70
Social Psych u16

U16 social psych 2011

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: U16 social psych 2011

Social Psychu16

Page 2: U16 social psych 2011

Unit 16 m55 – Social Thinking

How do we explain people’s behaviors? How do we explain attitudes?

m56 – Social Influence What are the invisible social threads that bind and

pull us? m57 & 58 – Social Relations

What makes us harm or help or fall in love with others?

Page 3: U16 social psych 2011

Social Thinkingm55

Page 4: U16 social psych 2011

Social Norms Standards of behavior that a group has

informally agreed upon. For example: you’re not supposed to lie ...

4

Page 5: U16 social psych 2011
Page 6: U16 social psych 2011

Attribution Theory Things to do on an elevator…

Swat at flies that don’t exist

Greet everyone with a handshake and tell them to call you “Admiral”

Meow occasionally

Say, “Ding!” at each floor.

Bring a camera and take pictures of everyone “for security purposes”

Yell, “GROUP HUG!” and then enforce it

What would

people think … ?

Page 7: U16 social psych 2011

Attribution Theory Fritz Heider (1950)

Dispositional Attribution People act because that’s what they are like. e.g. “He’s driving so crazy – what a jerk!”

Situational Attribution People act in a certain way because of the situation. e.g. “I wonder what is making him drive so

dangerously?”

Fundamental Attribution Error

We are most likely to interpret out-

group members’ behavior

according to disposition.

Page 8: U16 social psych 2011

What are the cops thinking about the protesters?What are the protesters thinking about the cops?

Page 9: U16 social psych 2011

Attribution Theory Philip Brickman’s (1982) Model of Helping

Who is responsible for the problem? Who is responsible for the solution?

e.g. Poverty? Unemployment? Drug addiction? Rape?

Page 10: U16 social psych 2011

Attribution of Control Locus of Control, review Illusion of Control

False belief that chance events subject to human control (Ellen Langer, 1975).

Sometimes a positive motivator High self-efficacy “I can do it!”

Mostly negative Failure to adapt, improvise, and overcome

Page 11: U16 social psych 2011

Attribution Theory (misc) Two ego defense mechanisms:

Self-serving Bias “I failed the quiz because Castro sucks.”

Self-handicapping “I’m stupid – I’m totally going to fail this quiz”

Page 12: U16 social psych 2011
Page 13: U16 social psych 2011

Just World Theory “Some day Castro’s going to get hit by a car!”

Less stress … Does this account for faith-based longevity?

13

Page 14: U16 social psych 2011

Attitudes and Actions An attitude is a belief and feeling that

predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people, and events.

What are some beliefs and feelings that you have that control your behavior?

My beliefs & attitudes:

Chocolate tastes good

Lazy people deserve what they get

Page 15: U16 social psych 2011

Attitude and Actions Attitudes will guide our actions, if –

Outside influences on what we say and do are minimal; The attitude is specifically relevant to the behavior; and We are keenly aware of our attitude.

Page 16: U16 social psych 2011

Attitudes follow behavior too. Foot-in-the-door phenomenon

start small and build

16

Page 17: U16 social psych 2011

Actions and Attitudes Role

Set of expectations about a social position

Defines how those in the position ought to behave.

People made to play a role come to hold the attitudes that support the role.

Page 18: U16 social psych 2011

When have you played a role that required you to do something you wouldn’t have done on your own?

Page 19: U16 social psych 2011
Page 20: U16 social psych 2011

Actions and Attitudes Philip Zimbardo’s (1971) Prison Experiment

24 students volunteered to be part of the prison experiment. Each was paid $15 to either be assigned the role of guard or prisoner.

Less than 36 hours into the experiment, one prisoner was released for psychological health reasons.

After six days (not the planned two weeks) the study was called off.

Conclusion: role-playing changes minds

Page 21: U16 social psych 2011

Abu Ghraib

Page 22: U16 social psych 2011

Do you remember a time when you realized that what you were saying did not align with what you were doing?

Page 23: U16 social psych 2011

Actions and Attitudes When our actions, our cognition, and our

behaviors are not aligned, we experience cognitive dissonance, or discomfort.

Something has to give; usually our attitudes change more easily than behaviors.

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

Page 24: U16 social psych 2011

Social Influencem56

Page 25: U16 social psych 2011

Conformity and Obedience To conform is to adjust your thoughts or

actions to a norm.

To obey is to do as an authority figure commands regardless of personal preference.

To comply is to come to an agreement about a course of action.

Page 26: U16 social psych 2011

When have you gone along with something that others have said, just because you didn’t want to stand out?

Page 27: U16 social psych 2011

Conformity Solomon Asch (1955)

studied conformity to see if people would conform to an obviously wrong opinion. 1/3 of participants went

along with the obviously incorrect consensus.

Page 28: U16 social psych 2011
Page 29: U16 social psych 2011

Conformity Which person in Slide

2 is the same as in Slide 1? 75% conformed with

“difficult judgments” as opposed to 37% for “easy judgments”

Page 30: U16 social psych 2011

Conformity Participants on Asch’s experiment conformed

because of the normative social influence.

They did not want to stand out from the group and face possible ridicule; they wanted to be part of the in-group.

Informational social influence is when you alter your opinion based on the belief that your opinion is incorrect.

Page 31: U16 social psych 2011

Think of a time when someone in a position of authority made you do something that you didn’t want to.

Page 32: U16 social psych 2011
Page 33: U16 social psych 2011

Obedience Stanley Milgram’s

(1965) experiment on obedience shocked the world.

Milgram was interested in the unquestioning obedience that was apparent in the Nuremburg Trials.

Page 34: U16 social psych 2011

Obedience What percent of people would go to the

highest shock level (450 volts)?

65% of subjects went to the end, even those who protested.

Page 35: U16 social psych 2011

Obedience

XXX(435-450)

Percentageof subjects

who obeyedexperimenter

100908070605040302010

0

Slight(15-60)

Moderate(75-120) Strong

(135-180)

Verystrong

(195-240)Intense

(255-300)

Extremeintensity(315-360)

Dangersevere

(375-420)Shock levels in volts

The majority ofsubjects continued to obey to the end

Page 36: U16 social psych 2011

Obedience Explanations for the Milgram results:

Authority of Yale University The value of Science Experimenter self-assurance and acceptance of

responsibility Proximity of learner and experimenter New situation and no model of proper behavior

Page 37: U16 social psych 2011
Page 38: U16 social psych 2011

Obedience

Percentage of subjects administeringthe maximum shock (450 volts)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Original study Different building Teacher with learner Put hand on shock Orders by phone Ordinary man orders 2 teachers rebel Teacher chooses shock

level

Page 39: U16 social psych 2011

Think of a time when a group was urging you to do something ...

Page 40: U16 social psych 2011

Group Influence Social Facilitation

When it is an easy or well-learned task, or a task that one has been successful in previously, having an audience improves performance.

Social Inhibition

When it is a difficult task or one without previous success, an audience decreases quality of performance.

Page 41: U16 social psych 2011

Group Influence When working in a group for a common goal,

social loafing is the rule, not the exception.

When working in a group, members find themselves “going along” with the flow – that’s group think.

e.g. Bay of Pigs – nobody spoke up that it was a bad idea.

Page 42: U16 social psych 2011

Group Influence Group polarization is when the group’s

attitude and behavior is more extreme than any one of the individuals’ on their own.

e.g. A Republican is more conservative when around other conservatives.

Page 43: U16 social psych 2011

Group Influence People are able to do things in a group that

they ordinarily wouldn’t do because of deindividuation – they are anonymous and usually more aroused.

e.g. KKK and their hoods

Page 44: U16 social psych 2011

Group Influence Minority Influence

Simply being an example of objection is sufficient to encourage others to do the same. Gandhi objecting to British rule. “12 Angry Men”

Asch’s experiment when group not unanimous. Prison experiment ended after 1 (out of 50 outsiders)

pointed out the inhumanity. Milgram’s results when Teacher saw previous Teacher

refuse.

Page 45: U16 social psych 2011

What about the power of just one … bully?

Page 46: U16 social psych 2011
Page 47: U16 social psych 2011

Social Relationsm57 & 58

Page 48: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice Aggression Affection

48

Page 49: U16 social psych 2011

49

Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices — just recognize them.

– Edward R. Murrow,television broadcast, December 31, 1955

Page 50: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice An unjustifiable attitude toward a group and

its members. Prejudice generally involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory actions.

Page 51: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice Jane Elliott (1968) divided her third-grade

class into blue eyes and brown eyes.

Brown eyes were favored for three days.

Highlights in-group and out-group bias.

Prejudice on a grand scale is ethnocentrism.

Members of the in-group view all others with an out-group homogeneity bias.

Page 52: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice Results in scapegoating.

For example, unemployed middle-American workers blaming the “foreigners.”

How does prejudice develop?

Page 53: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice Social Factors

Social inequalities encourage perceptions that justify discriminatory beliefs and treatment.

The in-group bias causes us to favor arbitrarily those we perceive to be like us.

Scapegoating suggests that our frustrations are reduced when we can blame someone else for our problems.

Page 54: U16 social psych 2011

Prejudice Cognitive Factors

Categorization encourages us to simplify the world by making people and events as predictable as possible. Categorization sometimes produces stereotypes that offer the illusion of predictability.

Vivid cases determine those instances in which we are likely to overgeneralize from a few exceptional cases to a group expectation.

Page 55: U16 social psych 2011

55

Culturally-influenced self-belief

Page 56: U16 social psych 2011
Page 57: U16 social psych 2011

Aggression “Any physical or verbal behavior intended to

hurt or destroy.”

Aggression can come from biological impulses, neural influences, biochemical influences, or frustration and anger.

Frustration-aggression principle holds that frustration leads to anger which leads to aggression. e.g. increased crime rates during heat waves.

Page 58: U16 social psych 2011

Game Theory

58

Page 59: U16 social psych 2011

Think of your best friend. What qualities or characteristics make them your best friend?

Page 60: U16 social psych 2011

• When you are sad - I will help you get drunk and plot revenge against the sorry bastard who made you that way.

• When you are blue - I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.

• When you smile - I will know you've finally had sex.

• When you are scared - I will tease the crap out of you about it every chance I get.

• When you are worried - I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be and to stop your bloody whining.

• When you are confused - I will use only little words.

• When you are sick - Stay the hell away from me until you are well again, I don't want whatever you have.

• When you fall - I will point and laugh at your clumsiness.

Remember:

• A good friend will help you move.

• A really good friend will help you move a body.

Page 61: U16 social psych 2011
Page 62: U16 social psych 2011

Attraction The two keys to attraction are similarity and

proximity.

Opposites do not stay together.

Absence does not make the heart grow fonder.

Page 63: U16 social psych 2011

63

Page 64: U16 social psych 2011

Law of Attraction

64

Like attracts like.

Page 65: U16 social psych 2011

Attraction Physical attraction is a neurologically powerful

motivator; stimulates the pleasure centers of the hypothalamus

Other findings:

Attractive papers are scored better

Attractive defendants are judged guilty less often than unattractive

Physical deformities are interpreted as reflecting an inner flaw (ie Captain Hook’s prosthetic, Cinderalla’s ugly step-sisters)

Page 66: U16 social psych 2011

Attraction There mere exposure effect is based on the

idea that we have more positive feelings about things we are frequently exposed to.

You like the music that your parents listened to in high school.

“Vote for Honorable Pulvapies” (1972)

Oregon State University and the “black bag kid”

Page 67: U16 social psych 2011

Attraction Robert Sternberg’s

(1986) Triangular Theory of Love argues that consummate love is made up of passion, intimacy, and commitment.

Page 68: U16 social psych 2011

Altruism Altruism is the unselfish regard for the

welfare of others.

Page 69: U16 social psych 2011
Page 70: U16 social psych 2011

Diffusion of Responsibility There were so many witnesses, each assumed the

other would call for help = Bystander Effect. Diffusion of responsibility. e.g. Kitty Genovese

Noticesincident?

Interpretsincident as

emergency?

Assumesresponsibility?

Attemptsto help

Nohelp

Nohelp

Nohelp

Yes YesYes

No No No