly assigned to act as prisoners or guards in a simulated prison. The study examined how people would respond to powerful social roles

Result: Guards became increasingly authoritarian and abusive, while prisoners became passive and distressed; the study was stopped after 6 days

Takeaway: Zimbardo argued that powerful social roles and situational pressures can strongly shape behavior, but later concerns about researcher influence and ethics mean the study’s conclusions should be treated cautiously.

Deindividuatiion

A loss of individual self-awareness when a person becomes absorbed into a group identity or social role, often aided by anonymity

• the guard embraced their social role

• the prisoners identified themselves by their prison numbers rather than their names

How can anonymity lead to disinhibition and aggression

Disinhibition: Reduced self-awareness and accountability can weaken normal social restraints, making behaviors such as aggression, trolling, or cruelty easier

• Cyber-disinhibition: where the anonymity of the internet encourages trolling, harassment, and cruelty w/o consequences

Aggression: Studies show that people wearing masks were more likely to engage in aggressive behavior

• Women are just as willing as men to harm others, especially when they can hide under the safety and anonymity of deindividuatio

3 interpretations of harmful behavior

(1) they are inherently bad

(2) situations and roles can lead ordinary people toward good or bad behavior

(3) people may believe they are serving a legitimate or higher cause

What is the “higher cause” explanation of Milgram?

ome participants may have continued not because they wanted to harm someone, but because they believed they were contributing to an important scientific goal.

Compliance

A type of explicit social influence where an individual behaves in response to a direct or indirect request

Ex: You are walking to work and notice that your coworkers are on strike. You are not sure why they are on strike, but you feel obligated to join their cause

What is the main idea behind compliance research?

People often think they comply because of good reasons, but subtle psychological factors can influence compliance without awareness.

Compliance Principles

• Commitment and Consistency: Once people make a choice or commitment, they tend to want their later behavior to stay consistent with it

• Reciprocation: When someone gives us something, helps us, or makes a concession, we feel obligated to return the favor

• Capturing and disrupting attention: Compliance can increase when a request either follows a familiar social script automatically or unexpectedly breaks that script and forces us to pay attention

• Consensus/Social Proof: We look at what other people are doing to decide what is appropriate or correct. If many people are choosing or endorsing something, we are more likely to follow

• Scarcity: hings seem more valuable or urgent when they are limited or only available for a short time. Examples include “limited quantity” or a fast-approaching deadline

• Authority: People are more likely to comply with requests from someone they see as knowledgeable, legitimate, high-status, or credibl

Commitment and Consistency Techniques

• Foot in the door

• Low ball

Both above tactics capitalize on a strong human desire to remain consistent in one’s thoughts and actions.

• bait and switch

Foot in the door (Freedman and Fraser; 1966)

Agree to a small request first, then receive a larger request. The first action changes self-perception (“I’m the kind of person who does this”) and creates pressure to behave consistently later

Takeaway: Small commitments can make people more likely to accept larger related requests because of consistency/self-image.

The small and large request in the foot-in-the-door technique doesn’t have to be related, but the effect is stronger when they are related, but it can still occur with unrelated requests, supporting the idea that the initial act can change self perception

Bait and Switch

You attract someone with a desirable offer (bait), then after they are interested or committed, that option becomes unavailable and they are pushed toward a different, usually less attractive option (switch)

Ex: A store advertises a very cheap laptop. You go in to buy it, but they say it’s sold out and try to sell you a more expensive model instead.

Low ball Technique

Get someone to agree to an attractive offer first, then reveal a less attractive cost or condition after they have committed. Commitment makes them more likely to continue

Cialdini et al low-ball study

Study Design:

• IV: Group 1: told initially of 7 am start time

• IV: Group 2: told of 7 am start time only after agreeing to participate

• DV

  • agreement to participate

  • actual participation

Result: Those who committed first were more likely to show up, so those in group 2 was more likely to actually participate

Reciprocation Techniques

• door in the face

• that’s not all

Norm of reciprocity

When someone gives us a benefit or makes a concession, we feel pressure to return the favor because we want exchanges to feel fair

Ex: Companies use “free samples” to make you feel guilty if you don’t then buy something.

Door-in-the-face technique

a persuasion technique where people who refuse a large request are then more likely to agree to a later, smaller request

Cialdini et al. door-in-the-face study

Study Design: One group was first asked to make a very large commitment: volunteer as an unpaid juvenile-delinquency counselor for 2 hours a week for 2 years. After they refused, they were asked the real target request: take a group of juvenile delinquents on a 2-hour trip to the zoo. A control group got only the zoo request

Result: People were more likely to agree to the zoo trip when they had first refused the much larger request

Takeaway: the smaller request feels like a concession, so the person feels pressure to reciporate by makring a concession too and sayin yes

Tha’s not all tactic (Burger, 1986)

Study Design: Buyers saw either cupcake + cookies together for one price or were first offered the cupcake and then “given” cookies as an added bonus

Result: The bonus framing (those offered the cupcakes and then “given” cookies as an added bonus) increased purchases

Takeaway: The same objective deal can produce more compliance when framed as a concession/gift.

That’s not all tactic

Improve an offer before the person responds, making the added benefit seem like a gift/concession. This can trigger norm of reciprocity and also make the deal seem better

That’s not all tactic are more likely to be effective when they are percieved as 1) surprising 2) personalized

Script-based Compliance

Social Script: an internal model of the sequence of typical events in a well-understood social situation

Ex: When people request a small favor, and offer some reason*, people often say “Yes” in a relatively automatic, unreflective way

• Triggering a social script can sometimes induce compliance.

• Disrupting a social script can also sometimes induce compliance

Script-based compliance (Langer, Blank, Chanowitz, 1978)

Study Design: A person asked to cut in a copy-machine line with no reason, a real reason, or a meaningless “because I need to make copies.

Result: For small requests, even the meaningless “because” increased compliance
Takeaway: People can follow familiar request scripts automatically without deeply evaluating the reason.

Compliance via Script Violation

An unusual request, designed to disrupt an automatic (i.e., script-based) denial can produce greater compliance

Ex: Panhandlers asked for normal amounts or unusual amounts like 17¢/37¢ , they were more likely to get that change than compared to ppl who asked for 10¢, 20¢

Why can positive mood increase compliance?

• Mood Maintenance: motivational - Desire to maintain one’s good mood (“mood maintenance”); helping others tends to produce positive moods

• Cognitive: altered construal - Positive mood alters the interpretation of the request (e.g., it is seen as more reasonable and less of an imposition or problem

Forgas positive-mood study

Study Design: Participants were placed in positive, negative, or neutral moods and later asked for paper with varying politeness

Result: Positive mood increased compliance, especially for rude/direct requests

Takeaway: Mood can change both motivation and how a request is interpreted.

How can negative mood sometimes increase compliance?

People may help or comply to reduce guilt or sadness and make themselves feel better—called negative-state relief. Anger does not necessarily have the same effect.

Cunningham et al. 1980 guilt study

Study Design: some participants were made to feel responsible for “breaking” a camera; later another person asked for a donation

Result: Those who were told they broke the camera is more likely to donate (to restore their self-perception/image)

Takeaway: People may help to relieve negative feelings and restore a positive self-view.

Descriptive vs. prescriptive norms

Descriptive: what people actually do

Ex: You see that most students in your class use laptops to take notes, so you start using a laptop too

Prescriptive/injunctive: what people are supposed to do.

Ex: Students are expected to stay quiet during an exam, even if some people might not actually follow that rule.

Norm-based appeals work best when what ppl actually do matches what ppl are supposed to do

Pluralistic ignorance

People privately disagree with a norm but follow it because they mistakenly think others accept it; everyone's behavior then reinforces the false norm

Ex: Most students are confused during lecture, but nobody raises their hand because each person thinks, “Everyone else probably understands.” Because no one asks a question, everyone mistakenly concludes that the class understands.

Are groups always better decision makers than individuals?

No. Groups can outperform the average individual on problems with clear factual answers because they combine knowledge, but social concerns like fitting in, avoiding conflict, or avoiding responsibility can interfere with good decisions

Advantages vs. Disadvantages of Group Decision Making

Advantages: Preference task

• if there is no right answer just the group’s preference

Disadvantages:

• The social nature of group processes can lead to major problems for groups tasked with making decisions

Groupthink

Faulty decision making in a highly cohesive group when the desire for agreement and harmony overrides critical evaluation of alternatives

What conditions make groupthink more likely?

1. Strong/directive leader

2. high group cohesion

3. isolation

4. stress

5. pressure for consensus → members censor disagreement and alternatives receive less scrutiny.

Groupthink symptoms

1. Illusion of invulnerability: The group becomes overconfident and believes it is unlikely to fail, so members may underestimate risks

2. moral certainty: he group assumes its goals or decisions are morally right, so members do not seriously question the ethical consequences.

3. stereotyped outgroups: The group views outsiders or opponents in an oversimplified, negative way, making their perspectives easier to dismiss.

4. collective rationalization: Group members explain away warning signs or evidence that challenges their preferred decision instead of reconsidering it.

5. self-censorship: Members hold back doubts, criticism, or disagreement because they do not want to disrupt group harmony.

6. pressure to conform: Members who disagree are directly or indirectly pressured to support the group's preferred position

7. illusion of unanimity: Because people stay quiet, the group mistakenly assumes everyone agrees. Silence is interpreted as agreement

8. mindguards: certain members shield the group from information or criticism that might challenge the group's decision

Bays of Pig

• Example of groupthink

• Situation: Kennedy's advisers considered the Cuba invasion

• Result: doubts and alternative views were suppressed while the group became overly confident

• Takeaway: pressure for consensus can prevent groups from properly evaluating risks and alternatives.

The road to groupthink

Antecedents:

• Group is (already) cohesive

• Isolated

• Directive leader

• Stress

• Poor decision-making rules

Symptoms/Causes

• Illusion of invulnerability – Moral certainty – Stereotyped view of outgroup – Self-censorship – Collective rationalization – Direct pressure to conform – Illusion of unanimity – Mindguards

Defective Decision Making

• Incomplete survey of alternatives

• failure to examine risks of favored alternative

• poor information search

• few contingency (emergency) plans