Chapter 16: Social Behavior

Chapter 16: Social Behavior

Attribution processes Interpersonal attraction Attitudes
Social Psychology: the study of how individuals thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others Person perception Attribution processes Interpersonal attraction Attitudes Conformity and obedience Behavior in groups Social psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the way individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others. The text focuses on the above six broad topics in social psychology.

Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others
Effects of physical appearance: good-looking individuals are seen as more competent, secure better jobs, and earn higher salaries physical variables in person perception indicate that facial features that are similar to infant features influence perceptions of honesty (baby-faced people being viewed as more honest). Social schemas: structures that guide information processing (working-class, snob, dumb jocks, wimps) Stereotypes: beliefs that people have certain characteristics because of their membership in certain groups (sex, age, ethnic/occupational groups) Perceptions of others can be influenced by a variety of factors, including physical appearance. People tend to attribute desirable characteristics such as sociable, friendly, poised, warm, competent, and well adjusted to those who are good looking. Research on physical variables in person perception indicate that facial features that are similar to infant features influence perceptions of honesty (baby-faced people being viewed as more honest). People use social schemas, organized clusters of ideas about categories of social events and people, to categorize people into types. Stereotyping is a normal cognitive process involving widely held social schemas that lead people to expect that others will have certain characteristics because of their membership in a specific group. Gender, age, ethnic, and occupational stereotypes are common.

Figure 16.1 Examples of social schemas

Prejudice and discrimination: Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a person because of group membership, while discrimination is an action create Memory biases that can lead to confirmation of previously held beliefs Transmission of prejudice across generations occurs in part due to observational learning and may be strengthened through operant conditioning Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a person because of group membership, while discrimination is an action. Memory biases are tilted in favor of confirming people’s prejudices. Transmission of prejudice across generations occurs in part due to observational learning and may be strengthened through operant conditioning. Person perception is a subjective process. Stereotypes may lead people to see what they expect to see and to overestimate how often they see it (illusory correlation). Evolutionary psychologists argue that many biases in person perception were adaptive in our ancestral past, for example, automatically categorizing others may reflect the primitive need to quickly separate friend from foe. Further evidence for the subjectivity of social perception is shown in the spotlight effect, or the tendency to assume that the social spotlight shines more brightly on them than it actually does. Research on the illusion of asymmetric insight, or the tendency to think that one’s knowledge of one’s peers is greater than peer knowledge of oneself, also supports the subjectivity of person perception.

Subjectivity in person perception: people tend to see what they expect to see and overestimate how often they see it… this is called the Illusory Correlation Spotlight effect: people tend to assume that the social spotlight shines more brightly on them Illusion of asymmetric insight, or the tendency to think that one’s knowledge of one’s peers is greater than peer knowledge of oneself, also supports the subjectivity of person perception.

Evolutionary psychologists argue that many biases in person perception were adaptive in our ancestral past, for example, automatically categorizing others may reflect the primitive need to quickly separate friend from foe (Ingroup vs Outgroup) Evolutionary perspectives: argue that person perception swayed by attractiveness b/c it has been associated with positive reproductive traits throughout history

Attribution Processes: Explaining Behavior
Attributions: inferences that people draw about the causes of events, others behavior, and their own behavior (b/c people have a strong need to understand their experiences) Internal Att.: ascribe the causes of behavior to personal dispositions, traits, abilities, and feelings External Att: ascribe behavior to situational demands and environmental constraints Why did Mr. X lose his job? Wrecked car… Attributions are inferences that people draw about the causes of events, others’ behavior, and their own behavior…Why did your friend turn down your invitation? Why did you make an A on the test? Internal attributions ascribe the causes of behavior to personal dispositions, traits, abilities, and feelings. External attributions ascribe the causes of behavior to situational demands and environmental constraints. Harold H. Kelley (1967, 1973) has devised a theory that identifies some to the important factors that people consider in making an internal or external attribution, the covariation model.

Harold H. Kelley (1967, 1973) has devised a theory that identifies some to the important factors that people consider in making an internal or external attribution, the covariation model People tend to be biased in the way they make attributions, research indicates Attributions ultimately represent guesswork about the causes of events, and these guesses tend to be slanted

Biases in attributions Fundamental attribution error: an observer favors internal attributions in explaining other’s behavior In general, we are likely to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and others’ behavior to dispositional causes (actor-observer bias) Defensive attribution: blaming victims for their misfortune, so one feels less likely to be victimized in a similar way (hindsight bias) Self-serving bias: the tendency to attribute one’s success to personal factors and ones failures to situational factors People tend to be biased in the way they make attributions, research indicates. The fundamental attribution error is an observers’ bias in favor of internal attributions in explaining others’ behavior. In general, we are likely to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and others’ behavior to dispositional causes. Another common bias in attribution is the defensive attribution - the tendency to blame victims for their misfortune, so that one feels less likely to be victimized in a similar way. The self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute one’s success to personal factors and one’s failure to situational factors. . The fundamental attribution error is an observers’ bias in favor of internal attributions in explaining others’ behavior. In general, we are likely to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and others’ behavior to dispositional causes.

Research indicates that there are cultural influences on attributional tendencies, with individualistic emphasis in Western cultures promoting the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias. Weiner’s Model of Attributions for Success and Failure Assumes people’s explanations for success and failure focus on internal-external causes AND stable-unstable causes

Figure 16.23 Bias in the attributions used to explain success and failure by men and women

Figure 16.4 An alternative view of the fundamental attribution error

A political question? Conservatives tend to attribute social blight (poverty, homelessness, and criminal behavior) to internal characteristics Liberals are more likely to attribute the same social problems to institutional failures and unjust social practices

Cultural influences: Individualism: putting personal goals ahead of group goals, defining success in terms of personal attributes instead of group affiliation Collectivism: putting group goals ahead of personal goals and defining identity in terms of groups one belongs to (clan, tribe, social class, caste) Chart page 641

Cultural and Attibutional tendencies
Child rearing parents in collectivist cultures emphasize obedience, reliability, and proper behavior Parents in individualistic cultures emphasize the development of independence, self-esteem, and self reliance Instead, Japanese subjects exhibit a self-effacing bias as they tend to downplay their own ability and attribute success to external factors; in fact they are more self-critical Research indicates that there are cultural influences on attributional tendencies, with individualistic emphasis in Western cultures promoting the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias.

Figure 16.22 Relationship between prejudice and discrimination

Close Relationships: Liking and Loving
Key factors in attraction Physical attractiveness: the key determinant of romantic relationships, particularly in the initial stages of dating Matching hypothesis: proposes that males and females of approximately equal physical attractiveness are likely to select each other as partners Similarity: “birds of a feather flock together” Couples tend to be similar in age, race, religion, social class, personality, education, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes Interpersonal attraction refers to positive feelings toward another (liking, friendship, admiration, lust, love). Physical appearance influences are significant in attraction and love, particularly in the initial stages of dating. Being physically attractive appears to be more important for females than males. The matching hypothesis proposes that males and females of approximately equal physical attractiveness are likely to select each other as partners. .

Byrne’s research suggests that similarity causes attraction, particularly attitude similarity Davis and Rusbult (2001) have shown that attraction can also foster similarity, with dating partners experiencing attitude alignment . Couples tend to be similar in age, race, religion, social class, personality, education, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. Personality similarity has been shown to be associated with marital happiness

Key factors in attraction (cont.) Reciprocity: people tend to like those that like them, and we see others as liking us more the more we like them When a partner helps one feel good about oneself, a phenomenon called self-enhancement occurs Studies suggest that people seek feedback that matches and supports their self-concepts, as well, a process known as self-verification Reciprocity involves liking those who show that they like you. When a partner helps one feel good about oneself, a phenomenon called self-enhancement occurs. Studies suggest that people seek feedback that matches and supports their self-concepts, as well, a process known as self-verification. In romantic relationships, reciprocity often extends to idealizing one’s partner…people view their partners more favorably than the partners view themselves. Research on the degree to which a partner matches a person’s romantic ideal indicates that evaluations according to ideal standards influence how relationships progress.

Romantic Ideals: the more people match the ideals we set for them, the more satisfied we tend to be with the relationship People tend to focus on their partners virtues and minimize their partners faults

Perspectives on love Hatfield & Berscheid – Passionate love: complete absorption in another that includes tender sexual feelings and the agony/ecstasy of intense emotion vs. Companionate love: warm, trusting, tolerant affection for another whose life is deeply intertwined with one’s own These may coexist, but not necessarily Berscheid and Hatfield have distinguished between passionate and companionate love, with passionate love being a complete absorption in another that includes tender sexual feelings and the agony and ecstasy of intense emotion. Companionate love is warm, trusting, tolerant affection for another whose life is deeply intertwined with one’s own. These may coexist, but not necessarily. Cultures vary in their emphasis on passionate love as a prerequisite for marriage. Robert Sternberg has expanded the distinction between passionate and companionate love, subdividing companionate love into intimacy (warmth, closeness, and sharing) and commitment (intent to maintain a relationship in spite of the difficulties and costs). Figure16.7 illustrates the relationship between these.

Sternberg – divides companionate love further Intimacy: refers to warmth, closeness, and sharing Commitment: an intent to maintain a relationship in spite of the difficulties and costs

Hazen & Shaver – Love as attachment: looked at the link between love and attachment relationships in infancy Subdivided it into 3 categories Secure Attachment: more committed, satisfying relationships (56%) Anxious-Ambivalent attachment (20%) Avoidant Attachment (24%) Hazen and Shaver’s theory suggests that love relationships in adulthood mimic attachment patterns in infancy, with those with secure attachments having more committed, satisfying relationships.

Figure 16.7 Infant attachment and romantic relationships

Evolutionary Perspective on Attraction
Mating priorities Physical attraction is seen as aspects of sound health, good genes, and high fertility (reproductive potential) Facial Symmetry is seen as a key element to attraction in diverse cultures Men are more interested in women in finding a youthful, attractive mate Women place more emphasis on ambition, social status, and financial potential (What can my baby’s daddy do for my baby?)

Evolutionary Perspective on Attraction
Both sexes are willing to lie about personality, income, past relationships, and career skills to impress a prospective date who was attractive Cross-cultural similarities in characteristics that males and females seek in prospective mates support an evolutionary perspective on love. According to this theory, certain characteristics are attractive because they are indicators of reproductive fitness.

Attitudes and Attitude Change
Attitudes: positive or negative evaluations of objects of thought 3 components Cognitive: beliefs people hold about the object of attitude (beliefs, ideas) Affective: emotional feelings stimulated by an object of thought (emotions, feelings) Behavioral: the predispositions to act in a certain way (actions) Attitudes are positive or negative evaluations of objects of thought, with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.

Figure 16.9 The possible components of attitudes

Figure 16.21 The three potential components of prejudice as an attitude

Attitudes and behavior are not as consistent as one might assume, in part because attitude strength varies, and in part because attitudes only create predispositions to behave in certain ways. Persuasion is undermined when a receiver is forewarned, when the sender advocates a position that is incompatible with the receiver’s existing attitudes, or when strong attitudes are targeted. Attitudes and behavior are not as consistent as one might assume, in part because attitude strength varies, and in part because attitudes only create predispositions to behave in certain ways. Persuasion is undermined when a receiver is forewarned, when the sender advocates a position that is incompatible with the receiver’s existing attitudes, or when strong attitudes are targeted.

Factors in changing attitudes Source: sends a communication Credibility: persuasion successful message expertise: more influential when arguments are ambiguous Trustworthiness: argument accepted with little scrutiny Likeability: increases sources effectiveness

Factors in changing attitudes (cont.) Message: information transmitted One-sided: no alternate info Two-sided arguments: more effective Fear Arousal: successful if fear is aroused, most fail to

Factors in changing attitudes (cont.) Receiver: person to whom the message is sent Forewarning: expectations and prior knowledge are more influential than personality disconfirmation bias: arguments that go against previous schemas are more scrutinized and analyzed resistance can promote resistance: when you resist persuasive efforts, you become more certain of those attitudes

Although there are some situational limitations, two-sided arguments and fear arousal are effective elements in persuasive messages. Repetition is helpful, but adding weak arguments to one’s case may hurt more than help. Research has indicated that there are many factors at play in attitude change. A source of persuasion who is credible, expert, trustworthy, likable, and physically attractive tends to be relatively effective in stimulating attitude change.

Theories of attitude change Learning theory: Attitudes may be shaped through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning Dissonance theory: inconsistent attitudes cause tension and that people alter their attitudes to reduce cognitive dissonance(Festinger) Self-perception theory people infer their attitudes from their behavior. Behavior affects attitude (Bem) Attitudes may be shaped through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning. Festinger’s dissonance theory asserts that inconsistent attitudes cause tension and that people alter their attitudes to reduce cognitive dissonance. (Lennox Lewis)

Theories of attitude change (cont.) Elaboration likelihood model: central routes to persuasion yield longer-lasting attitude change than peripheral routes. (Petty and Cacioppo) central routes: people carefully ponder the content and logic of persuasive messages (a politicians well thought out speech) peripheral routes : persuasion that depends on nonmessage factors such as attractiveness of the source (a politician who depends on flag waving and parades). Bem-Self-perception theory posits that people infer their attitudes from their behavior. Behavior affects attitude. The elaboration likelihood model holds that central routes (when people carefully ponder the content and logic of persuasive messages; a politicians well thought out speech)) to persuasion yield longer-lasting attitude change than peripheral routes (persuasion depends on nonmessage factors such as attractiveness of the source; a politician who depends on flag waving and parades).

Figure 16.10 Overview of the persuasion process

Figure 16.12 Design of the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study

Figure 16.13 Bem’s self-perception theory

Yielding to Others: Conformity
Conformity : when people yield to real or imagined social pressure Solomon Asch (1950s): (Classic experiment) line study 37% of men conformed! Group size: more people, more likely to conform Group unanimity: one person dissents, less conformity Conformity involves yielding to social pressure. Solomon Asch conducted a classic experiment where subjects were asked to make unambiguous judgements, indicating which of three lines on a card matched an original standard. The task was easy, and 7 subjects were asked one at a time to make their judgements aloud. Only the 6th subject was a real subject, the others gave wrong answers…Asch wanted to see how often people conformed, and gave an answer they knew was wrong, just because everyone else did. He found that on average, they conformed 37% of the time; however there was considerable variability among subjects (some never caved at all). Subsequent studies using a similar protocol found that group size influences conformity, with larger groups increasing conformity. Follow-up studies also showed that group unanimity significantly influences conformity; if just one other person does not go along with the group (a dissenter), subjects are significantly less likely to conform.

Yielding to Others: Obedience
Obedience – Stanley Milgram (1960s) Obedience is a form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority Milgram, was troubled over the Nazi war criminal defense “I was just following orders.” He designed a landmark experiment to determine how often ordinary people will obey an authority figure, even if it means hurting another person Obedience is a form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority. Stanley Milgram, like many people, was troubled over the Nazi war criminal defense “I was just following orders.” He designed a landmark experiment to determine how often ordinary people will obey an authority figure, even if it means hurting another person.

(Milgram)Controversial landmark experiments 40 men from the local community recruited teacher was seated before an apparatus that had 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts, with labels of slight shock, danger: severe shock, and XXX etc. Although the apparatus looked and sounded real, it was fake, 65% of the men administered all 30 levels of the shock presence of a dissenter: only 10% extremely controversial, as his method involved considerable deception and emotional distress on the part of subjects. His experiment consisted of 40 men from the local community recruited to participate in a psychology experiment, supposedly on the effects of punishment on learning. The men were given the role of “teacher” in the experiment, while a confederate was given the role of “learner.” The teacher was seated before an apparatus that had 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts, with labels of slight shock, danger: severe shock, and XXX etc. Although the apparatus looked and sounded real, it was fake. The learner was never shocked. Milgram found that 65% of the men administered all 30 levels of the shock, even though they displayed considerable distress at shocking the learner. Subsequent studies (and there were many) indicated that, like in Asch’s study, if an accomplice defied the experimenter and supported the subject’s objections, they were significantly less likely to give all the shocks (only 10%). Milgram’s experiments were extremely controversial, as his method involved considerable deception and emotional distress on the part of subjects.

The Power of Situation: The Stanford Prison Simulation

Behavior in Groups: The Influence of Other People
The bystander effect - Darley and Latane (1968) People are much less likely to provide help in a group then by themselves due to the Diffusion of responsibility Reviews of studies on over 6,000 subjects subjects who are alone help about 75% of the time subjects in the presence of others help about 53% of the time. The only variable shown to significantly impact the bystander effect is ambiguity of the need for help. A group consists of two or more individuals who interact and are interdependent. The bystander effect is the, now well studied, phenomenon (Darley and Latane and colleagues) that people are less likely to provide needed help when they are in groups than when they are alone. Reviews of studies on over 6,000 subjects in a variety of helping situations indicate that subjects who are alone help about 75% of the time, while subjects in the presence of others help about 53% of the time. The only variable shown to significantly impact the bystander effect is ambiguity of the need for help. The less ambiguous the need for help, the more likely someone is to give it. The bystander effect is believed to occur because of diffusion of responsibility…when the responsibility is divided among many, everyone thinks that someone else will help. Studies also show that productivity decreases as group size increases. This is believed to be due to 2 factors: loss of efficiency resulting from a loss of coordination of effort and social loafing. Social loafing is a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work alone.

Group productivity: Studies also show that productivity decreases as group size increases.
This is believed to be due to 2 factors: loss of efficiency resulting from a loss of coordination of effort and social loafing social loafing: Social loafing is a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work alone.

Figure 16.18 The effect of loss of coordination and social loafing on group productivity

Decision making in groups: groups often arrive at riskier decisions (risky shift) or a more cautious approach depending on which way they were leaning to begin with this is called: Polarization: Group polarization occurs when group discussion strengthens a group’s dominant point of view and produces a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction. Decision making processes can be influenced by groups as well. Group polarization occurs when group discussion strengthens a group’s dominant point of view and produces a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction.

Groupthink: Groupthink occurs when members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision. This is a disease of group decision making b/c it stifles dissent and increases pressure to conform Some people even shelter information that would contradict the group’s views (us vs. them) Bay of Pigs Groupthink occurs when members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision. Research indicates that cohesiveness (strength of the liking relationships linking group members) is a significant contributor to groupthink.

Janis’ Theory: members of a group suspend critical thought Censor dissent Pressure to conform increases “mind guards” tend to shelter the group from info that contradicts the group’s view

Group Think (cont.) Major causes of Group Think are Group cohesiveness: strength of the liking relationships linking group members Isolation: when group works in… Strength of the leader High Stress Look at chart page 666 Groupthink occurs when members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision. Research indicates that cohesiveness (strength of the liking relationships linking group members) is a significant contributor to groupthink.

Chapter 16: Social Behavior

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 16: Social Behavior"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Chapter 16: Social Behavior

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 16: Social Behavior"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback