Myers’ PSYCHOLOGY (6th Ed) Chapter 18 Social Psychology James A. McCubbin, PhD Clemson University Worth Publishers

Social Thinking zSocial Psychology yscientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another zAttribution Theory ytendency to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition

Social Thinking zFundamental Attribution Error ytendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition zAttitude ybelief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events

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

Social Thinking zFoot-in-the-Door Phenomenon ytendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request zRole yset of expectations about a social position ydefines how those in the position ought to behave

Social Thinking zCognitive Dissonance Theory ywe act to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent yexample- when we become aware that our attitudes and our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes

Social Thinking zCognitive dissonance

Social Influence zConformity yadjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard zNormative Social Influence yinfluence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval

Social Influence zThe chameleon effect Participant rubs face shakes foot Confederate rubs faceConfederate shakes foot Number of times

Social Influence zAsch’s conformity experiments

Social Influence zNorm yan understood rule for accepted and expected behavior yprescribes “proper” behavior zInformational Social Influence yinfluence resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality

Social Influence zParticipants judged which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1 Difficult judgments Easy judgments Conformity highest on important judgments Low High Importance 50% Percentage of conformity to confederates’ wrong answers

Social Influence zMilgram’s follow-up obedience experiment XXX ( ) Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong ( ) Very strong ( ) Intense ( ) Extreme intensity ( ) Danger severe ( ) Shock levels in volts The majority of subjects continued to obey to the end

Social Influence zTesting facilitated communication

Social Influence zSocial Facilitation yimproved performance of tasks in the presence of others yoccurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with tasks that are difficult or not yet mastered zSocial Loafing ytendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

Social Facilitation Home Advantage in Major Team Sports Home Team GamesWinning SportStudiedPercentage Baseball23, % Football 2, Ice hockey 4, Basketball13, Soccer37,

Social Influence zDeindividuation yloss of self-awareness and self- restraint in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity

Social Influence zGroup Polarization yenhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group zGroupthink ymode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives

Social Influence zIf a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions High Prejudice Low Before discussionAfter discussion Low-prejudice groups High-prejudice groups

Social Influence zSelf-fulfilling Prophecy yoccurs when one person’s belief about others leads one to act in ways that induce the others to appear to confirm the belief

Social Relations zPrejudice yan unjustifiable (and usually negative) attitude toward a group and its members yinvolves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory action zStereotype ya generalized (often overgeneralized) belief about a group of people

Social Relations zAmericans today express much less racial and gender prejudice Would you vote for a woman president? Year Do whites have a right to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods? Percentage answering yes

Social Relations zIngroup y“Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity zOutgroup y“Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup

Social Relations zIngroup Bias ytendency to favor one’s own group zScapegoat Theory ytheory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame zJust-World Phenomenon ytendency of people to believe the world is just ypeople get what they deserve and deserve what they get

Social Relations zAggression yany physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy zFrustration-Aggression Principle yprinciple that frustration – the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal – creates anger, which can generate aggression

Social Relations zUncomfortably hot weather and aggression Murders and rapes per day in Houston, Texas Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit

Social Relations zJuvenile violent crime arrest rates , Arrest per 100, to 17- year-olds

Social Relations zMen who sexually coerce women Sexual promiscuity Hostile masculinity Coerciveness against women

Social Relations zConflict yperceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas zSocial Trap ya situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior

Social Relations zSocial trap yby pursuing our self- interest and not trusting others, we can end up losers Optimal outcome Probable outcome Person 1 Choose A Choose B Person 2 Choose B Choose A

Social Relations- Attractiveness zProximity ymere exposure effect- repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them zPhysical Attractiveness yyouthfulness may be associated with health and fertility zSimilarity yfriends share common attitudes, beliefs, interests

Social Relations zPassionate Love yan aroused state of intense positive absorption in another yusually present at the beginning of a love relationship zCompanionate Love ydeep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined

Social Relations zEquity ya condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it zSelf-disclosure yrevealing intimate aspects of oneself to others zAltruism yunselfish regard for the welfare of others

Social Relations zThe decision-making process for bystander intervention Notices incident? Interprets incident as emergency? Assumes responsibility? Attempts to help No help No help No help Yes No

Social Relations zBystander Effect ytendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present Percentage attempting to help Number of others presumed available to help

Social Relations zSocial Exchange Theory ythe theory that our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs zSuperordinate Goals yshared goals that override differences among people and require their cooperation

Social Relations zGraduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-reduction (GRIT) ya strategy designed to decrease international tensions xone side announces recognition of mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act xopens door for reciprocation by other party