54
Bell Ringer 4.1.2013 Objective: SWBAT define social psychology. Take out your reading notes to be checked. •On your bell ringer, write down a definition of Social Psychology in your own words.

Bell Ringer 4.1.2013

  • Upload
    kamea

  • View
    24

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Bell Ringer 4.1.2013. Objective: SWBAT define social psychology. Take out your reading notes to be checked. On your bell ringer, write down a definition of Social Psychology in your own words. Unit 12: Social Psychology. AP Psychology Ms. Desgrosellier. Key Ideas:. Group dynamics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bell Ringer 4.1.2013

• Objective: SWBAT define social psychology.• Take out your reading notes to be checked.• On your bell ringer, write down

a definition of Social Psychology in your own words.

Page 2: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Unit 12: Social Psychology

AP PsychologyMs. Desgrosellier

Page 3: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Key Ideas:• Group dynamics• Bystander intervention• Attribution processes• Interpersonal perception• Organizational behavior• Conformity, compliance, and

obedience• Attitudes and attitude change• Aggression and antisocial behavior

Page 4: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Psychology• Social Psychology: study of how

groups influence individual’s attitudes and behavior.

Page 5: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Group Dynamics• Social group: two or more people

sharing common goals and interests.

• Interact and influence behavior of the other(s).

• Norms: rules either implicit or explicit that govern the behavior of group members.

Page 6: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Roles: ascribed social positions

and defined behavior expectations in groups.

Page 7: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Zimbardo Prison Study: Stanford

students were randomly assigned the roles of either prisoner or guard.– The experiment had to be stopped after only 6

days because of the severe stress inflicted by certain “sadistic” guards who took their roles too seriously.

– Those assigned the role of prisoner were cowering in their cells and one-third of those assigned to the role of guard inflicted harsh punishment for the slightest infraction of rules.

Page 8: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Zimbardo Prison Study Video

Page 9: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Social loafing: the tendency of

individuals to put less effort into group projects than when individually accountable.

• e.g. When pulling a rope in tug-of-war, people tended to only pull 80% their real abilities when they were joined by other people.

Page 10: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Deindividuation: when in a large

group, we tend to lose some self-awareness and may engage in behavior that is unusual or uncharacteristic for us because of the anonymity.– This especially occurs when there is a

heightened sense of arousal.– e.g. People in crowds that riot.– e.g. People in masks.

Page 11: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Social Roles• Deindividuation can lead to

prosocial behavior, with an unusual outpouring and generosity among virtual strangers all caught up in an emotionally arousing situation.

Page 12: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Effects of the Group• Social facilitation: improved

performance of well-learned tasks in front of others.–e.g. musicians who are well practiced

may perform better during a recital than during rehearsal.

• Social impairment: when first learning a new task, one may perform worse in front of other people.

Page 13: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Effects of the Group• Group polarization: like-minded

people share ideas resulting in a more extreme position for every individual.–e.g. When groups like the KKK get

together, they become even more extremely racist.

Page 14: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Effects of the Group• Groupthink: individuals self-

censor beliefs to preserve harmony in the group.

• Groupthink can be countered when outside people bring in new ideas and opinions.

Page 15: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Minority Influence• minority influence: a lone

dissenter shows that a single individual with a strong opinion can also have an effect.

• e.g. on a jury, a single dissenting voice could change a verdict from guilty to not guilty.

Page 16: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bystander Influence• Bystander intervention: the active

involvement of a person in a situation that appears to require his/her aid.

• Diffusion of responsibility: an explanation of the failure of bystander intervention stating that when several bystanders are present, no one person assumes responsibility for helping.

Page 17: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bystander Influence• e.g. Kitty Genovese was repeatedly

stabbed and raped outside her Queens, New York apartment in 1964.

• 38 of her neighbors heard her screams for help at 3:30 am. Her attacker fled and then came back to stab her 8 more times and kill her.

• No one called the police until 3:50 am.

Page 18: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bell Ringer 4.2.2013

• Objective: SWBAT explain social influence on behavior.• Choose one of the following and briefly describe it:• Stanford (Zimbardo) prison study• Diffusion of responsibility• Deindividuation• Social facilitation/impairment

Page 19: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bystander Influence• Researchers set up a situation

where people were alone or with a group, and then they heard a call for help.–When alone with someone in need,

40% helped. – In the presence of others, only 20%

helped.

Page 20: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bystander Influence• Altruism: the unselfish concern of

one individual for the welfare of another.–e.g. helping someone who is injured

with no benefit (e.g. rewards of heroism) to you.

Page 21: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Attribution Processes• Social cognition: the way people

gather, use, and interpret information about social world.

• Attribution theory: a way to understand how people explain others’ behaviors.

Page 22: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Attribution Processes• Dispositional factors: individual

personality characteristics that affect a person’s behavior.

• Situational factors: environmental stimuli that affect a person’s behavior.

Page 23: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Evaluating Behavior• Self-serving bias: to take

personal credit for our own achievements and blame our failures on situational factors.–e.g. “I got an A in Psychology

because I’m smart and I worked hard. I got a F in math because I have it first period and my classmates suck.”

Page 24: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Evaluating Behavior• fundamental attribution error:

tendency when judging others’ behaviors to overestimate the role of personal factors and underestimate situational factors.–e.g. A peer fails a class because

they’re lazy or stupid, but ignores how their parents’ divorce affected their work.

Page 25: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Evaluating Behavior• actor-observer bias: a tendency

to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and the behavior of others to personal causes.–e.g. I got into a car accident because

it was raining and slick on the road. YOU got into an accident because you weren’t paying attention on the road.

Page 26: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Evaluating Behavior• just-world phenomenon:

tendency to believe in fairness, that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.–e.g. blaming rape victims for what

happened to them.

Page 27: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Influencing Behavior• Self-fulfilling prophecy: a

tendency to let preconceived expectations influence one’s behavior, thus evoking those very expectations.

Page 28: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Interpersonal Perception

• In-group: groups to which we belong and tend to favor.

• Out-group: groups to which we do not belong, we tend to attribute negative qualities to out-groups.

Page 29: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Causes of Conflict• Prejudice: unjustified attitudes we

hold about others.• Discrimination: unjustified action

against an individual or group.• Stereotypes: scheme used to

quickly judge others.–Can be an overgeneralized belief

about the characteristics of members of a particular group.

Page 30: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Causes of Conflict• Scapegoat theory: when own

self-worth is in doubt or jeopardy, we find others to blame.–attributes prejudice to frustration

• Ethnocentrism: belief that our culture or social group is superior to others.

Page 31: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Causes of Conflict• Out-group homogeneity: belief

that members of another group are more similar in their attitudes than they actually are.–e.g. I’m a jock, but not all jocks are

the same. You’re a nerd, all nerds are the same.

Page 32: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Increasing Cooperation

• Contact theory: if members of two opposing groups are brought together in an emergency situation, group cooperation will reduce prejudicial thinking.

Page 33: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Increasing Cooperation

• Jigsaw classroom: expert groups of diverse backgrounds learn one part of a lesson and share information in jigsaw groups.– Students are dependent on others.– Self-esteem and achievement of “worse”

students improve.– Former stereotypes are diminished.– Friendships based on proximity, similarity,

reciprocal liking, and utilitarian value.

Page 34: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Friendships

Page 35: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Friendships• Mere exposure effect: the more

we come in contact with someone, the more likely we are to like that person.

• Most consider beautiful people to be more socially skilled than less attractive people.

Page 36: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Friendships• Studies show that friends are rated

very similarly in physical attractiveness.

• Similarity of interests and social background is also likely to determine who become friends.

Page 37: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Conformity• Conformity: the adoption of

attitudes and behaviors shared by a particular group of people.

• Asch Experiment

Page 38: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Conformity

Page 39: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Conformity• Solomon Asch conformity study• Asch instructed subjects to choose which

of three lines was the same length as the original line shown. Each subject was on a panel with other “subjects” who were actually confederates who all initially gave the wrong answer.

• Approximately 35% of the real subjects chose to give an obviously wrong but conforming choice.

Page 40: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Conformity• Asch – 1:36

Page 41: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Conformity• Normative social influence:

going along with the decisions of a group in order to gain its social approval.

• Information social influence: accepting others’ opinions about reality especially in conditions of uncertainty.

Page 42: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Bell Ringer 4.3.2013• Objective: SWBAT explain social

influence on behavior.• Choose two of the following and

briefly describe them in your own words:• Self-serving bias• Fundamental attribution error• Scapegoat theory• Mere exposure effect• Solomon Asch conformity study

Page 43: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Compliance• Compliance: engaging in a particular

behavior at another person’s request.• Foot-in-the-door phenomenon:

agreement to a smaller request leads to agreement with larger requests later.–e.g. Letting me borrow $1 now makes it

more likely that you will lend me $5 next time.

Page 44: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Compliance• Reciprocity: small gift makes

others feel obligation to agree to later request.–e.g. Have this free gift, but you can

make a donation if you want.

Page 45: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Obedience to Authority

• Stanley Milgram obedience study:• Participants thought they were studying

how punishment influenced learning.• There was a confederate learner and the

participant was the teacher who had to give increasingly stronger electric shocks to the learner when they got an answer wrong.

• “Teachers” didn’t know that “learners” were not actually being shocked.

Page 46: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Obedience to Authority

• If the “teacher” asked questions or hesitated to deliver a shock, the researcher in a lab coat would simply urge them to continue.

• Milgram found that 66% of participants would go up to the lethal shock level.

• Besides learning about obedience to authority, Milgram’s study also helped establish important ethical guidelines for psychological research.

Page 47: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Obedience to Authority

• Milgram – 8:06

Page 48: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Attitudes & Attitude Change

• Attitudes: learned predisposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to certain people, objects, or events.

• Mere exposure effect leads to increased liking of a person or another stimulus.– e.g. One study found that a confederate

placed in a lecture class only 3 times (and who never spoke) would be rated more attractive then strangers by the class.

Page 49: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Ways of Changing Attitudes

• Elaboration likelihood model (ELM): attitudinal change through two routes: central or peripheral.

• Central route of persuasion: relatively stable change by carefully scrutinizing facts, statistics, and other information.

Page 50: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Ways of Changing Attitudes

• Peripheral route of persuasion: pairs superficial positive factors (e.g. supermodels & celebrities) with an argument leading to less stable changes in attitudes.–Communicators should be experts,

likeable, and good-looking.–Messages should be geared to the

audience – one-sided if in agreement, two-sided if audience differs.

Page 51: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Cognitive Dissonance• Cognitive dissonance: the

tension that results from holding conflicting beliefs, attitudes, opinions, or values when our actions do not coincide with these cognitions.

Page 52: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Cognitive Dissonance• e.g. Leon Festinger had students complete

boring tasks and then asked students if they would lie and tell other students the tasks were interesting.– Some were paid $1 while some were paid $20.– Two weeks later they were asked about the task.– Those paid $20 still thought the task was boring.– Those who were only paid $1 revised their

opinion and believed the task to be more interesting than they first thought.

Page 53: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Aggression/Antisocial Behavior

• Aggression: the intention to do harm to others.

• Instrumental aggression: to achieve some goal.

Page 54: Bell Ringer  4.1.2013

Aggression/Antisocial Behavior

• Hostile aggression: to inflict pain upon someone else.

• Though Freud believed aggression to be innate, the fact that different cultures display differing levels of aggression supports the belief that aggression is learned.