Social Psychology: Key Concepts and Classic Studies (Notes from Transcript)
Social Psychology: Key Concepts and Classic Studies
What is social psychology?
Examines the influence of social processes on the way people think, feel, and behave.
Focuses on how individuals are shaped by or respond to others in social contexts.
Social psychology vs common sense
Social psychology often criticised as just common sense, but:
Uses scientific methods to test hypotheses and theories.
Provides objective and reliable insights into human behaviour.
Common sense tends to be based on personal experience and cultural norms, which can be:
Subjective, ambiguous, contradictory, or incorrect.
Affected by hindsight bias.
Understanding our social world: Three key domains
Social cognition: how we understand the social world.
Social interaction: how we engage with others.
Social influence: how we are affected by others.
Social cognition
Definition: The processes by which people make sense of themselves, others, social interactions, and relationships.
Schema: Mental framework/organised pattern of thought.
Examples:
Forming impressions of new people.
Developing attitudes (including prejudice).
Understanding social norms.
Predicting others’ behavior.
Attributions: Explanations for why people behave the way they do.
Social cognition concepts
First Impressions: Formed quickly and shape future perceptions; influenced by social roles, appearance, stereotypes, and attitudes.
Attitudes: A tendency to evaluate people, groups, or ideas positively or negatively.
Three components:
Cognitive (beliefs) C
Affective (feelings) A
Behavioral (actions) B
Stereotypes: Generalised beliefs about groups; often inaccurate and resistant to change.
Prejudice: A negative attitude based on stereotypes (pre-judgment); biased thoughts or evaluations of a group.
Social interaction (interpersonal behaviour)
Definition: The ways people act and respond to one another in social situations.
Dynamic process: Individuals influence each other’s behaviour; two-way interaction.
Examples:
Discrimination: Unfair treatment based on group membership.
Aggression: Behaviour intended to harm.
Attraction: Reasons people choose to spend time with others.
Social influence (external pressures)
Definition: The ways in which the presence of other people influences a person’s thoughts, feelings, or behaviour.
How it happens:
Through interactions with others.
Influenced by situational factors.
Shaped by social norms, roles, and rules.
Key Concepts & Classic Studies:
Conformity: Adjusting behaviour to match group norms (e.g., Asch’s line study). ext{Conformity}
ightarrow ext{Asch}Social Roles: Adopting behaviours expected in a given role (e.g., Zimbardo’s prison experiment).
Bystander Effect: Reduced likelihood of helping when others are present (e.g., Latane & Darley).
Obedience: Following orders from authority (e.g., Milgram’s shock experiment).
Social psychology health example: Age-based bias
Doctor’s stereotype: Older patients may be perceived as unable to understand medical advice.
Potential impact on care:
Avoid detailed explanations; choose simpler treatment; assume poor treatment follow-through.
Impact of bias:
Prejudice → Discrimination; unequal treatment based on age.
Why it matters:
Miscommunication & reduced trust; poorer health outcomes; patients may feel disrespected or dismissed.
Implicit bias awareness → better, fairer care.
Conformity
Process: Changing attitudes or behaviour to accommodate the standards of peers or a group.
Study design: Asch’s conformity study (1955)
Subjects in groups of around 8; only one real subject; rest are confederates.
Task: Compare standard line with three comparison lines; report aloud which matches the standard line.
Confederates initially gave right answers, then all gave the same wrong answers.
Results: Approximately 0.75 (75%) of participants conformed at least once in 12 trials; about rac{1}{3} of participants agreed with the false majority in half or more of trials. (Asch, 1955)
Cognitive/psych influences on conformity:
Normative influence (Asch effect): Desire to be liked, accepted, and approved.
Informational influence: Desire to be correct and to act appropriately.
Personality: Lower self-esteem linked to higher conformity.
Additional factors affecting conformity:
Uniformity of agreement: If all confederates gave the wrong answer, conformity was higher.
Dissention: If one confederate gave a different answer, conformity decreased.
Culture: Collectivist cultures show higher conformity than individualist cultures.
Group size: ≥5 in a group elicit more conformity than <5.
Social roles and social norms
Social roles: A socially defined pattern of behaviour, responsibilities, and expectations in a setting, group, or status.
Different roles are available in different contexts (home, work, family, sports teams).
Roles come with implicit learning through observation and experience.
Context-dependent and normative (what is considered appropriate).
Regulatory: Help individuals act in line with roles (e.g., parent, teacher, student).
Social norms: General expectations across society about acceptable behaviour.
Class activity (from transcript)
Write down three of your social roles.
Think of one ‘social rule’ that guides your behaviour in each role.
Share with a neighbour if time allows.
Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo)
Aim: Looked at power of social roles and deindividuation; tested fundamental attribution error.
Deindividuation: Stripping away of identity/feeling of anonymity leads to greater susceptibility to social influence and atypical behaviour.
Method: Students randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards in a mock prison.
Prisoners: Arrested, fingerprinted, dressed as prisoners.
Guards: Dressed in uniforms, given minimum instructions.
Outcomes:
Guards became abusive and dehumanised prisoners.
Prisoners became lethargic, depressed; about half withdrew due to anxiety or depression.
Experiment aborted after 6 days.
Demonstrated: Person–role merger, deindividuation, and powerful influence of situational factors over individual differences.
Resources: www.prisonexp.org; often cited in discussions of the power of social context.
Takeaway
The power of social roles can override individual personality and ethical norms in a controlled setting; the situation can overwhelm personal identity.
Bystander effect (Darley & Latane, 1968)
Kitty Genovese case: Victim of stalking, cries for help heard by 38 witnesses over ~30 minutes; no one intervened.
Core finding: The presence of others reduces the likelihood that any one person will help.
Experimental findings (Darley & Latane, 1968):
Bystander effect: Decrease in offers of assistance as the number of bystanders increases.
Anonymity: Bystanders who feel anonymous are less likely to help.
Quickest help occurs in two-person groups.
Diffusion of responsibility: Diminished sense of personal responsibility to act because others are seen as equally responsible.
Bystander intervention in emergency (Darley & Latane)
Different perspectives on whether the bystander effect is a myth; discussions include high-pressure situations where effects may differ.
News and educational resources discuss varying levels of intervention in different contexts.
Diffusion of responsibility & bystander intervention in healthcare
Diffusion of Responsibility: Individuals feel less responsible when others are present.
Bystander Intervention: Whether someone takes action in a situation requiring help.
Clinical relevance: In busy or hierarchical healthcare environments, staff may assume someone else will act, leading to delays or patient harm.
Reducing risk:
Clear role expectations.
Training in ethical decision-making.
Cultures that encourage speaking up.
Obedience
Definition: Adherence to instructions from those of higher authority.
Historical context: Nazi Germany.
Milgram’s obedience study – background and aim:
Investigate how far people would go following orders from an authority figure.
Explore whether situational forces can engulf anyone.
Backdrop: Shocking events in Nazi Germany; argument that situations can exert powerful control over behaviour.
Design:
Participants asked to play the role of a ‘teacher’; a confederate played the ‘learner’ in a separate room.
The teacher administered increasingly severe electric shocks for wrong answers.
The learner’s responses were scripted; no real shocks were given.
Key findings:
High levels of obedience: A significant majority (about 0.65, i.e., 65%) continued to administer the highest level of shocks (450 volts).
Participants showed distress but complied when told the experiment required it.
Authority influence: The presence of an authoritarian figure strongly influenced obedience, even when conflicting with personal values.
Implications:
Demonstrates the power of situational factors and authority figures on behaviour.
Used to understand historical atrocities and obedience in organizational or military contexts.
Ethical considerations: Raised significant concerns about participant treatment and moral agency in experiments.
Milgram’s obedience study – design and results summary
Setup: Learner in another room; shock levels tested; learner’s screams and pleas were recorded as responses.
Key question: At what shock level would a participant stop obeying?
Result highlight: The majority continued to 450 volts; many showed distress but continued under instruction.
Important caveat noted in publications: "No actual shocks were delivered."
Situational influences on obedience (Milgram)
Proximity of the learner: When the learner was in the same room, participants used lower shock levels.
Touch proximity: Additional physical proximity to the learner affected obedience.
Proximity to the experimenter: When the experimenter was remote, obedience to the instruction decreased.
Dissension/second subject: If another subject dissented, participants were more likely to refuse.
Setting: Less prestigious settings reduced obedience.
Indirect administration of shocks: Highest compliance when shocks were administered indirectly through an intermediary.
Normative and informational influence in obedience
Normative influences: Desire to be liked, to avoid conflict with authority.
Informational influences: Perception that the experimenter is an expert; rely on their guidance.
In hierarchical/institutional settings these influences are amplified.
Cognitive & social influences on obedience
Ambiguity of situation: If uncertain how to behave, people look to experts for cues.
Confusion about dissent: If dissent attempts fail to satisfy authority, confusion increases.
Obedience to authority as a social norm: The expectation to obey authority is reinforced from childhood.
Social norms: The social expectation across contexts about what is acceptable.
Additional study: Hofling et al. (1966) – obedience in hospital settings
Nurse received a phone call from an unknown doctor requesting medication dosage.
Usual dose: 5 mg; max dose: 10 mg; doctor prescribed 20 mg.
Outcome: 21/22 nurses obeyed, despite 10/12 nurses indicating they would not obey.
Things to know (summary prompts from the transcript)
Explain the concept of social cognition. Define and summarise factors that influence obedience and conformity.
Describe Milgram’s obedience study: what it set out to investigate and its key conclusions.
Discuss the Asch conformity study setup and key results.
Describe diffusion of responsibility and the bystander effect.
Define social rules and social roles.
Describe Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, explain person–role merger, deindividuation, and effects on participants.
Questions or comments?
If you’d like, I can tailor these notes further (e.g., add example questions, create a condensed revision sheet, or convert to flashcards). For any questions, you can reach Suzanne Stevens, course coordinator and senior lecturer at s.stevens@auckland.ac.nz