Transcript To begin this chapter on social psychology, we are going to conduct an experiment.

To begin this chapter on
social psychology, we are
going to conduct an
experiment. Break into
groups of between 5 and 7—
no loners in this experiment.
Pay attention to the
following situation.
You and the other members of
your group are on a cruise in the
Pacific Ocean
In a terrible storm, your ship sinks and
your group scrambles into a lifeboat.
There are no professional sailors on board.
Your group is alone in a lifeboat, at sea.
Searching the lifeboat, you find only the
following items.
A sextant, 5 lbs of chocolate, 5 feet of nylon
cord (shoelace width), a 3”x6”
mirror, one quart of scotch
whiskey, 5 gallons of fresh water,
1 bed sheet, 3 square yards of
opaque plastic sheeting, a book of
ocean charts (maps),
2 clothes hangers, five 18” x 30” sheets of
construction paper and 3 marking pens, 2 boxes
of saltines, and a henweigh.
What’s a henweigh?
Oh, about 3
pounds.
Searching the lifeboat, you find only the
following items.
A sextant, 5 lbs of chocolate, 5 feet of nylon
cord (shoelace width), a 3”x6”
mirror, one quart of scotch
whiskey, 5 gallons of fresh water,
1 bed sheet, 3 square yards of
opaque plastic sheeting, a book of
ocean charts (maps),
2 clothes hangers, five 18” x 30” sheets of
construction paper and 3 marking pens, and 2
boxes of saltines.
Working as a team, prioritize this list, from 1 to 13,
from most important to keep to least important to
keep. You have 10 minutes!
Tom Hanks’ character in Castaway was
miserable. He had plentiful amounts of
food, water, and shelter, and he lived in
a tropical paradise. Yet he was unhappy.
Why?
Why do people need other people?
Humans have been conditioned
to have needs for praise,
respect, love and affection,
the sense of achievement,
and other rewarding
experiences—things that
can only be satisfied by
other human beings
People experiencing high
levels of anxiety seek out
company:
“Misery loves company.”
People like to get together
with one another to reduce
their uncertainties about themselves
People can also offer support
in trying times; can serve
as mediators if you have
problems with
others, they
can react to
your ideas or
simply listen
so you can
“unload”
Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford
Prison Experiment
Philip Zimbardo and
the Stanford
Prison Experiment
Recruitment and Methodology




Wanted to learn about behaviors and
feelings of prisoners or guards
Set up a phony prison in a university
building
Recruited male college students to
participate
Randomly assigned 24 participants to role
of either prisoner or guard
Methodology



Guards instructed to make prisoners feel
frustrated and not in control
Prisoners arrested and booked as real
prisoners
Guards bullied the prisoners and began
“counts”
Results





Prisoners staged a rebellion on the
second day
Guards stepped up their harassment
and treated rebellion “ringleaders”
differently than the “good” prisoners
Prisoners told they couldn’t leave;
many became anxious
Guards increased bullying tactics as
they perceived prisoners to be a real
threat
Zimbardo and his colleagues
adapted to their roles
Results



Everyone took on the
role to which they were
assigned—the
experiment became
very realistic
Experiment ended after
six days instead of two
weeks
Prisoners had lost their
identity
Conclusions
Individual values and identities can break down
under situational pressure where one group
has more power than other groups
Prisons have traditionally been considered
places of punishment and rehabilitation.
Zimbardo concluded that rehabilitation may
be difficult.
Zimbardo: “Prisons are evil places that demean
humanity. . . They are as bad for the guards as
they are for the prisoners
Social psychology: how people’s
thoughts, feelings, perceptions,
motives, and behavior are influenced
by interactions with others
Situationism
The view that environmental
conditions influence people’s behavior as
much or more than their personal
dispositions do.
Social Role
One of several socially defined patterns
of behavior that are expected of persons in
a given group
Script
A person’s knowledge about the sequence
of events and actions that are expected of
a particular social role
Social Norms
Unwritten rules for the ways that members
should act—they dictate socially appropriate
attitudes and behaviors
Theodore Newcomb and the Bennington
College experiment
Can norms of a liberal campus
have a greater influence than
family traditions and attitudes?
Yes
Chameleon Effect
The tendency to mimic other people
Solomon Asch’s Experiment
Conformity Experiment
Subject asked to match one of
three lines to a “standard line;”
the answer was obvious
Standard Line
Comparison
Lines
Solomon Asch’s Experiment
Other group members insisted
that one of the shorter lines was
actually the same height as the
standard line
Subject began to question what he
had thought was the obvious answer
Subject is relatively likely to give the same
answer as the group, even if it is obviously
incorrect: 70% of participants gave at least
one incorrect response, conforming to the
group
Solomon Asch’s Experiment
Results of Asch's Study
12
10
# of
8
subjects
6
making
conforming 4
2
responses
0
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
# of conforming responses made
by subjects
Less than 1% of subjects chose the wrong line
when asked the question on their own
More than 1/3 of subjects chose the wrong
line when asked in a group that had chosen
the same wrong line
Solomon Asch’s Experiment
Normative social influence: conformity when
we want to avoid rejection or gain acceptance
Individual Heroic Defiance
Heroes (Sherron Watkins and
SGT Joe Darby) are people
who are able to resist
situational forces that
overwhelm their peers and
remain true to personal values
Factors that influence whether
a person will yield to group
pressure
•Size of the majority
•Presence of a partner who
dissented from the majority
•Size of discrepancy between
the correct answer and the majority opinion
•People conform with unanimous majorities
of as few as 3 people, but not if they
faced only 1 or 2
Additional factors influencing
conformity
•Judgment task is difficult or
ambiguous
•Group members are perceived as
especially competent
•Resources are given publicly
rather than privately
•When unanimity is broken, the rate of
conformity drops dramatically
Groupthink
Groups can be pressured
to conform
Groupthink
Conformity bias leads the
group to take actions that
each member might normally
consider unwise
Seven Conditions
•Isolation of group
•High group cohesiveness
•Directive leadership
•Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures
•Homogeneity of members backgrounds
•High stress from external threats plus low hope
People who have commanded obedience
Hitler
David Koresh
Mussolini
Jim Jones
Osama Bin Laden
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment
 Studied obedience and how
people respond to orders from
an authority figure
 Real subjects were assigned
the role of teacher
 Actors assigned the role of
learner, but the actual
subjects thought the learners
were also subjects in the
experiment


Teacher instructed to give the learner
electric shocks if he answered a
question wrong
Teacher didn’t know the shocks were
not real
How likely would you be to
obey instructions from
someone wearing a lab
coat?



Learner would groan and eventually
scream in agony
The experimenter insisted that the
teacher continue
Watch this film clip



Teachers were visibly distressed about the
experiment, but 60% continued it until the end
When the learner said he had a “slight heart
condition” and screamed even louder, 65% of
teachers continued until the end
Similar results for women and for men
Milgram: Further Findings
• Teachers most likely to obey perceived
authority figures from prestigious
institutions
• More likely to obey instructions when
“victim” was at a distance and
depersonalized
• More likely to obey without role models
who defied the authority figure’s orders
Implications of Milgram’s
Experiments



Obedience to authority can keep people from
following their own morals and standards
Ordinary people can perform cruelties in the
process of obeying authority figures in their
daily lives
Incrementally increasing the level of shock
made it more acceptable for the teachers to
continue
Bystander Apathy
Kitty Genovese case (1968)
the callous indifference of
New Yorkers to the obvious
plight of another person
John Darley and Bibb Latane’
Laboratory
analogues of the
difficulties faced by
bystanders in real
emergency
situations
John Darley
Bibb Latane
Student in room; heard person in another room
having a seizure
The likelihood of intervention decreases as the
group increases in size—each person
assumes that others will help
John Darley and Bibb Latané:
Hypothesis
Hypothesized that
people would be less
likely to report smoke
in a room if others
were present
The concept of pluralistic
ignorance: the tendency
of people to look toward
others for cues about
how to act, particularly in emergency situations
Darley and Latané : Methodology
and Results


Placed subjects in rooms that filled with smoke
75% of subjects reported smoke if they were
alone; 10% if they were with confederates of
the researchers; 38% if they were with other
subjects
Darley and Latané
In order for bystanders to help:
• People have to notice the incident
• People have to interpret the incident
as urgent
• People have to take responsibility for
helping out
But…
• People are less likely to help if
others are around


Pluralistic ignorance: people assume
someone else will help
Epileptic seizure experiment
Darley and Latané

There are certain circumstances under
which people are more likely to help
someone in need
Tom Moriarty’s 1975 Experiments:
Situational Power
New Yorkers watched as a thief snatched
a woman’s suitcase in a restaurant
People watched a thief grab a portable radio
from a beach blanket
Variables:
“Do you have the time?” Little intervention
“Will you please keep an eye on my bag
(radio) while I am gone?” Intervention
Elliot Aronson: Reward Theory of
Attraction
Most good relationships can be
seen as an exchange of benefits
or something intangible (praise,
status, etc.)
The Reward Theory of Attraction:
attraction is a form of social
learning; we like best those who
give us maximum rewards at minimum cost
The Four Powerful Sources of Reward
Factor 1: physical proximity
Roommates, next door neighbors, etc.
Proximity helps people make
friends, but it does not ensure lasting
friendship.
Factor 2: Similarity
Similarity—we tend to choose
friends whose backgrounds,
attitudes, and interests are
similar to ours
Husbands and wives tend
to have similar economic,
religious, and educational
backgrounds, as well as
similar ages, race, social
status, attitudes and values
For our date
tonight, let’s
do some
math
homework.
Similarity (continued)
The power of shared attitudes
are
Easier to communicate—You
such a
fewer arguments &
groovy
misunderstandings
guy!
Most feel uneasy around
those who always challenge
our views—often translate
uneasiness into hostility
Agreement about what is
stimulating, worthwhile,
or fun—basis for sharing
activities
Similarity (continued)
However, complementarity—
an attraction between
opposite types of people—
is not uncommon
Mary Matilin, a major
Republican Party strategist,
and James Carville, a major
Democratic Party strategist,
have been happily married
for several years.
Factor 3: Self-disclosure
Good friends and lovers share intimate
details about themselves—sends signals
of trust
Factor 4: Physical Attractiveness
People usually find it more
rewarding to associate
with people they consider
physically attractive than
with people they consider
plain or homely
Expectancy-Value Theory: people usually
decide whether to pursue a relationship by
weighing the value they see in another
person against their expectation of success
in a relationship
We initiate relationships
with the most attractive
people we think will
probably like us in return
Noteworthy exception:
people with low selfesteem
Leon Festinger
Mental adjustments that occur in people who
voluntarily undergo unpleasant experiences
When people voluntarily act in ways that
produce discomfort or otherwise clash with
their attitudes and values, they develop a
highly motivating mental state called cognitive
dissonance
People are motivated to
avoid the uncomfortable
state of dissonance
If people find themselves
experiencing cognitive
dissonance, they attempt
to reduce it in ways that
are predictable
Either change behavior
or change cognitions
(Marines: the latter—
rationalization or
developing a stronger
organizational loyalty)
Cognitive dissonance theory: when people’s
cognitions and actions are in conflict (a state
of dissonance) they often reduce the conflict
by changing their thinking to fit their behavior.
People don’t like to
see themselves as
foolish or inconsistent.
So to explain their own
behavior to themselves,
people are motivated to
change their attitudes.
Otherwise, it would
threaten their self-esteem
How People Perceive One Another
Attribution Theory is an analysis of how
we interpret and understand other people’s
behavior.
Someone honks at you in a traffic jam,
you usually think that the person is
pushy or mean—personal characteristics
called dispositional factors
But, if you discover that he honked
because he was rushing his
pregnant wife to the hospital. . .
That is a situational factor
We tend to explain our own
actions in terms of situational
factors—we attribute our failures to
forces outside our control and successes to
our own effort and skill; but we tend to attribute
the behavior of others to their dispositions—
called fundamental attribution error—
a common occurrence
Fundamental Attribution Error:
We tend to attribute other people’s actions
and misfortunes to their personal traits,
rather than to situational forces
More prevalent in
individualistic cultures
as opposed to
collectivist cultures
More of a bias than a
mistake;
error
in
that
an
Klutzy ol’
observer may overlook
Vanessa—
must be a
legitimate, situational
blonde thing.
explanations
Self-serving bias: most people attribute
their own success to internal factors
(motivation, talent or skill). But when things
go poorly, they attribute failure to external
factors beyond their control
We passed. We’re so smart!
We lost
‘cause the
coach
blew it.
Out-group bias: beliefs in inequality
make it easier for you to treat members of
an out-group with contempt.
“Us” vs. “Them”
When perceptions or sets of
assumptions about people or specific
groups of people become exaggerated,
stereotypes are formed
Example Military people Born killers
Straight-laced
Conservative
Foul-mouthed
Like outdoors activities
Like giving orders
Insensitive
Like to drink
Stereotypes can strengthen and
help maintain prejudices
Prejudice: negative attitudes, beliefs, and
feelings toward an individual based solely
on his/her membership in a particular group
Prejudgment—deciding beforehand
what a person will be like instead
of withholding judgment until it can
be based on her or his individual
qualities.
To hold stereotypes about groups
of people is to be prejudiced about
them.
Before we continue our
study of prejudice, let’s do
an experiment.
Like, OK, you
guys (and
girls), break up
into groups of
2-5 people
I’ll now assign each group
a letter from the alphabet.
Each group will be assigned
an ethnic group from our
society. In the next 5 minutes
you are to brainstorm a list
of common stereotypes about
each group—remember this is in the name of
science, so right now, don’t worry about
offending anyone. Be as honest as you can
about the stereotypes you have heard about
each group.
Group A: Cheerleaders
Remember to
brainstorm
Group C: Mexicans
all aspects of
Group D: African-Americans these groups:
good
and
bad.
Group E: Blondes
be honest. Be
Group F: Asians
prepared to
share your list
Group G: Portuguese
with
the
class.
Group H: OHS Cowboys
Group B: Jocks/jockettes
Prejudice is an attitude and should
be distinguished from discrimination.
Discrimination: is the unequal treatment
of members of certain groups—negative
actions.
Possible for prejudiced people not
to discriminate; possible for a
person to discriminate not out of
prejudice, but in compliance with
social pressures
There are five causes of prejudice listed
in the textbook
Dissimilarity and social distance
People tend place people they perceive as
being unlike them (and the people in their
group) at greater social distances. Such
inequality translates into inferiority, making
it easier for you to treat members of an outgroup with contempt
Economic Competition: when one group
wins economic benefits or jobs at the other
group’s expense, prejudice easily comes
into play. Prejudice against African-Americans
is greatest among white groups poised at
an economic level just above that of average
Blacks
Scapegoats
I’m just mad
‘cause I’m 18 but
I look like I’m 45.
Prejudice and associated discrimination
are the result of displaced aggression—an
innocent person or group receives blame
when others feel threatened
Scapegoat Theory
When people are prevented from
achieving their goals, they often react
by being aggressive
When no obvious target for aggression,
they displace frustration onto other
people who are not responsible for the
problem, but who cannot strike back or
cause them social disapproval: the
scapegoat.
Examples: Arabic and even French
people in the U.S. before the war in Iraq
Conformity to Social Norms
No way I’m
voting for
Clinton—the
United
States is not
ready for a
female
president.
An unthinking tendency to maintain
conditions the way they are, even when
those conditions involve unfair assumptions,
prejudices and customs
Media Stereotypes
Stereotyped images used to depict groups
of people in film, print and on TV to reinforce
prejudicial social norms
Equal Status Contact
When people are placed together under
conditions of equal status, where neither
wields power over the other, the chances of
developing understanding increase
Group Behavior
Social facilitation occurs when an individual’s
performance improves because of being in
a group.
Social loafing (or social
impairment) is a situation
where one’s productivity and
learning
decrease
because
he/she is
in a group
Deindividuation is a situation when group
members lose their sense of personal
identity and responsibility and the group
assumes responsibility for their behavior
Groups
Common features: interdependence,
shared goals, communication
Interdependence: an action by one
member will influence or affect the
other group members or when the
same event will influence each one
Groups
Common Goals
Groups usually created to perform
tasks or organize activities that no
one individual could handle alone
Task functions—doing
a specific job
Social functions—
filling emotional
needs of members
Groups
Factors that hold groups together
Norms—rules for behavior and attitudes
of group members, with some sort of
punishment for not abiding by them
Ideology—to be cohesive, must share
similar values; common ideas,
attitudes and goals
Commitment—willingness to endure
hardships, pay money or undergo
humiliation to join, more likely to
stay for a long time (fraternities/sororities)
Love Relationships
Love means
different things
to different
people within
different
relationships
Robert Sternberg’s
Triangular Theory of Love
Love can have three
components:
Passion
Intimacy
Commitment
Romantic love
Intensely emotional and
sexual fascination with a
strong desire for exclusiveness
Tends to be short-lived
Feelings of excitement,
anxiety, tenderness, and
jealousy
High on passion and intimacy;
low on commitment
Companionate Love
Affection we feel
for those with
whom our lives
are deeply
intertwined
Mutual concern
and care for each
other
Self-disclosure: become closer by sharing
intimate details about themselves
Characteristics: friendship, understanding,
and the willingness to make sacrifices;
Intimacy, but no passion or commitment
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Infatuation: high level of passion; but not yet
developed into intimacy or a committed
relationship
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Complete love (consummate love) involves
passion, intimacy and commitment
Current Marriage Statistics
Half of all marriages end in divorce; up to
60% of all second marriages
Thriving relationships
Both partners must see the relationship as
rewarding and equitable
Communication between partners must be
open, ongoing, and mutually validating; longlasting relationships have 5 times more
positive interactions than negative ones
The Robbers Cave Experiment
Muzafer Sherif et al, 1961
Competition created conflict
between two similar groups
Once conflict occurs, it is
difficult to reconcile the groups
Forced cooperation to serve
the mutual interest of both
groups
Per dissonance theory, hostility changed to
friendliness, which, in turn, led to a change
attitude—attitude change resulted from a
need to justify altered behavior
Boy Scout “Robber’s Cave”
Experiment, Stage 1



22 Boy Scouts divided into two equal
groups
Stage 1: lived separately, developed
their own rules and leadership
At end of stage 1, began to become
aware of the other group
“Robber’s Cave” Experiment,
Stage 2

In stage 2, intense
rivalry developed
between the two
groups

Researchers kept
the scores close

Competed for prizes
“Robber’s Cave” Experiment,
Stage 3


Researchers tried to build peace
between the two groups
Best way: working together toward
common goals
Implications of Sherif’s Study


Peacebuilding worked well; boys ended
up getting along
More difficult in other, unstaged
conflicts
Jonathan Lash’s Findings
“Tinder” for September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks: “the flammable
combination of poverty,
powerlessness and
hopelessness.”
Tie-in with Milgram’s obedience studies: if
ordinary, well-fed people can be induced to
deliver apparently lethal shocks, how much
easier it would be to persuade angry,
hopeless young men and women to commit
violent acts
Kelman’s Application of the Robbers
Cave experiment to the Israeli-Palestinian
Conflict
Brought together community leaders
from both sides for small-group
Discussions of mutual problems
Encouraged cooperation and
minimized rewards for hostile
behaviors
Mid-level community leaders
Private meetings—away from
the news media