SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYCHAPTER 16

The scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one

another.

SOCIAL THINKING Attribution Theory

tendency to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory explains how we form opinions of others.

CONSEQUENCES

“things that follow”

ATTRIBUTION

“to give to”

ANTECEDENTS

“things that come before”

Information beliefs, and motivations

we already have

Explanations of why people act

as they do

Our thoughts, our emotional

responses, and expectations

SOCIAL THINKING

Attitudebelief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events

Attribution – an explanation of why*Our attitude about why someone/I acts the way

they/I do. External Factors

(situational) Internal Factors

(dispositional)

SOCIAL THINKINGFundamental Attribution ERROR Attribute OTHER’s

behaviors to internal, dispositional, personality factors

Attribute OUR own behaviors to situational factors.

SOCIAL THINKING How we explain someone’s behavior affects how

we react to it

Negative behavior

Situational attribution“Maybe that driver is ill.”

Dispositional attribution“Crazy driver!”

Tolerant reaction(proceed cautiously, allowdriver a wide berth)

Unfavorable reaction(speed up and race past theother driver, give a dirty look)

SOCIAL THINKING Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes

as well as by external social influences

Internalattitudes

Externalinfluences

Behavior

SOCIAL THINKING

Attitudes follow behavior

Cooperative actions feed mutual liking

Destructive actions feed mutual dislike

SOCIAL THINKING Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon

tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request

Lowballing Technique use foot in the door to gain compliance,

then “pull the rug out” by lowering expectation

THE RECIPROCITY NORM & COMPLIANCE

We feel obliged to return favors, even those we

did not want in the first placeopposite of foot-in-the-doorsalesperson gives something to customer with

idea that they will feel compelled to give something back (buying the product)even if person did not wish for favor in the first

place

DEFENSE AGAINST PERSUASION TECHNIQUES Sleep on it—don’t act on something

right away Play devil’s advocate—think of all the

reasons you shouldn’t buy the product or comply with the request

Pay attention to your gut feelings—if you feel pressured, you probably are

Be aware of marketing techniques and your own personality:Central Route to PersuasionPeripheral Route to Persuasion

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY Why do actions

guide attitude? Festinger We are aware of

personal attitude We do something that

does not match that attitude (action)

Dissonance (mental discomfort and tension) arises

We change attitude to match action.

Phew! All is well.

SOCIAL THINKING Cognitive

dissonance

GROUP PRESENTATIONS Lucy is feeling very

anxious. She wants to buy a new computer. The sales people frighten her. She’s never really had a lot of confidence in herself when it comes to business. She also hates shopping because she doesn’t like to be taken advantage of. She doesn’t know a lot about computers other than how to use them.

Use your assigned concept and prepare a 2-3 minute skit about Lucy, her computer buying experience, her actions, her attitude, and her emotions.

You may expand the story in any way necessary to fit your concept.

The definition of your concept AND how it applies to Lucy should be evident in your skit. Cognitive Dissonance Fundamental Attribution Error Foot-in-the-Door Low-ball Technique Central Route to Persuasion Peripheral Route to Persuasion Reciprocity Norm

LUCY Cognitive Dissonance – Walks in (action), feels anxious/hates

shopping (attitude), decides like shopping to cut down on tension. Fundamental Attribution Error – Thinks sales people are mean,

spiteful (dispositional). Thinks she gets taken advantage of because of some environmental factor (situational).

Foot-in-the-Door – Agrees to go with friend, agrees to fill out questionnaire, agrees to sit at keyboard and type, look at financing options, decides to buy.

Central Route to Persuasion – Focus on true argument in making decision to buy computer. Rational focus. (affordability, durability, necessity)

Peripheral Route to Persuasion – Focus on peripheral cues in making decision to buy computer(color, apps, “extras”, etc.)

Low-ball Technique – Get foot in the door, then switch out at last minute. Salesperson takes advantage of Lucy – adds on costs.

Reciprocity Norm – The sales person opens the door for Lucy, gives her a beverage, so she feels obliged to buy something from him. She may not want the computer he offers, but she wants to reciprocate his kindness.

ROLES (ACTION) AND ATTITUDE (THOUGHTS) Role: Set of expectations about social

position, defining how those in the position ought to behave.

What social roles have you played?

Teacher? Student?

Do our attitudes affect the roles(actions) we take or do our roles(actions) affect the attitudes we have?

Hey…..this could be the chief!

ROLE PLAYINGAnother powerful demonstration of the power of social forces on our

behavior.

Philip Zimbardo (1971)The Stanford Prison Experiment

Imagine answering a newspaper ad and volunteering for an experiment on the psychological effects of prison life.

You’ve been given a battery of psychological tests to see if you are a good candidate for this experiment.

You are one of 24 participants chosen. A coin flip decides if you will play a “guard” or “prisoner” for the next two weeks in the simulated prison (located in the basement of the Stanford Psychology Department building).

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT If you are a “prisoner,” you are arrested

by surprise, taken to “prison,” booked, fingerprinted, held blindfolded, strip-searched, given a prison uniform, and placed in a cell.

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT If you are a “guard” you are issued a

uniform and are expected to work 3, 8-hour shifts.

No specific training is given to you, but you are told that you are expected to maintain order.

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT…WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? The first day went without incident.

Neither guards or prisoners really knew what their “role” was yet.

On the morning of the second day, the prisoners decided to assert their independence (took off their stocking caps, removed their numbers, & barricaded themselves in their cells).

How would the guards respond?

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT Reinforcements were called in and they

decided to treat the rebellion with force. They broke into each cell, stripped the

prisoner’s naked, put the ring-leaders into solitary confinement, and began a policy of intimidation.

STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT: THE EXPERIMENT UNRAVELS Less than 36 hours into the experiment,

Prisoner #8612 experienced a psychological breakdown.

Intimidation by guards increase, stress reactions by prisoners increases (5 participants had to be released in 5 days).

Experiment ends after 6 days.

WHAT WAS LEARNED?

Interview with Dr. Zimbardo on Democracy Nowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ

Ties to the “real world.” Abu Ghraib prison