Why Don’t People Always Help Others in Need? Diffusion of responsibility presence of others leads to decreased help response we all think someone else will help, so we don’t

Why Don’t People Always Help Others in Need? Latane studies several scenarios designed to measure the help response found that if you think you’re the only one that can hear or help, you are more likely to do so if there are others around, you will diffuse the responsibility to others Kitty Genovese incident Although Gray does not give the Kitty Genovese story (using Latane's helping studies instead), I find it useful to tell her story because it really captures the attention of the students. Both the Hockenbury & the Myers texts have Kitty's story in them (Hockenbury is more detailed).

Social Pressure in Group Decisions Group polarization majority position stronger after a group discussion in which a minority is arguing against the majority point of view Why does this occur? informational and normative influences Against For Group 1 Group 2 Before group discussion Strength of opinion (a) After group discussion (b) This figure was adapted from the Gray CD version of figure 14.6

Social Pressure in Group Decisions Groupthink group members try to maintain harmony and unanimity in group can lead to some better decisions and some worse decisions than individuals

Influence of Others’ Requests - Compliance Sales techniques and cognitive dissonance four-walls technique question customer in such a way that gets answers consistent with the idea that they need to own object feeling of cognitive dissonance results if person chooses not to buy this thing that they “need” Also see speaker notes for slide on reciprocity norm.

Sales Techniques and Cognitive Dissonance Foot-in-the-door technique ask for something small at first, then hit customer with larger request later small request has paved the way to compliance with the larger request cognitive dissonance results if person has already granted a request for one thing, then refuses to give the larger item

The Reciprocity Norm and 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.

Combining Sales Techniques Percentage donating Type of solicitation Neither Pregiving Foot-in- the-door Both What happens if you combine reciprocity norm with foot-in-the-door? Hypothesis - the 2 techniques will cancel each other out Bell, et. al. (1994) study Evidence supports hypothesis The Bell, et al study is described in detail on pp. 543-44 in Gray.

Preventing Reactance Against Pressure Psychological reactance if pressure is too blatant, has opposite of intended effect leads to salespeople using softer techniques so that person feels they have a choice often phrase pressure into questions “would you please put your books and notes away for the quiz?”

Obedience Obedience compliance of person is due to perceived authority of asker request is perceived as a command Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders This photo of Stanley Milgram was scanned in from the Myers text, NOT on the CD

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Basic study procedure teacher and learner (learner always confederate) watch learner being strapped into chair -- learner expresses concern over his “heart condition” Photo scanned in from Gray 3e fig 14.8, NOT on CD

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Teacher to another room with experimenter Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX” Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes Figure adapted from Hockenbury 12.4, was on CD

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Shock Level Switch Labels and Voltage Levels 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 “Slight Shock” 15 45 60 “Moderate Shock” 75 90 105 120 “Strong Shock” 135 150 165 180 “Very Strong Shock” 195 210 225 240 “Intense Shock” 255 270 285 300 “Extreme Intensity Shock” 315 330 345 360 “Danger: Severe Shock” 375 390 405 420 “XXX” 435 450 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Figure adapted from Hockenbury 12.4, was on CD

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Learner protests more and more as shock increases Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks 120 150 300 330 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.” “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.” (agonized scream) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. get me out of here You can’t hold me here. Get me out.” “(intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…” This table was adapted from Hockenbury, Table 12.3 Instructor could also tape the confederate’s responses instead of using this table

Obedience How many people would go to the highest shock level? 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested This figure is from the Myers text, adapted from the CD version

Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter Obedience Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong (135-180) Very strong (195-240) Intense (255-300) Extreme intensity (315-360) Danger: severe (375-420) XXX (435-450) Shock levels in works Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter This figure is from the Myers text, adapted from the CD version

Explanations for Milgram’s Results Abnormal group of subjects? numerous replications with variety of groups shows no support People in general are sadistic? videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show extreme distress

Explanations for Milgram’s Results Authority of Yale and value of science Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of responsibility Proximity of learner and experimenter New situation and no model of how to behave

Follow-Up Studies to Milgram Original study Different building Teacher with learner Put hand on shock Orders by phone This figure is adapted from the CD version of figure 12.5 in Hockenbury Ordinary man orders 2 teachers rebel Teacher chooses shock level Percentage of subjects administering the maximum shock (450 volts)

Critiques of Milgram Although 84% later said they were glad to have participated and fewer than 2% said they were sorry, there are still ethical issues Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?

Cooperation and Social Dilemmas action/inaction will benefit individual, but harm others in the group, and cause more harm than good to everyone if everyone takes that course Use of games to study social dilemmas one-shot prisoner’s dilemma iterative prisoner’s dilemma effect of adding players

One-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma Game 2 prisoners must decide between silence and confession Both silent = both get relatively short prison sentences Both confess = both get moderate prison sentences One confesses = confessor gets no sentence, partner gets very long sentence No communication between players until both have chosen

One-Shot Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Game in lab setting choice to cooperate or defect consequence is monetary highest vs. lowest individual payoff highest vs. lowest total payoff $5 $3 $1 $0 Player 2 Player 1 Cooperates Defects Figure 14.11 from Gray’s text, on the CD It would be nice to break this figure apart and have it appear in pieces, rather than all at once

Iterative Prisoner’s Dilemma Game 2 players play same game repeatedly Iterative nature changes logic for players Rapoport’s Tit-for-Tat (TFT) strategy first time you meet new partner, cooperate for all other trials, do to partner what they did to you on previous trial can’t “win” with TFT this strategy gets others to cooperate

Iterative Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Why is TFT effective in gaining cooperation? it’s nice - cooperates from the start, encouraging cooperation it’s not exploitable - discourages defection by reciprocating each defection it’s forgiving - as soon as partner begins cooperating, TFT reciprocates it’s transparent - partner quickly learns that best strategy is to cooperate

Emotions and Cooperation Guilt Gratitude Disaffection Anger Player 2 Player 1 Cooperates Defects Cooperation + cooperation Failure to cooperate + failure to cooperate Cooperation + failure to cooperate Failure to cooperate + cooperation Figure 14.12 from Gray’s text, from the CD Again, it would be nice to break this figure apart and have it appear in pieces, rather than all at once

Social Identity and Cooperation Social identity theory states that when you’re assigned to a group, you automatically think of that group as an in-group for you Sherif’s camp study 11-12 year old boys at camp boys were divided into 2 groups and kept separate from one another each group took on characteristics of distinct social group, with leaders, rules, norms of behavior, and names

Sherif’s Camp Study Leaders proposed series of competitive interactions Led to 3 changes between groups and within groups within-group solidarity negative stereotyping of other group hostile between-group interactions For more detailed explanation of this study, here are my actual lecture notes: Leaders then proposed a series of competitive interactions which led to 3 changes between groups and within groups within-group solidarity – loyalty to own group increased, put aside internal strife to beat enemy negative stereotyping of other group –other group as out-group, own group as in-group; engaged in stereotyping of other group Hostile between-group interactions – called names, loss of good sportsmanship, accusations of cheating, raiding, “warfare”

Sherif’s Camp Study Overcoming the strong we/they effect establishment of superordinate goals e.g., breakdown in camp water supply overcoming intergroup strife - research stereotypes are diluted when people share individuating information

Summary When we help others, when we don’t Group decision making presence of others diffusion of responsibility Group decision making group polarization groupthink

Summary Compliance Obedience Cooperation sales techniques Milgram’s studies Cooperation Sherif’s camp study