1. Social Psychology

2. Social Psychology
The branch of psychology that studies how people think, feel, and behave in social situations

3. Social Cognition
The mental processes that people use to make sense out of their social environment
Person perception
Social categorization
Implicit personality theory
Attribution
Attitudes
Stereotypes

4. Person Perception
Your reactions are determined by your perceptions of others
Your goals determine the amount and kind of information you collect
You evaluate people partly in terms of how you expect them to behave (social norms)
Your self-perception influences how you perceive others

5. Physical Attractiveness
Implicit cultural message is “beautiful is good”
Attractive people are perceived as more intelligent, happier, and better adjusted
Really no difference between attractive and less attractive people on these characteristics
Attractive people are more likely to attribute other people’s approval of their accomplishments to looks rather than effort or talent.

6. Attribution
Process of inferring the causes of people’s behavior, including one’s own
The explanation given for a particular behavior

7. Attribution Bias Fundamental attribution error
Actor-observer discrepancy
Blaming the victim (just-world hypothesis)
Self-serving bias
Self-effacing bias

8. Discovering Psy2e Table 11.1 page 416

9. Using Attitudes as Ways to “Justify” Injustice
Just-world bias
a tendency to believe that life is fair, e.g., it would seem horrible to think that you can be a really good person and bad things could happen to you anyway
Just-world bias leads to “blaming the victim”
we explain others’ misfortunes as being their fault,
e.g., she deserved to be raped, what was she doing in that neighborhood anyway?

10. Attitudes What is an attitude?
predisposition to evaluate some people, groups, or issues in a particular way
can be negative or positive
Has three components
Cognitive—thoughts about given topic or situation
Affective—feelings or emotions about topic
Behavioral—your actions regarding the topic or situation

11. Cognitive Dissonance
Unpleasant state of psychological tension or arousal that occurs when two thoughts or perceptions are inconsistent
Attitudes and behaviors are in conflict
it is uncomfortable for us
we seek ways to decrease discomfort caused by the inconsistency

12. Dissonance-Reducing Mechanisms
Avoiding dissonant information
– we attend to information in support of our existing views, rather than information that doesn’t support them
Firming up an attitude to be consistent with an action
– once we’ve made a choice to do something, lingering doubts about our actions would cause dissonance, so we are motivated to set them aside

14. Prejudice
A negative attitude toward people who belong to a specific social group

15. Stereotypes What is a stereotype?
A cluster of characteristics associated with all members of a specific group of people
a belief held by members of one group about members of another group
I always include a discussion here about stereotypes not always being negative, but taking on a negative connotation. For example, African-Americans are seen as being naturally athletic, Caucasians are seen as being smart -- this leads to media statements about Black athletes such as, "look how talented a player s/he is." and white athletes such as, "boy is s/he a cerebral player" or "that player really works hard." These statements are negative toward both groups, implying that Black athletes don't work hard or aren't smart and that White athletes have no talent.
I also discuss the definitions of prejudice and racism here and distinguish them from stereotyping
I also spend some time talking about social categorization's usefulness to people and the differences between categorizing on chosen (e.g., clothes) vs. unchosen (e.g., race, gender) characteristics of a person

16. Social Categories In-group—the social group to which we belong
In-group bias—tendency to make favorable attributions for members of our in-group
Ethnocentrism is one type of in-group bias
Out-group—the social group to which you do not belong
Out group homogeneity effect—tendency to see members of the out-group as more similar to each other

17. 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 Robbers Cave 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

18. Robbers Cave (Sherif)
Leaders proposed series of competitive interactions which 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”

19. Robbers Cave 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

20. Social Influence
• How behavior is influenced by the social environment and the presence of other people
Conformity
Obedience
Helping Behaviors

21. 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 social influence—other people can provide useful and crucial information
Normative social influence—desire to be accepted as part of a group leads to that group having an influence

22. Asch’s Experiments on Conformity
Previous research had shown people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the evidence is ambiguous
Currently, I am trying to reproduce Asch's experiment in my classroom, but am still working out the details. However, even if you can't get conformity from the subject, the students think it is a fun and informative demonstration. In addition, film clips are available with replications of his study, although not on the Gray CD.
another approach is to stop lecture at the point where you will introduce conformity and ask the students to do something (e.g., get up and change seats) -- then discuss their behavior as it relates to conforming -- individual instructors may prefer to use this demonstration under obedience, however.

23. 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
Discovering Psy 2e slides, Shulman

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Teacher goes 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

28. 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

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

30. Obedience Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter
XXX
( )
Percentage
of subjects
who obeyed
experimenter
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
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
This figure is from the Myers text,

31. 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

32. 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

33. Follow-Up Studies to Milgram
This figure is adapted from the CD version of figure 12.5 in Hockenbury

34. 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?

35. 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
I like to discuss with students the effect of a nonconformist on others in the group by discussing a study by Moscivici & Personnaz:
(a) Showed blue slides to a group of people with a few confederates sprinkled in there. In group 1, a majority of the group said “green” when the slide was actually blue; in group 2 a minority of people said “green” when the slide was actually blue
(b) The hypothesis was that when a minority of people stuck up for their position (green not blue) that other people might listen and really try to see green
(c) When they showed a white screen and asked for the color of the afterimages, group 1 reported yellow afterimages (seeing only blue), but group 2 reported orange afterimages (seeing a little red in there which is the complement of green!!)

36. 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

37. 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).

38. 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

39. 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

40. Individual and Groups
Social Loafing—tendency to expend less effort on a task when it is a group effort
Reduced when
Group is composed of people we know
We are members of a highly valued group
Task is meaningful
Not as common in collectivist cultures

41. 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.

42. 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

43. 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.

44. Defense against Persuasion Techniques
Sleep on it—don’t act on something right away
Play devil’s advocate—think of all the reasons you shouldn’t buy the product or comply with the request
Pay attention to your gut feelings—if you feel pressured, you probably are