CH_16_Compatibility_Mode_

CH_16_Compatibility_Mode_ - Social Psychology Social...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 1/18/2008 Social Psychology Social Thinking and Behavior Chapter 16 : scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another The social environment shapes how we behave, think & feel • How we think about our social environment (social thinking) • How other people influence our behavior (social influence) • How we relates to others (social relations) ATTRIBUTION: : Judgments about causes of own & others’ behavior & outcomes Personal vs. Situational Attributions Social Social Thinking 1 1/18/2008 FORMING & MAINTAINING IMPRESSIONS ATTRIBUTION Attributional Biases Fundamental Attribution Error: underestimate impact of situation & overestimate role of personal factors when explaining others’ behavior Self-serving bias: make personal attributions for successes & situational attributions for failures How Important are 1st Impressions? Primacy effect: attach more importance to initial info learned (Solomon Asch experiment) New info must “work harder” because: 1. We are most alert to 1st info received 2. Initial info may shape subsequent perceptions 3. 1st impressions influence desire for further contact Culture & Attribution: Westerners attribute personal factors more Collectivism, modesty, holistic views of universe FORMING & MAINTAINING IMPRESSIONS Seeing What we Want to See Mental sets, schemas Stereotype: generalized belief about group/category of people ATTITUDES & ATTITUDE CHANGE Attitude: positive/negative evaluative reaction toward a stimulus, such as person, action, object, or concept Help define identity, guide actions, influence judgments Creating What we Expect to See Self-fulfilling prophecy: erroneous expectations lead them to act toward others in a way that brings about expected behaviors, thereby confirming their original impression Do Attitudes Influence Behavior? 90% of establishments REPORTED that they would refuse service to Chinese people, but actually, only one establishment did refuse 2 1/18/2008 ATTITUDES & ATTITUDE CHANGE ATTITUDES & ATTITUDE CHANGE Do Attitudes Influence Behavior? Three factors: Does our Behavior Influence our Attitudes? Cognitive Dissonance: 1. Attitudes influence behavior more strongly when situational factors that contradict our attitudes are weak (conformity) Theory of planned behavior: intention to engage in behavior is strongest when we have a positive attitude towards that behavior, when subjective norms (perception of what others think we should do) support attitudes, & when we believe that behavior is under our control 2. Attitudes influence stronger when we are aware of them & when they are strongly held 3. General attitudes best predict general classes of behavior, & specific attitudes best predict specific behaviors Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) 60 minutes of extremely boring tasks, then asked to tell other students that these tasks were interesting Participants paid $1 gave more positive ratings than those paid $20 Theory of cognitive dissonance: people strive for consistency in their cognitions When cognitions contradict uncomfortable tension (heightened physiological arousal) reduce dissonance by changing one cognition or adding new one to justify behavior ATTITUDES & ATTITUDE CHANGE ATTITUDES & ATTITUDE CHANGE Does our Behavior Influence our Attitudes? Self-Perception Self-perception theory: we make inferences about our own attitudes by observing how we behave (like we observe others) Persuasion The Communicator: Communicator credibility: how believable we perceive the communicator to be (key to effective persuasion) (key - The Message: Saying tasks are enjoyable for little external justification ($1) conclude that deep down you must feel that the more physically attractive people are the higher they are rated on intelligence, competence, sociability, morality TwoTwo-sided refutational approach: more effective to present both sides more and then argue for one Fear arousal works best when moderate/strong & provides effective feasible ways to reduce threat The Audience: people differ in need for cognition people need Central route to persuasion: when one thinks carefully about msg & is when influenced because they find argument compelling Peripheral route to persuasion: when one doesn’t scrutinize msg but is influenced by other factors (speaker’s attractiveness / msg’s emotional appeal) 3 1/18/2008 MERE PRESENCE OF OTHERS Social Influence Cyclists’ average speed much faster in group races than in individual races against clock Mere presence of coactor (performing similar task) or silent audience enhanced performance Mere physical presence increased arousal As arousal increases, we perform dominant responses to specific situation BUT when task is complex & new, dominant responses are typically errors impair performance Social facilitation: increased tendency to perform one’s dominant responses in mere presence of others NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Social norms: shared expectations about how people should think, feel, & behave Social role: set of norms that characterizes how people in a given social position ought to behave Role conflict occurs when norms of ≠ roles clash E.g., college students with jobs and children Norms & roles can influence behavior so strongly that they compel person to act uncharacteristically NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Norm Formation & Culture No social group can function well without norms Even randomly created groups develop norms: Muzafer Sherif (1935) autokinetic effect: Dot of light in dark room appears in motion Placed in groups of 3, participants’ judgments converged and group norm evolved This evolved norm varied from group to group Stanford Prison Experiment 4 1/18/2008 NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Why do People Conform? Without conformity social chaos Informational social influence: following opinions or behavior of others b/c we believe they have accurate knowledge & what they’re doing is right Normative social influence: conforming to obtain rewards from being accepted by others while also avoiding their rejection Solomon Asch (1951;56) Asch’s (1951, 1956) Asch’s (1951, 1956) Conformity Studies Participants conform to confederate’s Line Judgement Task 5 1/18/2008 What is happening? Unlike Sherif, Asch’s task was not uncertain or Sherif, ambiguous. However participants seemed willing to ignore the evidence of their own eyes to go along with the groups. Why? Why? • Did not want to feel different or foolish • Do not want to risk social disapproval When? When are people most likely to conform to Normative Social Influence? • Conforming influenced by: 1. Group Size: conformity increased as group size Group conformity increased from 1 to 4-5 Presence when 2. Presence of a dissenter: when someone dissents, or disagrees, he/she is a model for remaining NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Minority Influence Dissenting opinions more likely to sway majority when coming from several minority members rather than just one To maximize minority influence: High commitment to point of view (consistency) Independent in face of majority pressure (yet keep an open mind) 6 1/18/2008 NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Obedience to Authority Obedience: conformity in response to the commands of an authority figure Stanley Milgram (1974) experiment: (1974) Would ordinary citizens obey orders of an authority figure if those orders meant physically harming an innocent person? 7 1/18/2008 NORMS, NORMS, CONFORMITY, & OBEDIENCE OBEDIENCE Factors that Influence Obedience Remoteness of victim: when teacher & learner were in same room, obedience dropped to 40% (from original 65%); when physical contact was involved, it dropped to 30% Closeness & legitimacy of authority figure: when experimenter left scene & gave orders by phone OR when “ordinary person” gave orders, obedience dropped to 20% Diffusion of responsibility: when another “participant” flipped shock switch & real participant did something else, obedience rose to 93% Personal characteristics: weak/nonexistent effect on obedience DETECTING COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES Compliance techniques: strategies that may manipulate one into agreeing to something they usually don’t Norm of reciprocity: expectation that when others treat us well, we should respond in kind Door-in-the-face technique: a persuader makes a large request, expecting you to reject it, & then presents a smaller request Foot-in-the-door technique: persuader gets you to comply with a small request 1st & later presents a larger request Lowballing: persuader gets you to commit to some action & then—before you actually perform the behavior—they increase “cost” of that same behavior BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS Social Loafing: tendency for people to expend less individual effort when working in a group than when working alone Involves collective performance Why? Collective effort model: on a collective task, people will put forth only as much effort as they expect is needed to attain a valued goal more likely when: Believe that individual performance is not being monitored Task or group has less value/meaning to person Person generally displays less motivation & expects high effort from coworkers Otherwise social compensation: working harder in group than alone to compensate for other members’ lower input 8 1/18/2008 BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS Group Polarization: When a group of like-minded people When likediscusses an issue, the “average” opinion of group members tends to become more extreme 1. To gain approval 2. Hear arguments they didn’t previously consider BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS Groupthink: Tendency of group members to suspend critical Tendency thinking because they are striving to seek agreement • Under high stress to reach decision high to • Insulated from outside world from • Directive leader promotes personal agenda promotes • High cohesiveness, reflecting spirit of closeness Direct pressure from mind guards self-censorship from mind selfillusion of unanimity Attraction & love BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS Deindividuation: Loss of individuality that leads to Loss disinhibited behavior • • • When in groups and/or are ANONYMOUS Lowers likelihood that individual will be singled out and blamed Lowers self-awareness self- Social Relations Prejudice & hate Helping others Prosocial behavior Harming others Aggression 9 1/18/2008 ATTRACTION: LIKING & LOVING Initial Attraction: • Physical proximity • Mere exposure effect: repeated exposure to a stimulus typically increases our liking for it • Similarity ATTRACTION: LIKING & LOVING Spellbound by Beauty • Physical attraction: Is “average” beautiful? • Affiliating with Beautiful People – Matching effect: we are most likely to have a partner whose we level of physical attractiveness is similar to our own ATTRACTION: LIKING & LOVING Ostracism: Rejection Hurts • Ostracism produces negative psychological consequences & activates many of same brain regions that underlie physical pain PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS • Prejudice is an attitude. is an – A negative attitude toward people based on their membership in a group – Can be explicit or implicit • Discrimination is a behavior. is behavior. – Overt behavior that involves treating people unfairly based on the group to which they belong 10 1/18/2008 PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS Explicit & Implicit Prejudice • Explicit prejudice: people express publicly people • Implicit prejudice: hidden from public view hidden PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS Cognitive Roots of Prejudice: • Categorization & “Us-Them” Thinking – In-group - a group with which a person identifies and feels he/she is a member evaluated more positively – Out-group - a group with which a person does not identify seen as possessing negative traits and are often disliked – In-group bias - the especially positive feelings and special treatment we reserve for people we have defined as part of our in-group – Concealed intentionally or – Not consciously aware of it • Stereotypes & Attributional Distortions – Schemas (stereotypes) we hold about certain groups influence the way we process information about them. PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS Motivational Roots of Prejudice: • Competition & Conflict – Realistic conflict theory: competition for limited resources fosters prejudice – Perceived threat to one’s in-group • Enhancing self-esteem – When people’s self-esteem is threatened, they are especially selflikely to denigrate the out-group out- PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS How Prejudice Confirms Itself • Stereotype threat: stereotypes create self-consciousness stereotypes selfamong stereotyped group members & fear that they will live up to others’ stereotypes • SelfSelf-Fulfilling Prophecy: attributional process by which attributional we find confirmation & proof for our stereotypes by unknowingly creating stereotypical behaviour in out-group outmembers through our treatment of them 11 1/18/2008 PREJUDICE: BIAS AGAINST OTHERS Reducing Prejudice: • An Educational Approach • Promoting Equal Status Contact – Equal status contact: prejudice most likely reduced when they: 1. Engage in sustained close contact 2. Have equal status 3. Work to achieve common goal that requires cooperation 4. Are supported by broader social norms Using Simulation to Reduce “Shooter Bias” • – – Focus on positive aspects of selves (self-affirmation) reduces need to denigrate others in order to get self-esteem boost. Blurring distinction between ‘us’ & ‘them’ can improve attitudes toward out-groups. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: HELPING OTHERS Why do People Help? • Evolution & Prosocial Behavior – Kin selection: most likely help others with whom we share most genes, namely our offspring & genetic relatives – But what about helping friends & strangers? Reciprocal altruism: helping others increases odds that they will help us or our kin in return enhancing survival of genes • • Social Learning & Cultural Influences Empathy & Altruism – Empathy-altruism hypothesis: altruism is produced by empathy— ability to put oneself in place of another & to share what person is experiencing PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: HELPING OTHERS PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR: HELPING OTHERS When do People Help? 1. Notice an event 2. Interpret it as an emergency 3. Assume responsibility for helping 4. Know how to help 5. Decide to help • Bystander effect: presence of multiple bystanders inhibits each person’s tendency to help, largely due to social comparison (step 2) or diffusion of responsibility (step 3) Whom do People Help? • Similarity • Gender: male bystanders more likely to help woman; whereas female bystanders equally likely to help both • Perceived fairness & responsibility: if one perceives that person is not responsible for causing his/her own misfortune Increasing Prosocial Behavior: • Expose people to prosocial models • Develop feelings of empathy & connectedness • Learning of factors hindering bystander intervention 12 1/18/2008 AGGRESSION: HARMING OTHERS Biological Factors in Aggression ….. Environmental Stimuli & Learning • Frustration: when some event interferes with our progress toward a goal • Aversive stimuli: heat, provocation, painful stimuli, crowding… • Learning AGGRESSION: HARMING OTHERS Psychological Factors in Aggression • Self-justification: – Blame victim for imagined wrongs – Convinced that victim “deserves it” – Dehumanize victim • • • Attribution of intentionality & degree of empathy: when we believe negative behavior was intentional, & whether we empathize enough to forgive Catharsis (Freud): discharge aggressive energy & temporarily reduce impulse to aggress (sports, watching…) Overcontrolled hostility: bottles anger up AGGRESSION: HARMING OTHERS Media (& Video Game) Violence: Catharsis vs. Social Learning Learning • Most research supports social learning prediction that media violence increase risk that children & adults will act aggressively – Viewers learn new aggressive behaviors through modeling – Viewers come to believe that aggression usually is rewarded, or at least rarely punished – Viewers become desensitized to sight & thought of violence & to suffering of victims 13 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/07/2011 for the course PSYC 202 taught by Professor Dialalawand during the Fall '07 term at American University of Beirut.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online