Social Psychology: How Groups Affect Individuals

Social Psychology: Group Influence on Individuals

  • Social psychology explores how groups affect individuals and the impact of our environment on behavior.

Examples of Group Influence

  • Undressing Experiment:
    • Individuals conform to group behavior, even if it's unusual (e.g., undressing in an interview setting).
  • Color Perception Experiment:
    • Participants often agree with the incorrect consensus of a group regarding the color of an object, even when their own perception differs.
    • Demonstrates the power of social conformity, where individuals may doubt their own senses to align with the group.

Conformity and Decision Making

  • People often look to their environment to make decisions.
  • Social psychology examines when this is beneficial versus detrimental to society.

Introduction to Social Psychology

  • Social psychology focuses on the power of the situation and how we think about, influence, and relate to one another.
  • It seeks to explain the causes of both brutal and heroic behaviors.
  • Examples:
    • Jean Valjean revealing his identity to save a stranger.
    • Oscar Schindler risking his life to save Jewish people.
    • Darth Vader saving Luke Skywalker by throwing the Emperor.

Attribution Theory

  • Developed by Fritz Heider, attribution theory explains how we understand the causes of behavior.
  • Dispositional Attribution:
    • Explaining behavior based on stable, enduring traits (personality).
  • Situational Attribution:
    • Explaining behavior based on the circumstances.
  • It can be surprisingly difficult to accurately assess whether behavior is dispositional or situational.
  • Example: Bruno acting shy at a party might be due to a twisted ankle (situational) rather than a shy personality (dispositional).

Fundamental Attribution Error

  • The tendency to overestimate the impact of personality and underestimate the influence of the situation.
  • Consequences:
    • Warped opinions of others.
    • False snap judgments.
  • Example: Men misinterpreting polite friendliness as a sexual come-on.
  • Political views are influenced by whether we attribute poverty to personal failings or social circumstances.

Persuasion

  • Politicians and advertisers persuade people in different ways.
  • Dual Process Theory:
    • Developed by Richard Petty and John Cacciocco.
    • Central Route Persuasion:
      • Using reasoning and evidence to convince people.
      • Interested people focus on arguments and are persuaded by the content.
      • Example: Being persuaded by a candidate's policies during a debate.
    • Peripheral Route Persuasion:
      • Using incidental cues (e.g., attractiveness, relatability) to influence people.
      • Relies on gut reactions rather than critical thinking.
      • Example: Voting for a candidate because they are cute or from your hometown.
      • More effective when attention is low, explaining the effectiveness of billboards and TV ads.

Behavior and Attitudes

  • Our behaviors can affect our attitudes, and vice versa.
  • "Fake until you make it": Smiling when sad can lead to feeling better.
  • Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon:
    • People comply with a large request after agreeing to smaller ones.
    • Incremental persuasion can lead to significant attitude and behavior changes.
    • Example: Darth Vader's gradual descent to the dark side.
  • Moral actions strengthen moral convictions, while immoral actions strengthen immoral attitudes.

Stanford Prison Experiment

  • Philip Zimbardo's 1971 study explored the power of the situation on behavior.
  • Participants:
    • 24 male college students were screened and randomly assigned roles as prisoners or guards.
    • They were paid $15 per day.
  • Procedure:
    • Participants were arrested by real cops to enhance realism.
    • Prisoners were booked, strip-searched, and given hospital gowns.
  • Results:
    • Role-playing quickly became real.
    • Prisoners experienced loss of identity and emotional distress.
    • Guards became cruel, hostile, and dehumanizing.
    • The experiment was stopped after only six days due to the extreme behaviors.
  • Conclusion:
    • The situation can easily override individual personality differences.
    • The study sheds light on the nature of power and corruption.
  • Ethical Concerns:
    • The experiment would not be approved by today's ethical standards.

Resistance and Cognitive Dissonance

  • While many people succumb to negative situations, some resist.
  • Examples:
    • People who hid Jewish people during World War II.
    • Those who helped runaway slaves.
    • Individuals who refused to comply with unjust actions.
  • Why is it easier to rationalize negative actions? Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance provides a partial explanation.
  • Cognitive Dissonance:
    • The discomfort experienced when thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors are inconsistent.
    • We seek to reduce this discomfort.
  • Example: Bruno punching his friend experiences cognitive dissonance.
    • He might change his beliefs to match his actions ("I'm not a nice guy").
    • Or, he might change how he thinks about the situation ("He was asking for it").
  • Resolving dissonance can transform a person's beliefs:
    • The mismatch between what we do and who we think we are induces tension.

Stanford Prison Experiment Detailed Observations

  • Objective:

    • To examine whether situational or dispositional factors have a greater impact on behavior in a simulated prison environment.

  • Methodology:

    • Participants were selected based on psychological evaluations to ensure they were psychologically stable and unlikely to exhibit extreme behavior.

  • Setup:

    • The basement of Stanford's psychology department was converted into a realistic prison setting.
    • Prisoners were unexpectedly arrested at their homes to enhance the realism of the experience.

  • Guard Uniforms:

    • The guards wore military-style uniforms and mirrored sunglasses, which obscured their eyes and increased the perceived authority.

  • Initial Observations:

    • Zimbardo noted a lack of activity and was initially unimpressed.
    • One of the prisoners instigated a rebellion on the second day by barricading his cell.

  • Escalation:

    • The guards retaliated by intensifying their control and harassment, leading to extreme behaviors.

  • Role of Zimbardo:

    • Zimbardo took on the dual role of the lead researcher and the prison superintendent, which blurred the lines between objective observation and active participation.

  • Prisoner 8612:

    • One of the leaders in the rebellion was placed in solitary confinement and offered a deal to become an informant, which further deepened the prisoners' sense of entrapment.

  • Mental Distress:

    • Prisoners began to show signs of severe distress, and several had to be released early.

  • David Eshelman (Guard John Wayne):

    • Eshelman embraced an extremely cruel persona, drawing inspiration from the movie "Cool Hand Luke" to intimidate and humiliate the prisoners.
    • Other guards often did not intervene, allowing Eshelman to dominate and intensify his abuse.

  • Prisoner 416:

    • A new prisoner, 416, went on a hunger strike to protest the conditions.
    • Eshelman responded by putting 416 in solitary confinement and coercing other prisoners to verbally abuse him.

  • Dr. Christina Maslach's Intervention:

    • Dr. Christina Maslach, a social psychologist, visited the prison:
    • Observed the dehumanizing conditions and expressed horror:
    • Her emotional reaction was pivotal in convincing Zimbardo to end the experiment prematurely.

  • Ethical Criticisms:

    • The experiment raised significant ethical concerns regarding the treatment of participants.
    • Critics argued that the level of psychological distress experienced by prisoners was unacceptable.

  • Post-Experiment:

    • Participants were brought together for debriefing sessions.
    • Eshelman's actions troubled fellow participants. He explained that he was playing a role, but his behavior nevertheless had a real impact.

  • Understanding the Social Situation:

    • The experiment is often cited to highlight how situational forces can overwhelm individual dispositions. But not every individual succumbed to the roles.
    • Individual differences also play a substantial role.

Milgram Experiment

  • Purpose:

    • To understand obedience to authority, inspired by the Holocaust.

  • Procedure:

    • Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) for incorrect answers, increasing the voltage with each mistake.

  • Deception:

    • Participants believed they were administering real shocks:
    • The learner simulated pain and distress.

  • Results:

    • A significant number of participants (66%) were willing to administer potentially lethal shocks when urged by an authority figure.

  • Ethical Concerns:

    • The experiment raised ethical questions about the psychological distress caused to participants.

  • Variations:

    • The experiment was modified under different conditions, in different locations (Princeton, medical buildings, office buildings) and with the authority figure being dressed in different clothing to see how far participants would go with the shocking proceedure.

Morality

  • Definition:
    • Thoughts on what is right and wrong.
  • Influences:
    • Society, parents, culture.
  • Logic vs. Emotion:
    • Balancing both is important.
    • Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number.
    • Ethical dilemmas often involve conflicts between logical and emotional considerations.

Colbert's Perspective

  • To judge behavior, we must understand the reasons behind it.
  • Sometimes people do good things for bad reasons, and vice versa.

The Doctor's Dilemma

  • Scenario:

    • A doctor has one dose of a cure left for a deadly disease, but two patients need it.
    • Both have to take the whole dosage to be effective.

  • Patient A: An artist (douchebag, high impact for the world).

  • Patient B: A nice guy (good personality, helps his neighbors). Will die.

  • Question: Who should the doctor save? Most people would save the nice guy.

  • Kohlberg's view: The reason the doctor chooses his patient is important.

  • What if the doctor wanted to date the artist's hot girlfriend, so lets the artist die? This taints the emotional perspective of his decision.

Age Gaps in Relationships

  • Considerations:

    • Appropriate age range for dating.
    • Society's influence on our views.

  • Factors affecting attraction:

    • Stability
    • Psychological factors.

  • Power dynamics:

    • Influence and abuse are areas of concern when there is a large age gap.
    • Predatory aspects - teachers dating students.

Bystander Effect

  • Kitty Genovese case:
    • 38 people did not witness this event
    • Ambiguity is promoted
  • The more people around, less likely people are to intervene.
  • It occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.
  • Diffusion of responsibility:
    • When multiple bystanders are present, the responsibility to act does not fall solely on one person.
    • The thought that someone else will handle it.
    • Someone breaking down (assuming the the situation is in hand, someone has called them by now) -- this is what blind eye looks like.
  • Pluralistic Ignorance:
    • People are not sure on how to solve a situation
    • (e.g. someone choking and someone not knowing the heimlich menuever).
  • Doctors and nurses know medical emergencies, what to do.

Solutions:

  • First responders are trained to give people task to solve emergency situations.
    • “Hey, I need you to do this.”
    • Diffusing responsibility

Social Loafing

  • Individual loathes in a group.
  • Easy to hide
    • Recycling examples
    • Those in group not performing equal level of work
  • Unclear (make it not clear, then people loathe).
  • Rotations of Tasks (dont give someone jobs, they don't like).
  • Reasons why?
    • hide work.
    • lack of communication.
    • assigned crummy work all the time.

Violence and Aggression

  • Causes of anger:

    • Frustration aggression hypothesis
    • Hypothesis of small frustrations leading up to a culmination of frustration.

  • Individual differences

    • Genetic differences (don't always mean that there would be aggressive).
    • If raised in violence

  • Individual’s environment

  • Cognitive influences

    • Deindividualization and dehumanization
    • Dehumanization- when victimizers view their victims as less then human.
    • Deindividualization- viewing views as lose of individualization, because members of a group
      • Military or protest groups in which the people loose themselves.
      • Easy to say things online if people are anonymous.