SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

What is Social psychology?

The field of psych pertaining to how we think about other people, interact in relationships and groups, and are influenced by others

Scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior are impacted by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others

The study of social situations, with special attention to how we view and affect others

Topics in Social Psychology

Person Perception & Attribution Stereotypes & Prejudice Social Influence Attraction/Love Close Relationships (my area of

research) Behavior in Groups Helping Behavior Aggressions Attitudes The Self

Person Perception Perception

Mental grasp of objects through the senses

Object of interest in social psych is the person

Impression Formation What info do we use when making

judgments? Appearance

Age, gender, ethnicity Attractiveness

Behavior Information from others

Biases in Judgment Implicit Personality Theory

People assume that certain aspects or traits go together Halo effect: We assume people we like have good

characteristics, even if we haven’t seen them

Self-concept bias What we consider important in ourselves is

often what we consider important in others Primacy effects

People are influenced more by info they receive early in an interaction than by info that appears later

We will even re-interpret new information so that it fits our earlier impression of people

Attribution Processes

The process of asking “why” people do what they do We do this for unexplained or unexpected

events

Kelley’s covariation model Consensus

Do other people react in the same way as the target?

Consistency Does the target react in the same way to this

stimulus on repeated exposures? Distinctiveness

Does the target react the same way to similar stimuli?

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Distinctiveness

High Low High

Consensus High Low Low

Consistency High High Low

Attribution Stimulus (movie)

Person (my sister)

Situation

Attributional Errors

Fundamental Attribution Error A tendency to overestimate the impact

of personal causes of behavior and to overlook the role of situations

Actor-Observer Bias More likely to make external attributions

for our own negative behavior and internal attributions for others’ negative behavior Vice versa for positive behavior (though

this tendency isn’t as strong)

Stereotypes

If we use schemas to form overall impressions of others because we are cognitive misers… Stereotypes: group schemas, containing a

set of beliefs about people in a particular social category

Devine (1989) Automatic activation of stereotypes CAN be controlled, when our personal

beliefs (either positive or negative) of a social group are not aligned with the automatic stereotypes

Origins of Prejudice

Socialization We are not born with stereotypes, but we

grow to imitate those who we respect

Realistic Group Conflict Theory When groups are forced to compete for

scarce resources (e.g., good jobs, nice homes, college educations), they threaten each other in a very negative manner

‘Our group is better than yours’ becomes justification for greater access to these positive resources

Ways to Reduce Prejudice

Allport’s Contact Theory Under certain conditions, direct contact

between members of different groups will improve relations

Contact must involve: Mutual interdependence A common goal Equal status of groups Informal, interpersonal contact Multiple contacts Social norms of equality

Social Influence

Three types Conformity Compliance Obedience

Conformity The tendency for people to bring their

behavior in line with group norms Changing to match group’s standards

Conformity

Informational Social Influence The need to be right Sherif (1936) autokinetic effect

Initially, P’s show a lot of variety in their answers but each group will create its own range

Sherif (1936) autokinetic effect

Conformity Informational Social Influence

The need to be right Sherif (1936) autokinetic effect

Initially, P’s show a lot of variety in their answers but each group will create its own range

Normative Social Influence The need to be liked Asch (1955) line study

76% of the time, P’s will conform and give the wrong answer as well

Compliance

Doing something because someone asked us to

Two types Commitment-based techniques

By getting us to commit to a small item, we are more likely to commit to larger items

Norm of Reciprocity-based techniques We should do for those who have done for

us

Commitment-based Compliance Foot in the Door

Small request (accepted) followed by larger (accepted due to initial commitment)

Low Ball Once request is agreed to, the hidden costs

of complying reveal themselves

Why do these work? We like to think that our self-identity is

consistent Once we agree to this person on this topic, we like

to maintain consistency and keep agreeing

Norm of Reciprocity-based Compliance

Unsolicited Gift March of Dimes address labels, paying

participants in advance You are providing them with something

in the hope that they will reciprocate Door in the Face

Initial large request (rejected) followed by a smaller request (accepted)

The requester has lowered their demands so you feel the need to reciprocate by giving in a little

Obedience

Doing something because a legitimate authority figure asked us to

Stanley Milgram (1960’s) The participant is the teacher, the

confederate is the learner If the learner makes an error, the teacher

has to ‘shock’ him…with the level of shock increasing to dangerous and deadly levels

As the level of shock increases, the P can hear the learner is in obvious pain

Obedience

Factors that increased/decreased obedience Making subject feel more responsible for

their behavior reduced obedience Emphasizing pain of other subject reduced

obedience Increasing physical presence of legitimate

authority figure increased obedience Having other subjects stop obeying reduced

obedience

Attraction - Proximity

We like those we are close to both physically and functionally

Why does proximity work? It increases familiarity Often linked to similarity It makes others more available Cognitive consistency

It's easier to be around others who we like, therefore we feel a need to get along with people we see often

Attraction - Familiarity

Simply seeing a person more frequently can increase our liking of that person This only works if our initial reaction is

either neutral or positive Seeing a negative stimulus repeatedly simply

makes us not like it even more

Why does familiarity work? Repeated exposure increases recognition We assume that familiar others are similar

to ourselves

Attraction - Similarity Matching Principle

The tendency to choose similar partners Friends

Social class, educational level, and religious backgrounds

Romantic partners Age, social class, ethnicity, and religion

Why does the similarity effect occur? Similar others are easier and more pleasant

to be around Expectancy-value Theory

Maybe we deliberately select people for their similarity to us

The reward for dating someone similar to us is high…but so is the probability that they will like us

What does being physically attractive mean? Beauty is in the eye of the

beholder…for the most part Walster et al (1966) Computer Dance

study Used a computer service to match

people for blind dates (but they were really randomly assigned)

Physical attractiveness was the only significant predictor of liking

What does being physically attractive mean? (cont.)

Halo effect of beauty Attractive people are judged more

favorably on other traits than are less attractive people

Pretty people are assumed to have better: Social skills Intellectual competence Greater integrity and concern for others

Is it true? Certainly not for intelligence or integrity

but sort of for social skills

Close Relationships

Rusbult’s Investment Model

Commitment Investments

Alternatives

Satisfaction ( + )

( + )

( - )

Violence

U.S. has highest murder rate in the world among developed countries More than 15,000 murders every year More than 92,000 reported rapes More than 7 million reported violent acts

overall Every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a

violent crime More than 50% of 5th graders report being a

victim of violence (70% of those have seen weapons used)

Guns kill an American child every 3 hours

Aggression

Aggression Behavior intended to injure another who

is motivated to avoid it

Assertiveness Behavior intended to express dominance

or confidence

Assertiveness is not aggression

Biological Theories

Aggressive impulses may be hereditary Twin studies:

Correlations of aggression higher among monozygotic twins than dizygotic pairs

Aggression is associated with Low levels of serotonin High levels of testosterone Activation of the amygdala can lead to

aggressive behaviors (though it still depends on situational factors)

Gender Differences in Aggression Men use more physical, direct forms of

aggression Men’s aggression is more likely to do

physical harm, and thus gets more attention

Girls and women use more indirect forms of aggression (e.g., spreading rumors).

There is no clear sex difference in reporting feelings of anger

Gender Differences in Aggression Provocation: The great equalizer?

Men are more likely to attack physically when unprovoked than women

What happens when people are irritated, frustrated, or threatened by another person?

Bettencourt & Miller (1996) Conducted a meta-analysis of gender

differences in aggression Found that when provocation is involved,

the typical gender difference in physical aggression is reduced or eliminated

Physical Discomfort & Aggression

Heat Humidity Pain Noxious fumes Poverty Crowding

Media Violence

More TV sets in United States than toilets Media consumption is #1 pass-time among

Americans, particularly youth 60%-70% of all TV programs contain

violence 70%-80% show no remorse, criticism, or

penalty for the violence By the time the average American child

graduates from elementary school: More than 8,000 murders More than 100,000 other acts of violence

(e.g., assaults, rape)

Media Violence

More recently, video games have become kids’ favorite form of media

90% of kids age 2-17 play regularly

Majority of popular games are violent

Grand Theft Auto

Mortal Kombat

Media Violence

Since at least 1970, researchers have known of a link between violent media and aggression Weakened inhibitions against violent

behavior Imitation of specific violent acts Aggression primed as a response to anger Desensitization to violence Overestimation of prevalence of violence in

real life

Common Responses

1. “That’s all boloney. I play those games and I’ve never killed anyone.”

2. “Maybe there is an effect, but it’s really small and meaningless.”

3. “Actually, my friends and I feel better after blowing off steam playing video games.”

Common Responses

1. “Not all who play violent games/watch violent media become killers.” True. Not all smokers die of lung cancer,

either.

The point is NOT whether exposure leads inevitably to criminal mayhem, but that the likelihood of aggression is increased

Effects of VVGs(Bushman & Anderson, 2001)

Corr

ela

tion

wit

h

VV

G E

xp

osu

re

Findings from a meta-analysis

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Aggression Helping HostileThoughts

HostileAffect

Arousal

Common Responses

2. “Effects are trivially small” False. Effects are larger than many that

we take for granted

Common Responses

3. “Playing violent games/watching violence allows people to “vent” feelings of anger” False. Watching violence or engaging in

virtual violence increases aggression

Catharsis doesn’t work!

Media Industry Response

1. The media is simply “holding a mirror to society.” False. Real world is far less violent than the

TV/Movie world.

0.2% of crimes are murders; 50% of crimes on TV are murders

Average of 7 characters are killed on TV each night If applied in reality, this proportion of murder would

wipe out U.S. population in 50 days

Media Industry Response

2. “We’re simply giving the public what they want.” Maybe. But viewer interest is only one

factor driving programming decisions

Societal violence can be considered a hazardous by-product

Also, most popular shows (Friends, Seinfeld, Bachelor) are not violent

Media Industry Response

3. “Violence sells!” False. TV violence significantly

decreases memory for commercial messages

Bushman, 1998 19% of viewers will be less likely to

remember an ad if it is embedded in a violent or sexually explicit show

Prosocial Behavior (a.ka. Altruism) Prosocial Behavior

Any act that helps or is meant to help others

It doesn’t matter what the helper’s motivation is

Evolutionary Theory

Kin selection Gene survival is more important than the

individual’s survival By helping our relatives, we are giving our

genes a greater chance of surviving, even if it harms our own life

Parents behave more altruistically to healthy offspring to unhealthy ones (Dovidio et al., 1991)

Social Exchange Theory

We want to maximize our benefits and minimize our costs We examine the costs and rewards of

helping and not helping 3 rewards of helping

Reciprocity They will owe us when we need help (or at least it

eventually balances out) Relieves distress

We don’t like to see others suffer Social approval

Others like us more when we are viewed as helpful and increases our self-worth

Gender and Helping

Women are universally perceived as kinder, more soft-hearted, and more helpful (Williams & Best, 1990)

But over 90% of Carnegie Hero awards go to men (for saving, or attempting to save, the life of another)

Women Help those they already know Help in nurturing ways involving long-term

commitment

Men Help strangers in emergency situations Help in chivalrous, heroic ways

Mood & Helping

People are more willing to help when they are in a good mood Isen & Levin, 1972

84% of those who found dime helped, only 4% of those who did not find dime helped

Why do good moods increase helping? Interpret events sympathetically Mood-maintenance Good moods increase self-attention

People in a bad mood will help under certain conditions Negative-state relief hypothesis

People help to alleviated their own sadness and distress

Bystander Effect

The story of Kitty Genovese (1964) Bystander effect

The tendency to be less likely to help if others are also present

Smoke-filled room study (Latané and Darley, 1968) IV:

left alone with 2 other real participants with 2 other confederates who pretended nothing

was wrong DV: Percentage of participants who

reported smoke

8080

6060

2020

00

4040

Smoke-Filled Room Study

Percent who report smoke

Alone With 2 other real subjects

With 2 calm confederates

Situational Influences:5 Steps to Helping Step 1: Notice the Event

In order to help, you must realize something is happening

Often people are distracted and don’t even notice (especially in large cities)

Step 2: Interpret as Emergency If you see someone lying on the sidewalk,

does that mean they need or want help? Pluralistic ignorance can play a role here

Others not helping, must not be a problem

5 Steps to Helping

Step 3: Feel responsible Just because you notice someone in need of

help, is that your problem? Diffusion of responsibility plays a role at this

step

Step 4: Know how to help If someone appears to need medical care

and you’re not a nurse or doctor, then what?

If you can’t offer appropriate help, you likely won’t try

5 Steps to Helping

Step 5: Assess costs of helping You see someone in need of help, you

feel responsible, you know what to do, but… Could be highly dangerous Could make you financially liable Could embarrass you