Chapter 9

Social Influence Overview

• social influence: how people…

  • affect one another

    • these changes can be seen in the….

      • changing of attitudes, beliefs, feelings, or behaviors

    • these changes result from the…

      • real or imagined presence of others

• three types of social influence

  • obedience:

    • changing behavior by responding favorably to an explicit request from someone who has power over you

    • do as others command

  • compliance:

    • changing behavior by responding favorably to explicit requests from others

    • do as others want

  • conformity:

    • changing behavior in response to explicit or implicit pressure (real or imagined) from others

    • do as other do

    • no explicit request

• order of strength for the types of social influence:

  • obedience > compliance > conformity

Conformity

• What are the two types of conformity?

  • unconscious (automatic)

  • conscious (deliberate/intentional)

unconscious (automatic) conformity

automatic behavioral mimicry

• unconsciously imitating the behaviors of others

• people high in empathy or need to affiliate with others are more likely to automatically mimic others

• study: Chartrand & Bargh, 1999

  • participant with a confederate doing random task, confederate either rubbed face or shook foot

  • participant was more like to do the same action as the confederate

  • pretty easy for a confederate to get a participant to mimic their action

reasons for mimicry

• ideomotor action (Wegner, 1994)

  • thinking about an action increases likelihood of doing it

  • when we see others behave in a particular way, that behavior is brought to mind, we are more likely to behave that way ourselves

• preparation for social interaction (Bargh et al. 1996)

  • mimicry may build social rapport and lead to more pleasant social interactions - foster social connection

  • people who are mimicked are more prosocial afterward

  • people tend to like those who mimic them more (over those who don’t)

conscious (deliberate/intentional) conformity

informational social influence - “social proof” “social frame”

• informational social influence

  • the reliance on other people’s comments/actions as an indication of what is correct, propper, or effective

  • using others’ behavior as a valid information about what is appropriate in a situation

  • you change your behavior because others have taught you something that you believe is useful

• Sherif (1936) study:

  • Participants were exposed to the autokinetic effect

    • autokinetic effect: visual illusion where a small, stationery dot of light in a dark room appears to move

  • Asked: how much did the light move?

    • ambiguous, difficult task

  • first saw and answered alone, then participants joined other participants in a small group and were told to say answers out loud

  • four trials

  • results:

    • participants changed their answers in the presence of others, answers converged

    • shows… participants rely on others’ judgments as valid information in order to make a more correct decision

• Why?

  • accuracy motive: people want to be right

  • opinions and behaviors of others help us “get it right”

• likely to occur when…

  • situation is difficult or ambiguous

  • situations where we feel low in knowledge/competence about a task or topic, thus we look for help

normative social influence - peer pressure

• normative social influence: the desire to avoid being criticized, disapproved of, or shunned

  • using other’s behavior as guides for how to fit in and avoid disapproval

    • you change your behavior to avoid social punishment

  • conformity based on the desire to be liked or socially accepted when the situation is clear/unambiguous but one’s own beliefs conflict with group beliefs

• Line Judgment Study (Asch, 1956)

  • participant judged whether two lines were the same length (easy task, no ambiguity)

  • one participant in a group of confederates

  • after a couple rounds, confederates would give an (obviously) wrong answer

  • results

    • when participants were alone they answered correctly 100% of the time

    • in the presence of (wrong) confederate, they conformed on 1/3 of the trials

      • 75% of participants conformed at least once

• why?

  • people want to avoid standing out, negatively, in the eyes of the group

  • want to avoid being criticized, disapproved of, or shunned

  • fear social consequences if they depart from norms of society

informational vs. normative social influence

• informational influence leads to internalization (private acceptance) of the majority opinion/behavior, and actual change in one’s attitudes and beliefs

• normative influence leads to temporary public conformity with the majority opinion/behavior, without any change in attitudes and beliefs

• informational influence motivation: being right

• normative influence motivation: fear, avoiding social backlash

factors that influence conformity

• group size:

  • larger groups have more informational and normative social influence (conscious)

  • conformity rates level off at around 4 people

• unanimity:

  • if there is a break in unanimity, even if it’s not in line with the person’s private belief, it is enough to reduce conformity (both normative and informational)

• anonymity:

  • eliminates normative social influence → reduces conformity

• expertise/status:

  • experts opinions…

    carry more weight

  the disapproval of high-status people hurt more

  affects both normative and informational influence

  • more expert → more status → normative + informational

    • people often associate these two things together

  • study example Torrance (1955)

    members of navy bonding crews given reasoning problems, group had to give one answer

    • group was more likely to present the answer when it was someone of higher status that offered it (thus they carried more weight)

• independent/interdependent culture:

  interdependent cultures more likely to conform due to both information and normative social influence

  • a meta-analysis showed that interdependent groups tend to conform more (focus on social relationships)

• tight and loose cultures: some cultures tolerate deviance, others don’t

  • tight (don’t tolerate): india, germany, china, korea

  • loose: greece, israel, new zealand, brazil

  • expect more conformity in tight cultures

• gender

  • women tend to conform more, but only a little bit

  • more pronounced in face-to-face interactions

  • focus on social relationships

  • note: this is thought to be due to socialization and could have definity changed since these studies in the 1900s

minority influencing the majority

• typically more informational social influence rather than normative

• the consistent appearance of a minority opinion can gradually change people’s opinions

• moscovici blue/green study:

  • participants identified some color as more blue or green (it tends to be blurred and peopel tend to lean closer to blue)

  • when a confederate consistently stated green (versus varying responses) it increased how likely participants were to say green

  • and when asked in a different scenario later continued to say more greens

Compliance

changing behavior by responding favorably to explicit request from others do as others want

• occurs when we are influenced by a direct attempt by someone without authority/power over us

• obedience vs. compliance:

  • whether the requester has authority/power

• three main types

  • reason-based

  • emotion-based

  • norm-based

Reason-Based

• Three reason based compliance approaches

  • door-in-the-face

  • that’s-not-all!

  • foot-in-the-door

• “door in the face” and “that’s not all!” are based on…

  • the norm of reciprocity

  • people help those who help them

    • exists in many other mammals and birds

    • soda → raffle ticket study

“Door in the Face” Reciprocal Concessions

• requesting a large favor knowing the target will decline → ask a more ‘modest’ request that s actually desired

• because the asked reduced the size of the request…

  • the responders feels compelled to also make a concession (by agreeing to a request)

• examples:

  • salary/raise/contract negotiations

• study: Cialdini et al. (1975)

  • Conditions:

    • C1: would you be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a zoo day trip?

    • C2: Would you be willing to counsel juvenile delinquents two hours/week for two years?

      • → Expected response of NO

        • Then, would you be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a zoo day trip?

  • Percent who agreed to chaperone:

    • C1: 17%

    • C2: 50%

  • Results: The requester made a concession in C2 so it was reciprocated by the participant, increasing the percent who agree to chaperone

That’s Not All!

• adding something to an original offer

  • the add-on feels like a gift

    • → elicits the norm of reciprocity

    • ex: “if you are offering something extra, i should offer something in return… like buying”

• Study: Burger (1986)

  • sold desserts at Santa Clara University arts fair for the Psych Club

  • Conditions:

    • C1: 1 cupcake + 2 cookies, $.75

    • C2: 1 cupcake for $.75… and we’ll give 2 cookies

  • Percent who purchased:

    • C1: 40%

    • C2: 73%

• example:

  • giving shoppers free shipping if they buy x amount

  • shoppers having to pay for shipping in a separate thing

  • even tho the total cost is the same

Foot in the Door

• make a small, initial request that virtually everyone would agree to, then follow it up with a larger request for what you really want

  • small → big request

  • capitalizes on how we like to have a consistent self-image

  • committing to the first act causes a change in your self-schema via self-perception

    • ‘if i agreed to the first one, then i must be the kind of person who supports this case’

• study: freedman& fraser, 1966

  • Conditions:

    • C1: “will you display this large sign in your yard?”

    • C2: “will you display this small sign in your window”

      • then followed by “will you display this large sign in your yard?”

  • Percent who agreed to the large sign:

    • C1: 17%

    • C2: 76%

Emotion Based

• two emotion based compliance approaches:

  • positive mood

  • negative mood (guilt)

Positive Mood

• increases compliance

  • people are more likely to do things when they are in a good mood

• Study: Isen et al. (1976)

  • part 1: manipulation (conditions)

    • C1: simply received the phone call

    • C2: up 20 minutes before the call, received a small gift

  • part 2: Participants get a phone call

    • Call is from someone who “spent my last dime on this misdialed phone call” and requested that the participant “dial the intended number and relay a message”

  • part 3: outcome

    • percent who made the call:

      • C1: 10%

      • C2: 10%-100% (based on varying time of call/gift)

    • ultimately: positive mood increased compliance

• Why?

  • construal: if you’re happy you feel good → assuming other’s intentions to be also good

    • more likely to give people benefit of the doubt

    • if someone asks for a favor:

      • assumes they are a victim of the situation > are irresponsible/lazy

  • positive mood maintenance: saying no to a request is awkward and creates a negative effect → in order to continue feeling good you comply

    • study**: Isen & Levin (1972)**

      • Participants given a cookie (positive mood) or not (neutral mood)

      • Asked if they would serve as a confederate for a quick experiment

        • half told their role was to help the “real” participant

        • half told their role was to hinder the “real participant”

      • Positive mood increased compliance only when the task was to help someone and not hinder them

      • shows the continuation of positive feeling, positive feelings made when helping others (and vice versa)

Negative Mood

• negative moods, specifically guilt, increases compliance

• negative state relief hypothesis:

  • negative moods increase compliance because helping someone else helps you feel better

  • ‘i feel bad because x, if i do y i’ll feel better’

• when people feel guilty, they are often motivated to…

  • do more to get rid of the negative feeling

• study: Carlsmith & Gross (1969)

  • will participant help make some phone calls for the confederate?

  • but first…

    • C1: participants shocked confederate’s hands when he got an answer wrong (shocks were known to be painful and unpleasant)

    • C2: participants rung a bell when confederate got an answer wrong

  • participants who agreed to make call:

    • C1: 75%

    • C2: 25%

  • Result: people felt more guilty about shocking the confederate, thus more people agreed to help make phone calls

Norm-Based

• explicit or implicit suggestion to conform to those around you

• Schultz et al. (2007)

  • CA homeowners received messages about how much electricity they use din previous weeks and how much the average use was in their neighborhood

    • info was accompanied by a smiley or frowny face to indicate approval/disapproval (counteracts the unintended negative effect)

  • Result:

    • people who consumed more started using less

    • people who consumed less started using more

• descriptive norms

  • objective, factual description of what most people do

  • what is

  • ex: ‘most people sleep less than eight hours per night’

• prescriptive norms

  • what most people should do according to some rule or tradition

  • what ought to be

  • ex: ‘people should sleep more than eight hours a day’

• Cialdini et al. (2006)

  • placed signs in Petrified Forest National Park (AZ) to stop people from taking petrified wood with them

    • Sign 1: “Many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest. Please help stop this problem”

    • Sign 2: “The majority of past visitors have left the petrified wood in the park, preserving the natural state of the Petrified Forest”

  • results**: t**heft was four times lower for Sign 2 than Sign 1

  • takeaway:

    • When trying to change norms, people often highlight how common it is for people to do the wrong thing...

      • ...but this encourages people to continue doing the wrong thing

    • In trying to promote positive behavior, descriptive norms are beneficial.

      • However, in trying to, reduce negative behavior descriptive norms may backfire

• descriptive + predictive norms in alliance are more convincing

Obedience

Do as others command

Milgram Experiment example

• ex: Milgram experiments | would participants comply when doing so involved hurting other people? if authority it involved, yes…

  • Experiment procedure

    The experiment is described as a “study on learning” Two roles: “teacher” and “learner” Teacher shocked learner each time he got a word pairing wrong Shock level began at 15 volts and increased to a maximum of 450 volts; for each incorrect response, shock level went up 15 volts During the experiment, the confederate begins to scream in pain, says his heart hurts, and demands to be let out Toward the end, the confederate stops making any noises Whenever the participant wants to stop, the experimenter says vague phrases like “Please continue” “The experiment requires that you continue” “It’s absolutely essential that you continue” “You have no other choice; you must go on”

  • Predicted results:

    • milgram did not believe many people would go all the way

    • a panel of experts (psychiatrists) prediced that no more than 1% would continue to 450V (prevalence of antisocial personality disorder is 2%)

  • Results: 66% of participants completed the experiment and delivered the max shock of 450V

• Replications:

  • milgram conducted many variations of the study by changing factors he thought might decrease compliance rates

    • ex: proximity to victim, proximity to authority

  • ran 1000+ subjects in his experiments

  • as the “learner” became more salient (visible/prominent), obedience decreases

  • as the “authority” became less salient obedience decreases

• how do you make it more likely for participants to disobey

  • make the victim closer (more salient) - increased desire to disobey

  • make the authority further away (less salient) - easier to disobey

  • making it easier to disobey was more effective than increasing the desire to disobey

    • shows the power of the situation

• why was this ideal for obedience?

  • released from responsibility

    • experimenters claimed responsibility for the outcome

  • step by step involvement

    • shock only goes up 15V each time

    • “slippery slope”

  • lack of practice disobeying authority

    • most participants tried to end the experiment at some point but failed

    • most people don’t have practice being bold against authority

      • study didn’t play by the ‘normal rules of social life’

• Would it happen today? Yes

  • today IRB requires ‘no undue stress or harm to participants’ → probably wouldn’t allow direct replication

  • Burger 2009 replicated at 165 volts

    • examined a critical threshold in previous experiments

      • 150 volts = now or never moment (4/5 participants who didn’t stop at this point never stopped)

    • asked a battery of mental health questions

    • 70% complied today vs 82% in 1960

      • statistically speaking not that different

• reactance theory: people experience unpleasant state of arousal when they believe their free will is threatened

  • thus they act to reduce this discomfort by reasserting their prerogatives (rights/privleges)

Chapter 10

Characterizing Relationships

The importance of relationships

• biologically based needs

  • food

  • oxygen

  • warmth

  • safety

  • belonging

• evolutionary basis

  • romantic bonds facilitate reproduction

  • parent-child attachments help keep babies safe

  • friendships help non-family members cooperate and thrive

Evidence for the need to belong

• the need to belong is…. (baumeister & leary, 1995)

  • universal

• cultures around the world show similar behaviors like..

  • care giving between mother and child

  • wrestling between siblings

  • flirtation among young people

  • affection between romantic partners

  • dominance displays between adolescent males

• the notes above support the idea of…

  • an evolutionary basis for the need for belonging

• study: Harlow’s monkeys

  • “cloth mother” vs “wire mother”

    • cloth monkey: looked like a monkey but could not give milk

      • infant monkeys approached when threatened and needed comfort

    • wire mother: did not look like a monkey but could give milk

      • approached by infant when hungry

  • infant monkeys preferred warmth and comfort over food

  • monkeys raised in either condition failed to develop properly

    • fearful, asocial, sexually dysfunctional

• married people fare better than unmarried in many measures of well being (Gove et al. 1990)

• Suicide and crime rates are higher for single and divorced people (Rothberg & Jones, 1987)

• Social supports strengthens cardiovascular, immune, and endocrine systems (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996)

Different ways of relating to others

• exchange relationships (judson & mills, 1979, 1993)

  • interactions based on equity and reciprocity

    • input-to-output ratio should be equal

    • tend to be short-term

    • e.g. business relations

• communal relationships (judson & mills, 1979, 1993)

  • interactions based on a sense of “oneness”

  • input-to-output ratio does not have to be equal

    • follows principle of need

  • tend to be long-term

  • e.g. family, close friends

Social Exchange theory

• social exchange theory:

  • people tend to seek out interactions that have more rewards than costs, or have the smallest amount of “excess cost” possible (Kelly & Thiabut, 1978)'

  • conscious or unconscious

  • people seek out rewards in interactions with others and are willing to pay certain costs to get them

  • interpersonal relationships are based on…

    rewards (and the costs)

• people are motivated to maximize…

  • their own feelings of satisfaction

  • examples: you might like someone because…

    • they allow you access to a clique

    • they make you laugh

    • they make you “feel good” generally

• the easiest way to get someone to like you is to…

  • reward them

  • make them feel good when they are around you (Jones, 1964; Vonk, 2002)

• comparison level:

  • expectations about what to get out of a relationship

• comparison level for alternatives:

  • outcomes people think they can get out of alternative relationships

Equity Theory

• however you don’t want too many rewards and too few costs

• equity theory:

  • people are motivated to pursue fairness in relationships, so rewards and costs are shared roughly equal (Walster et al., 1978)

• You don’t want to feel like someone is sucking up to you… that’s not a rewarding relationship/you can’t respect or enjoy the person’s company

Attachment theory

• human infants are born with few survival skills

• children rely on parents for security, which allows them to explore the environment and learn (Bowlby, 1982)

• attachment theory:

  • how our early attachments with our parents shape our relationships for the rest of our lives

  • infants must develop a relationship with at least one caregiver for social/emotional development to occur normally

    • → this relationship provides…

      • a schema that is automatically applied to later relationship (Baldwin et al., 1996; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)

Attachment theory in infants - strange situation paradigm study

• strange situation paradigm (Ainsworth, 1978): simple test to assess infant attachment to caregiver

  • infant and caregiver enter unfamiliar room with toys

  • Stranger walks in, caregiver leaves → infant distressed

  • caregiver returns (after 3 minutes)

  • how does the infant respond to when the caregiver returns?

• Secure attachment:

  • generally trusting (62%)

  • how it translated in study:

    • infant: actively explores room when caregiver is present, upset when caregiver leaves, happy when caregiver returns

    • caregiver: responds quickly and reliably to cries, responsive to child’s individual needs

• Anxious-Ambivalent attachment:

  • generally dependent, clingy (15%)

  • how it translated in the study

    • Infant: clings to caregiver when present, upset when they leave, still angry/upset when they return

    • Caregiver: tends to be unpredictable/unreliable, sometimes intrudes on child’s activities, sometimes rejects/ignores the child, sometimes shows love

• Avoidant attachment:

  • generally independent, self reliant (23%)

  • how it translate in the study

    • infant: ignores caregiver when they’re around, doesn’t care when they leave (may seem like surpressing emotions, child acting like they don’t care), continues to ignore when they return

    • caregiver: ignores child; doesn’t pay attention to infant’s wants or needs

Adult Attachment

• infant styles provide working models for our relationships as adults

• adult types of attachment:

  • secure attachment:

    • comfortable with intimacy

    • want to be close to others during threat/uncertainty

    • low anxiety + avoidance

  • anxious-ambivalent attachment:

    • constantly expresses worries/concern about relationships

    • excessively seeks closeness during threat/uncertainty

    • high anxiety, low avoidance

  • avoidant attachment

    • prefers distance; shows compulsive self-reliance

    • uncomfortable with intimiacy

    • dismissive and detached during threat/uncertainty

    • low anxiety, high avoidance

Anxiety + Avoidance spectrums

• Anxiety →

  • how uncertain/scared they are of people not being there for them (higher means more anxious)

• Avoidance →

  • how readily they rely and seek out intimacy (higher means less)

• recent speculation on whether attachment should be thought of as a “type” or across “dimensions” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)

• two dimensions that capture most of the variance in attachment styles (Fraley et al., 2000)

  • anxiety: amount of fear of rejection, abandonment

  • avoidance: level of comfort with intimacy

• attachment style tends to not change over time but...

  • their actions can be temporarily altered

  • can vary across relationships

  • moderately stable, but could change over time in specific situations

Long term effects

• securely attached people…

  • more likely to be married (female, at age 50: 82% vs 50%) (cooper et al., 1998)

  • have fewer marital problems and report the greatest satisfaction (Klohen & Bera, 1998)

  • over four years…

    • only 26% of secure participants broke up with their partners

    • 44% of anxious participants went through a break up

    • 52% of avoidant participants went through a break up

• secure =

  • good generally

Attachment Theory Overview

• main principle:

  • attachment style develops early and is relatively stable across life

  • may change if some event occurs that changes it

    • like all schema it will remain stable otherwise

• important schema tend to be difficult to change

  • requires a lot of counter-evidence

  • must update automatic and deliberate aspects of the schema

  • must overcome self-fulfilling prophecies

• not all (attachment in a) relationship is the same

  • Baldwin et al. (1996)

    • participants listed 10 important relationships

    • indicated their attachment style in each one

    • over 50% of participants had experienced all 3 major attachment styles at some point or another

  • everyone can be secure/anxious/avoidant, especially if someone “brings out” the best/worst in you

  • so attachment varies across relationships and can also vary throughout a relationship

  • answer for can attachment styles change: yes/maybe, gradual

Attraction

• 3 variables

  • proximity > similarity > physical avttractiveness

Proximity

• functional distance:

  • how close you are to someone in terms of…

    “interaction opportunities”

• you become friends with…

  • people you interact with more often

• you stay friends with people you…

  • continue to easily interact with

  • examples:

    • high school friends who go to the same college

    • college friends who move to the same town/city

    • friends who are active on social media sites

• proximity is the….

  • strongest predictor of whether people will become (and remain) friends or romantic partners (Zajonc, 2001)

    • if you never meet, how can you become friends?

    • if you rarely interact, how can you stay friends?

• Westgate West Study (Festinger et al., 1950):

  • researchers asked students who lived in student housing to list their closest friends

    • 2/3 people listed live in the same building

    • 41% of people living in adjacent rooms listed each other as friends

      • only 10% of those who lived on opposite ends did

    • residents near stairwells formed 2x as many friendships as those in the middle

      • function distance effect ← stairs = more interaction opportunities

• why does proximity lead to friendship?

  • its more likely you’ll….

    • interact with that person

  • expectation of frequent interaction with a person…

    • motivates you to ensure mutual liking

      • favorable expectation + self-fulfilling prophecy

  • mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968)

    • the more you’re exposed to something…

      • the more you like it

    • people become more attracted to strangers, as they interact with them more frequently

    • Zajonc, 1968 study

      • participants showed a list of Turkish words

      • Shown a set different amount of times

      • participant rated whether the word meant something good or bad

      • the more times a participant saw the word, the more they assumed it meant something good and liked it

      • this has been replicated in varying ways

    • Rats and music study

      • Rats exposed to a “diet” of Mozart or Schoenberg for 12 hrs/day during development

      • later had to choose between two sides of a change that played on one of artisits

      • mere exposure effect supported

        • rats tended to choose whichever one they were raised on

Similarity

• “birds of a feather flock together”

• people tend to like people who are similar to themselves

• burgess & wallin (1953):

  • engaged couples tend to be very similar, especially when it comes to demographic variables (social class/religion/etc) and physical characteristics (health/physical attractiveness/etc)

• married couples tend to be more similar than chance on core personality characteristics (like extraversion or genuineness)

• Newcomb (1956, 1961)

  • male college students filled out a survey

  • rated how much the liked housemates

  • as they got to know each other better, liking was predicted by similarity

• “Bogus Stranger” paradigm (Byrne, 1961)

  • participants read responses to personality questionnaire filled out by someone lese (”bogus stranger”)

  • rated this person

  • the more similar the stranger was to the participant, the more the participant liked them

• what about the idea opposites attract?

  • if two people have complementary personality traits, they might work well together (Levinger, 1964)

    • e.g. dependent person + a nurturer

  • however, they still need similarity in other areas to be compatible

    • personality traits, interests, backgrounds

  • the idea that “opposites attract” is not supported by research

• interaction promotes similarity

  • Zajonc et al. (1987) - “marriage and similarity”

    • couples who were married 25+ years brought in current photos and photos from their 1st year of marriage

    • cropped the photos; asked unbiased people to rate how similar they looked at Time 1 and Time 2

    • after 25 years, couples looked more alike than they did as newlyweds

  • why?

    • shared experiences (positive and negative): happiness → crow’s feet around the eyes, sadness → lines around the mouth

    • live in same environment: may converge in skin tone, wrinkles

    • household: similar diets, stressors, health

• why do we like similar others?

  • validates our beliefs

    • when we learn other believe the same things as us, we fell validated

  • facilitates smooth interactions

    • easy to get along

  • we expect similar others to like us

    • you like you, so they’ll like you

  • similar others have qualities we like

    • people tend to think their own values and qualities are the “right ones”

Physical Attractiveness

• halo effect:

  the belief that attractive people have a host of positive qualities that extend beyond physical appearance Bar-Tal et al., 1976; Dion et al., 1972

  • usually an automatic inference process

  • may be due to self-fulfilling prophecies

  • study: snyder et al. (1977) “getting to know you” game

    • male and female participants spoke over the phone, conversation was recorded

    • men given a profile with a picture of the women they were talking to

      • half got an attractive picture, half got an unattractive picture

    • later, Rs listened to and rated the recordings of the WOMEN only

    • result: women were rated as warmer and more socially skilled if they had talked to a man who thought they were attractive

    • why: if men thought the woman was attracted → man was more engaged and spoke more nicely → elicited positive qualities from the woman

• “What is beautiful is good”

• applies to cultural stereotypes

  • individualistic culture: attractive people seen as more assertive

  • collectivist culture: attractive people seen as more emphathetic

• also applies to perceptions of power and status

  • individualist culture: powerful people are thought to be assertive

  • collectivist culture: powerful people are thought to be generous

• we find the people we like more attractive and vice versa

physical attractiveness benefits

• more likely to be asked on dates

• rated as more popular, likeable, and successful by peers. also assumed to be more skilled, smart, and wealthy

• on a 1-5 point scale, a 1 point increase in attractiveness results in $3,500 more per year on average for the same job (Frieze et al., 1991)

• less likely to be convicted of crimes & given lighter sentences if convicted

  • up to 87% longer sentences for “unattractive” people (Sigall & Ostrove, 1957)

• more important in determing the outcomes of a women’s life

physical attractiveness evolution

• per evolutionary theory, we are attracted to people whose features signify reproductive fitness

• symmetry of physical traits is hypothesized to reflect an individual’s overall quality of development

  • symmetrical face may be a good indicator genetic fitness

• facial symmetry is an indicator of health

  • signals no disease or genetic problems

  • asymmetry commonly results from injuries to the individual in the womb

  • symmetrical adults tend to have fewer respiratory and intestinal infections than asymmetrical peers

• “average,” composite faces are rated as more attractive than the individual faces that went into the composite

  • if you “average” several faces together, common features remain; unique/unusual (deviant) features get hidden

gender differences in mate preferences

• do men and women differ in what they find attractive?

  • short answer: yes

  • long answer: not really

• Yes: evolutionary argument

  • parental investment

    • amount of resources that go into having a child

  • because females must invest more in any given child…

    • should be choosier when selecting

    • select mates on their ability to provide resources to potential offspring (wealth, skillsets, social status, etc)

  • because males have a lower investment…

    • they can be less choosy

    • they should select mates on ability to provide biological resources for child bearing (youth, physical attraction, etc)

• No: are these really sex differences?

  • these difference can be (better) explained by culture (confounding variable)

  • in cultures with greater gender equality, women place less importance on finding a mate with status/resources, more importance on physical attractiveness

  • women with the same level of power/status as men are just as likely to be promiscuous, have affairs, etc.

  • thus…

    • it’s more about resource/power differences > sex differences

• women find more feminine male faces…

  • more attractive except when they are in a ovulatory phase (higher conception risk)

• men exposed to the scent of a woman…

  • near ovulation had higher levels of testosterone

Romantic Relationships

what is love

• companionate love:

  friends and family members, people we trust, share activities/interests with, enjoy being around

• compassionate love:

  focus on responding to another person’s needs

• romantic love:

  “in love,” associated with intense emotion and sexual desire

passion

• strong early in relationship

• Finkel & Eastwick, 2008

  • two min speed dating

  • rate feelings of sexual desire + chemistry

  • people who report high passion for another person = reciprocated

  • people who report high passion for many people = not reciprocated

    • suggests people can detect whether interest is targeted or promiscuous

  • romance/passion promotes commitment

intimacy

• married couples rated 90 trait adjectives on how accurately they described themselves and spouse (Aron et al., 1991)

  • then did a distracting task

  • came back, rated on a computer how much they were “like me” or “not like me:

  • result: romantic partners were faster to label traits as true of themselves when the traits are true of their partner as well

Investment model of commitment

• investment model of commitment: three factors influencing commitment (Rusbult, 1980)

  1. relational satisfaction: you get out as much as you put in

  “our relationship does a good job of fulfilling my needs for intimacy”

  2. quality of alternatives: there are no high-quality alternatives

  “people other than my partner are not appealing”

  3. investments: you have been together for a while

  “I feel very involved in the relationship - i’ve put in a lot of effort”

Relationship dissatisfaction

• half of all marriages in the US result in divorce

• marriages are less satisfying today than they were 30 years ago

• Factors leading to relationship dissolution

  • neuroticism: negative emotionality (anxious, tense, volatile)

  • rejection sensitivity: respond negatively to the partner

  • age: being young

  • low socioeconomic status

• the constraul tendency and blaming the other can also lead to the weakening of romantic bonds

four horsemen of the apocalypse: four behaviors that can predict divorce with 93% accuracy

• four behaviors

  • contempt: expressing disdain or scorn

  • criticism: expressing negative evaluations, being overly critical

  • defensiveness: trying to “play the victim” and not accept responsibility for you part

  • stonewalling: withdrawing from the conflict, ignoring and/or avoiding the issue

• Gottman & Levenson (2000)

  • Presence of negative affect predicts early divorce (0-7 years)

  • Absence of positive affect predicts later divorce (7-14 years)

• In other words…

  • A lasting relationship depends…

    • on more than avoiding conflict

  • a lack of ____ puts long-lasting relationship at risk

    • positive moments

Creating stronger romantic bonds

• capitalize on the good

  • respond positively to good news in your partner’s life

• be playful

  • playful teasing, nicknames correlate with marital satisfaction

• look at the bright side

  • when asked to describe partner’s faults, satisfied partners engaged in two forms of idealization

    • gave “yes, but” responses

    • found virtue in faults

Chapter 11

Characterizing Intergroup Bias

• stereotypes:

  • beliefs that certain attributes are characteristics of members of a particular group

• prejudice:

  • attitudes of affective response (positive or negative) toward a group and its members

• discrimination:

  • favorable or unfavorable treatment of individuals based on their group membership

• if someone is biased towards their own ingroup…

  • stereotype: people in my ingroup are good/intelligent/hardworking

  • prejudice: i like my ingroup → so i like joseph because he is a member of my group

  • discrimination: joseph applied for a job in my company, and i will hire him because he is in my ingroup

• if someone is biased against a certain outgroup…

  • stereotype: people in that outgroup are all bad/stupid/lazy

  • prejudice: i don’t like people in that outgroup, so i don’t like Bob because he is a member of that group

  • discrimination: bob applied for a job in my company, but i def won’t hire him him because he is in that outgroup

Contemporary Prejudice

• two main types:

  • traditional

  • modern

• Traditional racism

  • prejudice against a racial group that is explicitly acknowledged and expressed by the individual

• modern racism:

  prejudice direct at racial groups that exists simultaneously with the rejection of explicitly racist beliefs

• study: Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) providing help

  • white participants told they would be interacting with

    • 1 person OR

    • a group of people (all confederates)

  • participants were seated in individual rooms and spoke through an intercom system

  • suddenly, one of the confederates indicated he was having a medical emergency, confederate was either White or Black

  • Results: how many people left the cubicle to go help

    • when it was 1 person - most helped (whether Black or White)

    • Group: most helped the White victim (75%) but not the Black victim (38%)

  • Explanation:

    • 1 person:

      • if you don’t help, you are clearly racist (which you want to avoid)

    • group:

      • you can refuse to help, because there are others that will (hiding your racism, to yourself and others)

• study: Hodson, Dovidio, Gaertnet (2002) college applicants

  • had an explicit test on their attitudes towards blacks

  • rated applicants based on relevant dimensions like SAT, GPA, etc

    • participants rated them the same when an applicant excelled or were below average on all dimensions

    • but.. when the applicant’s dimensions diverged (e.g. high sat low gpa)

      • the ratings of white applicants were higher than black applicants

  • suggests modern racism, non explicit, ‘covered’ by the below average scores

“Benevolent” Racism and Sexism

• stereotypes must not always be negative to be ____

  • harmful

  • “some of my best friends are ____”

• benevolent and hostile sexism often coexist (Glick & Fiske, 2001)

  • “Women are kind and warm to others… so their place should be raising children, not working”

  • hostility towards when they don’t match the stereotype

• benevolent sexism undermines…

  • gender equality

  • women who deviate from typical gender norms are treated with hostility (Lau, Kay, & Spencer, 2008)

  • women treated in paternalistically later performed worse on standardized tests due to self doubts (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007)

• benevolent and ambivalent attitudes may be particularly…

  resistant to change

  • the favorable features of the beliefs aid the holder to deny any prejudice

Measuring Attitudes about Groups

• Implicit Association Test:

  a technique for revealing nonconscious prejudices toward certain groups (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995)

  • the words + images on each side of the screen

  • tests accuracy and response time in categorizing when the stereotypes are consistent vs when they’re not

Priming & Implicit Prejudice

• Priming:

  mental activation of associated concepts

  • ex: if given the word “butter”, you’ll be quicker to recognize the word “bread” compared to “car”

  • measure how quickly a person responds

• Affect misattribution procedure (AMP)

  • measures how people evaluate a neutral stimulus after a primer

    • if they have positive/negative connotations of the primer that should translate to their evaluation of the stimulus

The Economic Perspective

• realistic group conflict theory:

  • when groups compete for ____ (e.g. territory, jobs, power) these groups experience conflict, prejudice, and discrimination (LeVine & Campbell, 1972)

    • limited resources

  • prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among group that…

    • stand to lose the most if another group succeeds

  • predicts that group become ethnocentric

    • one group is vilified as one’s own group is glorified

    • loyalty to ingroup intensifies

    • outgroup treated in stereotyped ways

  • ex:

    • some of the strongest anti-Black prejudice occurred shortly after the Civil Rights Movement became successful

      • prejudice was strongest among the white working class

      • working class job became a threatened commodity for White Americans once millions of Black Americans were allowed to apply

• Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif et al)

  • 22 5th grades boys participated in a 2 1/2 week summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park

  • boys were divided into groups of 11

  • 3 phases

    • 1: groups independently engaged in activities to foster unity (unaware of of each other)

    • 2: five-day tournament: winners get medals and pocketknives → conflict

      • created prejudice, ingroup/outgroups

    • 3: researchers attempted to “reverse” prejudice/reduce conflict

      • attempt 1: mere exposure

        • boys were brought together in noncompetitive settings - failed (boys insult each other, fought etc)

        • replicated in various studies

      • attempt 2: superordinate goals

        • had both groups work together for a common goal

          • water supply, supply truck, etc

        • this worked… prejudice went away

          • on the ride home, boys took the same bus, shared candy, etc.

  • Main takeaways

    • economic competition =

      sufficient for intergroup bias

      • there were no differences in background, appearance, or history of conflict

    • competition against outgroup increases ingroup cohesion and outgroup biases

    • intergroup conflict can be reduced by forcing groups to work together

      • e.g. being successful in the military/business operations require cooperation

The motivational perspective

• the mere existence of group boundaries among any collection of individuals can be sufficient to initiate group discrimination

  • robbers cave: when the boys learned of each other’s existence (no competition yet) they started to emphasize their own group member/ownership more

Minimal group paradigm

• minimal group paradigm:

  researchers create groups based on arbitrary and seemingly meaningless criteria to see if they can get people to develop intergroup bias as a result

  • e.g. flipping a coin, shoelace color, etc

  • results:

    across many different experiments, people tended to prefer their ingroup, even when these group distinctions were meaningless

social identity theory

• social identity theory: a person’s self-concept and self-esteem are derived from BOTH…

  • personal identity and own accomplishments

  • status and accomplishments of groups they belong to

• people are motivated to view their ingroup favorably because this enhances self-concept and self-esteem

boosting status of ingroup

• given the chance to distribute rewards across ingroup and outgroup, individuals wanted their ingroup to have more than the outgroup (even if it means that their ingroup gets less overall)

• ingroup bias:

  • because identity-related self-esteem is based in part on group membership, we are motivated to boost the status of our ingroups

• outgroup derogation:

  • often, we are also motivated the status of outgroups

basking in reflected glory

• self-esteem can be enhanced by positive ingroup evaluations

• basking in reflected glory:

  taking pride in the accomplishments of those who we feel associated with in some way

  • when ingroups succeed, we have higher self-esteem →

    • we identify more when the groups wins but distant ourselves when the group loses

denigrating outgroups to bolster self-esteem

• self esteem can also be enhanced by…

  • negative evaluations of outgroup

• motivation for ingroup success is relative to the outgroup

  • “either i’m good, or you’re not”

• Fein & Spencer (1997): participants were told that they either failed or aced an intelligence test

  • failure = self-esteem threatened

  • aced = self-esteem affirmed

  • participants watched an interview with a job applicant

    • applicant was either Jewish or not Jewish

  • participants then..

    • rated the job applicant

    • reported their personal self-esteem

  • results

    • those who had their self-esteem threatened gave more negataive feedback to jewish candidates (people they did not associate themselves with) and this then boosted their self esteem

    

• Sinclair & Kunda (1999): black doctor

  • non black participants were either praised or criticized by a white or black male doctor

    • afterwards flashed words on a screen to identify (either matched black stereotypes or were aligned with a doctor)

  • participants were faster to recognize doctorly words when the black doctor priased them and more likely to recognize black stereotypes when the black doctor criticized them

  • why?

    • black doctor gives praise → participant more likely to see him as a doctor

    • black doctor criticizes → more likely to just see him as a black man and dismiss his thoughts

• people will also denigrate outgroups when their ingroup as a whole is under threat

The Cognitive Perspective

• schemas:

  knowledge structures that use information you already have as a shortcut for assessing new situations

• stereotypes:

  schemas about groups of people

  • can be useful because they decrease the time/effort needed to deal with the environment

  • but are also harmful…

    • when automatic judgments dictate how you respond to a person

Stereotypes and Conservation of Cognitive resources

• bodenhausen (1990)

  • particpants came into the lab early in the morning or late at night

    • they identified themselves as “morning people” or “night people”

  • participants read scenarios in which a main character belongs to a group (e.g. an athelete) and is accused of engaging in undesirable behavior (e.g. cheating on a test)

    • is the main character guilty?

  • results

    • participants at their “low point” of their circadian rhythm (night people in the AM or morning people in the PM) were more likely to rely on stereotypes when making judgments

      • ex: “night people” tested in the morning were more likely to say an athlete cheated

    • theoretically… they woudl do this to reserve their energy by turning to their stereotypes

• conserving resrouces

  • participants were presented traits of a person that they would be tested while also watching a video they would be tested on

    • some participants were presented a stereotype along with the traits

  • participants presented with the stereotype better recalled traits and did better on the test on the video

    • if stereotypes/schemas serve to free up cognitive space then it would have helped free up space that could be dedicated to the video while serving as a shortcut for the traits

Construal Processes and Biased Assessments

• occurs when people rely on stereotypes in an exclusive, rigid, or automatic way, leading to negative intergroup interactions

• harmful when the stereotypes lack validity

• over reliance on stereotypes can lead to

  • expectations and biased information processing

  • explaining away exceptions

• study: 4th grader hannah

  • showed scenes that depicted her as upper class or working class

  • hannah seen answering science questions - ambiguous performance

  • thus then ranked her relative to her peers

    • upper class → better than avg

    • working class → lower than avg

distinctiveness + illusory correlation

• illusory correlation

  • when people “see” correlations in things that aren’t actually related

• distinctive events capture our attention

  • → more likely to remember them → may be overrepresented in our memory → stereotypes

  • ex: minority groups stand out + bad things stand out → minority groups do bad things are more prevalent in our memory → more likely to negatively stereotype

• paired distinctiveness

  • pairing of two distinctive events that stand out because they occur together

  • group A group B study

    • read info about group a and group b

    • 69% of each group were positive (mimic real life)

    • 2/3 of the things they read were about group a (makes A the majority and B the minority)

    • result

      • participants overestimated how often negative behaviors occurred in the negative group + rated someone from the minority group more negatively

    • application to paired distinctiveness

      • 2 distinct events: minority + negative occurrence

      • pairs those and creates a false correlation

Expectations and Biased Information Processing - biased construal of behavior

• stereotypes are self reinforcing

  • ones we suspect may occur are more likely to be generalized

  • self fulfilling prophecy:

    • way that people treat others (based on a stereotype) then encourage that behavior

    • study: interviewing white v. black difference in how they were treated

• “shoving study” (duncan, 1976)

  • white participants watched a video of two men in a heated discussion and coded behaviors into categories

  • at one point, one of the men (Black or white) shoves the other

  • results:

    • those who observed a white man shoving tended to code the behavior as “playing around”

    • those who observed a black man shoving tended to code the behavior as “aggressive”

  • stereotypes influence how events are interpreted

• “Mark Flick” watch a basketball player

  • told to watch a specific player

  • showed a picture of him: clearly white or black

  • then rated his performance

  • ratings matched stereotypes based on race

subtyping + exceptions

• bc stereotypes on the “ong average” it’s easy to not be concerned when there’s contradicting info

• one will also create subtypes for these execptions

  • ‘o if they’re not this then they’re this’

• employ self serving bias

  • anything that supprots → dispositional

  • anything that conflicts → situational

• one will also internally frame/interpret things to best match their beliefs

  • concrete/abstract construal

    • ex: they dropped a piece of paper vs they’re a litterer

Accentuation of Ingroup Similarity and Outgroup Difference

• arbitrary categorical boundaries → significantly impact perceptions

  • ex: farmer in poland vs russia

  • ex: assuming group members are more similar to us

outgroup homogeneity & ingroup heterogeneity effect

• the tendency to assume that members of outgroups are “all alike”

• while members of the ingroup have differences

• why?

  • people encounter their ingroups frequently, so we see unique/identifying information regularly

  • people rarely encounter members of a particular outgroup, thus the only available information may be stereotypes or the people we do encounter serve as ‘representatives’

• outgroup homogeneity effect study

  • princeton + rutgers homegeineity (quattrone & jones, 1980)

    • princeton and rutgers students watched a video of another student making a simple decision (ex. to listen to rock or classical music)

    • taped student was either from princeton or rutgers

    • asked: “what percent of students from the same university would make the same choice)

  • results:

    higher % estimated when viewing members of the other university

• own-race identification bias

  • the tendency for people to better recognize and distinguish faces from their own race than from other races

    • applies to things like age too

  • why?

    • treating people from our own race as individuals vs representative for the race

    • individual features processed more vs. paying attention to race

automatic vs. controlled processing

• identifying object w/ priming photograph

  • African American faces facilitated the recognition of both positive and negative stereotypes

• dual process theory application:

  both prejudiced and nonprejudiced people often have racist/sexist/…associations, the difference is whether they try to ignore them/correct for them

• pairing viewed faces and objects (payne 2001)

  • participants more quickly identified a a weapon when paired with a Black (vs. a white) face, but not a neutral object

  • automatic vs controlled processing study (devine)

    • selected high and low prejudice participants based off the modern racism scale

    • were primed with either neutral or words associated with Black people

    • everyone when presented with an ambiguous description of a person were more likely to deem iti more negatively by those primed by the stereotypes of Blacks

      • shows the same unconscious/automatic processing

    • then were presented with a controlled cognitive process to list out traits of Black americans

      • prejudiced participants listed more negative characterisitcs stereotypically associated with Black than nonprejudiced participants

      • shows that the nonprejudiced participants would reject the stereotypes

• police officer’s dilemma study

  • in a video game a black or white human figure pops up and is either armed or unarmed

  • participant is instructed to shoot if they are armed and react as fast as possible

  • for a white target - made the mistake of shooting an unarmed person and not shooting an armed person equally

  • for a black target - more likely to shoot an unarmed person

  • prolonged exposure to these experiences diminish this tendency but reaction time differences persists (faster to decide to shoot an armed black person and not shoot an unarmed white person)

• implicit behavioral measures predict automatic behaviors better (e.g. body movement, eye gaze)

• explicit behavioral measures predict controlled behaviors (verbal communication)

criticism (of cognitive perspective)

• emphasis on reaction times

• documented effects are short-lived

• lose sight of the causes of truly disturbing manifestations of prejudice

Being a Member of a Stigmatized Group

Attributional Ambiguity

• members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain if the treatment they receive is due to personal factors or due to their group membership

  • ex: why didn’t i get hired? why did i get that award?

  • don’t know what to attribute their treatment to

Feedback Ambiguity (Crocker et al., 1991)

• white and black participants were given either positive or negative feedback

  • 1/2 of participants thought the person giving feedback could see them through a one-way mirror (could be identified)

  • 1/2 of participants did not think this (could not be identified)

• results:

  • white participants: self-esteem increased after positive feedback, decreased after negative feedback

  • black participants: self-esteem increased after positive feedback only when the participant felt they were not being observed

Stereotype Threat

• fear of confirming a stereotype that others have about a group to which they belong → worsened performance

  • how does stereotype threat undermine performance?

    • increased arousal → poorer performance on complex tasks

    • distraction → impairs concentration on the task

    • elicits negative thinking → undermine performance, focus on avoiding failure

• spencer, steele, & quinn (1999): women performed worse on a math test if they were told there was a gender difference in performance

  • another study: this effect also occurred when women took a test in the company of men vs with women (performed worse with men)

• steele & aronson (1995): african-american students performed worse on a verbal test if they thought it was testing their intellectual ability

• other study findings:

  • white male math performance decreased when reminded of Asian proficiency

  • lab gold task with white and black participants

    • described as looking at…

      • natural athletic ability → whites performed worse

      • sports psychology → similar performance

      • sports intelligence → black performed worse

  • asian women did better when their race was made salient but worse when their gender was made salient

cost of concealment

• disclosing one’s sexuality or gender identity has meaningful physical and psychological effects

  • psychologically being “out of the closet” → better mental health

• concealment of some aspect of identity can have a negative toll (Critcher & Ferguson, 2013)

  • Half of participants were told to conceal their sexuality during a mock interview; whereas the other half of participants were able to say whatever they wanted

  • Act of concealment was mentally taxing and participants were less able to perform on subsequent tasks

Reducing stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination

• contact hypothesis:

  • proposition that prejudice can be reduced by putting members of the majority and minority groups in frequent contact with one another

  • despite early optimism (civil war battalion combination) not really promising (think robber’s cave and brown v. board of edu)

  • in order to be effective...

    • groups need to have equal status

    • have a shared goal (superordinate)

      • promotes a common ingroup identity

    • community support (community support intergroup contact)

• dimensions of intergroup contact

  • if the three things are met, then three changes occur

    • people see members of the outgroup as individuals (personalization)

    • positive feelings develop for a particular outgroup member begin to generalize to that outgroup

      • person must not be construed as a subtype, acts typical of the group and isn’t just reinforcing positive stereotypes

    • positive intergroup sentiments are solidified when they think of themselves as sharing a common identity

Chapter 12

Risky Shift refers to the tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would alone. It is a phenomenon related to group polarization in social psychology.

Nature + Purpose Groups Living

• group: a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree

Purpose of Group Living

• protection from predators

• efficiency in acquiring food

• assistance with rearing children

• defense against human aggressors

• these needs are so important that we have a psychological need to be with others

Social Facilitation

• social facilitation: the effect of the presence of others on performance

• when others are around, does someone…

  • perform better or worse?

  • depends, the presence of others facilitates performance

Social facilitation: enhancing performance

• Triplett observation (1898): the fastest times were recorded when cyclists competed directly against each other on the same track at the same time

  • cyclists pedaled faster when they were around other people vs when they were alone

• Triplett study (1898): brough 40 kids into his lab and had them turn fishing reels as fast as they could

  • children turned the reels faster in the presence of other kids doing the same task

    • this effect was also found when others were simply there (and not performing a task)

  • in animal species: ants dig more earth, fruit flies preen more, dogs eat more, etc etc when around others

Social UNfacilitation: impeding performance

• early contradictory findings to Triplett

• Allport study (1920): Harvard and Radcliffe students asked to refute philosophical arguments as best they could in a 5 minute period

  • students did better when alone vs when they worked in the presence of others

• the presence of others can also inhibit performance on arithmetic, memory tasks, and maze learning

When does social (un)facilitation occur?

• enhanced performance in the presence of others when performing a simple or well-learned tasks

• impaired performance in the presence of others when performing a difficult or novel task

• Zajonc Model

• Zajonc study

  • coackroaches naturally run away from light

    • simple vs complex maze (dominant response = run from light)

    • running with another cockroach → get to goal box faster in simple maze but slower in complex maze

      • also occurred when coackroaches were set up as observers (so weren’t co acting, just mere presence)

• michaels et al. (1982): researchers secretly watched pool players who were playing alone at a student union; rated as “skilled” or “unskilled”

  • then the researchers walked up to the pool table and explicitly watched them

  • skilled players → played better

  • unskilled players → played worse

Why does social facilitation occur?

• evaluation apprehension

  • if others can evaluate us → increased arousal

  • we don’t want to look bad → amped up, nervous

• mere presence

  • simply having others around → more alert/vigilant

  • other agents (people) can be unpredictable → ready to be able to act fast

Evaluation Apprehension Study

• cottrell et al. (1968): participants given a list of 10 nonsense words and asked to pronounce two of the words 1, 2, 5, 10, or 25 times (make some more familiar)

  • given a pseudorecognition task

    • words flashed on the screen too fast to recognize

      • none of the presented words were actually in the study list

    • told to identify the word or guess if they could not

  • participants completed this task either…

    • alone

    • in the presence of two students who watched attentively (evaluative audience)

    • in the presence of two blindfolded “observers” (cannot evaluate performance)

  • how often did participants guess a dominant word (one that had been pronounced 25 times) and how does this rate vary across conditions?

  • conclusion: it is the concern for others (evaluation apprehension) not their mere presence that is responsible for social facilitation

Mere Presence study (tbh a meh ish study)

• markus (1978): participants told to go into an adjacent room to wait for other participants to arrive

  • while they were in there, had to put on “special experiment gear”

    • take of shoes (well-learned task)

    • put oversized socks on top of own socks (novel)

    • put oversized lab shoes on (novel)

    • put oversized lab coat on (novel)

  • conditions: while changing, participants were either…

    • alone

    • with another person watching attentively

    • with a repairman who was working with his back to the particpant

  • results: the mere presence of others was enough for social facilitation but evaluation apprehension enhanced this even further

  

Beyond Social Facilitation

• mere presence of others is sufficient to increase arousal and facilitate performance on well learned task and worsen performance on novel tasks

  • evaluation apprehension can then intensify arousal

• social loafing: exerting less effort when working on a group task in which individual contribution cannot be monitored due to the presence of others

  • free riders: people who benefit from the group but give little in return

Group Decision Making

• groupthink: a style of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering facts in a realistic manner

  • critical scrutiny is not expressed due to social pressures to reach consensus

• Examples: (not needed for test but cool to know)

  • JFK & Bay of Pigs

    • 1961 CIA wanted to use Cuban exiles to overthrow Fidel Castro, Kennedy and his top advisors approved a covert invasion at the Bay of Pigs

    • failed - lacked supplies, escape route, air support, most surrendered and many died

    • many flaws in the plan, CIA analysts wondered how they could have made this decision

    • answer: Kennedy’s top advisors were unwilling to challenge bad ideas because it might disturb perceived/desired group agreement

    • described as a “perfect failure”

  • Janis (1972, 1982) analyzed a number of US gov decisions and found instances where groupthink was likely present

    • lyndon johnson’s administration decision to surge troops into Vietnam

    • us naval high command’s decision not to fortify Pearl Harbor before 12/07/41

  • groupthink present in Bush administration’s conclusion that Iraq had WMDs

  • Groupthink linked to the Challenger disaster (NASA thing that blew up with people in it on the launch pad)

Preventing Groupthink

• group leaders need to remain impartial

  • if they make their opinion known, members try to please them

• group members must seek divergent opinions

  • designate someone to play the devil’s advocate

  • solicit feedback from outsiders (non-members)

• create subgroups that meet separately beforehand

• seek anonymous opinions (secret ballots)

Group Polarization

• group polarization: group decisions tend to be more extreme than those made by individuals

  • people are more inclined to go in the direction they are already inclined to go

• moscovici & zavalloni (1969): french participants expressed opinions about (a) General Chares DeGaulle and (b) Americans

  • first, individually then, as a group

  • group opinon of CDG was even more positive as a group + group opinion of Americans even more negative as a group

• group polarization more likely occurs when invidivduals have strong opinions

group polarization why?

• persuasive arguments account

  • when people share their ideas, everyone gets exposed to new argument

  • you probably didn’t think of all possible arguments in favor of your opinion, so these new arguments probably strengthen your original opinion

  • study: this also works without person to person interaction, simply reading about more argument creates group polairzation

• social comparison account

  • if the decision calls for a risky choice, you want to think you were slightly riskier than the average person (and vice versa)

  • people like to think they are farther out on the ‘correct side’ → some may try to show they are more of that side then

  • study: simply being told others positions leads to group polarization

• social comparison is weaker than persuasive arguments in its effect, most effective combined

Leadership and Power

• status hierarchies develop naturally

  • children can perceive social hierarchy by age 2

  • social class is reliably signaled in brief 30 second interactions

  • within the first week of living in a dorm, hall mates agree on who the floors leaders are

• hierarchies solve some of the group living problems

  • provide rules for dividing resources

  • guide group discussion and decision making

  • provide order

  • motivate selfless action

Characteristics of leaders

• leaders benefit their groups

  • skills and expertise in related fields

  • socially skilled

  • extraverted

  • emotionalyl intelligent

  • generous/selfless

    • share resources, provide to the group

• similar characteristics seen in chimpanzee and bonobo leaders

Elements of Power

• power: the ability to control one’s own and others’ resources

  • status: result of an evaluation of social attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence among group members

  • authority: power that derives from institutional roles or formalized power

  • dominance: behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring or demonstrating power

Influence of power on behavior

• approach-inhibition theory of power: power comes with a sense of control and freedom

  • high power → action, approach, quick (sometimes rash) judgments

  • low power → inaction, inhibition, retreating, careful judgments

• two core elements

  • high power individuals are less careful and systematic in how they assess others (perceptions)

  • high power individuals are more focused on their own goals (behavior)

Application of Approach Inhibition

• perceptions

  • powerful people…

    • stereotype more

    • are less accurate in judging emotions

    • are more flexible in their thoughts and are able to shift attention between tasks

  • powerful male participants granted less access to employee resources to females and anticipate less success from them (Vescio 2005, 2003)

  • priming prejudiced white participants with power reduced their ratings of black employees (Vescio 2006)

  • magee et al. (2006): participants primed with power or powerlessness

    • told to draw and E on their forward

      • those primed with power were less likely to draw a reverse E (to make it easier for someone else to read)

• behavior

  • High-power individuals are less likely to take other people’s perspectives

    • Less emotional intelligence

    • Less careful in judging others

  • Powerful people are more likely to:

    • Touch others and approach them closely (Bargh et al., 1995)

    • Think of others in a sexualized way (Kuntsman & Manner, 2001)

    • Forwardly flirt with others (Rudman & Borgida, 1995)

    • Violate politeness-related norms and act rudely toward others (DePaulo & Friedman, 1998)

    • have antisocial behavior

      • being rude, shoplifting, etc

  • Low-power people:

    • Less likely to speak up & more likely to inhibit their speech (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985)

    • More likely to restrict their body posture (Hosman, 1989; Moreland & Levine, 1989)

  • Chen et al. (2001)

    • Participants preselected to be in study because they were either OR

      • self-interested and exchange oriented

      • compassionate and communally oriented

    • Randomly assigned to high power or low power

    • Complete a questionnaire with another person who was running late

      • How much of the questionnaire would the participant fill out?

    • Results

      • High power and communally oriented did most of the work

      • High power and self-interested left most of the work for the other person

    • Power corrupts the corruptible

      • If the person is inclined to be competitive and aggressive, having power will make these behaviors more likely

      • If the person is concerned about the public good, having power has socially beneficial effects

Deindividuation and the Psychology of Mobs

• you are a fundamentally different person in a group

  • emergent properties of groups: behaviors that emerge only in groups

• deindividuation: a reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by increased impulsive behavior that occurs when people are in a large group

  • diminished sense of responsibility

  • “lost in the crowd”

  • creates a more impulsive and emotional behavior

• large group

  • lower chance of any one person being singled out

  • people feel less accountable for actions

  • more compliance to group norms

• deindividuation effects are enhanced by any features that decrease identifiability

  • masks, uniforms, darkness

• potential evidence:

  • suicide baiting more likely to occur in group sizes over 300 and after 6pm when it’s dark

  • deindividuation and aggressiveness in warfare correlation

deindividuation evidence: halloween Diener et al. 1976

• Diener et al. (1976) recorded the behavior of 1,000 trick or treaters

• noted if they were

  • alone

  • in a group

• half of the children were

  • asked their names (individuated them, no longer anonymous)

  • not asked their names

• on a table in the entry way, there was a bowl of candy; children were told they could take one piece of candy

• reseracher “had to go do something” and left; said kids could take candy and leave

• would the kids take more than their share?

• deindividuation led to stealing

Self-Awareness and Individuation

• self-awareness theory: when people focus attention on themselves, they become concerned with self-evaluation and how their current behavior conforms to internal standards and values

• individuation: enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self

  • generally causes people to act carefully, deliberately, and in accordance with their values

• the easiest way to increase self-awareness is to put someone in front of a mirror

• diener & wallbom (1976) participants solved a series of anagrams, asked to stop when they heard a bell

  • working at either a typical desk or a desk with a mirror

  • 75% of those at a typical desk kept working, only 10% with a mirror kept working past the bell

• these effect can also be generated with an image of someone’s face/eyes

  • communal office coffee/milk with donation box to help pay for it

  • rotated images, more donations when the picture had someone’s eyes vs when it was just flowers

spotlight effect

• spotlight effect: the assumption that our own appearance and behaviors are being carefully scrutinized by others at all times, when in fact, they typically are not

  • we think ppl notice us more than they actually do and judge us more harshly than they actually do

• Participants arrived individually; asked to put on an unflattering t-shirt with a large image of Barry Manilow

• They then had to enter another room with a group of students filling out questionnaires; left the room shortly after

• What percent of those other students would remember what was on your shirt?

  • What they thought: 50%

  • How many really remembered: 25%

Chapter 13

Situational Determinants of Aggression

What is aggression?

• aggression: any action with the…

  intent to harm

• hostile aggression

  • intent to harm motivated by….

    • anger, hostility, or genuinely wanting to hurt the other person

• instrumental aggression

  • intent to harm motivated by something other than ____

    • hostility

    • like wanting to get attention acquire resources, or advance a cause

situational determinants

• situational perspective is crucial to adequately understand aggression

hot weather

• more violent crime in regions with hotter climate

• violent crimes reach a max during summer months

• heat waves are associated with increased violent (but not non-violent) crime rates, controlling for unemployment, income, and age

• major league baseball pitchers are more likely to hit batters with a pitch as the weather gets hotter, though walks and wild pitches don’t increase

• during El Nino years, the likelihood of civil conflict greatly increased

• why??

  • heat increases physiological arousal

  • when people feel hot, this experience primes the emotion of anger, though we misattribute the source of the arousal

media/video games

• violence is a common theme portrayed in the media

  • average adolescent spends 9 hours a day consuming media

  • 90% of shows that children watch portray some kind of violence

  • by the age of 12, the average American has seen over 100,000 acts of violence on TV shows alone

• participants shown aggression film clips in the lab behaved more aggressively afterwards than those shown non-aggressive clips (and when told to focus on the film aesthetic)

• in the lab, people are primed to become more violent when exposed to…

  • violent movies

  • violent pornography

• limitations to lab studies

  • measures of aggression (e.g., electric shocks) do not mimic real world examples

  • studies only caputre short-term effects

• contradictory results

  • does violent crime rate rise or fall on dates surrounding release of violent movies

  • as viewership of violent movies rose, violent crimes dropped that day

• violent video games: playing mortal kombat or golf study

  • participants played against a confederate

  • were given a loud burst of white noise when they lost

  • when they won, could administer their own burst

  • participants playing mortal kombat gave the opponent louder bursts of white noise

• over 100 studies on the effects of violent video games

  • increases aggressive behavior

  • reduces prosocial behavior

  • increases aggressive thoughts

  • increases aggressive emotions

  • increases blood pressure

social rejection

• many thought that the Columbine shooting was because of social isolation

• MacDonald & Leary: strong evolutionary benefit to social groups, puts pressure on those who are not in them

  • social rejection activates a threat defense system (arousal, e.g., cortisol, distress, defensive aggressive tendencies)

• people who feel social rejection report higher levels of chronic physical pain

  • socially rejected people experience higher levels of chronic physical pain, physical ailments, and greater pain during childbirth

    • ball tossing pardigm (particpant and 2 confederates throwing ball → confederates only throw ball to each other both in person and digitally)

    • → triggers self doubt and pain region of vrain

• social rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain

• social rejection activates a threat defense system

• people can lash out when hurt socially

• participants who feel chronically rejected by others are also more likely to act aggressively in their relationships

• twenge et al. (2001): participants led to imagine their future would be…

  • lonely or full of friends

  • those who were told they would be lonely were subsequently more likely to administer painful noise blasts to strangers who had nothing to do with their feelings of loneliness

income inequality

• americans dramatically underestimate current wealth inequality

  • americans constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable that even their erroneously low estimates

    • there was a surprising level of consensus

      • all demographic groups (includes republicans and the wealthy) desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo

• positive correlation with income inequality and homicide rates

  • greater income inequality + greater homicide rate

• why?

  • social rejection

    • people at the bottom feel left out (rejected)

    • social rejection → increased aggression usually

  • lack of cohesion

    • inequality undermines the cohesivenes

    • creates an “us” vs “them” mentality

    • more violence in less cohesive neighborhoods

  • violent competition

    • income inequality may pressure males in to fiercer competition for access to economic resources and mates

    • these are both common motives for violence

weapon presence

• only leads to more aggression only when combined with experiences of anger

• see anger section for more

construal processes and aggression

• the situation does nothing by itself; their influence is channeled through construal processes

  • e.g. warm weather doesn’t always prompt aggressive behavior, sometimes it relaxes

  • e.g. your clumsy vs. athletic friend hits you in the face with a football

anger

• once angry, people think…

  • things are more unfair

  • people have more negative intentions towards them of more ways of inflicting harm onto others

• theory: the effects of anger influence the way we construe certain things. thus, situational determinants will produce aggression only when angry

• Berkowitz: any unpleasant stimulus will evoke anger and thus increase aggression

• Berkowitz & LePage: male participant and an actor wokredon problems and then took turns evaluating participants were either

  • shocked once (not angry), or several times (angry)

  • then it was the participant’s turn to provide the shocks; next to the machine, there was either -

    • nothing

    • badminton gear, or

    • revolver and a shotgun

  

• Bartholew: the presence of guns does not increase aggressive behavior in hunters… why?

  • construals: most ppl construe guns as aggresive weapons, hunters construe guns as sporting/recreational gear

dehumanization

• Dehumanization: Tendency to attribute nonhuman characteristics to outgroup members (e.g., referring to them as dogs, rats, pigs, etc.)

• Two types (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014)

  • Human nature – the qualities that distinguish us from inanimate objects (emotions, pain), “machines”

  • Human uniqueness –things that distinguish us from other non-human species (civility, refinement, complex reasoning), “animals”

• It’s easier to harm others who are seen as less human, less like ourselves

• Tendency to dehumanize others increases with ingroup loyalty (Cohen et al., 2006; Watyz & Epley, 2012).

  • being with our ingroup (even subtle links) → more distance to outgroups and dehumanization

distancing from causes of aggression

catharsis

• Catharsis – the release of a strong emotion, such as anger, to purge oneself of the impulse to behave inappropriately

• No evidence at all that this works for anger, rather it can increase it (Bushman, 2002)

• Confederate harshly criticizes participant’s work

  • Relax

  • Hit a punching bag while thinking of another undergrad

  • Hit a punching bag while thinking of the confederate (catharsis)

• Chance to punish confederate by giving electric shocks

  • More intense shocks in catharsis condition

distance from it

• Rather, you should step away from your anger and view it from far away (Ayduk & Kross, 2008)

  • Think of a time in your life when you were angry.

    • Imagine it vividly in your mind.

    • Imagine if you were watching it from a distance.

• P’s in condition 2 showed less cortisol, decrease in blood pressure, reported a greater sense of calm

• Why am I angry? vs Why is Julia angry? (Grossman & Kross, 2014)

  • asking someone the former → more negative emotion

Culture and Aggression

Culture of Honor

• a culture that is defined by its member’s…

  • strong concern about their own and other’s reputations

• this leads to…

  • hypersensitivity to insults

  • willingness to use violence to avenge any perceived wrong or insult

In the US, the ____ is the best example of a “culture of honor”

• the South

• Study: are US southerners more aggressive than US northerners in response to an insult? - hallway bump

  • the “insult” (conditions)

    • insult condition:

      • participants were bumped by a confederate and called an asshole when they were bringing a completed questionnaire down the hallway

    • control condition:

      • participants went through the same scenario, but were not insulted

  • measure of aggression

    • testosterone level after being bumped

  • results:

    • when insulted southern males…

      • showed more facial expressions of anger

      • display a firmer grip

      • severe spikes in testosterone

      • more likely to become aggressive

    • game of “chicken”: less avoidance of a tall burly stranger in a hallway (waiting until the last minute to get out of the way)

    • Southern males are more sensitive to insults than Northern males

  • are Southern men more aggressive in general?

    • nope

    • similar felony-related murders but a large difference in argument related murders

  

• this difference may have developed due to farmer herder differences

  • herders (who were in the south) more susceptible to having their livelihood taken away because of another person

  • built up a ‘tough’ exterior

Culture and sexual violence

• rape prone cultures

  • men used rape as an act of war against enemy women, a ritual act (wedding, male rite of passage), threat against women to keep them subservient

• cultures where rape was particularly prevalent (and were rape prone) were…

  • more likely to have high levels of violence

  • women had lower stats

Evolution and Aggression

• evolution is useful for….

  • understanding many types of violence

• behaviors of parental care help offspring ____. increasing _____ _____

  • survive; inclusive fitness

  • inclusive fitness

    • we look out for ourselves, our offspring, and close relatives so we can pass on genes to future generations

  • note: stepparents do the same tasks but do not increase their inclusive fitness

violence in stepfamilies

• relations between stepparents and stepchildren tend to have ___ problems than relations between parents and genetic offspring

  • more

  • in theory… biological parents have an evolutionary and thus unconscious motivation to take better care of their children

• U.S.: children under age 2 are 100x more likely to suffer lethal abuse from stepparents than genetic parent (70x more likely in canada)

  • basically know there is a large difference

gender and aggression

• men are overwhelmingly the ____ and the _____ of physical violence

  • the victim and the perpetrator

  • men account for much more of rape arrests, murder arrests, and aggravated assault arrests

    • 99% of rape, 88% of murder, 87% of aggravated assault

• women are more _____ aggressive

  • relationally

  • behavior is intended to harm another person ____

    • emotionally

  • women are more likely to be the target of cyberbullying and rumors

evolutionary perspective

• men have to….

  compete for resources more and have more reproductive success when they are more aggressive to out compete other males

• men are physically stronger than women (taller, stronger, heavier)

  • larger figures signal status and power reliably

  • helps win status hierarchies

  • face greater intersexual competition

• these are mechanistically driven by testosterone

  • higher levels of testosterone are associated with more aggression

cultural perspective

• men are socialized into being more physically aggressive

  • this theory is better at explaining differences across societies

• Condry & Condry (1976)

  • parents show a video of an infant looking startled.

    • asked: what is the emotoins

  • results:

    • if parents were told it was a boy, they said…

      angry

    • if parents were told it was a girl, they said

      scared

• parents talk more about emotions with …..

  • daughters than with sons

  • → creates greater empathy and more of a focus on emotions for females

precarious manhood hypothesis (cultural + evolutionary)

• competition, status, contests, violence, economic conditions, make male identities…..

  • 1) elusive and 2) tenuous (little substance)

  • “hard to win, easy to lose”

• when there is a perceived threat to (gender) identity → …

  • take public action to prove masculinity

  • men who were made to braid someone’s hair (vs ropes)

    • a) preferred a punching bag task over a gender-neutral task

    • b) punched the punching bag harder

Conflict and Peacemaking

Misperception and Polarization

• disinformation _____ aggression; misinformation can ____ it

  justifies; motivate

  e.g. Abu Graib torture and prisoner abuse, Rwandan Genocide

• Groups often claim ____

  “Good vs. Evil”

  → polarization

• everyone usually thinks that they’re….

  justified and doing good

• Robinson et al. (1995)

  • participant on both sides of controversial issues (e.g. abortion, death penalty, Northern Ireland conflict) asked about:

    • their own attitudes

    • attitudes of their opponents on that issues

  • results:

    • participants estimated that their opponents’ attitudes were more extreme than they actually were

  • takeaway:

    people tend to think those who disagree with us are more different from us than they actually are

• Robinson’s findings/takeaway → ____ negotiations + produces ____ _____

  • impedes

  • reactive devaluation

    when one attaches less value to an offer in negotiation, simply because it was offered

    • “if they’re offering it… it must be bad for us”

    • → makes it hard to reach a satisfactory resolution

Simplistic reasoning and rhetoric

• attitudes, beliefs, and arguments are…

  simple or complex

  • varying levels of differentiation and integration

  • simple: few points, few connections

  • complex: many points, many connections

  • example: same-sex marriage

    • simple position 1: religion says it should be this way

    • simple position 2: civil rights says it should be this way

    • complex position: consider equality, civil rights, traditions, religion, economic concerns, and how they all interact

• interviews with 89 members of the British House of Commons

  • interviews with extreme socialists and extreme conservatives were less complex than moderate socialists and moderate conservatives

• politicians are ___, more ____ while complaining and more ____ when working as an elected official

  simpler + more extreme when campaigning

  more complex as an elected official

• Complexity of rhetoric + war

  • crises that resulted in war had leaders that were ___ in complexity rhetoric; crises that were resolved peacefully had leaders that were ___ in complexity rhetoric

    • lower; with leaders low in complexity of rhetoric more crises resulted in war

    • higher; with leaders high in complexity of rhetoric less crises resulted in war

Communication and Reconciliation

• study

  • imaging and thinking through a situation from a from a distant neutral position reduces isolationist trends

  • isolationist trends = separating/cutting off other side

• face to face communication reduces conflict by…

  • reducing misperceptions and miscommunications

• imaging the act of forgiving reduces…

  • cortisol

• actual apologizing and forging can ___ relationship

  • mend

• chimps share reconciliation tendencies

  • grooming, open handed gestures, embracing

• restorative justice systems (mediation, offender takes responsibility, some interaction, etc)

  • victims report fewer thoughts of revenge

  • twice as likely to forgive

  • twice as likely to say justice system is fair

Chapter 14

Empathetic Concern: pure altruism?

Prosocial Behavior

• prosocial behavior: any action that ___ another person, _____ of motives

  helps; regardless

  • motives can be selfish or altruistic

• altruism:

  • unselfish/selfless/other oriented behavior

  • benefits others without regard to consequences for oneself

• forces that inhibit prosocial behavior:

  • self-preservation

  • fear of embarrassment

Selfish Motives:

Social Rewards

• social rewards:

  praise, rewards, honors & gratitude

• people may do prosocial things because of _______ ______ from others

  positive attention

  • activates reward pathways in brain

• (in and outside of lab settings) group members give more ___ ____ + ____ to those who act altruistically

  social status + power

Personal distress

• seeing other people suffer…

  • can make you feel upset

• negative state relief hypothesis

• newborn babies cry most in response to other newborns, relative to playbacks of themselves

• a person may act prosocially to ____ this personal distress and…

  eliminate; make themselves feel better

Altruistic Motives: Empathetic Concerns

• people may genuinely empathize and want to helpt

  • more about…. than wanting to “look good” or feel better

    genuinely wanting to help someone else

• the ___ neural circuits activate when you experience pain and see others in pain

  same

• empathetic concern is ____ and ____

  fast and intuitive

• volunteerism

  nonmonetary assistance

  when people help with no expectation of receiving any compensation

  • also motivated by both selfish and altruisitc reasons

    • but.. self reports of feeling empathetic concern can predict the likelihood an individual volunteers

    • in a study with the elderly, those who volunteered more lived longer

• altruism can be fostered in people

  • ex: those who were rescuers during the Holocaust had a pattern of altruism being highly valued in their households

are our motives always selfish?

• depends on the intention

  • motivated by rewards or “feeling better”

  • motivated to truly help others

distinguishing motives

empathy vs. distress

• Batson et al. (1983)

  • participants watched a student (confederate) receive electric shocks after giving wrong answer in a “learning” experiment

  • after the first tow shocks, researches asked participants how much they felt…

    • distress (upset, worried)

    • empathy (sympathy, compassion)

  • participants were asked if they wanted to take the student’s place (take some shocks for them)

  • results:

    • participants high in distress → less likely to take the student’s place

    • participants high in empathy → more likely to take the student’s place

  • limitations

    • “empathetic concern” = self reported

    • experimenter presence → possible social rewards

anonymous altruism

• fultz et al. (1986)

  • female participants received notes from a confederate, “Janet,” who confessed feeling lonely and needing a friend

  • participants either had to read the notes either…

    • objectively and concentrate on the facts (low empathy)

    • vividly imagine how the communicator felt (high empathy)

  • notes were either

    • sealed (no social evaluation)

    • open (social evaluation)

  • asked: how many hours would you like to spend with this person in a long-term relationship study?

  

• suggests that a person whose helpful behavior is driven by ____ will help more regardless of social rewards

  empathy

Evolutionary/developmental evidence for prosocial behavior

• much research shows we’re “wired” to help others

  • primates care for others who are crippled or blind

  • children as early as 18 months will behave altruistically towards adults

Situational Determinants and Construal Processes

• situational determinants

  • being busy

  • presence of others

  • ambiguous situation

  • victim characteristics

Being Busy

• good samaritan study

  • busy → less likely to stop and help

Presence of others

• bystander intervention

  when people observing intervene and help

• bystander effect

  people are less likely to help in the presence of others

• why?

  diffusion of responsibility

  • assumption others will help

  • so “I” don’t need to do anything

  • Darlay & Latane (1968)

    • participants sat in cubicles, spoke through an intercom with

      • 1, 2 or 5 people

    • a confederate pretends he’s having a seizure

    • result: how many people leave to seek help?

      • 1: 85%

      • 2: 62%

      • 5: 31%

    • conclusion:

      • backs up the bystander effect

      • the more people who witness a person in trouble → the lower the chance any one person will help

  pluralistic ignorance

  • no one else seems concerned or is helping → assume that means everything is alright

  • Latane & Darlay (1968)

    • participants filled out a stack of questionnaires either

      • alone, with 2 other real participants, or 2 confederates told to remain clam (pluralistic ignorance condition)

    • smoke begins to fill room from under the door

    • results

      • alone: 75% leave and report the smooke

      • two real participants: 38% leave and report the smoke

      • two calm participants: 10% leave and report the smoke

    • conclusion: participants around others (especially calm others) construed the smoke as not a threat due to informational social influence/pluralistic ignorance

• overcoming this:

  • seeing the initial concerned expression of other ppl will notably reduce the effect of the bystander effect

    • you don’t have ppl acting calm

  • being specific and clear about one’s need (reduce pluralistic ignorance) and singling out someone (reduce diffusion of responsibiliy) will make a perosn more likely to get help

Ambiguous situations

• people are more likely to help those who….

  clearly need help

  • impacts construal

• also pluralistic ignorance

  • study: filling out survey in room and smoke begins to come from under the door

    • alone → most likely to tell experimentor

    • with 2 real participants → less likely to tell

    • with 2 calm confederate → lesat likely to tell

• example 1: Clark and Word (1972)

  • bystanders help victims who scream for help 75-100% of the time but only help silent victims 25-40% of the time

  • bystanders more likely to help when they are aware of the events that led to the victim’s distress

• example 2: Piliavin et al. (1976)

  • participants walked into a room…

    • half walked in as a confederate regained consciousness

    • half saw a confederate faint then regain consciousness

  • participants who saw the confederate faint (clear emergency) were more likely to help (89% vs 13%)

Victim characteristics

• similarity

  • victim similar to bystander → bystander more likely to help

  • people more likely to help those from similar racial backgrounds or social class

  • non human primates will give up the opportunity to eat and will partially starve themselves to terminate painful shocks to those of the same species…. but not to other species

Culture

Community type

• people in ____ areas report more empathetic concerns

  rural

  • rural empathetic concern > urban

  • people are more likely to help others in rural areas

• the ___ the community, stronger the effect of increased empathetic concern

  smalelr

  • levels off at around 50,000

• why?

  • consider current context

  • stimulus overload

    • can’t pay attention to everything

  • diversity

    • more likely to help those similar

  • diffusion of responsibility, city has more people

    • events will happen with more people around

    • → diffusion of responsibility

  • in rural, someone’s actions are more likely to be observed by people who know them and impact their reputation

Social class

• social class

  • a combination of (family) wealth, education, and job prestige

• June 2010, the giving pledge was launched where the super wealthy commit to donate most of their wealth

  • but….

    • people maing less than $25k/year give 4.2% of their income

    • people making ove $100k/year give 2.7%

• the ___ ____ build stronger relationships

  lower class

  • helps to weather difficult circumstances

  • better able to judge emotions

  • on average, give a higher percentage of money to charity

• why?

  • lower class people have fewer resources → important to build strong relationship

    • upper class people (with more resources) can be more independent

  • people who need help/charity are more like to be similar

• study: lower upper class dictator game

  • someone gets 10 pts and asked to give some to stranger

  • lower class participants gave away more of the points than upper class particpants

    • upper class gave even less in areas of high economic inequality or shared only with other upperclass

• Piff et al (2010): lower and upper class participants watched a film clip

  • half saw a neutral clip (control), half saw a clip of kids living in poverty (empathy**)**

  • a confederate showed up pretending to be a late participant and looked distressed

  • experimenter said the confederate didn’t have time to finish the experiment but the participant could help them if they wanted

  • how long did the participants spend helping the late comer?

  • results

    • lower class was always helpful, regardless of the condition

    • upper class participants only helped when they felt compassionate

Religion

• most religions emphasize prosocial behavior + try to increase empathetic concern for people

  • the golden rule is reiterated across cultures and religions

• Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008

  • participants primed with religious concepts or neutral concepts through an unscrambling tasks

  • given $10 and asked to give some to a stranger if they were willing to do so

    • more likely to give something with a religious prime

  • civic condition

    • effect also occur if primed with non-relgious words that are related to being polite, kind, etc

  • suggests that:

    • religion increases altruism because of a focus on…

      • kindness

  • feeling like you’re being watched (something prominent in religion) also increases altrusim

    • the 3 dot study

      • 3 dots in shape of face → more altruism than other arrangement

Evolution

• hard to explain altruism from an evolutionary perspective because…

  • natural selection favors actions that benefit survival and reproduction

  • helping others is costly

• two evolutionary theories

  • kin selection

  • reciprocity

Kin Selection

• kin selection

  natural selection → favor behavior → increases survival of genetic relatives

  → more likely to help those who share more genes and kin > non kin

• in animals

  • mockingbirds feed nestlings that are more genetically related

  • ground squirrels release an alarm call that distracts predators in the presence of kin but not non-kin

• in humans

  • People report receiving more help from close kin than from more distant relatives or nonrelatives (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985)

  • Among all eligible donors, 73% of kidney donations come from relatives (Borgida et al., 1992)

  • When doing a puzzle that required cooperation, identical twins were twice as likely to cooperate than fraternal twins (Segal, 1984)

  • People leave more of their wealth/estates to more genetically related kin (Webster et al., 2001)

Reciprocal altruism

• reciprocal altruism

  • tendency to help others with the expectation they’ll help us in the future

    • increases survival and reproduction of both parties

    • less conflict → more alliances → more help overcoming hard times

• in animals

  • Vampire bats regurgitate blood for ones that have shared, not ones that haven’t (Wilkinson, 1990)

  • Chimpanzees and bonobos share food and groom others who share and groom them, but not others (de Waal, 1996)

• in humans

  • Meat is shared in hunter-gather societies (Flannery & Marcus, 2012)

  • In prisoner dilemma studies, people are more likely to cooperate with individuals who have cooperated on a previous round of the game (Rand et al., 2011)'

    • the to lie or sell out the other (if both lie they get no sentence, if both sell out they get the longest sentece)

    • see cooperation section for full details

• christmas card study

  • Researchers mailed Christmas cards to total strangers, 20% of them reciprocated by sending their own cards back

Cooperation

• cooperation is essential

  • rely on others for what we need and vice versa

• involves decision making under ____

  • uncertainty

  • will others cooperate? will you get played?

prisoner’s dilemma game

• two men arrested for committing a crime

• each must decide…

  • stick to the story and avoid admitting the crime

  • sell out the friend for a lighter personal sentence?

• economic variation

• often played with multiple rounds

  • makes long term payoffs more important

  • short term personal advantage:

    • you defect + partner cooperates

    • but… partner won’t do that for the long-term

  • long term payoff maximized if…

    • both people cooperate on most of the trials

• this is applicable to the real word

  • applied to 1000s of scenarios to date

  • arms “races” between countries, both sides pay dearly rather than cooperate

situational determinants of cooperation

• anticipating more future interaction increases the extent of cooperation

• reputation

  • beliefs, evaluations, and impressions people hold about others in their social network

• prisoner’s dilemma game twist

  • after a few rounds, they were assigned a new partner

  • each partner was given the other’s history of cooperation from earlier rounds (reputation)

    • if participants knew partners had a ____ __, they were more likely to ____

      • history of cooperation; cooperate

  • in cases where particpants had opportunities to gossip amongst each other people were more likely to cooperate

Construal processes of cooperation

• oftentimes in the real world, the game isn’t clearly labeled

• the way we label a situation influences levels of competition and cooperation

• prisoner’s dilemma game

  • researchers manipulated the name of the game:

    • “community game” vs “wall street game”

  • results:

    • community game → maximize joint outcomes

    • wall street → maximize own profits

  • participants were twice as likely to cooperate if they saw it as a community game

culture and cooperation: ultimatum game

• ultimatum game:

  • two people play (usually one round)

  • allocator is given a stake (ex. $10)

    • must decide how much to keep for himself and to give to the responder (other participant)

  • responded can accept or reject the offer

    • if the responder accepts, the deal goes through

    • if the responder rejects, neither gets anything

  • participants in 15 different cultures playing the game (stake = a day’s wage, same practical value)

    • rationality suggests…

      • allocator gives smallest possible amount

      • responder accept anything (better than nothing)

    • what actually happened

      • people in most cultures engaged in substantial cooperation and prosocial behavior

        • most people offered between 30-50% of the stake

      • cultures that require more cooperation on a day-to-day process and interdepednece → tendency for greater cooperation

Evolution and cooperation

• Political scientist Robert Axelrod (1984) invited academics, mathematicians, hackers, anyone to devise a program to play the prisoner’s dilemma with the best possible personal outcome

  • 14 different strategies, played 200 rounds of prisoner’s dilemma

• Winner = tit-for-tat: cooperate in the first round, then whatever the other person does reciprocate

• Properties that make the tit-for-tat strategy successful:

  • Cooperative – encourages supportive action toward a shared goal

  • Non-envious – people can do well without being competitive

  • Non-exploitable – not blindly prosocial

    • due to condition of ‘f you defect, so will I’

  • Forgives – willing to cooperate if you cooperate

  • Easy to read – clear that this strategy is being used

• In summary:

  • being nice, forgiving, and clear = good!

Review Questions

Chapter 9

make sure you know informational and normative social influence

• which of the following best describes the Milgram study

  • obedience

  • compliance

  • conformity

• which of the following best describes participants from the Milgram study?

  • internalization

  • temporary public conformity

• In Sherif’s (1936) autokinetic study, participants went into a dark room then were asked to judge how much a dot of light moved. After talking about their responses with other participants, their subsequent judgments converged. This was an example of …

  • normative social influence

  • informational social influence

• In Asch’s (1956) line judgment study, participants conformed to the group by giving the wrong answer (saying the line was the wrong length). This was an example of …

  • normative social influence

  • informational social influence

• What is the difference between Internalization and Temporary Public Conformity?

  • Internalization → actually internalizing info based on the group, thinking it’s accurate etc

  • Temporary Public Conformity → consciously gong against one’s own beliefs does not change their true belief

• How do the following factors relate to conformity? (Remember the Asch study!)

  • Group size

    • the larger the group size up to a certain extent the increase in influence. Levels off at about 4 people

      • generally just say it increases

  • Unanimity

    • When there is a unanimous group consensus then people are more like to conform based on normative social influence. However, once someone breaks this unanimity then it drops the effect

  • Anonymity

    • being anonymous eliminates negative social consequences thus it eliminates normative social influence

• A person moves to a new city. They are not sure how the public transportation system works, so they watch how other people behave and then conform to the observed behavior. This results in a lasting behavior change. This is an example of:

  • Informational social influence

  • Normative social influence

• Reason-based strategies for increasing compliance (such as the “Door-in-the-face” and “That’s-not-all” techniques) are often based on the norm of reciprocity.

  • True

  • False

• Describe the following points from the Milgram study:

  • (1)Proximity to victim effect

  • (2)Proximity to authority effect

Chapter 10

Which of the following does not involve a direct request or command?

• Obedience

• Compliance

• Conformity

The Harlow monkey experiment showed that baby monkeys rely on their mothers for than just food

• true

• false

Although attachment styles were originally viewed as categorical, many researchers now view them as dimensional. the two dimensions are anxiety and avoidance

• true

• false

• what is the difference between an exchange relationship and a communal relationship?

• what is the mere exposure effect?

Stanley Milgram conducted multiple experiments testing obedience in a laboratory setting. Although each experiment involved a participant shocking a confederate “learner,” the experiments varied in terms of proximity.

• True

• False

Which of the following decreased the percentage of participants who administered the maximum 450V shock in the Milgram experiment?

(A)Closeness to the “learner” (B) Distance from the experimenter (C) Both A and B

Which of the following is characteristic of a communal relationship?

Individuals give and receive based on equity and reciprocity Individuals give and receive based on “oneness” Individuals pursue interactions based on a cost/reward balance Individuals pursue interaction with others who are like them

Provide one example for each compliance technique:

1. Foot-in-the-door

2. Door-in-the-face

3. That’s-not-all

What was the Strange Situation?

Describe the three attachment styles that were observed:

Secure Anxious-ambivalent Avoidant

Chapter 11

know ambiguity, stereotype threat, and homogeneity

The Police Officer's Dilemma Study is a research method used to investigate racial bias in shooting decisions by law enforcement officers. It involves simulations where participants must decide whether to shoot armed or unarmed individuals based on various factors.

Review

What was the Asch (1956) Line Judgement Study?

1.Did the study involve Informational or Normative social influence?

normative

2.What happened when group size changed? (DRAW THE GRAPH)

3.What happened when there was group unanimity vs. one dissenter?

Recall the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” from chapter 10.

contempt, criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling

1.What were the four behaviors that researchers identified?

2.What were they trying to predict?

1.Contempt – expressing disdain or scorn

2.Criticism – expressing negative evaluations

3.Defensiveness – not accepting responsibility

4.Stonewalling – withdrawing from conflict

divorce in marriages

What was the difference between: Stereotypes Prejudice Discrimination

We discussed 3 types of prejudice---how were they different? Traditional Modern Benevolent

Chapter 12

1-2 real world example for…

social faciliation (enhancing)

social facilitation (impeding)

social loafing

know the flow chart (zajonc model, be able to write it)

Chapter 13

• what was group think?

  • discuss: antecedents, consequences

  • a situation where gr=oup think would likely occur

  

• what was deindividuation?

  • discuss: antecedent, internal state, behavioral effects, 1 situation where deindividuation would likely occur

• the Asch line study was an example of informational social influence, while the Sherif autokinetic study was an example of normative social influence

  • FALSE, reversed

• discuss the asch line study

• what were the researchers trying to observe

• how did the folowing conditions relate to conformity

  • group size

  • unanimity

  • anonymity

• “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets close, and often, romantic partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.”

  Which attachment style does this statement characterize?

  A = Secure B = Anxious-ambivalent C = Avoidant

• what are the two dimensions of attachment?

  • how do they relate to categories of attachment?

    • secure

    • anxious-ambivalent

    • avoidant

  • draw a graph

• harming another person because you want them to suffer is an example of ____ aggression. harming another person as a mean sof achieving a larger goal is an example of ____ aggression.

  • A = passive; active B = active; passive C = instrumental; hostile D = hostile; instrumental

Chapter 14

• discuss the economic perspective as it relates to prejudice/discrimination

  • role of realistic group conflict theory

  • robbers cave experiment

  • how does a person view their “ingroup” as being from an “outgroup”

• Which of the following leads to poor group decision making?

  The group is cohesive The leader of the group makes their opinion known The group members must state their opinions publicly All the above

• situational factors correlated with aggression

  • what were they

  • think of real world application and how you would test the idea

• According to research by Cohen & Nisbett, people from which part of the United States are more likely to respond aggressively when insulted?

  Northern United States South United States Western United States