Social Psychology Chapter 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

Explanations of why people act as they do Attribution Theory Attribution theory explains how we form opinions of others. ANTECEDENTS “things that come before” ATTRIBUTION “to give to” CONSEQUENCES “things that follow” Information beliefs, and motivations we already have Explanations of why people act as they do Our thoughts, our emotional responses, and expectations

Social Thinking Attitude Attribution – an explanation of why belief 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 Thinking Fundamental 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, allow driver a wide berth) Unfavorable reaction (speed up and race past the other driver, give a dirty look)

Social Thinking Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as well as by external social influences Internal attitudes External influences Behavior

Social Thinking Attitudes follow behavior Cooperative actions feed mutual liking Destructive actions feed mutual dislike

Social Thinking Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon Lowballing Technique 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 place opposite of foot-in-the-door salesperson 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 An example I use in class for reciprocity norm is the "baby safety seminar" I attended while pregnant with my first child. For the first hour, we got a lot of useful safety tips, information, and resources. Then came the sales pitch for the products this company wished us to buy. The idea being that they had given us an hour of their time and useful handouts/information, we felt guilty just walking out on the pitch, even though we knew we weren't interested in the product. The "safety seminar" setup had the additional advantage of working on the 4-walls technique. The presenter kept asking us "would you buy a product with a label that says 'dangerous for your child'?" -- of course, all of us would answer "No" which set up the premise that we should buy their product because it was so much safer than any other.

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 Persuasion Peripheral 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 playing Another 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 Now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ Ties to the “real world.” Abu Ghraib prison