Social Psychology Dr. Will Reader [email protected]

Social Psychology

Dr. Will [email protected]

OverviewTheory of mind

Attitudes

Making attributions

Cognitive dissonance

Aggression

Affiliations

Power, obedience and conformity

Stereotypes, stigma and scapegoating

Group conflict and influence

Theory of Mind

Underpins most social behaviour

The ability to understand other people’s

Thoughts

Emotional states

Perceptual states (see, hear etc.)

And the understanding that these can be different from your own (and that your own can change)

That beliefs can be “false”

Theory of mind

Unexpected Transfer (Maxi) Task

Unexpected Transfer (Maxi) Task

Test: Where will Maxi look for his chocolate? Memory: Where did Maxi put his chocolate?Reality: Where did Mum put his chocolate?

Autism Spectrum Disorder

Communication

Socialisation

Imagination

Triad of Impairment(Wing & Gould, 1979)

Autism Spectrum DisorderSocialisation

- indifference to other people, difficulty making friends

- difficult to understand other people's thoughts and emotions

- seem to be 'in a world of their own‘

Communication

- don't develop the usual verbal or non-verbal (eg pointing) skills of other

children the same age (protodeclarative and protoimperative pointing)

- unable to understand jokes or sarcasm

- difficulty to read body language and facial expressions (Temple

Grandin)Interest

- inability to play imaginatively with objects or toys (pretend play) or

others

- may be overly interested in repetitive activities, resistance to novel

topics

Sally-Anne problem

Baron-Cohen, Leslie, and Frith (1985)Social and emotional problems secondary to cognitive problem

Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste & Plumb (2001)

Attitudes

What is an Attitude?

• Attitude is defined as “tendencies to evaluate an entity [attitude object] into some degree of favour or disfavour, ordinarily expressed in cognitive, affective and behavioural responses” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)

• Different from beliefs which are things held to be true and often do not have an evaluative side

Attitude: Definitions

• Attitudes involve associations between attitude objects and evaluations of these objects (Fazio, 1989)

• Attitudes are evaluations of various objects that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)

• Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluation of a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour (Eagly & Chaiken,1993).

Component Theories of Attitude

• Unitary model. Attitudes are a single positive or negative evaluation of an attitude object

• Dual model. A mental state of readiness and therefore guides some evaluation or response towards and object

• Tripartite model. Include feeling (affective), action (behavioural), and thought (cognitive) components – “ABC”

Tripartite Model?

CognitiveBelief based e.g.

“Beer kills my brain cells”“Beer helps me to relax”

“Beer tastes good after a hard days work”

Attitude object: Beer

AffectiveEmotion based e.g.

“Harmful-Beneficial”“Relaxing-Stressful”

“Tasty-Bitter”

BehaviouralIntention based e.g.

“I will cut down on my beer drinking”“I intend to drink beer when I’m stressed”

“I plan to drink more beer after work”

What are Attitudes Used for?Attitudes serve as conscious and unconscious motives and have four functions (Katz, 1960):• They assist in helping us make sense of our world and to organize the information we encounter (c.f. cognitive economy) (KNOWLEDGE FUNCTION)• They help us make behave in socially acceptable ways to gain positive and avoid negative outcomes (UTILITARIAN/ADJUSTIVE FUNCTION)• They act as a guide to behaviour in social situations and help us in self- and social- categorization (SOCIAL IDENTITY/VALUE-EXPRESSIVE FUNCTION)• They allow use to preserve a positive sense of self (EGO-DEFENSIVE FUNCTION)

Attitude-Behaviour Relationship• Of principle concern - if attitudes don’t guide behaviour

then their efficacy and utility as a construct is greatly reduced

• Classic study: LaPiere (1934) restaurateur's attitudes towards Asians in 1930’s USA- questioned validity of the attitude-behaviour link

• Wicker (1969) attitudes were very weakly correlated with behaviour across 45 studies (average r =.15)

• Gregson and Stacey (1981) only a small positive correlation between attitudes and alcohol consumption

• Stimulated study into the personality, contextual, temporal and methodological influences on the attitude-behaviour relationship

Attitude-behaviour relationship

Reasons for lack of a relationship:Unreliability and low validity of attitude and/or behavioural measures

People sometimes don't care about their attitudes

Often it is difficult to put attitudes into practice (perceived behavioural control or self-efficacy)

Recent research includes the latter two (e.g. Armitage and Conner, 2001) stronger attitude-behaviour relationships: Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

Measuring Attitudes

• Thurstone (1928) check all items that apply (can be weighted)

• Likert (1932) scale – n (usually 5)- point scales

• Semantic differential scale (Osgood et al., 1957) – uses word pairs

• All above can be used to derive numerical values relating to attitudes

Thurstone scale

A 7-Point ‘Likert-Type’ Self-Rating Scale

Are you favour of having nuclear power plants in Britain?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

STRONGLYAPPROVE

NEUTRALSTRONGLY

DISAPPROVE

Rating The Concept of `Nuclear Power´ on a

7-Point Semantic Differential Scale

GOOD BAD

STRONG WEAK

FAST SLOW

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE

Nuclear power

Issues with scales

Scales must be reliable: all items must measure the same thing (e.g. depression) in order for them to be added up

This can be computed statistically

Scales must be valid: they must measure what they are supposed to measure

E.g. by comparing scale results with objective measures (e.g. of depression)

Measuring Implicit Attitudes

• Attitudes may be explicit (conscious awareness), or implicit (unconscious/automatic)

• Implicit attitudes may exert effects on behaviour outside of conscious awareness

• May show unbiased attitudes (may not)• Measured with Implicit Association Test

(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998)

Attribution

Attribution is the process of assigning causes for our own behaviour to that of others

Hogg & Vaughan (2005)

Heider’s Naïve Scientist

• Suggests that people create ‘theories’ of other people based on observation of behaviour

• Inferring unobservable causes from observable behaviour or other perceived information

Everyone is a naïve scientist

• Internal (dispositional) attributions– personality characteristics– beliefs

• External (situational) attributions– situational pressure/influence

• Example: Student turns in papers late– Internal: lazy, partying all the time– External: family problems, working,

boy/girlfriend problems

Self-serving bias

Take credit for success (attribute internally)

But not for failure (attribute externally)

Maintains control and consistence

E.g. student will take credit for doing well in an exam

Student will blame test difficulty or lecturer’s tough marking policy for failure

Self serving bias• Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004)• The attributions of young drivers for their

own and their friends' risky driving • Dispositional attributions e.g., "Showing

off, acting cool" used more for friends than self

• Situational attributions e.g., "In a hurry, late" used more for self than friends

• Participants also rated their friends as taking more risks than themselves

The myth of pure evil

Tendency to interpret wrong-doers as depraved psychopaths Baumeister (1997)

E.g. demonising leaders of 'rogue' states

(part of fundamental attribution error —see later)

Baumeister's narratives

People asked to describe a situation in which they were the angered someone and which they were angered

Found two distinct types of narrative: that of the perpetrator and that of the victim

Perpetrator's narrative

The story begins with the harmful act. At the time I had good reasons for doing it. Perhaps I had been responding to extreme provocation. Or I was just reacting to the situation in a way that any reasonable person would. I had a perfect right to do what I did, and it's unfair to blame me for it. The harm was minor, and easily repaired, and I apologised. It's time to get over it, put it all behind us, let bygones be bygones

Victim's narrative

The story begins long before the harmful act, which was just the latest incident in a long history of mistreatment. The perpetrator’s actions were incoherent, senseless, incomprehensible. Either that or he was an abnormal sadist, motivated only by a desire to see me suffer, though I was completely innocent. The harm he did is grievous and irreparable, with effects that will last forever. None of us should forget it.

The moralisation gap

(Part of the self-serving bias)

We see ourselves as more moral than others and our reasons more justified and coherent

'Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite' (Kurzban, 2011)

The Fundamental Attribution ErrorRoss (1977) when observing behaviour

people tend to:• Overestimate the significance of DISPOSITIONAL

factors• Underestimate the significance of SITUATIONAL

factors• Jones and Harris’ (1967) classic experiment

illustrated this bias• Participant's had to rate people pro-Castro biases

based on some writing they did

Jones and Harris (1967): Study Design

Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

ChosenChoice, Pro-Castro

Choice,Anti-Castro

Not ChosenNo Choice,Pro-Castro

No Choice,Anti-Castro

IV2: Writer’s Position

IV1: Writer’s Abilityto Choose position

Hypothesised Summary of Results

Summary of Results

Reasons for these attributions

Self serving bias

We wish to appear competent to other people (to influence them, gain their trust, gain their cooperation, etc)

Generally believing we are can encourage them to believe this

Fundamental attribution error

Focus on individuals other influence is just 'background'

Less prominent in collectivist culture (Miller, 1984)

Self-deception

We sometimes believe our own liesParticipants asked to plan a study in which half of them have a pleasant and half an unpleasant task

Ran in pairs: participants asked to decide who did which task

Could choose themselves OR use a number generator

Most chose the easy task and said that this was fair

HOWEVER if they were asked while doing a memory span test they judged themselves harshly

Valdesolo & DeSteno (2008)



When prophecy fails (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956)

Studied an American cult called 'the seekers'

Believed that the world would end on December 21st 1954

They would be rescued by a flying saucer just before

They had given up their jobs, money, possessions and families

The flying saucer never came

The world didn't end

What happened to their beliefs?

When prophecy fails

Festinger noted that rather than giving up their beliefs the seekers redoubled their efforts to recruit new followers

They concluded that their piety had been recognised and their actions had saved humanity

!

Why?


When there is conflict between a belief or attitude and an event or behaviour this produces dissonance

This is uncomfortable so to maintain consistency people are motivated to alter one of the elements

They can

– Change their attitudes

– Change their behaviour

– Cognitively reappraise the situation

Examples of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Attitudes Dissonant Element

Source of Dissonance

Strategy

Seekers believe that the world is going to end

The world does not end

Conflict between what was thought to happen and what happened

Behavioural: Fake the end of the worldAttitudinal: recognise that they were wrongAdd consonant elements: the world didn't end because of our efforts

A student believes he’s intelligent and that intelligent people perform well at school

He gets bad grades all the time

Discrepancy between belief in intelligence and performance

Behavioural: Tries harder to get good gradesAttitudinal: Believes he’s not that intelligentAdd consonant elements: “I don’t have time to study”; “My teacher is rubbish and unfair”; “Grades aren’t a good indicator of intelligence, anyway

Induced dissonance

Festinger & Carlsmith (1954) participants had to perform a dull task (turning pegs for an hour)

They paid either $1 or $20 for this

They were then asked to tell a potential participant (stooge) that it was interesting

They then rated the interestingness of the task

Who found the task more interesting?

Induced Compliance

Payment

Rating of liking for the task

Source: Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Explaining this

Belief 'This is a dull task'

Behaviour 'This is an interesting task'

Therefore DISSONANCE

$20 group had a motivation for lying, $1 had none so had to internalise the attitude

ALSO if it is dull, why did I do it? Payment of $20 give justification, $1 did not

Unpaid dull jobs seem less boring than paid ones

Aggression

What is Aggression?• Definitions have some commonality: “Intent to harm”

(Carlson et al., 1989)• Means used in previous research to measure

aggression:• Punching a inflatable plastic doll (Bandura et al., 1963)• Pushing a button to ostensibly deliver an electric shock

(Buss, 1961)• Pencil-and-paper ratings by teachers and classmates of

a child’s aggressiveness (Eron, 1982)• Self-report of prior aggressive behaviour (Leyens et al.,

1975)• Verbal expression of willingness to use violence (Geen,

1978)• Ethical considerations in level of ‘aggressive acts’

people can be induced to do in experiments• The above measures are an analogue for measuring

‘real’ aggression

Evolutionary/ethological theories

Aggression is natural and sensible (Lorenz,

1966; Ardrey, 1966; Morris, 1967)

Innate aggression triggered by situation (releasers)

Individual protects itself and its offspring from harm

Competition for resources (including mates)In many mammalian species male-male aggression greater than other forms

Evolutionary/ethological theories of aggression

Aggression often doesn't lead to violenceAggression 'displays' in animals and humans

Hope one animal backs down without risking costly fights (but this is principally intrasexual aggression)

When personal risk is lower, violence is more common across the animal kingdom (e.g. chimps, Goodall — see later)

Theories of AggressionFrustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Dollard et al.,

1939)• Aggression the product of an ‘anger response’ to the

frustration of goals and desires• Aggression directed to perceived source of frustration• e.g. terrorism might be spawned by chronic and acute

frustration over the ineffectiveness of other means (e.g., negotiation) to achieve socio-economic goals

• However, limited because frustrating events (e.g., job loss, refereeing decisions, traffic jams) lead to lots of frustration but seldom aggression (Berkowitz, 1993)

Theories of AggressionSocial Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) • Observational learning (imitation and vicarious experience)

during childhood may contribute to violent actions

• Bobo doll experiments• Bandura et al. (1961): ~ 4 year

olds watched an adult playing with ‘Bobo doll’ (5-foot inflated plastic doll)

• Children exposed to the violent model displayed significantly more aggression toward the doll

Theories of AggressionSocial Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997)

Source: Bandura & Walter (1963)

Factors Influencing Aggression

Sex, Evolution and Socialisation • Men are more likely to engage in aggressive

behaviour (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996)• Men are also more likely to display aggressive

attitudes and beliefs (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993)• This may be due to:

• Elevated levels of androgens (e.g., testosterone)• Evolutionary benefit to aggression in terms of status and

dominance• Socialisation of aggressive tendencies during

development

Affiliation

Human relationships

Fiske (1991) four basic types of human relationship

Communal sharing

Share with no counting of cost (friendships, families)

Authority ranking

Dominance and hierarchies

Equality matching

Reciprocation, payment 'in kind'

Market pricing

As above but a 'token' economy (money)

Affiliation• Affiliation: The urge to form connections and make

contact with other people• The need to affiliate is powerful and pervasive across

people and determine the formation of important interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

• Affiliative behaviour: Acts that indicate that a person (or organism) chooses to engage in social relationships with others

• Governed by rules of Communal Sharing (Fiske, 1991)

With whom do we affiliate?

Generally people that are similar to us Homophily (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001)

Also exists for social media where physical proximity isn't a requirement (Murthy, 2012)

Similarity reduces conflicts of interest and increases shared interest (important in cooperation, Tooby & Cosmides, 1996)

Power, dominance, obedience and conformity

To what extent are we 'wired' for dominance (c.f. Fiske's authority ranking)?

Obedience and authority

Conformity to group norms

Dominance

Most non-human primate societies organised into dominance hierarchies (male and female)

Brain regions associated with dominance (periacquaductal gray, hypothalamus, amygdala)

All contain testosterone receptors (Panksepp, 2010)

Anterior preoptic hypothalamus twice as large in men as women

Testosterone and male dominance

Testosterone associated with violence (Dabs & Dabs, 2000)

Principle focus is on male dominance violence not violence per se

Higher in high status men, both a cause and an effect of status (Dabs & Dabs, 2000)

Increases following a win in sport, decreases following a loss (Johnson et al, 2006)

Similar results for women but less pronounced

Social influence

Being influenced…

Obedience — explicitly complying with instructions usually from an authority figure

Conformity — implicit compliance, usually to group norms or high-status people

Compliance — can describe both of the above

Obedience

• Milgram (1963): Classic but controversial study of compliance under duress from an ‘expert’ experimenter

• In Milgram’s study, participants were asked to deliver different voltages (0-450 volts) as a punishment

to the “learner” in a mock learning experiment• Milgram’s question was at what point would subjects

refuse to deliver shock to another person?

Social influence processes

• Results Near lethal electric shocks applied to ‘stooge’ connected to apparatus in the mock learning trial (65% administered the full 450v)

• Milgram (1974) explained that subjects felt under pressure but did not believe that the experimenter would allow harm to come to ‘stooge’.

• ‘Nothing is bleaker than the sight of a person striving yet not fully able to control his own behaviour in a situation of consequence to him’ (Milgram, 1974, pp. xiii) .

Obedience


Milgram’s studies

Sample to participants at 45 Volts• 75V: Ugh!• 150V: Get me out of here! My heart’s starting to

bother me! I refuse to go on! Let me out!• 180V: I can’t stand the pain!• 220V: Let me out! Let me out!• 270V: Agonised screams• 300V: Refuse to answer and agonised screams• 315V: Intensely agonised screams• 345V on: Silence• Throughout: if the participant was hesitating, the

experimenter told him/her to go on.

• Milgram’s study replicated in both male and female groups

• Replicated in many countries:• Spain and Holland = 90% compliance

rate (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1986)• Italy, Germany, Austria = 80% (Mantell,

1971)• Australian men = 40%, Australian women

= 16% (Kilham & Mann, 1974)

Obedience


• One explanation is that people have committed themselves to an action that was difficult to overturn

• Immediacy is an influential factor – how close a person is to the ‘learner’:

• Unseen and unheard: 100% compliance• Pounding on the wall: 62.5%• Visible during experiment: 40%• Holding hand to electrode: 30% (!)

Obedience: Explanations


Obedience 40 years on

Burger (2008) replicated (as much as he could) the Milgram study

70% still went up to 150 Volts

But twice as many (30%) disobeyed the experimenter

Things are changing but not as much as we might like

Remember

All of these people were inexperienced in torture [!], well educated, and clinically normal

Psychopathy, sadists and torturers tend to habituate to their particular role (Baumeister, 1997)

They can come to enjoy it following repeated exposure

Conforming to the group

• Stanford prison experiment (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973)

• UG students volunteered to participate in the study 2-week study

• Randomly assigned to roles of prisoners and guards

• Guards given power over prisoners – control of resources, mete out rewards and punishment

Power and Influence

• Entire basement of Stanford University Psychology Department used to set up a ‘mock’ prison

• Prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their residences, made to wear prison issue uniforms (‘dresses’), placed in cells, limited freedom to exercise, interact

• Guards observed to resort to tyrannyand anti-social behaviours to keepprisoners in line

78

Power and Influence

• Brutality of the ‘guards’ and suffering of the prisoners resulted in the experiment being abandoned after only 6 days

• Suggestion that guards were depersonalised in the group and their ‘role’ losing their individuality

• Therefore ‘tyranny’ was ‘embedded’ in the psychology of powerful groups – group of people in ‘social roles’ create ‘group norms’ and comply with them

• Group norms = acceptable beliefs and behaviours in a group

Conformity

Asch (1952): Classic experiment examining normative influence effects.


Estimation of line lengths by individual in group comprised of experimenter’s confederates

Conformity

Results: 37% gave erroneous errors compared to 0.7% in control group. Powerful effects of conformity but dependent upon a number of factors:

– The ambiguity of the task– The group structure (one or more ‘deviants’)– Individual differences– Cultural expectations of conformity– Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis of 133 studies

using Asch’s paradigm found that conformity was significantly higher in collectivist cultures.


Pro and anti-social behaviour

The bystander effect

The case(?) of Kitty Genovaise murdered following a 30 minute attack

No one helped, no one called the police

Lataney & Darley (1979) 80% failed to respond when stooge also failed, when alone only 30% failed to respond

Research on Prosocial and Altruistic Behaviour

• Research into prosocial behaviour and altruism was stimulated by the Kitty Genovese murder

• Despite a horrific attack lasting 30 minutes not one of her neighbours assisted or called the police

• “The story became the journalistic sensation of the decade. ‘Apathy,’ cried the newspapers. ‘Indifference,’ said columnist and commentators. ‘Moral callousness,’ ‘dehumanisation,’ ‘loss of concern for our fellow man’ added preachers, professors and sermonisers. Movies, television specials, plays and books explored this incident and many like it. Americans became concerned with their lack of concern” (Latané & Darley, 1976, p. 309)

Bystander effect

Diffusion of responsibilityPeople use others as a source of information (if they don't respond, maybe everything is OK)

Often fear of putting oneself in danger (why should I be the first to stand up to the attacker?)

People (usually) more likely to help when alone

Pluralistic ignorance

An explanation for why people engage in some anti-social behaviour

Everyone does something because they assume everyone expects them to (and often incorrectly)

Similar to Asch's conformity studies

A few true believers can cause an idea to spread among non-adherents (Centola, Willer & Macy, 2005)

PI and the false consensusWiller, Kuwabara & Macy (2005)

Participants sampled wine (one spiked with vinegar)

An 'expert' pronounced the spiked wine the bestEveryone agreed except a stooge who pronounced it awful

Everyone rated everyone else in public or privateThose rating in public derogated the stooge's taste

Those rating in private praised his honesty

Increasing pro-social behaviour

Reduce anonymityPeople are concerned about their reputation

Permit punishmentSounds odd but if there is a comeback people are nicer (Fehr & Gachter, 1999)

Education about the lives and feelings of others

Need to see the consequences of action (Pinker, 2011)

Stereotypes

Stereotypes and stigma

Greek: stereos = solid, typos = impression

A cognitive shortcut enabling us to think about categories of individuals without the (important) clutter of individual variation

Think of a birdHow big is it?

What does it eat?

How does it get about?

Stereotypes and stigma

Generalisations are (usually) OK with birds, but with people they can cause problems

Each individual inherits stereotypical group properties

Sometimes based on ignorance

Often have negative connotations (c.f. Out-group bias)

Sex Stereotypes and Discrimination

• Sex stereotyping – social stereotypes of women as “nice and incompetent and men as competent but not so nice” prevail across cultures and in both genders! (Fiske, 1998)

• But research suggests that people do not actually describe themselves in terms of this sex stereotype (Martin, 1987) (e.g., women and sex-discrimination)

• People actually represent the sexes as ‘subtypes’:• Housewife • BusinessmanSexy woman • Macho manCareer womanFeminist/athlete/lesbian

Men and women generally see women as more homogenous than men (Lorenzi-Cioldi et al., 1995)

Sex Stereotypes and Discrimination• Why are there these differential stereotypes

which prevail across genders?• Sex roles: Behaviour viewed as sex-

stereotypically appropriate• Socialisation into sex roles – so do sex

stereotypes reflect actual differences in psychological factors or role assignment?

• Very few differences on psychological dimensions, but large differences in terms of perceptions of sex roles

• Therefore certain roles are ‘sex typed’ (Eagly & Steffen, 1984)

• E.g. role assignment in jobs


Women Men

Restaurant servers Lawyers

Telephone operators Dentists

Secretaries Lorry drivers

Nurses Accountants

Babysitters Business executives

Dental hygienists Engineers

Librarian

Nursery school teachers


• Glass-ceiling effect: Stereotypes prevent promotion due to competence perceptions e.g. female in upper management, males in flight attendants

• Maintaining sex stereotypes: Media largely responsible – unsubtle vs. subtle

• Face-ism: Media depiction gives greater prominence to the head and less prominence to the body for men, but vice-versa for women (Archer et al., 1983)

Sex Stereotypes and Attributions

Successful task performance

By a WOMAN attributed to luck or an easy task

By a MAN attributed to ability or high level of effort

Performance viewed as less deserving of reward or recognition

Performance viewed as more deserving of reward or recognition

Male actor

Sex Stereotypes and AttributionR

ati

ng

s o

f T

arg

et

More toability

More toluck

Source: Deaux and Emswiller (1974)

Female actor

Male task Female task

Racism

• Racism: Prejudice and discrimination against people based on ethnicity or race

• Much research focused on anti-black attitudes among whites in the United States

• Dramatic reduction in unfavourable attitudes since 1930’s

• Similar reduction toward ethnic minorities in Britain and Western Europe

Racism

‘Superstitious’

‘Lazy’

‘Ignorant’

Percentage of white respondents selecting trait

Source: Dovidio et al. (1996)

1933 1953 1967 1987 1993

‘New’ Racism• Racial stereotypes have not gone away but

changed• Theories of new racism suggest that people

experience conflict between prejudiced attitudes and modern egalitarian values

• Although explicit attitudes might appear egalitarian, implicit 'attitudes' suggest that 'racism' might still be at play

Theories of prejudice

Loads of these (see textbook) but important factors are:

Official sanctionE.g. racial segregation in US & South Africa; women not being given the vote, anti-homosexual proclamations in religious texts; inclusion on DSM II, etc, etc

Group behaviour

Groups

People affiliate with groups

Mostly these are enduring and rooted in history

Sometimes transitory and ephemeral

Group are one way we achieve more than as individuals

But they can be dysfunctional

Polarisation refers to the enhancement of the dominant group perception or opinion after discussion/negotiation (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969)

People become more polarised from initial starting position e.g. Myers and Bishop (1970) prejudice levels after a group discussion

Group Polarisation

Three Theoretical Explanations

Normative influence: People maintain their beliefs in the socially desirable direction so as not to ‘stand out’

Informational influence: (Isenberg, 1986) New information is made available and the shift is a function of the proportion of arguments in favour of one side, their clarity and novelty.

Social Identity: (Turner et al., 1989) People construct a ‘group norm’ and then conform to that norm, results in a polarised ‘in-group’ norm. Processes of self-categorisation and deindividuation occur.

Group Polarisation

Minority Influence

Moscovici (1969) demonstrated that a minority can influence the majority perceptions if the minority were consistent and perceived as viable (couldn’t be explained away in terms of dogma, eccentric, weird)

Mugny & Papastamou (1980) found that minority groups can be influential if their message is consistent yet flexible and open to reach compromises c.f. Film about jurors “12 Angry Men”

Minority vs. Majority

Majority Influence

Groupthink: Psychological drive for consensus at any cost suppressing dissents and alternatives in cohesive decision making (Janis, 1972). Five requirements:

• A cohesive group• High stakes• Insulated from external information• No searches for alternatives• Time pressure – an urgency to decide• Directive leader


Majority InfluenceGroupthink: Symptoms:

• Illusion of moral high ground• Dissent from leader discouraged – group norm• No consideration of strengths & weaknesses• Not willing to listen to other opinions• ‘Mindguards’ discourage dissent

Can lead to flawed decision making


Majority Influence

Groupthink: Techniques to avoid:• Criticism should be encouraged• Input for external non-group members• Sub-groups formed and feed-in to main group• Group leader should not be ‘invulnerable’


Groups and group conflict

The history of humanity is a history of inter-group conflict between

Countries20th Conflicts in Europe (inc. two world wars)

ReligionsNorthern Ireland – protestants vs catholics

EthnicitiesHutus versus Tutsis in Rwanda

Groups

In addition to personal affiliations and personal identities people also have a group or social identity

(or more correctly they can have many)

Social Identity Theory

• Self-concept is linked with the social groups that we identify with

• Tajfel (1979) proposed Social Identity Theory to explain how group concerns can become personal concerns and vice-versa

• Aims to explain inter-group processes as well as how people’s cognitions are affected by group membership

• People undergo an ‘identification’ process that leads them to group affiliation

Social Identity Theory• Affiliation to groups is determined by 2

processes:• Social categorisation

– Process in which people categorise social stimuli to reduce ‘cognitive load’

• Social comparison– Tendency to make comparisons between groups and

positively evaluate ‘in-group’ members

• Social Identity Theory has much to offer in explaining choices of group membership but also inter-group and intra-group behaviour (as we shall see later)

Self-Categorisation Theory• People in groups tend to categorise themselves as group members• Tend to internalise the attributes that are common to group

members and make self-evaluations• E.g. Lawyers will assume the characteristics of other lawyers e.g.

using ‘legal-speak’, wearing a suit in court, charging high fees etc.

Personal Identity Social Identity

Personal I.D. & self-descriptions - denote specificaspects of the individual

Group I.D. & self-descriptions made in terms of membershipof social categoriese.g. race, sex, nationality,profession, religion, sportsteam, hobbies etc.

Turner (1982): These representdifferent levels of SELF-CATEGORISATION

What is Intergroup Behaviour?

• Intergroup behaviour is “any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by people’s recognition that they and others are members of distinct social groups” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005, p. 392)

• Examples of intergroup behaviour:•International and intra-national conflicts•Political confrontations•Interethnic relations•Negotiations between unions and management•Competitive team sports

Collective Violence

• Race riots in Watts suburb of Los Angeles in 1965 occurred after the perceived injustice of the arrest of 3 black family members

• Tensions boiled over and riots broke out

• $35m property was damaged, 34 people were killed, and the military had to be called in to restore order

• High level of unemployment, deprivation, and highly secularised (99% of the population were African-American)

Collective Violence• Race riots in South Central Los Angeles in

1992 were seen as a direct response to the jury acquittal of 4 white policemen for the beating on Rodney King

• Set against a background of rising unemployment and deep disadvantage in black communities

• 50 dead and 2300 injured• Attacks symbolised by beating of white

truck driver Reginald Denny

Intergroup conflict in non-humans

• Ants, bees and other social insects will often experience intergroup rivalry

• Chimpanzees have conflict over resources (Wilson & Wrangham, 2003)•Especially (but not exclusively) when resources are scarce

• Competition between groups over scarce resources results in conflict and ‘ethnocentrism’

• E.g., Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments

• Example of ‘realistic’ intergroup hostility and intergroup-co-operation

• Four phases:1. Spontaneous friendship formation2. Ingroup formation3. Intergroup competition4. Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals)

Realistic Conflict

Realistic Conflict

Notable points from Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments:

• Latent enthnocentrism existed in absence of competition• Ingroups formed despite the fact that friends were

actually outgroup members• Prejudice, discrimination, and ethnocentrism arose as a

consequence of real intergroup conflict• Boys in summer camp did not have authoritarian or

dogmatic personalities• Simple contact between members of opposing groups did

not improve intergroup relations

Realistic Conflict Theory

• Sherif (1966) proposed realistic conflict theory• Individuals who share common goals that

require interdependence will tend to cooperate and form a group

• Individuals who have mutually exclusive goals (e.g., scarce resources) will be involved in inter-individual competition which prevents group formation and contributes to the collapse of an existing group

• At the intergroup level, mutually exclusive goals between groups results in realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism while shared (superordinate) goals results in cooperation

Social Identity: Minimal Groups

• Formation of groups spontaneously creates intergroup conflict and ethnocentric attitudes very quickly – even without ‘realistic conflict’

• Spontaneous emergent of conflict studied by Tajfel et al. (1971) using the ‘minimal group paradigm’

• Minimal group paradigm: Experimental methodology to investigate the effect of social categorisation alone on group behaviour

• Truly a ‘minimal group’ effect:1. Groups formed on a flimsy criterion2. No past history or possible future3. Members had no knowledge of other members4. No self-interest in the money allocation task


• Allocation of points in grid game to ingroup and outgroup in minimal group paradigm

• Four possible strategies:1. Fairness

2. Maximum joint profit

3. Maximum ingroup profit

4. Maximum difference


Therefore:1. Mere awareness of being in a group can

influence individuals’ perceptions of other group members

2. Individuals become ‘depersonalised’ – group attributes rather than personal become ‘salient’ in group situations

3. The group does not have to be well defined4. Strong effect in hundreds of minimal group

experiments which:·Allocated people to groups completely randomly ·Removed the money-points

Prejudice• Prejudice involves a negative attitude toward

specific people based on their membership in an identified group

• Three components of prejudice:– Stereotypes are thoughts and beliefs about people

based on their group membership– Strong emotional feelings about the object of

prejudice– Predispositions to act in certain negative ways toward

the group (discrimination)

1. Eliminating prejudice may require– Cognitive retraining– Increased group contact

Sources of Prejudice• Learning: Prejudice is acquired through

classical and operant conditioning and through modeling

• Cognitive processes: People use mental shortcuts to categorise others• Ingroup versus outgroup categorisation

• Economic/Political competition: Prejudice arises when financial resources are limited

• Displaced aggression: Persons may displace their frustration onto non-threatening groups, a practice known as “scapegoating”

• Black-sheep effect: When an ingroup member holding attitudes dissonant to other group members is derogated (scapegoating)

• Realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) suggests that the existence of superordinate goals and cooperation reduces intergroup hostility, also avoidance of mutually exclusive goals

• Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that hostility will be reduced if intergroup stereotypes become less derogatory and polarised and legitimised non-violent forms of intergroup competition exist

• Jaw jaw rather than war war, sanctions etc.• Education?

Reducing group conflict

• Solutions sought to break down out-group prejudice are...

(1) Promoting interpersonal contact to break-down attitudes derived from social comparison(2) Creating super-ordinate goals to promote intergroup cooperation on a task with mutual benefit…

….= Minimising importance of group boundaries and perceptions of group differences

Promoting inter-group co-operation

The process of civilisation

No one would deny prejudice and conflict are still with us

But things may be getting better

Although humans still have a dark side education and the rule of law means that it may be less prominent (see Pinker, 2011)

Summary

It is in our genes to be social

But we are not a superorganism

Humans are conditional cooperators

We are wired to influence other and to form affiliations

We affiliate with groups

Which can lead to conflict

Documents

Social Psychology Dr. Will Reader [email protected]