How people think about influence and relate to other people How do we explain behavior how do we form impressions of others how does the presence of others influence our behavior What leads to prejudice and discrimination ID: 547885
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Social Psychology" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Social PsychologySlide2
How people think about, influence, and relate to other people
-How do we explain behavior?
-how do we form impressions of others?
-how does the presence of others influence our behavior?
-What leads to prejudice and discrimination?
Slide3
Social Thinking
We constantly try to explain other people’s motives, traits, and preferences
Attribution Theory:
causal explanations for why events or actions occur.Slide4
Types of Attribution
Personal
/internal or dispositional attributions:
refer
to things within people, such as abilities, moods, or
effortsSlide5
2.
Situational/external attributions:
refer to outside events, such as luck, accidents, or the actions of other peopleSlide6
Fundamental attribution error
Occurs when we try to explain someone else’s behavior
Consistent tendency to:
overemphasize
the importance of personality traits
underestimate
the importance of a situation when explaining another’s
behaviorSlide7
Different when we explain our own behaviorSlide8
Self-Serving Bias
our failures:
attributed
to situational, unstable, or uncontrollable factors in a way that casts us in a positive
light
our successes:
attributed
to personal, permanent factors in a way that gives us credit for doing
wellSlide9
How do servers explain tips?Slide10
Self-serving Bias at Work
Low Tips:
because customer is cheap, jerk, etc
Situational/External attribution
High Tips:
because my service was so great
Personal/dispositional attributionSlide11
Is Behavior due to personal traits or environment?Slide12
Power of the Situation
Idea that behavior is influenced by environmental factors, even though we focus on personal traits for explanation
Zimbardo
Prison Study:
Test of situational vs. personal factorsSlide13
Summary
Initially no differences between groups at beginning
How do subjects develop identities:
Deindividuation
Risky Shift/Polarization
Conformity
Foot-in-the Door Escalation
Implications for real world?Slide14
Attributions
How do Guards Explain their own behavior??
How do prisoners explain it?
How do prisoners explain their own behavior??
How do guards explain it?Slide15
Conclusions??
Was it really the situation?
“Three types of guards”
“Three types of prisoners”
Generalizability
: Would this always happen again?Slide16
Social Influence
How presence of
others influences
individual behaviorSlide17
Eichmann Trial: April 1961Slide18
Seemingly “Normal”Slide19
Conformity, Compliance, ObedienceSlide20
Conformity
Conformity
:
altering one’s behaviors and opinions to match those of other people or to match other people’s
expectationsSlide21
Asch Conformity StudySlide22
MethodsSlide23
ResultsSlide24
Summary
Conformity:
Confederate present:
75% of subjects gave incorrect answers at least once
Control Group:
with no confederate, 2% gave incorrect answer
Conditions promoting conformity:
Social Norms:
expected standard of conduct
Larger group size
Group unanimitySlide25
Why we conform
Normative influence:
occurs when we go along with the crowd to avoid looking foolish
Informational influence:
occurs when we assume that the behavior of the crowd represents the correct way to respondSlide26
Has Conformity Decreased?Slide27
Social
Norms
In Marketing
"Most MU students drink 0-4 drinks per week.”
"Most MU students don't drink and drive.”
"Most MU students have not missed class due to drinking.”
"Most MU students use alcohol once a week or less.”
Results:
increase
behavior in light drinkersSlide28
Compliance
Agreeing to a request made by othersSlide29Slide30
Compliance strategies
Foot-in-the-door effect:
Door in the face:Slide31
Obedience
Following orders of an authority figureSlide32
Milgram
StudiesSlide33Slide34Slide35Slide36
Factors influencing ObedienceSlide37
Social Facilitation
tendency for people to perform better on simple tasks when in the presence of othersSlide38
Roger Bannister: 1954Slide39
Zajonc’s
model
Presence of others can an enhance or decrease performance
Enhance:
if dominant response is relatively easy
Impair:
If the dominant response is difficultSlide40
Social Loafing
Social
loafing
:
People work less hard when in a group than when working alone
Prevented by :
monitoring individual effortsSlide41
Ringelmann’s
Rope Pulling ExperimentSlide42Slide43
DeindividuationSlide44
Deindividuation
: a state of reduced individuality, reduced self-awareness, and reduced attention to personal
standards
Increased when anonymity is present & responsibility is diffusedSlide45
Group Decision MakingSlide46
Risky-shift effect
Decisions made by a group tend to be more risky than ones made by individualsSlide47
Main and Walker (1973) Study
analyzed
1500 decisions of Federal district court judges sitting either alone or in groups of three
Alone:
extreme course of action only 30% of the time.
Group of three:
extreme course 65%. Slide48
Group PolarizationSlide49
Results
initial preferences can become exaggerated through discussion
final position is often more extreme than it was initially.Slide50
GroupthinkSlide51
Groupthink & The Challenger
an extreme form of group polarization
results when group members are afraid to dissent
concerned with maintaining the group’s cohesivenessSlide52
Attitudes
people’s evaluations of objects, of events, or of ideasSlide53
Attitudes Can Be Explicit or Implicit
Explicit
attitudes
:
attitudes that a person can report
Implicit
attitudes
: attitudes that influence a person’s feelings and behavior at an unconscious
levelSlide54
How are Attitudes Formed?
Mere
exposure
effect
Conditioning:
operant and classical
SocializationSlide55
What happens when attitudes & behavior conflict?Slide56
Cognitive Dissonance
an
uncomfortable mental state due to a contradiction between two attitudes or between an attitude and a
behavior
How to reduce dissonance?Slide57
Quit smoking
Change BehaviorSlide58
Change Attitude
“Smoking’s not so bad for me
”Slide59
trivialize the discrepancies
“I don’t smoke
much
”
“I only smoke filtered Slide60
Rationalize away the conflict
“
I
won’t get sick”
“Lots of people smoke and live to be very old”Slide61
Dissonance can lead to attitude changeSlide62
Festinger
&
Carlsmith
(1959)
Participants
performed an extremely boring task and then
asked to tell other
participants on how enjoyable it
was
Some paid $20; others paid $1Slide63
Results
$1 group said it was more interesting
than $20
groupSlide64
$20 Group
Conflict between attitude and behavior:
Told others it was interesting bit initially thought it was boring
No Dissonance
Could rationalize away behavior: getting
paid $20 was a reasonable explanation for discrepancySlide65
$1 Group
Conflict between attitude and behavior
: Told others it was interesting but initially thought it was boring.
Produced dissonance
Couldn’t rationalize away behavior
: so they changed attitudeSlide66
Insufficient justification
Way to change attitudes by changing behaviors first, using as few incentives as possibleSlide67
Insufficient Justification: I love my Job!Slide68
Postdecisional
Dissonance
Automatic process
focus on positive aspects of chosen option and the negative aspects of the non-chosen aspectsSlide69
Implicit processSlide70
Justifying
Effort
Dissonance Produced:
When
people put themselves through pain, embarrassment, or discomfort to join a
groupResolve
the
dissonance:
inflate
the importance of the group and their commitment to itSlide71
Helping BehaviorSlide72Slide73Slide74
Bystander Apathy?
Bystander intervention effect
:
the failure to offer help by those who observe someone in
needSlide75
Bystander Intervention Model
“Before an individual can decide to intervene in an emergency, he must, implicitly or explicitly, take several preliminary steps.
1. He must first notice the event
2. he must then interpret it as an emergency
3. and he must decide that it is his personal responsibility to act.”
Latane
and Darley (1968b) Slide76
1. Noticing the EventSlide77
“Good Samaritan” StudySlide78
Green Hall: asked to use side entranceSlide79
Confederate planted in alleySlide80
Seminarians didn’t stop to help
Didn’t notice “emergency situation” because they were focused on getting to talkSlide81
2. Interpreting event as emergencySlide82
Smoke-filled room study
Methods:
Subjects directed to a waiting room where they could fill out a preliminary questionnaire.
Smoke flowed out from beneath a door into the waiting room.
Continued for six minutes to the extent that
“vision was obscured by the amount of smoke present”
by the end.
Independent Variable:
The number of other people in the waiting room varied depending on the condition the participant was unknowingly in. Slide83Slide84
Ambiguity in Kitty GenoveseSlide85
3. Feeling personal responsibilitySlide86
Communication Study
Method:
Subjects recruited for study on communication
Placed in individual cubicle; communicate with others over intercom
Emergency occurred in middle of experiment
Independent Variable:
?
Dependent Variable:
?Slide87
ResultsSlide88
Diffusion of ResponsibilitySlide89
Stereotypes
cognitive schemas that help us organize information about people on the basis of their membership in certain groupsSlide90Slide91
Characteristics of Stereotypes
Allow for easy, fast processing of social
information
Are overused
Occur automatically, largely outside of our
awareness
Self –perpetuating: Affect impression formationSlide92
Stereotypes are self-maintaining
Confirmation Bias:
direct our attention toward information that confirms them and away from disconfirming evidence
Subtyping
:
When we encounter someone who does not fit a stereotype, we put that person in a special category rather than alter the stereotypeSlide93
Stereotypes Can Lead to Prejudice
prejudice
:
positive or negative
feelings, opinions, and beliefs associated with a
stereotype
discrimination:
positive or negative behavior toward another person based on that person’s group membershipSlide94
Stereotypes and Perception
Payne (2001):
White subjects asked to classify pictures of guns or tools
Shown white or black faces immediately before
Being
shown a black face led the participants to identify guns more quickly and to mistake tools for
guns
Priming people with pictures of weapons (e.g., guns and knives) leads them to pay greater attention to pictures of black faces than to pictures of white faces (
Eberhardt
, Goff,
Purdie
, & Davies, 2004)Slide95Slide96
Ingroup
/
Outgroup
Bias
Slide97
“
Humans show a strong inclination to form such subgroups which eventually distinguish themselves from the others by dialect and other subgroup characteristics and go on to form new cultures . . . To live in groups which demarcate themselves from others is a basic feature of human nature”
Eible-Eibesfeldt
Slide98
Lord of the FliesSlide99
Ralph vs. Jack ( and Piggy)Slide100
US
Ingroups
:
groups to which we belong
Ingroup
Favoritism:
We are more likely to be positively prejudiced towards members of our group
We are more willing to do favors for
ingroup
members and to forgive their mistakes or errors.Slide101
THEM
Outgroups
:
groups to which we do not belong
Outgroup
homogeneity effect:
we tend to view
outgroup
members as less varied than
ingroup
membersSlide102
Robbers Cave Experiment ( 1954)
How does group identify form?
How can we reduce out-group hostility?Slide103
Methods
22 Protestant boys, 11 yrs old
IQs, grades average to above average
Told they would be going to summer camp
No glasses, non overweight, same accents
All new to area; None knew each
Split into two groups of 11
Each group transported separately to Boy Scout Camp in Robbers Cave State ParkSlide104
Stage 1: Group Identification
Each group was unaware of existence of the other
Chose names: Eagles & Rattlers
At end of first week notified that there was another group
each group started plotting to “ take down” the otherSlide105
Stage 2: CompetitionSlide106
WAR!
Name calling recorded at first meeting ( baseball game)
Rattlers hung their flag on backstop of “their” baseball diamond; Eagles lost and tore down the flag and burned it.
Raided cabins, stole items, Eagles carried sticks and baseball bats “just in case”
Rattlers prepared defense: socks filled with stones, stones to be used as projectileSlide107
Stage 3: Reconciliation?
Put groups together in non-competitive situations
:
not helpful: food fights
Institute
superordinate
goals:
Problem with camp water system
Broken down supply truck
Relocation to new camping ground Slide108
Friend choice before & after
superordinate
goalSlide109
Easy to produce in-groups & out-groupsSlide110
Tajfel
Study
Subjects:
14-15 yrs old; all knew each other
Methods:
asked to estimate number of dots flashed in
a cluster
Classification:
told they were either “
overestimators
” or “
underestimators
”
Result:
asked how much each subject should be paid for participating; consistently gave more to in –group members Slide111
Romantic RelationshipsSlide112
Major Themes
Evolutionary Origins
Universality
Dissociable Components
Specific Neural SystemsSlide113
Animal Courtship and Attraction
Described in over 100 speciesSlide114
Evolution & Love: Natural Selection
Adaptive Behaviors
-Lust
Attachment/bonding
Functions
Increase reproductive successSlide115
A Universal Human Experience
Found in all culturesSlide116
Systems are DissociableSlide117
Separate Neural Pathways & Behaviors
Romantic Love
Bonding/Attachment
Lust/Sex DriveSlide118
Romantic Love/AttractionSlide119
Characteristic BehaviorsSlide120
Euphoria
Focused Attention on one individual
Distorted Reality
Obsessive Thinking
Physiological Changes
Mood Swings
Jealousy/Sexual exclusivity
Transient State
Evolved to conserve mating energy
Gender differences in what is attractive Slide121
Romantic Love Neural CircuitrySlide122
Love is the Drug
Brain Circuit:
Activation in Reward Circuit: VTA, Nucleus
Accumbens
, Caudate
Same circuit involved in drug addictionSlide123
Attachment/Bonding
Evolved to motivate mating partners to maintain affiliation long enough to complete parental duties
Companionate LoveSlide124
Characteristic Behaviors
Animals
mutual territory defense
mutual feeding, grooming
separation anxiety
Humans
feelings of calm, security
social comfort
emotional union
Gender Differences in what triggers attachmentSlide125
Attachment Brain CircuitrySlide126
Of Voles and Men
Monogamous Voles:
increased density of
Vasopression
&
Oxytocin
Receptors in VTASlide127
Of Voles and Men
Monogamous Voles:
Co-localization with Dopamine in Nucleus
Accumbens
and caudateSlide128
Of Voles and Men
vasopression
gene in men associated with monogamySlide129
Lust/Sex Drive
Evolved to motivate sexual union with
ANY
available member of the speciesSlide130
Lust Neural Circuitry
Determined by levels of Testosterone- can increase drive but not attachment to partner
Gender differences in how system is activatedSlide131
Applications of ResearchSlide132
Understanding Marriage and DivorceSlide133
Matching Principle
People similar in attitudes, values, interests, backgrounds, and personalities tend to like each other
The
most successful romantic couples also tend to be the most physically similarSlide134
Physical Attractiveness
How people rate attractiveness is generally consistent across all cultures
:
symmetrical
“
averaged” faces
are rated
more
attractive
Averaged faces that include your own are rated more attractiveSlide135Slide136
Love is Fostered by Idealization
People
who loved their partners the most also idealized their partners the
most
People with the most positively biased views of their partners were more likely to still be in the relationships with their partners several months later than were those people with more “realistic” views of their
partnersSlide137
Dealing with Conflict
St
yles leading to marital problems (
Gottman
)
being overly criticalholding the partner in contempt
being defensive
mentally withdrawing from the
relationship
Styles leading to happy marriages:
express
concern for each other even while they are disagreeing
deliver
criticism lightheartedly and
playfullySlide138
Attributional
Style and Accommodation
Attributional
style:
how one partner explains the other’s
behavior
Accommodation:
a process in which happy couples make partner-enhancing attributions by overlooking bad behavior or responding constructively
Unhappy
couples:
view
each other in the most negative ways
possible
they attribute
good
outcomes to situations, and they attribute
bad
outcomes to each otherSlide139
Consequences of Anti-depressants
Interfere with Dopamine
Increase Serotonin
Decrease testosteroneSlide140
Understanding Infidelity and “One Night –stands”Slide141
Understanding Stalking, Crimes of PassionSlide142
This is Your Brain in Love
Helen Fisher and Three Systems of Mammalian LoveSlide143
Lance Armstrong
Justification for doping: only have one testicle, so juicing really to put me on level playing field