AP Psych Prep 14 - Social Psychology

8/13/2019 AP Psych Prep 14 - Social Psychology

1/102

Social Psychology

AP Psych. Prep 14


2/102

Social Psychology

How our psychology is influenced byothers, by our social environment.

Looks at a lot of influences on ourdaily lives as we interact with others.


3/102

Outline

Attitudes

Behaviour and Attitudes

Attribution Theory

Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination

Aggression

Prosocial Behaviour

Attraction

Social Environment and our Behaviour

Group Dynamics


4/102

Social Cognition

A subset of social psychology; looks athow we think about ourselves and therelations between those including

effects of memory, bias, thinking, etc.

Social Cognition perspectives see usconstantly gathering information tounderstand and predict our socialworlds


5/102

Attitudes

Attitude - set of beliefs and feelings,involve our evaluations of things (if wefeel things are good and bad)

lots of research into how to influence orchange peoples attitudes.

(advertising industry really likesto know how to make peoplelike things)


6/102

Attitudes

Mere exposure effect - the moreyoure exposed to something, the

more youll like it.

Thats why companies play their

commercials over and over.


7/102

Attitudes

When trying to convince someone,persuasive messages can go throughtwo types of processing:

central route - deep processing;

thinking about the content of themessage, using full rational cognitivepowers to evaluate how persuasivethe message is


8/102

Attitudes

peripheral route - deciding howpersuasive a message is based onother factors (not message content)including characteristics of thecommunication method, the persongiving the message, etc.


9/102

Attitudes

e.g. communicator - attractive people,celebrities, and experts make messagesmore persuasive

audience - less educated audience ismore likely to be convinced by a message


10/102

Attitudes

method - less educated audience= better to use one-sidedmessage

more educated audience = betterto show both sides of anargument, and try to refute theopposing side


11/102

Attitudes

causing fear with messages can beeffective, but too much fear canreduce how well the messageconvinces people


12/102


Studies find that attitudes dont tell us

exactly what peoples behaviour will be

cognitive dissonance theory - idea thatpeople are motivated to make their

attitudes and behaviour match.

(relates to connection between behaviourand attitudes)


13/102


if not matching, we feel mentaluncomfortableness (dissonance)

we get rid of dissonance by changingour behaviour or our attitudes. Ofteneasier to change the attitude

Happens outside conscious

awareness


14/102


e.g. if your attitude is that only fat,weak-willed people eat sweets, butyou start to eat sweet foodsoccasionally, you might change yourattitude to think sometimesregular people

eat sweets too,and its not so

bad.


15/102

Cognitive Dissonance


16/102


Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith1950s study of cognitive dissonance

participants did a boring task, andexperimenter asked them to lie to thenext person (who was a confederate,working for the psych.) and say it wasinteresting.


17/102


Some participants were paid $20, somewere paid $1.

Then they measured attitudes towards thetask.

$20 group felt task was boring - nodissonance b/c lie was for lots of money;so there was no attitude change


18/102


$1 group felt task was more interesting- $1 was not enough to justify the lie.Therefore the person feels cognitivedissonance, which causes attitudechange.


19/102


Compliance - getting someone to dowhat you want them to do.

Do you know strategies to try to getsomeone to do a favour? fulfil arequest


20/102


Psychologists have studiedcompliance strategies

foot-in-the-door - the idea that ifsomeone does a small thing for you,they will be likely to do a

larger thing too if youask them


21/102


e.g.

-Can you make one copy of this sheet

for me?-Sure-Oh, while youre doing that, can you

copy these 10 sheets as well.-Um, I guess so


22/102


door-in-the-face - if someone refusesa big request, they will then be morelikely to do a smaller thingbecause the second oneseems like less work,easier etc.


23/102


e.g.

-Can you copy these 500 sheets for

me?-...Uh, no.-Ok, sorry. Then how about just these

10? I really need them for class in 10minutes.-Sure, ok.


24/102


Norms of Reciprocity - societal rules orexpectations that say if we helpsomeone, they should help us back.

Predicts that if you help someonetheyll probably be more likely to help

you later in return.


25/102

Attribution Theory

How do we explain behaviour we see

in our social world? To what do weattribute causes of behaviour?


26/102

Attribution Theory

Two scales:

dispositional/person vs. situation

and stable vs. unstable attributions

dispositional/person - we thinksomething happens because of thenature of the person...


27/102

Attribution Theory

situation - due to factors of thesituation

stable - unchanging

unstable - more variable, changing

e.g. stable-dispositional could be thatperson is always angry


28/102

Attribution Theory

e.g. unstable-situation could be in thiscase, the situation with the Japanese manwas harsh and caused him to be angry

unstable-disposition: ______________

_______________________________

stable-situation: _______________________________________________


29/102


30/102

Attribution Theory

According to Harold Kelly, we oftenlook at 3 things before we make ourattributions:

1. consistency - is the reaction similarto previous reactions? Howconsistently does the person act?


31/102

Attribution Theory

2. distinctiveness - is this situationsimilar or different from the othersituations youve witnessed?

3. consensus - how do others in thesame situation act? the same, ordifferent?


32/102

Attribution Theory

consensus is really helpful for makingperson vs. situation determinations

Why do you think this is true?

consistency is really helpful when wedecide stable or unstable?

Why?


33/102

Attribution Theory

Self-fulfilling prophecies - our attributions /expectations of people can influence theirbehaviour, and can even cause them to

do what we thought they would do.


34/102

Attribution Theory

e.g. If I hear from other teachers that___ student is a trouble maker, I mighttreat them more harshly, watch themclosely, etc.

This might make them feel stress,

anger, and this might cause them toact out in class, make trouble.

My expectation caused this to happen.


35/102

Attribution Theory

Robert Rosenthaland Lenore Jacobsonstudied this in aclassroom setting(1968 - Pygmalionin the Classroom)


36/102

Attribution Theory

Gave test to students (just normal IQtest) and chose some studentsrandomly. Told teachers that the test

said these students were going to startdoing much better in school.

Wasnt true, just random students...But when tested later, they did dobetter than their friends.


37/102

Attribution Theory

Teachers expectations causedstudents to do better. They must havetreated the students differently

somehow to cause this kind ofchange...

But happened outside of consciousknowledge, teachers didnt try toimprove these particular students


38/102

Attribution Theory

self-fulfilling prophecies are why weneed to be careful about ourexpectations for people.

People may meet our positiveexpectations, but they

might also fulfil ournegative expectations...


39/102

Attribution Theory

Social Biases

When we make attributions about ourown and others behaviour we an

sometimes make mistakes.


40/102

Attribution Theory

Fundamental Attribution Error - we

more often make dispositional/personattributions for other people, andsituational attributions for ourselves.


41/102

Attribution Theory

If you meet a new person and they actangrily, youre more likely to assume

they are a jerk, and unlikely to think

about possible situationalfactors (like someone juststole the persons phone,

for example)


42/102

Attribution Theory

But for ourselves, we put much moreweight on possible situational causesfor how we act.


43/102

Attribution Theory

Possibly stronger effect inindividualistic cultures (e.g. U.S.,Canada, Europe),

than in collectivist cultures (e.g. Asian,Native Canadian...) where focus is

less on individual and more onfamilies, groups, etc.


44/102

Attribution - Other Biases

Self-serving bias - we tend to takemore credit for successes than wetake responsibility for failures.

e.g. if we pass a test Im smart or

I worked hardif we fail Test was hard orTeacher is a jerk


45/102


Just-world bias - tendency to think thatbad things happen to bad people. So ifsomething bad happens to someone,

they must have deserved it....

Maybe a way to protect our minds, feelsafe (if we are good people, well be

ok)


46/102


Just-world bias is a very dangerousway of thinking

Can cause us to blame the victim a

common and horribly dangerous trap

to fall into...


47/102

Blaming the Victim


48/102


False-consensus effect - people tend

to think that most people agree withthem on any issue


49/102

Stereotypes, Prejudice, &Discrimination

Stereotype - expectations or ideasabout what members of a group arelike. Can be positive or negative, and

can be about any kind of group.

Some psychologists see stereotypesas our schemata about groups. Othersthink stereotypes are harder tochange.


50/102


Prejudice - Pre-judging unfair attitude

towards a group of people becauseyou judged them before you saw theevidence

Usually a negative attitude.


51/102


One specific example is ethnocentrism- prejudice that your group is betterthan other groups (ethnic group, racial

group)

Because you think your group is best.Look down on other groups as inferior


52/102


Discrimination - when you actdifferently towards someone becauseof a prejudice that your hold.

in-group - your group

out-group - the outsiders, people not inyour group, other groups


53/102


Out-group homogeneity - the tendency

to see people of other groups to begenerally similar to each other.

Members of out-groups are thought to

be more like each other than themembers of your group are


54/102


Probably because of how muchexperience we have with each other.

We usually have littleexperience with out-groups, but a lot with

our in-group, so itseasier to see in-groupas more varied....


55/102


In-group bias - researchers have alsofound people tend to prefer membersof their own group.

Stereotypes and prejudice might come

from our natural mental use ofschemata to make categories tounderstand our world...


56/102


Or they might come from

observational learning, where wemight see others (including adults,parents) using stereotypes and

discriminating and we learn to do thesame thing.


57/102

Fighting Against Prejudice

Muzafer Sherif did a study examiningprejudice and group animosity in 1966(called Robbers Cave Study)

At a summer camp, divided children

into two groups and had themcompete in games (to create negativefeelings towards each other)


58/102


Then he had them work together to

solve some emergency problems(called superordinate goals) and foundthat this helped remove negative

feelings and bring opposite groupmembers closer.


59/102


This study is cited as support for thecontact theory of fighting prejudice.

Contact theory - idea that contactbetween groups with a shared goal orpurpose can help remove prejudice

Note: just contact by itself wont

remove prejudice...


60/102

Aggression

Psychologists see two kinds ofaggression:

instrumental aggression - whenaggression is used to get something

we want

e.g. punch your friend to take her

chocolate


61/102


62/102

Theories of Aggression

Evolutionary Perspective(Sociobiology) - aggression might beuseful for us sometimes; to help us

survive

(during our evolutionary history, notnecessarily now...)


63/102


Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis -idea that being frustrated makes

violence more likely

Supported by research


64/102


Observational Learning and Aggression- remember Albert Banduras bobo doll

experiment


65/102

Prosocial Behaviour

Psychologists not just interested innegative behaviours like aggression,but also positive behavoiurs.

Prosocial Behaviour - helping others


66/102

Prosocial Behaviour

Bystander intervention - nearby peoplehelping strangers who need help. (acommonly studied type of prosocial

behaviour)


67/102

Prosocial Behaviour

Real life example:

Murder of Kitty

Genovese in New York, 1964This young woman was stabbed todeath, and at least 38 people saw or

heard something, but no one calledthe police...


68/102

Prosocial Behaviour

This horrific case caused John Darleyand Bibb Latane to study bystanderintervention

Found that people who see someone

in an emergency are less likely to helpif there are more people around.

Called the Bystander Effect


69/102

Prosocial Behaviour

Some think this is because of diffusion ofresponsibility - each person feels lessindividual responsibility, because the resp.

is divided among all the people.

So if one or two people only, they feelresponsibility more strongly.

I dont need to help, someone else will


70/102

Prosocial Behaviour

Another part of the explanation ispluralistic ignorance - we decide if asituation is an emergency by looking

at others.

If no one else seems to be worried, weassume the situation is not really anemergency.


71/102

Prosocial Behaviour

e.g. In the library, fire alarm goes off.You look at other people, see howthey are reacting, and you decide if its

an emergency or not

if they seem calm,

then you think itsnot an emergency...


72/102

Attraction

What will influence whether people areattracted to each other.

3 factors:

Similarity - we tend to be attracted to

people who are similar to us(physically, attitudes, interests,backgrounds, etc.)


73/102

Attraction

Proximity - people who are near eachother, spend a lot of time together, tendto be more attracted to each other

(So choose your seat carefully)

Similar to mere-exposure effect


74/102

Attraction

Reciprocal Liking - if someone likesyou, youre more likely to like them

too. (reverse is also true)

Physical attractiveness often

connected to symmetry - two sidesreflect each other well


75/102

Which of these three is most attractive?


76/102

Attraction

Experiments where you show people

faces and ask how attractive they are,people tend to say more symmetricfaces are more attractive.


77/102

Attraction

As well, physically attractive peopleare assumed to have othercharacteristics, including having good

personality, will perform well at theirjobs, etc....

(We should be careful about this aswell....)


78/102

Attraction

One other connected thing:

Self-disclosure - sharing personal infowith others, often part of getting toknow someone, becoming closer to

them


79/102


How do other people influence ourbehaviour?

social facilitation - we tend to do betteron tasks if people are watching us.

e.g. an audience makes us run faster(for well practiced, easy tasks)


80/102


social impairment - how and audiencecan hamper our performance for moredifficult tasks. We do less well if

people are watching...

conformity - doing things the same asothers, going along with how theythink or act.


81/102


Solomon Asch (1951) classic study

Show lines to people, other people(confederates) say wrong answer, seeif subject conforms and says same

wrong answer, or tells the truth.


82/102

About 1/3 of the time the personconformed

If all the confederates give the wronganswer, person is more likely toconform.


83/102


Obedience - if people are told to dosomething, do they do that thing? Arethey obedient to the command?

Milgrams Obedience Studies (1974)

People teaching a confederate in

another room (original study: they

cant see the person, just hear them)


84/102

Milgram Obedience Study Setup

Learner

Experimenter

Participant


85/102


If the person makes a mistake, thescientist tells the participant to shock theperson with a machine in front of them.

Not real shocks


86/102


Each mistake, they were told to shockwith stronger shock, moving up thescale from weak shock to stronger

shock

15 volts 450 volts

mild XXX


87/102


Confederate asked teacher participant tostop, said they had heart problems, andeventually stopped speaking

Even so, more than 60% of the people

delivered all the shocksMany people, including Milgram, werevery surprised by this result....


88/102


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpE

Later studies found things thatreduced obedience:

if participant could see the person

if they had to force the learners handonto a shock plate (still 30%)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpE


89/102


Things that reduced obedience:

if scientist switches with an assistant,who gives the orders

if there are other confederates inroom who say dont do it


90/102


91/102


Many parallels / comparisons made toNazi Germany, and soldiers doingwhat they were told, even when it

killed innocent people

(Holocaust, Jewish and other people

killed because solders werecommanded to do it, and theyobeyed...)


92/102

Group Dynamics

Our group memberships can alsoaffect us. We are members of manygroups, official and unofficial.

groups have rules, guidelines, called

norms that guide how people shouldact


93/102

Group Dynamics

Often groups have roles. e.g. within afamily there are different people withdifferent expectations about how to

act.

e.g. mothers, sons, daughters,

cousins, grandfathers, etc...


94/102

Group Dynamics

Social loafing - people who are lazy,because theyre in a group

If youre alone, people can easily tell

how hard you work; people might be

more lazy if they can hide within thegroup


95/102

Group Dynamics

Group polarization - groups tend tomake more extreme/strong decisionsthan any one individual would on their

own.

Possibly because of diffusion ofresponsibility, and maybe becausesome people might convince others tomove to a more extreme position


96/102

Group Dynamics

Groupthink - Irving Janis idea that ifpeople are in groups they might notsay if they have problems with an

idea;

so the idea might seem like morepeople agree. false agreement

G hi k

They say yes, but are all thinking no


97/102

Groupthink

G D i


98/102

Group Dynamics

Deindividuation - when you feel lesslike an individual because youre in a

group. Sometimes people do things

they wouldnt normally do if they werealong.

Because they feel anonymous...

e.g. Mob Behaviour

G D i


99/102

Group Dynamics

Stanford Prison Studies - PhillipZimbardo (1971)

24 male students in basement ofStanford University building, randomly

assigned to be either prisoners orguards in a fake prison

G D i


100/102

Group Dynamics

Involves influence of both roles anddeindividuation.

Guards and prisoners both startedacting like their roles very quickly.

Had to end study early becauseguards were being cruel to prisoners,who became very helpless.

St f d P i St d


101/102

Stanford Prison Study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jwgzK1C8JA

C l i
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jwgzK1C8JAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jwgzK1C8JA


102/102

Conclusion

Social Psychology is our last topic in APPsychology, but it many ways it is themost interesting.

We all live in a strong social world, and weare influenced and influence otherspsychology all the time.

Understanding social psychology can helpus see why we think and act in certainways, and can help us repair our negative

Documents

AP Psych Prep 14 - Social Psychology