Social Psychology: Cognitive Dissonance and Norms

Origin: Proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957.
Basic Idea: Individuals desire consistency among their beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors. Inconsistency leads to cognitive dissonance, which can arise when:
- Thoughts or beliefs are inconsistent with actions.
- Two competing ideas are held simultaneously.
State of Dissonance:
- Results in arousal and discomfort.
- Motivates change in beliefs or behaviors to restore harmony.

Initial Belief: Smoking is harmful, reinforced by various influential sources during upbringing (school, media, parents).
Behavior Change: Despite the belief that smoking is dangerous, individuals might try smoking (e.g., teenagers).
Dissonance Creation: Holding the belief that smoking is bad while engaging in it leads to discomfort.
Potential Outcomes: Individuals may:
- Change behavior (quit smoking).
- Change belief (reduce negative attitude towards smoking) to alleviate discomfort.
- Studies indicate that smokers tend to develop more positive beliefs about smoking over time compared to non-smokers.

Procedure: Participants performed a boring task, then were asked to recruit others under false pretenses (to say it was interesting).
Two Groups:
- Group A: Paid $20 for recruitment.
- Group B: Paid $1 for recruitment.
Finding:
- Participants paid $20 rationalized their lie as justified (the task truly was boring).
- Participants paid $1 could not justify lying for such a small reward and thus convinced themselves the task was interesting, thereby reducing dissonance.

Definition: Learned social rules prescribing acceptable behaviors in different contexts.
Impacts on Behavior:
- People actively observe others for social cues (e.g., in religious services or grocery shopping).
- Individuals prefer conforming to group behavior to avoid standing out.
Example Study by Reno (1990): Examined the effect of littering based on environmental context:
- Study Setup: Measuring littering frequency based on existing litter in a public area.
- Findings:
- Minimal litter (1 piece) led to only 10% littering.
- High litter (8 pieces) led to 40% littering, demonstrating norms around littering.
Subsequent Study (Reno, 1993): Investigated confederate behavior on littering:
- Confederate either picked up litter (less than 5% littered) or littered (30% littered).

Definition: The tendency to feel obligated to give back when someone does something for you.
Implications:
- Engaging in reciprocal behaviors can manifest in social scenarios, such as holiday gift-giving or marketing tactics (e.g., free samples leading to purchases).

Social Facilitation: Presence of others boosts performance (e.g., better lecture engagement due to an audience).
Social Impairment: Presence of others may hinder performance (e.g., public speaking anxiety leading to poorer delivery).
Anxiety-Performance Curve:
- Moderate levels of anxiety can enhance performance across tasks, but excessive anxiety may lead to poor results.
Example: Golf performance may suffer under observation due to pressure, highlighting behavioral patterns in practice versus real-world situations.

Conformity: Changing behavior to match group norms, often a reaction to social pressure.
Compliance: Change in behavior in response to direct requests.
Asch's Conformity Experiment:
- Participants determined which line matched a standard line in group settings with confederates giving incorrect answers.
- Results: 95% correct alone; 30% correct in groups with conflicting answers.
Factors Influencing Conformity:
1. Ambiguity: More ambiguity leads to higher conformity.
2. Unanimity: If at least one other person deviates from the group, conformity tends to decrease.
3. Familiarity with Task: Familiarity can reduce the likelihood of conformity.

Objective: To understand why people obey authority figures to commit morally questionable acts.
Methodology: Participants administered what they believed were electric shocks to a learner (confederate).
Key Findings:
- High obedience rates (over 60%) even when the learner appeared to be in pain.
- Presence of dissent (another individual refusing to go on) significantly reduced obedience.

Definition: The phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help in emergencies when others are present.
Factors:
1. Definition of Emergency: If others do not react, individuals may not see the situation as an emergency.
2. Dilution of Responsibility: The more people present, the less personal responsibility felt to act.
Key Experiments: Documented reduced likelihood to help in smoke-filled rooms and apparent medical emergencies with bystanders present.

Social Traps: Situations where individual self-interest conflicts with collective welfare, leading to detrimental outcomes.
Example of the Tragedy of the Commons: Public grazing lands where individual overuse harms overall resource availability.
Modern Examples: Pandemic behavior (e.g., not following guidelines) and environmental challenges (e.g., pollution from unsustainable practices).

Definition: Aggressive tendencies are universal and influenced by biology, socialization, and environment.
Biological Factors:
- Testosterone: Higher levels correlated with increased aggression.
- Serotonin: Lower functioning associated with impulsive aggression.
Social Influences:
- Early exposure to violence and media can normalize aggressive reactions.
- Bandura's Bobo Doll Experiment: Children mimicked aggression observed in adults.
Age Factor: Younger children are more impressionable than adolescents regarding media violence.