21
Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Dr. William G. HuittValdosta State University

Social PsychologyPart I

Last revised: May 2005

Page 2: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Summary

• A human being is inherently

– biological

– conditioned by the environment– able to gather data about the world through the

senses and organize that data– emotional– intelligent (adapt to, modify, and select environments)– able to create and use knowledge– able to form concepts, think rationally– able to use language

Page 3: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Social Psychology

• Social psychology– The study of how the actual, imagined, or implied

presence of others influences the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals

• Major topics– Social perception– Attraction– Conformity, obedience, compliance– Group influence– Attitudes and attitude change– Prosocial behavior– Aggression– Prejudice and discrimination

Page 4: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Social Perception

• Impression formation– Primacy effect

• The tendency for an overall impression of another to be influenced more by the first information that is received about that person than by information that comes later

• Any information that is consistent with the first impression is likely to be accepted, thus strengthening the impression

• Information that does not fit with the earlier information is more likely to be disregarded

Page 5: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Social Perception

• Attributions– Inferences about the cause of one’s own or

another’s behavior– Situational attribution

• Attributing a behavior to some external cause or factor operating in the situation; an external attribution

– Dispositional attribution• Attributing a behavior to some internal cause, such as a

personal trait, motive, or attitude; an internal attribution

Page 6: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Social Perception

• Attributions– Inferences about the cause of one’s own or

another’s behavior

Page 7: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Social Perception

• Attributions– Actor-observer effect

• The tendency to attribute one’s own behavior primarily to situational factors and the behavior of others primarily to internal or dispositional factors

– Self-serving bias• The tendency to attribute personal successes to

dispositional causes and failures to situational causes

Page 8: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Attraction

• Factors influencing attraction– Proximity

• Geographic closeness; a major factor in attraction

– Mere-exposure effect• The tendency of people to develop a more positive

evaluation of some person, object, or other stimulus with repeated exposure to it

• Our own moods and emotions, whether positive or negative, can influence how much we are attracted to people we meet

– We tend to like the people who also like us—or who we believe like us—a phenomenon called reciprocity or reciprocal liking

Page 9: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Attraction

• Physical attractiveness– People of all ages have a strong tendency to prefer

physically attractive people– Perceptions of attractiveness are based on features

that are approximately the mathematical average of the features in a given general population

– Symmetry also an important factor– Males and females across many different cultures

have similar ideas about the physical attractiveness of members of the opposite sex

Page 10: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Attraction

• Physical attractiveness– Halo effect

• The tendency to infer generally positive or negative traits in a person as a result of observing one major positive or negative trait

– Initial vs long-term• Suggest that the impact of physical attractiveness is

strongest in the perception of strangers• Once we get to know people, other qualities assume more

importance

Page 11: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Romantic Attraction and Mating

• Matching hypothesis– The notion that people tend to have spouses, lovers, or friends

who are approximately equivalent in social assets such as physical attractiveness, intelligence, SES, etc.

– Partners is first marriage tend to choose mates with needs and personalities that are complementary rather than similar to their own

– Generally men and women across cultures rate these four qualities as the most important in mate selection:

1. mutual attraction/love2. dependable character3. emotional stability and maturity4. pleasing disposition

Page 12: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Romantic Attraction and Mating

• Sternberg’s Triangular theory of love– Sternberg’s theory that three components—

intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment—singly and in various combinations produce seven different kinds of love:

• Liking• Infatuated love• Empty love• Romantic love• Fatuous love• Companionate love• Consummate love

Page 13: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Conformity, Obedience,and Compliance

• Conformity– Changing or adopting an attitude or behavior to be

consistent with the social norms of a group or the expectations of other people

– Social norms• The attitudes and standards of behavior expected of

members of a particular group• Researchers have found that teenagers who attend

schools where the majority of students are opposed to smoking, drinking, and drug use are less likely to use these substances than peers who attend school where the majority approves of these behaviors

Page 14: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Conformity, Obedience,and Compliance

• Conformity– People with specific pattern on three of the Big Five

personality traits are more likely to conform • Low in Neuroticism (emotional instability)• High in Agreeableness (pleasant, cooperative)• High in Conscientiousness (dependable, persevering)

Page 15: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Conformity, Obedience,and Compliance

• Obedience– Clearly, most people must obey most rules and

respect those in authority most of the time if society is to survive and function

– Milgram• Did an experiment in which each trial involved three

teachers (two confederates and one naive participant)• One confederate was instructed to refuse to continue after

150 volts, and the other confederate after 210 volts• In this situation, 36 out of 40 naive participants defied the

experimenter before the maximum shock could be given• The presence of another person who refused to go along

gave many of the participants the courage to defy the authority

Page 16: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Conformity, Obedience,and Compliance

• Compliance– Acting in accordance with the wishes, the

suggestions, or the direct request of another person

Page 17: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Conformity, Obedience,and Compliance

• Compliance– Foot-in-the-door technique

• A strategy designed to secure a favorable response to a small request at first, with the aim of making the person more likely to agree later to a larger request

– Door-in-the-face technique• A strategy in which someone makes a large, unreasonable

request with the expectation that the person will refuse but will then be more likely to respond favorably to a smaller request at a later time

– Low-ball technique• A strategy to gain compliance by making a very attractive

initial offer to get a person to agree to an action and then making the terms less favorable

Page 18: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Group Influence

• Social facilitation– Any positive or negative effect on performance due

to the presence of others, either as an audience or as co-actors

– Studies on social facilitation found that, in the presence of others, performance improves on tasks that people do easily, but suffers on difficult tasks

Page 19: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Group Influence

• Group polarization– The tendency of members of a group, after group

discussion, to shift toward a more extreme position in whatever direction they were leaning initially – either more risky or more cautious

– When evidence both for and against a particular stand on a given topic is presented, group polarization is an infrequent consequence

Page 20: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Group Influence

• Groupthink– The tendency for members of a very cohesive group

to feel such pressure to maintain group solidarity and to reach agreement on an issue that they fail to weigh available evidence adequately or to consider objections and alternatives

– To avoid groupthink in the workplace, managers should withhold their own opinions when problem-solving and decision-making strategies are being considered

Page 21: Dr. William G. Huitt Valdosta State University Social Psychology Part I Last revised: May 2005

Group Influence

• Social roles– Socially defined behaviors considered appropriate

for individuals occupying certain positions within a group

– Philip Zimbardo• Simulated a prison experience• College student volunteers were randomly assigned to be

either guards or prisoners• The role playing became all too real – so much so that the

experiment had to be ended in only six days