Social Psychology: The Last Chapter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Social Psychology The scientific study of the ways in which the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of one individual are influenced by the real, imagined, or inferred behavior or characteristics of other people

How do we explain, interpret and judge behavior? Social Cognition How do we explain, interpret and judge behavior?

Impression Formation What do we think of others’ behavior? Schema: a set of beliefs or expectations about something/someone based on past experiences Ready-made category Allows us to make inferences about others Also plays a major role in how we interpret and remember information E.g. if we witness a mother reprimanding her child at the supermarket, we might assume she is a bad or abusive mother because we saw something similar in a Lifetime movie, and we may even assign her other traits that go along with this assumption even if she doesn’t actually demonstrate those traits! Or if we have recently watched this, we may feel differently!

Impression Formation What do we think of others’ behavior? Primacy effect: early information is a greater determinant of attitudes Early information about someone makes a greater impact than later information in forming impressions “Cognitive Misers” Humans don’t like to spend too much time figuring people out Go with the initial impression to save time

Impression Formation What do we think of others’ behavior? Self-fulfilling prophecy A person’s expectations about another elicits behavior from the other person that confirms the expectations e.g. High school coach is told by middle school coach that a player coming up is “amazing.” High school coach treats this player as though s/he is talented, and the player responds accordingly, confirming the initial belief. Stereotypes A set of characteristics believed to be shared by all members of a social category Can become the basis for self-fulfilling prophecies e.g. “Elderly people are cheap!” You are a waiter in a restaurant and make this assumption, so you don’t provide the greatest service. Then your tip is smaller and you believe it is because the old people are cheap!

Attribution: How do we explain behavior? Theory that addresses the question of how people make judgments about the causes of behavior e.g. “Why did I fail the test?” e.g. “Why did my best friend stop talking to me?” Heider (1958) says we first decide if the cause is personal or dispositional (internal attribution) or situational (external attribution). Personal/Internal: Behavior caused by that individual’s characteristics Situational/External: Circumstances prompted the individual’s behavior

Attribution: How do we explain behavior? Three criteria used to judge behavior as personal or situational (Kelley, 1967): Distinctiveness: How do the person’s responses vary from situation to situation? Consistency: Has this person responded in the same way in this situation? Consensus: The degree to which person’s behavior is similar to others’ behavior Low consensus + low distinctiveness + high consistency = Internal (personal) attribution e.g. I often fail tests. I often fail psych tests. Nobody else failed the psych test. It’s ME! High consensus + high distinctiveness + low consistency = External (situational) attribution e.g. I never fail tests! I never fail psych tests! Everyone else also failed this test. It’s the TEST!

Biases in Attribution Fundamental Attribution Error Tendency to overemphasize personal causes for others’ behavior This works along with actor-observer bias, where we also underemphasize personal causes for our own behavior e.g. “She cut me off because she is a terrible driver!” e.g. “I cut someone else off because I am late for work.” Defensive attribution and Self-Serving Bias Tendency to attribute our successes to our own efforts and our failures to external factors e.g. “I failed the test because the teacher made it impossible and clearly she hates me!” OR “I got an A because I’m a genius!” Just-World Hypothesis Assumption bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people e.g. “She got herpes because she is a strumpet!” e.g. “She will win the election because she’s sooooo nice.” Attribution across cultures varies dramatically E.g. Japanese vs. American students and explaining academic performance

Attitudes What do we think?

Attitudes Is a person’s behavior a reflection of his/her attitudes? Attitudes are relatively stable beliefs, feelings, and behaviors directed toward something/someone Three components Cognitive: beliefs and ideas held about the object/person Affective: emotions associated with object/person Behavioral: how we act based on our attitudes Typically, feelings and beliefs about a person/thing correspond with behaviors toward that person/thing, but not always Self-monitoring: tendency to observe a situation to determine how best to act. High self-monitors look for social cues about how they are expected to behave in a given situation, overriding their attitudes, making it difficult to predict behavior based on attitudes. Low self-monitors express and act on their attitudes consistently making prediction easier. LaPiere Study in the 1930s (Chinese couple in restaurants)

Attitude Development Many factors contribute to the development of attitudes Imitation Reward Role Models Peers Mass media

Attitude Change What makes us change our mind? Process of persuasion Must pay attention to the message Must comprehend the message Comprehension leads to acceptance Central vs. Peripheral Route to persuasion Central – people focus on the message and the facts to form attitudes Peripheral – people focus on incidental cues, such as speaker’s attractiveness, position, reputation, etc. Communication model Source: credible spokesperson? Message: present both sides! Medium: written for complex messages; video for more simple; face to face is best! Audience: how committed is audience to their point of view? People with low self esteem easier to change Intelligent people more resistant to change

Attitude Change Role-Playing and Attitudes Mere Exposure Effect When we adopt a new role, we attempt to conform to social expectations of playing that role Eventually, we “become” the role e.g. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study (1971) Mere Exposure Effect Our attitude toward someone/something will become more positive with continued exposure e.g. We are more likely to like someone we see frequently Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger) Perceived inconsistency between two cognitions causes discomfort (dissonance) e.g. “I am an honest person” and “I cheated on the test” Dissonance can be reduced through attitude change e.g. “I am not that honest” An alternative is to increase the number thoughts that support one or the other dissonant cognitions e.g. “I have never stolen, never gotten arrested, never cheated on a FINAL,” etc.

Social Influence How do we impact others?

Compliance Change in behavior in response to an explicit request from another person or group Work of Robert Cialdini and the methods of gaining compliance Foot-in-the-door effect: Get them to say yes to a small request first Lowball procedure: Get compliance then raise price of compliance Door-in-the-face effect: Get them to decline large request then ask something smaller

Conformity Voluntarily yielding to social norms, even at the expense of one’s own preferences Asch Experiment Factors That Strengthen Conformity Unfamiliar situation Larger group Unanimity of group If group is high status/attractive Collectivist culture

Obedience Change in behavior in response to a command from another person, typically an authority figure Milgram’s studies on obedience show willingness to follow commands 63% of subjects fully complied! Follow up studies showed women also complied The Modern Milgram The British Milgram

Group Influence Social Facilitation Helping Behavior In the presence of others, performance is stronger on easier tasks Also, performance can be weaker on difficult tasks in the presence of others – unless we have expertise e.g. Runners who run in a group have faster times than when running alone Helping Behavior Altruistic behavior: helping behavior that is not linked to personal gain Bystander effect and Diffusion of Responsibility Helpfulness decreases as bystanders increase Kitty Genovese Case and the bystander effect Darley and Latané (1969) and the smoke-filled room (75% to 10%) Mood can affect willingness to help Cultures differ in amount of help offered in response to requests for minor help (collective cultures more willing) Social Exchange Theory: behavior is dictated by desire to maximize benefits and minimize costs of helping Reciprocity norm: people will help those who helped them Social Responsibility Norm: people will help those dependent on them

Group Decision Making Deindividuation Risky Shift Loss of personal sense of responsibility in a group People more likely to engage in risky behavior when anonymous Helps to explain mob behavior Mob Behavior also facilitated by the snowball effect, when one vocal person convinces a few people, who convince a few more, etc. Risky Shift Increased willingness to take risks when making decisions as a group as opposed to making decisions as individuals. Group Polarization in decision making Shift toward more extreme position following group discussion between like-minded individuals

Group Decision Making: Effectiveness of Groups The more people in the group… The more stable the group is The less cohesive/efficient the group may become Social loafing Tendency to expend less effort when part of a large group Decrease in individual accountability Groupthink Pressure to conform to group makes everyone in the group have same beliefs and attitudes Realistic and logical decision making gives way to the desire to have consensus Hawthorne Effect Behavior improves when one is being studied by others Based on studies of Hawthorne Works Electric Factory (1924-1932)

Cultural Influence Culture greatly influences attitudes and behaviors Cultural truism Beliefs that most members of a society accept as self-evidently true People in the culture do not question these e.g. “Eating dog is unacceptable.” Truisms are the backbone of norms, shared expectations about how to behave in a given culture.

Cultural Assimilators Not all cultures are the same, and not all cultures have the same norms. People in a given culture may feel their way is the “right” way, and other cultures are “backwards.” This is the basis of ethnocentrism, or the belief that one’s own culture superior. Examining cultural assimilators helps to reduce these assumptions. Cultural assimilators are the explanations for why members of a culture have a particular behavior. Understanding cultural assimilators helps people to maintain an open mind about other cultures’ norms and values.

How do we relate to others? Social Relations How do we relate to others?

Prejudice and Discrimination An intolerant, unfavorable, and rigid attitude toward a group of people; negative stereotypes. Ultimate Attribution Error: tendency to use stereotyped beliefs about a group to make internal attributions about shortcomings and external attributions about successes. Discrimination An act or series of acts that denies opportunities and social esteem to an entire group of people or individual members of that group

Sources of Prejudice: Where does it come from? Social Inequalities “Haves” vs. “Have Nots” – those who have feel justified and often use negative stereotypes of “have nots” to justify inequalities. “Blame-the-victim” dynamic Us vs. Them: Ingroup and Outgroup We have the need to belong (Maslow) for feelings of identity, solidarity and safety Those who are outside our group are threatening We reserve greatest hatred for those most like us (Yankees vs. Mets fans) Ingroup Bias – Belief that those with whom you identify are not only different, but BETTER than those outside the group.

Sources of Prejudice: Where does it come from? Frustration-aggression theory People who are frustrated in their goals may turn their anger away from the proper target toward another, less powerful target Authoritarian personality Personality pattern characterized by rigid conventionality, exaggerated respect for authority, and hostility toward those who defy social norms Racism Prejudice and discrimination directed at particular racial group based on the belief that certain groups are innately inferior Institutionalized Racism What Would You Do part 1 What Would You Do part 2 Scapegoat Theory Blame others for when things go wrong for us Tendency is to blame a “weaker” group/group in minority e.g. antisemitism during the plague or during the economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s in Europe

Inducing Prejudice: Jane Elliot Elementary education teacher Jane Elliot wanted to teach her class about discrimination after the assassination of Martin Luther King. She designed an experiment to show how easily children could be transformed into prejudiced monsters. A Class Divided: video on Elliot’s work Update on the experiment with Phil Zimbardo

Reducing Prejudice Recategorization Controlled processing Assumes prejudice can be linked to categorization, or how we group - usually based on stereotypes Try to expand our schema for a particular group What qualities are shared between groups? Controlled processing Train ourselves to be more mindful of people who differ from us Think about examples that fall outside the stereotypes Improving contact between groups Group members must have equal status Need one-on-one contact with other group Relations are improved when groups come together to cooperate Social norms should encourage contact Superordinate Goals Goals that override differences and require cooperative contact between groups First used by Muzafer Sherif (1966) in a study on two groups of boys in boy scout camp initially encouraged to be competitive with one another

Interpersonal Attraction: What determines whether we want to befriend someone? Proximity/propinquity We are attracted to people who are in the same space as we are Has the internet changed this at all? Physical attractiveness We like physically attractive people because being with hot people makes us feel like we are hot, too! Berscheid and Walster (1972) Beauty and the Best Psychology Today People believe that physically attractive individuals are smarter, friendlier, and generally “better” based solely on their physical attributes! Similarity In attitudes, interests, values, and background Opposites only attract for the short term… Exchange: how do we reward each other? We like people who appreciate us Should be even (reciprocity) Intimacy: how much trust and closeness is there? Self disclosure Should be equal

Love Similar to friendship, similarity, proximity, attractiveness, and exchange all play a role. However, love also includes physiological arousal, all-encompassing interest in each other, fantasizing about each other, and a relatively rapid swing of emotions. Love also includes passion, closeness, fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire, and intense caring.

Theories of Love Two main types of love Passionate or Romantic Love Intense physiological arousal, psychological interest, sexual desire, being “in love” Predominates in the early part of a romantic relationship Companionate or Affectionate Love Deep, caring affection for a person Necessary for relationships to succeed in the long term Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of love Complete or consummate love occurs when all 3 of the following are present Intimacy: closeness/connectedness Passion: physical and sexual attraction Commitment: cognition of loving someone/long-term maintenance of relationship

Aggression Aggression is behavior intended to hurt or destroy Biological Influences Genetic Influences Animals bred for aggression Identical twin correlation Neural Influences Amygdala in limbic system triggers it Frontal cortex inhibits it Damage to or immaturity of frontal cortex? Biochemical Influences Testosterone levels and behavior – a 2-way street Alcohol

Aggression Psychosocial Causes of Aggression Frustration-Aggression Principle Aversive stimuli such as hot temperatures, physical pain or foul odors Reinforcement Ostracism Exposure to violent television or video games (disproving catharsis hypothesis)

Leadership Great person theory Right place-right time theory Personal qualities qualify one to lead Right place-right time theory Circumstances are optimal for individual with particular characteristics Fielder’s Contingency Theory Depends on the traits of the leader, the circumstances, and the interaction of the group itself. Task-Oriented vs. Relationship Oriented Leaders In extreme circumstances – very good or very bad – best to be task oriented. In moderate circumstances, best to be relationship oriented.