Presentation on theme: "Social Psychology. Finishing Prejudice Video on school cliques Colored Doll Experiment d1g&feature=related"— Presentation transcript:
Finishing Prejudice Video on school cliques Colored Doll Experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG7U1QsU d1g&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQACkg5i4 AY&feature=fvsr http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul1xsDwNe uo
Categorizing Race On the following slide, there are 20 photos of people. On a separate sheet of paper, categorize them into the 5 racial categories currently recognized by the U.S.: American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White. There may only be 4 in each category. Identify people using the letter/number grid system.
A B C D E 12341234
On the following slide are the “answers,” as they are self-reported by the people in the picture.
What criteria did you use to categorize? What was the hardest part about this activity?
Attraction What factors increase the chance that people will like one another?
if they are similar to us (similarity) we have frequent contact with them (proximity) those that return our positive feelings (reciprocal liking) those we share intimate and personal information with (self-disclosure)
Effects of Personal Appearance The attractiveness bias physically attractive people are rated higher on intelligence, competence, sociability, morality studies teachers rate attractive children as smarter, and higher achieving adults attribute cause of unattractive child’s misbehavior to personality, attractive child’s to situation judges give longer prison sentences to unattractive people
Effects of Personal Appearance The baby-face bias people with rounder heads, large eyes, small jawbones, etc. rated as more naïve, honest, helpless, kind, and warm than mature-faced generalize to animals, women, babies
Dear Abby Complete the worksheet on Dear Abby using the principles we just talked about.
My research TOS TRIOS Stereotype Threat Condom Study Face Shape
Your Turn Take the Temporal Orientation Scale
Correlations Past Oriented People: High correlation with depression Negative correlation with joviality, self- assurance, well-being, self-esteem, High correlation with REGRETS
Present Oriented People High correlation with “Mastery of the Environment” High correlation with self-esteem, well-being, acceptance, and SOMETIMES with regrets Very low correlation with depression
Future Oriented People High correlation with self-assurance, and LAST WEEK regrets. NO Correlation with autonomy, self-esteem, and mastery of the environment HOWEVER, high correlation with GPA and standardized tests.
Cultural Orientation The United States has a much higher preoccupation with future orientation. Many other cultures are present oriented. Their sense of “time” can be very different. “Island time”
Regret Research has found that when looking back on their lives, people regret INACTION more than ACTION. When looking back in the past week, people regret ACTION rather than INACTION.
How do we get people to do things for us?
Compliance Strategies are methods of getting others to comply with one’s wishes.
Foot-In-The-Door Phenomenon. It suggests that if you can get people to agree to a small request first, they are more likely to agree to a follow-up request that is larger.
" Can I go over to Suzy's house for an hour?" followed by "Can I stay the night?" "Can I borrow the car to go to the store?" followed by "Can I borrow the car for the weekend?" "Would you sign this petition for our cause?" followed by "Would you donate to our cause?" "May I turn in the paper a few hours late?" followed by "May I turn it in next week?"
Door-In-The-Face Phenomenon Strategy marked by first making an extremely large request that the respondent will obviously turn down. The respondent is then more likely to agree to a second, more reasonable request.
Will you donate $1000 to our organization? Oh. Well could you donate $10?'' Can you help me do all this work? Well can you help me with this bit?''
Another common strategy is known as the Norms of Reciprocity. People tend to think that when someone does something nice for them, they ought to do something nice in return.
IE. You feel compelled to send money to the charity organization that sent you the free address labels in the mail, or to vote for the candidate that handed out the delicious chocolate chip cookies.
Come up with an advertisement… Come up with a product you want to sell Use ALL THREE techniques (separate your paper into 3) Star the one you believe will work best Groups of 2-3
How do we explain the behaviors that we observe?
You’re in a college library, observing two workers attempting to move a rather large filing cabinet. In unison, the two workers lift up the cabinet. All four doors fly open and the files spill out. What’s your first thought?
Attribution Theory tries to explain how people determine the cause of what they observe.
Dispositional Attribution We when observe other people’s behaviors, we believe that their success or failure is due to their long history of personal success or failure. The individual is given the credit or blame for the outcome.
The files fell out because the workers are dimwits. The files fell out because the workers weren’t strong enough. The files fell out because the workers were unable to balance the cabinet. The workers were inexperienced in this type of work.
Situational Attribution If you believe that a person’s success or failure is due to a consistently easy or difficult surrounding situation or environment. Something outside of the individual’s control has led to their success or failure.
The files fell out because the locks on the cabinets broke. The files fell out because a student bumped into one of the workers and caused it to tip. The bright light from an overhead bulb blinded a worker and disoriented him. The floor must have been recently waxed and was slippery.
Come up with a situation of your own, and explain how someone might think it is: Situational Attribution Dispositional Attribution
What might bias our observations of behaviors?
You go to a party and start up a conversation with someone you haven’t met before. They don’t talk much, gaze around the room rather than look directly at you, and excuse themselves abruptly. You first thought about them is….
Most of you probably said, “What a jerk”, right? Did you consider that maybe they were just really shy, or that they just broke up with their significant other, or that maybe they were distracted by a minor car accident they had on the way to the party?
When looking at the behaviors of others, people tend to overestimate the importance of personal factors, and underestimate the role of the environment. This is called the fundamental attribution error.
The tendency for people to overestimate the number of people who agree with them is called the false consensus effect.
IE. If Brianna hates Psychology, she assumes that most people also find it boring, tedious, and utterly useless as well. If Savanna likes pizza, she assumes that because it’s so good that everyone must like it too. She’s shocked to find people who don’t like it as much as she does.
Self-serving bias is the tendency to take more credit for good outcomes than for bad ones, and vise-versa.
IE. A star athlete will acknowledge that his fourth quarter touchdown won the game. The same athlete will point out that a tough loss was a team loss, and that everyone must step up their game the next time. He won’t admit that his dropped pass in the endzone lost the game.
When attributing successes or failures, people tend to believe that bad things will happen to bad people, and that good things will happen to good people. This is called the just-world belief.
One problem with the just-world belief is that we often tend to blame the victims of crimes for their plight. The guy shouldn’t have been walking down that dark alley when he was robbed…the girl shouldn’t have been wearing that revealing outfit when she was attacked.
HELP! Why might someone help someone else? What causes compassion? When is the last time you helped someone else?
The larger the number of people who witness a problem, the less likely any one is going to intervene. This is called the bystander effect. The larger the group of people, the less responsibility any one individual feels to help. People tend to assume that someone else will take action so they don’t have to.
Bystanders Why are bystanders so important? What is conformity? Why do we conform?
Bullying Campaign Kitty and the Bystander Effect
Researchers have found that simple task performance improves in the presence of others. This is called social facilitation, though if the task is difficult or not well-rehearsed, performance is actually hurt by the presence of others. This is called social impairment.
Social loafing is the phenomenon when individuals do not put in as much effort when acting as part of a group as they do when they are acting alone.
Group polarization is the tendency of a group to make more extreme decisions than the group members would make individually.
The loss of an individual’s self- restraint occurs when they feel anonymous. This is called deindividualization. You’re prone to do more extreme things if you’re an anonymous part of the crowd.
Groupthink occurs when group members suppress their reservations about ideas supported by the group. As a result, there is a false sense of unity, and the flaws of the group’s decision are overlooked.
Conformity Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so; the pressure can be real or imagined 2 general reasons for conformity Informational social influence—other people can provide useful and crucial information Normative social influence—desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence
Asch’s Experiments on Conformity Previous research had shown people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the evidence is ambiguous
Asch’s Experiments on Conformity All but 1 in group was confederate Seating was rigged Asked to rate which line matched a “standard” line Confederates were instructed to pick the wrong line 12/18 times Comparison lines Standard lines 1 2 3
Asch’s Experiments on Conformity Results Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least one wrong choice subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the critical trials Why did they conform to clearly wrong choices? informational influence? subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual abilities which led to their conformance – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had
Asch’s Conformity Test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4Mkcf JA&feature=related
Obedience compliance of person is due to perceived authority of asker request is perceived as a command Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders
Stanley Milgram’s Studies Basic study procedure teacher and learner (learner always confederate) watch learner being strapped into chair learner expresses concern over his “heart condition ”
Stanley Milgram’s Studies Teacher goes to another room with experimenter Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX” Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes
Stanley Milgram’s Studies Learner protests more and more as shock increases Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks 120 150 300 330 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.” “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.” (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out.” (intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…”
Obedience How many people would go to the highest shock level? 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested
Obedience XXX (435-450) Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong (135-180) Very strong (195-240) Intense (255-300) Extreme intensity (315-360) Danger severe (375-420) Shock levels in volts The majority of subjects continued to obey to the end
Explanations for Milgram’s Results Abnormal group of subjects? numerous replications with variety of groups shows no support People in general are sadistic? videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show extreme distress
Explanations for Milgram’s Results Authority of Yale and value of science Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility Proximity of learner and experimenter New situation and no model of how to behave
Milgram’s Study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gPYCRfH g3Q
Torture Dehumanization: Making it seem as though you are shooting at/hurting someTHING rather than someONE. Abu Ghraib- What is it? Grab a book, open up to page 462, we will read about it together.
Hindsight Bias …is 20/20 Do you think opposites attract, or we like those who are similar to us?
Studies have shown that opposites do, in fact, attract. What evidence can you give me to support that conclusion?
Oops, my bad. I meant… Birds of a feather stick together. That’s the real answer… but it was very easy for many of you to believe the other was true after I gave you the conclusion.
An attitude is a set of beliefs and feelings One reason that attitudes are difficult to change is due to the Cognitive Dissonance Theory. The theory is based on the idea that people are motivated to have consistent attitudes and behaviors, and when they do not, they experience unpleasant mental tension (dissonance).
Cognitive Dissonance Unpleasant state of psychological tension or arousal that occurs when two thoughts or perceptions are inconsistent Attitudes and behaviors are in conflict it is uncomfortable for us we seek ways to decrease discomfort caused by the inconsistency
Cognitive Dissonance Study http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive- dissonance.htmlhttp://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive- dissonance.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=korGK0yGI Do
Create Your Own Experiment Must deal with 1 thing we have covered in this chapter Hypothesis, Method, Expected Results, Conclusion Will be worth product points