Experimental Psychology PSY 433 Chapter 13 Social Psychology

Midterm Results ScoreGradeN 29-34A B C D0 0-18F1 Top score = 34 (2 people) Top of curve = 32.5

Social Psychology Social Cognition -- how we perceive others: Stereotypes, prejudice, attraction, liking. Attitudes and beliefs, identity, sense of self, and how these are changed. Social Influence -- how others influence our behavior: Conformity, compliance, and obedience. Aggression, violence, altruism, cooperation.

Conformity Sherif’s (1935) work on social norms using the autokinetic effect. Autokinetic effect – a stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move. What others say affects an observer’s perceptions –it appears to move in an arc if other people saw it move in an arc.

Conformity Asch’s (1951, 1956, 1958) work on conformity using line judgments. Subjects were told the study was on visual discrimination, but it was actually on conformity. The task – identify which of 3 lines matches a standard. Asch expected that people would follow the evidence of their own eyes – but they didn’t.

StandardABC

Asch’s Paradigm Six confederates & 1 subject Each responded out loud Experimental manipulation: Confederates respond correctly on 6 trials & incorrectly on 12 Most subjects conformed on 1 or more of the 12 incorrect trials Control: Confederates always responded correctly (only 5% of subjects erred).

Compliance and Obedience Milgram (1963, 1964, 1965) obedience task Paid subjects volunteered for a study of the effects of punishment on learning/memory. Involved 3 people: Authority – the experimenter Victim – the “learner” (a confederate) Subject -- the “teacher”

Milgram’s Shock Panel Slight Shock Moderate Shock Strong Shock Very Strong Shock Intense Shock Extreme- Intensity Shock Danger: Severe Shock XXX

Learner Responses Slight Shock Moderate Shock Strong Shock Very Strong Shock Intense Shock Grunts & Moans “Let me out!” “I can’t stand the pain!” “I refuse to answer!”

Conditions Affecting Obedience The setting – did Yale foster obedience because it was well-known, Ivy League? Replication in a sleazy part of Bridgeport 48% gave max shock, compared to 65% Presence/absence of peers also showing defiance or conformity: Conforming peers encouraged greater shock. Proximity to the “victim”: 74% when hear victim, 40% when see victim, 30% when touch victim

Interpreting Conformity Results Perhaps subjects trusted that no harm would really come to the subjects – treated the context as “make believe”. Perhaps results underestimate conformity, since the experimenter truly has no authority over the subject. Obedience is not necessarily bad – society would not function if people ignored laws and persons in authority.

Dependent Variables Questionnaires measuring belief, attitude, preference (liking). Rating scales Behavioral measures: Aggression measured by shock given. Attraction measured by how long a man talks to a woman, smiles at her, whether he asks her out. Converging measures are better.

Independent Variables Characteristics of a social situation or of people (demographic variables). Factors believed to affect behavior are manipulated: Persuasiveness – manipulate number or type of arguments used. Aggression – manipulate temperature in a room to test whether heat affects behavior. Conformity – manipulate number of people who agree or disagree.

Demand Characteristics Are subjects acting normally in an experiment, or are they just doing what they think they are expected to do? Did Milgram’s subjects give shock because the experimental context demanded it? Orne and Evans (1965) examined demand characteristics in a hypnosis study. Is behavior due to hypnosis or due to demand characteristics?

Hypnosis Demos

Orne’s Results

The Bystander Studies Several incidents pre-1970 got researchers interested in another area of social influence: The mere presence of other people The bystander effect -- the more people who observe a crisis, the less likely any one of them is to help the victim. Is this true in every situation?

Outside of a Small Circle of Friends

Kitty Genovese (1964)

Darley and Latane (1968) Over an intercom, subjects discussed problems in college life with 1, 2, or 5 others. IV: Number of bystanders (0, 1, or 4) DV: whether subject responded & elapsed sec The more bystanders, the less likely subjects were to respond and the longer it took when they did respond Note: typo in Kantowitz Table 13-2.

Darley & Latane’s Results

Diffusion of Responsibility Piliavin et al. (1969) manipulated: Race of the victim simulating a crisis. Whether victim appeared ill or drunk. They recorded race of helper, number of helpers, racial composition of bystanders. Results: Help offered more readily to ill (95%) than drunk (50%). Race only mattered for drunk victims. Number of bystanders didn’t matter.

Where Did the Effect Go? Piliavin et al.’s study was done in the field not in the lab. Maybe other factors were present. If people are made to feel responsible for a situation they are more likely to help, regardless of bystanders. Milgram’s subjects were told that the experimenter was responsible. People may be reluctant to intervene due to potential embarrassment, loss of poise.