Social Psychology The study of how people behave and feel in social situation and in the presence of others.

What affects people?  Culture – Pattern of life that is passed on from one generation to another Language, customs and sex roles  Roles – Pattern of behavior expected of a person in certain positions and settings – Ascribed roles Roles that you can ’ t change. –Gender, age, son or sibling – Achieved roles Roles attained voluntarily. –Teacher, spouse, student or parent

Affect of Roles  Role Conflict – When two roles conflict Busy teacher working late on school work and spouse who was to spend time with wife  Philip Zimbardo ’ s Prison Study – Stanford University – Role-playing prisoners and guard that led to dehumanizing behavior by the guards Deindividualized prisoners similar to “ road rage ” – Roles shaped individuals behavior and changed them – He interpreted the results that roles have a powerful influence

Status  Status affects roles and privileges  Higher the status the greater the respect, power to enter personal space

Norms vs. Mores  Norms – Standards of conduct/behavior – Norms are est. by society but do change over time Smoking in restaurants use to be the norm but now is not acceptable – People who break norms are often seen as weird and sometimes ostracized or discriminated against – Norms may or may not have laws to enforce them – Ex. Wearing underwear on the outside of your clothes  Mores – Taboos – Severe breaking of society ’ s law – Ex. Incest, murders and cruelty

Personal Space  Invisible space of comfortability around a person.  Proxemics – The study of the rules that govern personal use of space in different settings. Formal v. informal  Public distance – 12+ feet, formal distance, public speakers  Social distance – 4-12 feet for informal business and casual social gatherings  Personal distance – feet within arms reach. Friends and family  Intimate distance – Inside 1.5 feet. Very close friends and loved ones  Elevators create tension for people

Need to Affiliate  People are social animals and need to form affiliations for love, protection or comparison  Schachter Affiliation study – People who face trying situations want others to share their misery with them if they are facing it for the first time Misery loves company as long as both are facing it for the first time  Social comparison – People need to compare themselves against others – We like to test ourselves against those who are of similar ability to see how good we are. Especially if we have a high Nach.

Need to share  As we get closer to someone we will share more of who we – – Disclosure – Over-disclosure is where a person shares too much info too early which can scare people off. – Reciprocity We respond back something personal in response to them opening up to us

Mate Selection  Homogamy – Choose mates that are similar in religion, ideology, age, ethnicity, social class and education – Proximity has a great effect on mate choices – Mere exposure effect Love grows on people the more you are around them First impressions are important but the longer you are around a person the more likely you will become fond of them

Attribution Theory  Attribute – Making inferences about a person ’ s personality based on their behavior. – We infer either external or internal causes to an individual behavior – What do we attribute to a person ’ s state of homelessness Internal – Shiftless and lazy External – Poor opportunity and societal problems

Fundamental Attribution Error  Often individuals overestimate a person ’ s disposition and underestimates a situation  When external demands are strong we discount internal causes of behavior  When bad things happen to us, it is b/c – Situation external cause – I got an F b/c the teacher is bad  When good things happen to us, it is b/c – Internal disposition or abilities – I got an A b/c I am smart or work hard  When bad things happen to them, it is b/c – Internal disposition or abilities – They got an F because they are dumb or lazy  When good things happen to them, it is b/c – Situation external cause – They got an A because it was an easy test or guessed well

More Attribution Error Issues (you have)  Consensus – If others are doing it or suffered it must be the situation – All students didn ’ t do well  Distinctiveness – How unique is the behavior or the situation – Did not do well on specific task  Consistency – Is the behavior the same from one situation to the next – Do you do poorly on all tests  Self-Handicapping – Lack of confidence causes an individual to put themselves in demanding situations to give them an excuse for failing

FA Error leads to…  Double standards- standard for self or excuses to explain your inadequacies but don ’ t give others those excuses  Prejudice- Thoughts  Discrimination- Actions  Stereotypes- not always negative attribution of characteristics to a group – Often oversimplifications – Often the cause of conflict between groups – Huns/Krauts/NIPs/Gooks – dehumanize them makes it easier to kill  Ethnocentrism- my group is superior to others  Scapegoating- blaming others for problems - displacement

Persuasion  Source – Expertise Doctor – Credibility Well known successful writer – Trustworthiness Walter Cronkite – Power CEO or President – Attractiveness Beauty sells – Similarity to audience Children advertising toys

Persuasion  Receiver (Target/Audience) – The less intelligent the audience the better a one-sided emotion message works – The more intelligent the audience the better a balanced two-sided less emotional a message

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”

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 – Time-share sales pitches stay for free just listen to a one-hour presentation

Door in the Face  Ask for something big – Drive me across town to see my girlfriend Told no Use guilt of being told no – Could you drive me home just three miles away Yes  End result you get what you want which is the ride home

Low-ball Technique  Offer an amazing low price that is to get you in the door  Add-ons or bait and switch makes up your profit  Lost leaders – Low prices on eggs get you to the store and you can ’ t resist buying other stuff which more than compensates for the revenue lost on eggs

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?”

Following Others’ Examples – Conformity  Adopting attitudes or behaviors of others because of pressure to do so – the pressure can be real or imagined  2 general reasons for conformity – informational influence other people can provide useful and crucial information – normative influence desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity  When? – 1951  Previous research had shown – people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the evidence is ambiguous  Asch set out to prove that people will not conform when evidence is clear-cut or unambiguous – his question - will people still conform when group is clearly wrong?

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity  All but 1 in group was confederate  Seating was rigged  Asked to rate which line matched a “standard” line  Confederates were instructed to pick the wrong line 12/18 times Comparison lines Standard lines 1 2 3

Asch’s Experiments on Conformity  Results – Asch found that 75% participants conformed to at least one wrong choice – subjects gave wrong answer (conformed) on 37% of the critical trials  Why did they conform to clearly wrong choices? – informational influence? – subjects reported having doubted their own perceptual abilities which led to their conformance – didn’t report seeing the lines the way the confederates had

Asch’s Experiments on conformity  Variations to test informational influence hypothesis – had subject come late – confederates voted out loud, but subjects wrote their vote down  Results – conformity dropped significantly  Suggests that the original subjects conformed due to normative influences, not informational

Effects of a Nonconformist  If everyone agrees, you are less likely to disagree  If one person disagrees, even if they give the wrong answer, you are more likely to express your nonconforming view  Asch tested this hypothesis – one confederate gave different answer from others – conformity dropped significantly

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 – Leads to lack of individual critical thinking

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 1Group 2 Before group discussion Strength of opinion (a) Against For Group 1Group 2 After group discussion Strength of opinion (b)

Social Power  Power over others depends on type of power  Reward Power – Influence people with rewards Politicians with gov ’ t jobs  Coercive Power – Influence people through fear and punishment Police  Legitimate Power – Influence people by their position Judge or a principal  Referent Power – Power gained through respect or reverence  Expert Power – Influence through knowledge or expertise Scientist or degree

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

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 ”

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

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Shock Level Switch Labels and Voltage Levels Shock Level Switch Labels and Voltage Levels “Slight Shock” “Moderate Shock” “Strong Shock” “Very Strong Shock” “Intense Shock” “Extreme Intensity Shock” “Danger: Severe Shock” “XXX”

Stanley Milgram’s Studies  Learner protests more and more as shock increases  Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks “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…”

Obedience How many people would go to the highest shock level? 65% of the subjects went to the end, even those that protested

Obedience Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong ( ) Very strong ( ) Intense ( ) Extreme intensity ( ) Danger: severe ( ) XXX ( ) Shock levels in works Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter

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

Percentage of subjects administering the maximum shock (450 volts) Follow-Up Studies to Milgram  Original study Different building Teacher with learner Put hand on shock Orders by phone Ordinary man orders 2 teachers rebel Teacher chooses shock level

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?

Cognitive Dissonance  Leon Festinger – Conflict (dissonance) that is caused by behavior and attitude in conflict – Dissonance occurs because attitude about something does not match their behavior – People will respond more positively to a negative experience if their behavior caused dissonance – Boot camp, pledge initiation – Excellent for bonding a group – A horrible free concert becomes more enjoyable later because you change your attitude to match sitting through it – Boot camp is a combination of misery loves company and cognitive dissonance What else can explain men praise for crawling through mud and being bullied by a drill sergeant

 Effort Justification – Those that get nothing or very little often try to explain why they did a certain thing which often changes their attitude.  Selective exposure – Hang around like-minded people to reinforce your attitude

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 and Darley 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

Brainwashing  Techniques used to change thinking

Cooperation and Social Dilemmas  Social dilemma – 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

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 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

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

Deindividuation  Social loafing – when behavior is not monitored, performance goes down e.g., group projects  Risky shift  Deindividuation – sense of reduced accountability and shifted attention away from the self that occurs in groups – responsible for riots, lynchings, gang rapes, road rage and other group violence

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

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 $3$5 $0$1 Player 2 Player 1 Cooperates Defects Cooperates Defects

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  Cooperation + cooperation  Failure to cooperate + failure to cooperate  Cooperation + failure to cooperate  Failure to cooperate + cooperation Guilt Gratitude Disaffection Anger GratitudeGuilt Anger Disaffection Player 2 Player 1 Cooperates Defects Cooperates Defects

Emotions as Foundations for Social Behavior  Emotions as social signals – facial expressions universal serve as signals to influence behavior – the happy smile see often when socially engaged not as often when not socially engaged  Emotional contagion – spread of mood from one person to another – group laughter & group playfulness

Self-Conscious Emotions  Emotions linked to thoughts about the self or one’s own actions – pride, guilt, shame, embarrassment  Guilt as a motivator of relationship repair – focuses attention on others’ feelings  Shame as a motivator of social withdrawal – focuses attention on real or imagined flaw in ourselves

Self-Conscious Emotions  Embarrassment – inadvertent violation of social norm – receipt of unexpected or undesired attention – function is communicative value  Pride – directly opposite to shame – attention focused on own beauty and successes – increases self-esteem – motivates us to promote social acceptance

Social Pressure  Set of psychological forces exerted on an individual by other people or by the individual’s beliefs about other people

Lewin’s Field Theory  Field of forces that push or pull us in certain directions  Some internal z wishes/desires  Some external z social pressure Person The life space Force 3 Force 4 Force 1 Force 2 Goal 1Goal 2

Latane’s Social Impact Theory – Want to identify factors that increase/decrease social pressure – Wish to predict the impact of social pressure at any given time number of sources strength of a source immediacy of a source

Impression Management  How we present ourselves to others – tend to try to look better than we really are – want to look good, modest, sincere – we are intuitive politicians – we also tend to engage in more impression management with new acquaintances than with old friends

Self-Monitoring  Attention paid to the impressions being made, then fine tuning the performance – high self monitors watch themselves vigilantly constantly modify behavior – low self monitors less vigilant more consistent from audience to audience  Differences between cultures

Facilitating/Interfering Effects of an Audience  Do we do better in groups or alone?  Social facilitation – enhancing effect of an audience on task performance occurs with well-learned tasks  Social interference (social inhibition) – decline in performance when observers are present occurs with new or difficult tasks

Zajonc’s Theory  Linked social interference and facilitation to arousal level  High arousal improves simple or well-learned tasks  High arousal worsens complex or poorly- learned task Worsened performance of nondominant responses (social Interference) Improved performance of dominant responses (social facilitation) Increased drive or arousal Presence of others

Combining Sales Techniques  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 Percentage donating Type of solicitation NeitherPregiving Foot-in- the-door Both