Social Psychology

Social Psychology

Social Psychology: the study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another

Three main focuses: Social Influence Social Thinking Social Relations

Social Influence

Outline Social Norms Conformity Obedience

Social Influence

What would happen if: You cut into the middle of a

checkout line at the store? You sang loudly on a public

bus? You positioned yourself 6

inches from an acquaintance’s nose during a conversation?

You laughed during a funeral?

How would you feel? How would others behave?

Social Influence

Social norms: Rules that tell us how we should behave in specific situations

Most people obey them most of the time

Those who don’t conform are often subject to social sanctions

Social Influence: Social Norms

Descriptive norms: What we think people do

i.e., people litter

Injunctive norms: What people ought to do

i.e., “people should not litter”

Situational norms: What people do in specific

situations i.e., you lower your voice in the

library

Conformity Conformity: Adjusting one’s behavior or

thinking to coincide with a group standard Follow behavior of others (sheep)

ConformityChameleon Effect (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999)

Unconscious mimicking of others’ behaviors

Conformity

Why do we conform?

Normative Social Influence: Influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid rejection

Informational Social Influence: Influence resulting from a person’s desire for info

Normative Social Influence

Why do we conform? Because we want to be liked To avoid embarrassment or ridicule

When do we conform? Cohesive groups Large group size

Hell’s Angels

Informational Social Influence

Why do we conform? Because we want to be right Because others may know more about the

situation

When do we conform? Situation is ambiguous Situation is a crisis Other people are experts

Conformity

The Sherif study (1936) Autokinetic effect: A stationary point of light appears

to move in a dark room without any external frame of reference

Participants first asked to estimate how far the light moved alone

Would judgments become more similar when making estimates as a group?

Conformity

The Sherif study (1936) Enter the same dark room with 2 others

Tell how far the light is moving

The others give very different answers from yours but are consistent with each other

Over time, groups formed a new estimate of how far the light moved despite the fact that the light never actually moved at all

Conformity: Asch Study

The Asch study (1951,1955) Which comparison line matches the standard line?

Conformity

The Asch study (1951,1955) Method:

Perceptual test of line lengths 1 participant and 6 confederates Confederates start out saying the correct line,

then begin saying the wrong line Participants gave their answers after a

unanimous group gave the wrong answer

Conformity: Asch Study

Results: 76% of participants conformed at least once Overall, participants agreed with the errors

37% of the time

Conformity

When won’t we conform? Maintenance of individuality Maintenance of life control Having an “ally”

Social Influence: Summary so far…

Social norms

Conformity Chameleon Effect Social influence

Normative Informational

Asch Study

COMPLIANCE

21

COMPLIANCEAgreeing to a request from another

person or groupWhy do we comply?

Foot-in-the-door technique Ask for compliance to small request 1st,

then larger request Door-in-the-face technique

Ask for compliance to larger request; denial; then smaller request

22

Obedience

Obedience

Obedience: Expression of compliance toward an authority

Conformity Obedience

Obedience

Stanley Milgram

Interested in unquestioning obedience to orders

Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

Basic study procedure Participants = “Teacher” Confederates = “Learner”

“Learner” being strapped into chair

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

“Teacher” instructed to give increasingly stronger shocks for each “learner” mistake

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

Predictions Experts thought only 1-3% would keep going Experts also thought that they themselves would

never obey

Results

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

Obedience (Milgram, 1963)

Predictions Experts thought only 1-3% would keep going Experts also thought that they themselves would

never obey

Results 100% obeyed up to 100 volts 65% obeyed to the end (450 volts) Women and men obeyed similarly More or less the same across cultures

Milgrim Video

ObedienceWhat factors affect tendency to obey?

Lack of responsibility Social norms: obey the person in charge Foot in the door technique: gradual

escalation of requests Time pressure

Obedience

Hospital Medication Study (Hofling et al, 1966)

Method Nurses received calls from MD Asked to give patients doses of 2x maximum

Findings 95% of nurses went to administer a fatal dose of

the drug

Obedience

Hospital Medication Study 2 (Rank & Jacobson, 1977)

Method Repeated earlier study Used more common drug (Valium) Nurses were able to consult with others about dosage

Findings 12% of nurses went to administer a fatal dose

Conclusion: People more likely to resist authority with knowledge

and social support

Obedience

How can we resist obeying? Reminders of responsibility Disobedient models Question expertise of authority Knowledge

Social Influence: Summary

Social Norms Conformity Obedience

Milgram’s Study Factors affecting obedience

Social InfluenceGroup Influence

Group Influence

Social Loafing: Tendency to exert less effort when working toward a common goal

Diffusion of responsibility: Less personal responsibility for task when responsibility is spread across group members

Explanation for bystander effect

DEINDIVIDUATION Deindividuation: Loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity

39

Mob behavior

GROUP POLARIZATION & GROUPTHINK Group Polarization

Strengthening of group’s opinion on a topic following discussion of the topic

Groupthink Impairment in

decision-making Group harmony

emphasized Illusion of infallibility

40

Social Facilitation

Presence of others exaggerates dominant tendency If you are good, you get better

On simple, well learned tasks If you are bad, you get worse

On complex poorly learned tasks

Social Enhancement Tendency to perform better when others are present

Social Interference Tendency to perform worse when others are present

Social Facilitation

Social enhancement Dominant tendency - to do well

Presence Exaggeration of Of others Dominant Tendency

Social interference Dominant tendency - to do poorly

Social Influence: Summary

Social Norms Conformity Obedience Group Influence

Social Loafing Deindividuation Social Facilitation

Social enhancement Social interference

Social Thinking

Outline

Cognitive Heuristics & Biases Self-Serving Biases

Attitudes

Cognitive Heuristics & Biases

What is a heuristic? Rule of thumb for

making decisions

Why do we need heuristics? Allows quick decisions Efficiency of thinking

Cognitive Heuristics & Biases

Self-Serving Bias: The tendency to view oneself favorably

Examples: False Consensus False Uniqueness Fundamental Attribution Error

False Consensus

The “everyone-does-it” effectTendency to overestimate the

commonality of one’s opinions and undesirable or unsuccessful behaviors

We justify our actions through the behavior and opinions of the group

False Consensus

“Everybody says I’m plastic from head to toe. Can’t stand next to a radiator or I’ll melt. I had implants, but so has every single person in L.A.”

- Pamela Anderson

False Consensus Applied Racism/Sexism/Ageism/Heterosexism

If you have ist/ism attitudes you tend to think they are common

Risky Behavior Drunk driving

Aggression Road Rage

Compared to all other drivers in the state, I am ___________ average.

A) Better than B) The same as C) Worse than

Compared to people in this classroom, I am...

A) Smarter than most B) As smart as most C) Less smart than most

False Uniqueness

The “I-Am-Special” effect

The tendency to underestimate the commonality of one’s abilities and one’s desirable/successful behaviors

False Uniqueness Applied

Charitable contributions Just giving makes you special so

you don’t need to give much

Intelligence & Group work The group should follow my advice

because I am smarter I should get the promotion not

others

Attraction Everyone wants me because I am

so ridiculously good looking

Fundamental Attribution ErrorThe tendency to overestimate the influence

of personality and underestimate the influence of the situation on others’ behavior

Translation We blame the person (not the situation) when it happens to someone else We blame the situation (not the person) when it

happens to us

Fundamental Attribution Error Castro Study (Jones & Harris, 1967)

Method: Debaters randomly assigned to argue for or against

Fidel Castro Participants told that debaters were assigned their

role Participants rated debaters “actual beliefs”

Findings: > 40% said debater believed what she/he was saying

Fundamental Attribution Error

Also, the tendency to overestimate the influence of personality when we succeed

And overestimate the influence of situation when we fail

Fundamental Attribution Error

Attraction Study (Ditto et al., 1997) Method:

Female RAs talked to hetero male participants RAs were assigned to give positive or negative

feedback to participants Findings:

Negative comments viewed as due to the assignment (situation)

Positive comments viewed as due to attraction (person)

Summary so far…

Cognitive heuristics & biases Self-serving biases

False consensus False uniqueness Fundamental attribution error

Attitudes

Attitudes

Attitudes: Feelings (often based on our beliefs) that predispose us to respond in a particular way to objects, people, and events

Attitudes affect our actions

AttitudesActions also affect our attitudes

Cognitive Dissonance Theory People feel discomfort when their actions

conflict with their feelings and beliefs They reduce discomfort by aligning their

attitudes with their actions Self-Perception Theory

Infer attitude from behavior

Attitudes – Role Playing

Actions such as roles and role-playing also affect our attitudes

Our attitudes will start to align with our role Ex. Caregiver

Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971) Participants divided into “prisoners” or

“guards” See what happens…

Stanford Prison Study (Zimbardo, 1971)

What was unethical about this study?

What did we learn? Importance of roles in attitudes and behavior Conformance to roles

Applications for prisoner’s of war?

Abu Ghraib Gitmo Abu

Ghraib

Social Thinking: Summary

Cognitive heuristics & biases

Attitudes Cognitive dissonance theory Foot-in-the-door phenomenon Role-playing

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Social RelationsAttraction

Attraction: Outline

Introduction to attraction Factors influencing attraction

Introduction to Attraction

What are the most important characteristics in a long-term mate?

Four most important characteristics in a partner cross-culturally (Buss et al., 1990)

Mutual attraction and love Dependable character Emotional stability Pleasing disposition

Introduction to Attraction

Why do we select certain mates? Why do we select certain friends?

Three factors influence liking others1. Proximity (geographical)2. Physical attractiveness3. Similarity

Proximity

The Power of Proximity Physical closeness between two individuals

Mere Exposure Effect Repeated exposure results in increasingly positive evaluation Ex. Zajonc (1968)

How does proximity work? Familiar = positive

Proximity

How does proximity work? Increases familiarity which increases positive affect Ex: Attending class

Proximity

Upon getting home on Friday, you see your annoying neighbor coming and you decide to take the stairs

Later you are at a nearby party, will you talk to:

A) People you don’t know? B) No one (wait for friends to get there)? C) The annoying neighbor?

Proximity

Upon getting home on Friday, you see your annoying neighbor coming and you decide to take the stairs

Later you are at a nearby party, will you talk to:

A) People you don’t know? B) No one (wait for friends to get there)? C) The annoying neighbor?

Physical Attractiveness“What is beautiful is good”

Positive stereotypes related to attractiveness across cultures

Influences perceptions Ex: Healthier, happier, more sensitive, more successful

Influences social opportunities Popularity, good interpersonal skills, high self-

esteem

Physical AttractivenessDo other physical characteristics influence attraction?

Physique Men’s height

Leadership and masculinity Physical shape

Muscular & thinner seen as higher IQ

Overt behavior

Does facial appearance affect one’s likelihood of winning an election?

Election Study (Todorov et al.)

Method 800 participants looked at black-and-

white photos of candidates Participants viewed faces for <1 sec Judged personality characteristics, age,

IQ, attractiveness

Results Participants correctly identified the

winner in about 70% of the races Competency associated with facial

maturity (less “baby-faced”)

Physical Attractiveness

Which of the following proverbs is true?

A. “Birds of a feather flock together” B. “Opposites attract”C. Both are probably true

Which of the following proverbs is true?

A. “Birds of a feather flock together” B. “Opposites attract”C. Both are probably true

Similarity

“Birds of a feather, flock together” Across gender, age, culture, education

Similar = positive (dissimilar = negative)

Similar people seen as intelligent, moral, and better adjusted

Similarity

How does similarity work?

Reward Theory Like behavior that is rewarding to us Principles of reinforcement

We like positive evaluations (even if inaccurate or insincere) e.g., eye contact, moving closer

Attraction: Summary

Introduction to attraction Factors influencing attraction

Proximity Physical attractiveness Similarity