Social Psychology - How we think about, influence, and relate to one another

Social Thinking Attribution Theory Why do people act the way they do? Is it the situation or is it their disposition or attitude? Fundamental Attribution Error Tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition.

The Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo – Stanford University (1971) What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? Shows the impact of role playing and the situation on attitudes and behavior. You don’t know how you’ll act in a situation until you’ve been there.

Social Thinking Self serving bias We deserve this win!! Self serving bias We attribute our success to internal factors and our failures to external factors They got lucky.

I’m just a social drinker. Social Thinking I’m just a social drinker. Cognitive Dissonance – psychological discomfort created by inconsistency among a person’s beliefs or attitudes, and their actions. Induces a “drive state” – need to change behavior or belief so that they are consistent

Social Thinking Foot in the door phenomenon Freedman & Fraser (1966) Tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request Freedman & Fraser (1966) Small request followed by a big request When perform small request, 3 times as likely to then agree to big request

Social Thinking Social facilitation – stronger performance of an easy task when in the presence of others Social loafing – tend to slack off when other people’s efforts are involved

Group Tendencies Deindividuation – abandon normal restraint when in the presence of others Less accountable, less aware, more violent

Asch’s experiment 1 2 3

Asch’s conformity experiment 8 confederates, one real subject Real subject goes last Confederates report wrong answers What percentage of subjects gave the same wrong answer? 76% gave at least 1 incorrect response Only 1% gave incorrect response in the control group

Factors that influence conformity Group size More people = more conformity Conformity is highest in groups of 3-5, then levels off Social support If Asch added ally who failed to conform, subject conformed less, but . . . Ally need not give the correct answer Ally need not be competent (Can be practically blind)

Social Norms and Compliance: Norm of Reciprocity Reciprocity Principle - Obligated to return favors Door In The Face Technique Make very large request (gimme $200) Then make concession (OK, $20) Target also feels he has to make concession “That’s not all” technique – come down from an initially inflated price

Milgram’s obedience experiment After the Holocaust was exposed following WWII, questions arose concerning how such a tragedy could have happened. Were these Nazis a different kind of human, with no thresholds of violence? Would you act as the Nazi’s did and cooperate with the executions in the concentration camps? Research shows that you probably would.

Milgram’s obedience experiment Yale Univ. Participant is introduced to a tall, sharp and stern looking experimenter (Milgram) wearing a white lab coat. The participant is also introduced to a friendly co-participant, who is actually a confederate (a person pretending to be a participant, like a rigged audience for a magician). Milgram explains that the experiment investigates punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher", and one will be the "learner." Rigged lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the true participant will be the "teacher.“ Every time the “learner” misses a question the “teacher” must submit a shock of increasing voltage.

Milgram’s obedience experiment The Majority of subjects (68%) continued to the end.

Milgram’s obedience experiment Milgram's results were alarming. Of the 40 participants he surveyed, 68% of them ended up delivering the full 450 volt treatment. 15 of the 40 ended up convulsing with epileptic laughter. Participants went temporarily mad and started tearing their hair out.

Social Influence Group Think Group Polarization Mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives Bay of Pigs, Vietnam Group Polarization Enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group

Social Relations Just-World Phenomenon Tendency of people to believe the world is just People get what they deserve and deserve what they get

Social Thinking In-group Bias Tendency to favor one’s own group

Social Relations Scapegoat Theory Prejudice Prejudice = Attitude Theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame Prejudice An unjustifiable (usually negative) attitude toward a group and it’s members Involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory action. Prejudice = Attitude Discrimination = Behavior

Roots of Prejudice Schemas – a concept or framework that helps us organize and interpret information Categorization simplifies our world Availability heuristics are mental shortcuts to decision making that are not always correct vivid examples dominate our thinking

Diffusion of Responsibility When people thought they alone heard the calls for help from a person they believed to be having an epileptic seizure, they usually helped. But when they thought four others were also hearing the calls, fewer than a third responded.