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

Heider and Attribution Theory How do we explain OTHER people’s behaviour Heider proposed that we attribute others’ behaviour to their internal dispositions or to their external situations E.g., A teacher may wonder whether a child’s hostility reflects an aggressive personality or a reaction to stress or abuse Sometimes we get it wrong (fundamental attribution error) FAE – underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition. So we disregard the situation and leap to conclusions about their personalities. Car example  Say you are driving your car and you see someone swerve WAY over the line. If you thought maybe the driver was sick, that is situational. IF you think the driver is crazy, then that is dispositional

Attitude Attitudes are feelings, based on our beliefs, that predispose our reactions to objects, people and event. Role playing affects attitudes When you adopt a new role (college student, marriage, new job) you want to fit in. This may lead you to feel as though you are “acting”. However, the acting may soon lead to reality

Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment (1972) Male college students volunteered to spend time in a simulated prison. Zimbardo (experimenter) randomly designated some men as guards, and gave them uniforms, billy clubs and whistles. They were instructed to enforce the rules The rest of the men became prisoners. They were locked in cells, and forced to wear humiliating outfits After a day or two, the “acting” became real Guards were became, mean, and devised cruel and degrading routines Prisoners broke down or rebelled. Some had to leave the experiment Zimbardo had to call off the study after only six days.

Asch: Conformity and Obedience People volunteer for an experiment in visual judgement – which line is longer type of thing The others in the group are actually the experimenters – testing your response to peer pressure and the need to conform 8 people at a table – only one is the real subject Participants individually give answers, sometimes correct, sometimes incorrect Control group (no peer pressure): gave right answers most of the time Other groups: over one-third gave incorrect answers Effect: one person disagreeing made no difference, but influence increased when two or three people disagreed Asked why they went along – subjects stated they did not want to risk ridicule even though they knew the answers were wrong

Milgram