1. Social Psychology

2. 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.

6. 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.

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

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

10. Fundamental Attribution Error Social Thinking: Williams College study: A woman was paid and told to act friendly to some students, unfriendly to others. The students felt that her behavior was part of a her disposition, even when they were told that she was just obeying instructions. We make this error even when we are given the correct facts:

11. 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,

12. 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

13. Example: Social Thinking Attitudes affect our actions when: 1. External influences are minimal 2. The attitude is stable 3. The attitude is specific to the behavior 4. The attitude is easily recalled. “I feel like [attitude] eating at McD’s, and I will [action];” 1.There are no nutritionists here telling me not to, 2.I’ve enjoyed their food for quite a while, 3.It’s so easy to get the food when I have a craving, 4.It’s easy to remember how good it is when I drive by that big sign every day.”

14. 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

15. Festinger’s Study (1957): Students were paid either large or small amounts to express enjoyment of a boring activity. Then many of the students changed their attitudes about the activity. Which amount shifted attitudes? Origin of Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Dissonance: When our actions are not in harmony with our attitudes. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: the observation that we tend to resolve this dissonance by changing our attitudes to fit our actions. Social Thinking: Cognitive Dissonance  Getting paid more: “I was paid to say that.”  Getting paid less: “Why would I say it was fun? Just for a dollar? Weird. Maybe it wasn’t so bad, now that I think of it.”

16. 16 If Fiona agrees to do some fundraising for her college, her attitudes about school finances might shift to resolve her cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance

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

18. Levels of Prejudice can Change The Greatest Generation The Silent Generation Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y Support for interraci al dating

19. Thinking Habits Reinforci ng Prejudice The Availability Heuristic: Stereotypes are built on vivid cases rather than statistics Confirmation Bias: we are not likely to look for counterexampl es to our stereotypes. Hindsight Bias: “they should have known better,” blames victims for misfortunes. Cognitive dissonance: “My culture and family treats minorities this way, can we be wrong?”

20. Aggression can have many forms and purposes:  Aggression can be physical, verbal, relational: e.g. punching, insulting, shooting, betraying.  Aggression can be planned or reactive.  Aggression can be driven by hostile rage or can be a coldly calculated means to an end. Social Relations Aggression Definition: Behavior with the intent of harming another person.

21. Levels of aggression are influenced by:  Aversive conditions and feeling frustrated;  Getting reinforced for aggressive behavior;  Having aggression modeled at home or in the media  Adopting social scripts for aggression from culture and the media. Social Relations Psychosocial Factors and Aggression

22. Alcohol may chemically or psychologically make the following more likely:  Disinhibited aggressive behavior  Aggressive responses to frustration  Violent crimes, especially spousal abuse  Lack of attention to peacemaking options  Interpreting neutral acts as provocations Social Relations Biochemistry of Aggression Alcohol

23. Aggression in Media: Social Scripts  Aggression portrayed in video, music, books, and other media, follows and teaches a script.  When confronted with new situations, we may rely on social scripts to guide our responses. Many scripts proscribe aggression. Social Scripts: Culturally constructed directions on how to act, downloaded from media as a “file” or “program” in the mind. Effects of Social Scripts Studies: Exposure to one aggressive story increases other forms of aggressive behavior.  Watchers of TV crime see the world as more threatening (needing a aggressive defense?)  Randomly assigned to watch explicit pornography, study participants suggested shorter sentences for rapists and accepted the myth that victims may have enjoyed the rape.

24. More Media Effects on Aggression  Exposure to violence in media, especially in pornography, seems to increase, rather than release, male aggressive impulses.  Media can portray minorities, women, the poor, and others with less power as being weak, stupid, submissive, and less human, and thus deserving their victimhood. Video Games and Aggression  People randomly assigned to play ultraviolent video games showed increases in hostility  People playing a game helping characters, showed increased real- life helping  People have acted out violent acts from video games; People playing the most violent games tended to be the most aggressive; but what came first, aggressiveness or games?

25. The Many Origins of Aggression

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Breakdown in Water Supply

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

33. Two types of social influence Normative Social Influence: Informational Social Influence: Going along with others in pursuit of social approval or belonging (and to avoid disapproval/rejection) Examples: The Asch conformity studies; clothing choices. Going along with others because their ideas and behavior make sense, the evidence in our social environment changes our minds. Example: Deciding which side of the road to drive on.

34. 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

36. Asch’s Experiments on Conformity Previous research had shown people will conform to others’ judgments more often when the evidence is ambiguous

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. Obedience compliance of person is due to perceived authority of asker request is perceived as a command Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders

41. The Design of Milgram’s Obedience Study One layout of the study The “Learner” (working with researchers) Ow! Please continue. (Give the shock.) But… …oka y. Shock levels in volts that participants thought they were giving Slight (15-60) Moderat e (75- 120) Strong (135- 180) Very strong (195- 240) Intense (250- 300) Extreme intensity (315- 360) Danger: severe (375- 420) XXX (435- 450)

42. 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…”

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

44. Obedience XXX (435-450) Percentage of subjects who obeyed experimenter 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Slight (15-60) Moderate (75-120) Strong (135-180) Very strong (195-240) Intense (255-300) Extreme intensity (315-360) Danger severe (375-420) Shock levels in volts The majority of subjects continued to obey to the end

45. 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

46. 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

47. Follow-Up Studies to Milgram

48. 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?

49. Being watched, and simply being in crowded conditions, increases one’s autonomic arousal, along with increasing motivation for those who are confident, and anxiety for those who are not confident. Why would the presence of an audience “facilitate” better performance for everyone but newcomers? Social Facilitation

50. Social Loafing  Ever had a group project, with a group grade, and had someone in the group slack off?  If so, you have experienced Social Loafing: the tendency of people in a group to show less effort when not held individually accountable. Who will know if I’m not pulling as hard as I can? No one can tell how hard each of us is pulling on the rope. Why does social loafing happen? When your contribution isn’t rewarded or punished, you might not care what people think. People may not feel their contributions are needed, that the group will be fine. People may feel free to “cheat” when they get an equal share of the rewards anyway. Note: People in collectivist cultures don’t slack off as much in groups even when they could. Why?

51. Loss of self-awareness and self- restraint. Examples: Riots, KKK rallies, concerts, identity-concealed online bullying.  Happens when people are in group situations involving: 1) Anonymity and 2) Arousal. Deindividuatio n

52.  In pursuit of social harmony (and avoidance of open disagreement), groups will make decisions without an open exchange of ideas.  Irony: Group “think” prevents thinking, prevents a realistic assessment of options. Groupthink

53. Despite all of these forces of social influence, individuals still have power:  Some people resist obeying and conforming.  Individuals can start social movements and social forces, not just get caught up in them.  Groupthink can be prevented if individuals speak up when a group decision seems wrong. Social Influence The Power of Individuals

54. Keys to a Lasting Love Relationship  Equity: Both giving and receiving, sharing responsibilities, with a sense of partnership  Self-Disclosure: Sharing self in conversation increases intimacy  Positive Interactions and Support: Offering sympathy, concern, laughs, hugs

55. Peacemaking: The 4 C’s  Contact: exposure and interaction  familiarity  acceptance  connection  Cooperation: finding shared goals, not just focusing on the incompatible goals  Communication: sometimes with mediators  Conciliation: Gestures that reduce tension by showing intension to build alliances rather than winning conflicts. Smile. Apologize.

56. Help or not?

57. 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

58. 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

59. Factors that Increase helping Feel Good, Do Good Effect Feeling guilty Seeing others who are willing to help Perceiving the person as deserving help Knowing how to help A personalized Relationship

60. Factors that Decrease helping Presence of other people Being in a big city or very small town When personal costs for helping outweigh the benefits Vague or ambiguous situations Domestic dispute, “lover’s quarrel”