1. 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

2. 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).

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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 in Gray.

9. 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?”

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter
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
This figure is from the Myers text, adapted from the CD version

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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 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

27. 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

28. 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”

29. 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

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

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