CHAPTER 13:

SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY

Marqueses, Alliza Mariz B.

BSP 2204
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Objectives

 Social Psychology

 The Origins of Social Psychology

13.1 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

 Experimental Control: Obedience to Authority

 Conditions Encouraging Obedience

13.2 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

 Demand Characteristics and Experimenter Bias: Hypnosis

13.3 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

 Field Research: Bystander Intervention

13.4 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

 Choosing the Dependent Variable: Measuring Stereotypes and

Prejudice

 Key Terms

 Summary

 Assessment

 Key Answers
Objectives

 Understand the historical and theoretical foundations of social psychology.

 Investigate the conditions that encourage obedience to authority figures.
 Identify how participants' expectations affect experimental outcomes and evaluate
methods to minimize experimenter bias.
 Explore factors influencing bystander intervention in real-world settings.
 Evaluate different measurement techniques to ensure validity and reliability of
the chosen dependent variables.

Social Psychology

Social psychology is a broad field that studies the effects of society on people. This
field of study covers a broad range of research topics, such as how people change
their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; how they perceive individuals; the causes of
mutual liking; the causes of aggression and violence; and the elements that encourage
selflessness and helpful actions.

The Origins of Social Psychology

The scientific study of social psychology emerged even more recently than the area of
scientific psychology, which has been functioning for around a century. The first two
social psychology textbooks were published in 1908, authored by psychologist
William McDougall and sociologist E. A. Ross, respectively. These early studies'
methodologies and viewpoints are very different from modern social psychology
approaches.
The 1920s and 1930s were years when social psychology was first established
as its own independent field of study. A major contribution from this era is the
research of Sherif. Social norms were researched by Sherif, who defined as the
general rule of conduct providing advice on how to behave. He studied the seemingly
powerful effects of social norms and their creation in a perceptual illusion, namely
autokinetic phenomenon. The same tiny amount of luminescence would appear to be
there if someone were placed in a completely dark room with only one source of light
shining on the wall. This light never really moves, in actuality. The phenomenon's
name originates from the way this makes the light appear to "move itself."
13.1 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

Experimental Control: Obedience to Authority

To be sure that any changes in behavior are caused by the independent variable and
not by other influences, the researcher must control other variables in the
circumstance while using experimental control. The complexity of the behavior
under study makes it increasingly difficult to control for all other pertinent variables.
When factors other than the independent variable induce changes in the
dependent variable, or the main behavior being observed, this is known as
experimental error. Reducing or eliminating such errors is the goal of experimental
control. Confounding is a substantial cause of experimental error that occurs when
another variable mistakenly fluctuates alongside the independent variable. In this
case, it is unclear which variable—the confounding variable or the independent
variable—caused the dependent variable to change.
There are several ways to reduce confounding-related experimental error. The
simplest approach is to make sure that only the independent variable is modified by
controlling all other variables of interest. Control variables are those other
parameters that remain constant.

Randomization guarantees that participant groups in an experiment do not

differ from one another in a systematic way. In the absence of randomization,
discrepancies can be mistaken for effects of the independent variable, which would
affect the outcome of the experiment. The researcher can make sure that both groups
are comparable in all important aspects on average by randomly allocating individuals
to the two conditions. Therefore, rather than participant characteristics, the
independent variable can be blamed for any statistically significant behavioral
variations between the conditions.

How do we examine a complicated social phenomenon in a controlled setting?

Take, for instance, the issue of obedience to authority. How can a powerful individual
or organization persuade others to follow their orders, especially if those orders
require unethical or immoral behavior?

In the 20th century, this was most horrifyingly demonstrated in Nazi

Germany, where a small group of Nazi fanatics came up with a methodical strategy to
wipe out a sizable section of the people in Germany and the occupied regions. The
majority of German residents' implicit consent as well as the collaboration of
otherwise regular people were necessary for the implementation of this strategy. The
perceived authority of the leader, the participant's expected behavior, the perceived
repercussions of disobedience, peer pressure, the political or ideological environment,
and more must all be considered while studying obedience in a laboratory setting.
However, how can we quantify obedience?
 In his first research, Milgram used advertisements to find male volunteers and
invited them to take part in a paid memory and learning experiment at Yale
University. Participants
were greeted in the lab by
a man who was actually
the experimenter's
accomplice; he was a forty
seven-year-old accountant
who was well-groomed
and described as polite and
nice. The experiment's
goal was to investigate
how punishment affects
memory, the volunteers
were told. They were
informed that they would
assume the roles of student
and teacher. The selection
procedure, which entailed pulling slips of paper out of a hat, was set up such that the
accomplice would always be the student and the unwitting participant would always
be the teacher. The experimenter was a severe thirty one-year-old biology instructor
dressed in a white lab coat. The student was strapped into an electric chair to limit his
movement, and electrodes were fastened to his wrists to "avoid blisters and burns."

The learner-confederate was required to select the right answer from four
options and state it out loud. In the event that the student committed an error, the
teacher-participant was directed to apply an electric shock by pressing a button on a
strong shock generator. To prove the generator's legitimacy, the real participant was
given a minor shock at the start of the experiment, even though the confederate didn't
really receive any shocks. Every time a student erred throughout the experiment, the
instructor had to apply more shock. The maximum amount of electric shock that the
unsuspecting participant was willing to deliver was the main dependent variable.
The shock generator was equipped with thirty lever switches that were clearly
labeled with escalating voltage levels between 15 and 450 volts. There were four
groups of these switches, with seven switches in each group. The following verbal
labels were given to the participants for the switches, arranged from left to right:
danger: severe shock; mild shock, moderate shock; strong shock; extremely strong
shock; intense shock; and extreme-intensity shock. There were also two switches with
the designation XXX at the far right.
The teacher-participant used greater electric shocks as a result of the learner-
confederate's deliberate blunders from the start. In the first experiment, the teacher
could hear the confederate even though he was out of sight, and his responses were
pre-recorded and standardized on tape. "At 75 volts, the learner begins groaning and
moaning. By 150 volts, he demands to be released from the experiment. At 180 volts,
he weeps out that he can’t endure the pain any longer. When the voltage hits 300, he
refuses to respond to any more questions. The experimenter then instructs the
participant to treat the lack of response as an incorrect answer and to continue
administering fluctuations as usual."
All participants in this process were apprehensive and upset, constantly
asking the experimenter for advice. When participants hesitated to continue, the
experimenter employed a succession of remarks, culminating in demands, to
guarantee compliance.
Milgram's findings are pretty remarkable. Of the 40 participants in the initial
group, 26 (65 %) went on to shock the confederate with all of the shocks, and the
other fourteen people either stopped the experiment or refused to proceed—some
even stopping before the shocks reached 300 volts. These findings, shown in Figure
13.3, demonstrate that the participants were not indifferent or cruel; rather, they were
ordinary individuals like us who experienced tremendous internal struggle during the
experiment.

While Milgram's study is significant, it may underestimate people's

willingness to obey authority leaders. Participants in Milgram's controlled laboratory
experienced no real penalties for disobedience, unlike in real-world scenarios where
authoritative persons might impose consequences. For example, there would have
been no consequences if the participants had chosen to withdraw voluntarily. This
contrast emphasizes that, despite the amazing nature of Milgram's findings, they do
not fully capture the dynamics of compliance as they occur in real-world situations.
Notwithstanding this drawback, Milgram's capacity to elicit high levels of obedience
in the absence of actual coercive power highlights the unexpected nature of his
findings and raises the possibility that obedience might have been even more
pronounced in the presence of real consequences.

Conditions Encouraging Obedience

An essential component of conventional experiments, the variation of an independent

variable, was absent from Milgram's study. Therefore, it was unable to shed light on
the variables that might influence submission to authority in that particular situation.
While Milgram developed a controlled laboratory setting to illustrate obedience, his
initial study was more correctly defined as a demonstration than a thorough
experiment because no independent variable was manipulated. Milgram did not assert
anything to the contrary; rather, he accepted this constraint. He noted in his initial
report where methodical modifications to the process could provide fresh perspectives
on the circumstances impacting compliance, and he subsequently investigated some
of these variants in follow-up studies.
A follow-up study, carried out in 1965 under the fictional name Research
Associates of Bridgeport, was done in an old office building in a less respectable part
of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Other than that, the study was nearly identical to the
original. One would wonder if Milgram could have explained the difference in
obedience between the two studies—Yale and a dilapidated office building—had this
study demonstrated a statistically significant drop in obedience compared to the Yale
study. Such a conclusion would be challenging, though, as there were many other
differences between the two trials, such as the city and season. As a result, it was
difficult to definitely ascribe the outcomes to the setting because multiple variables
may have been influenced by one another. Given that the experimenter and
confederates stayed the same in both studies, it may seem that the setting affected the
results. However, it is dangerous to draw firm conclusions from comparisons across
different experimental conditions because uncontrolled variables and confounding
factors may exist.
More research would have been necessary to determine why obedience levels
differed. First, he may have formulated reasonable theories regarding what might be
causing these differences, such age, occupation, or socioeconomic standing. He could
then have isolated each component and conducted trials to evaluate them one by one
and determine which ones actually affected compliance. Basically, the key to
identifying the precise impacts of several uncontrolled variables on behavior is to
isolate and manipulate these variables independently when they vary between studies
and produce different results.

Subsequent real-world investigations have demonstrated the strong influence

of additional variables on compliance levels. For instance, when other people—who
were actually confederates—acted in a certain way while posing as teachers, it had a
significant impact on the participants' conduct even though they were not aware of the
fraud. Milgram once had two confederates reject to keep giving shocks at
predetermined intensities; the outcome is seen in Figure 13.4. This graph shows that
when other participants declined to continue, the likelihood of individuals refusing to
continue increased. On the other hand, in a different experiment, individuals delivered
significantly more shocks when they were encouraged to do so by two obedient peers
than when they decided on their own.

Milgram also tried altering the victim's proximity. In one case, the victim's groans and
protests were all the teacher could hear. In another, the teacher could see the victim
since they were in the same room. The participant was told to physically push the
learner's hand onto the shock plate (Figure 13.5) in a more challenging scenario. It is
noteworthy that nearly one-third of participants
continued to shock even when they had to physically restrain
the learner's hand, despite obeying rates declining as the
victim grew closer—they went from 74% to 40% to 30% in
all three scenarios.
Milgram's studies on obedience show how intricate
social influence problems can be investigated in a
controlled lab environment. The trials produced extremely high
levels of compliance, even though not all real-world dynamics are mirrored (for
example, the investigator lacked genuine authority over the subjects). Milgram
highlights that obedience is not always a bad thing. Maintaining order and
functionality in society requires adherence to the law and to those in positions of
power. But when there are destructive demands or actions involved, obedience
becomes problematic.

13.2 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

Demand Characteristics and Experimenter Bias: Hypnosis

The most obvious form of bias is purposely misrepresenting data. Social demands to
maintain productivity, publish multiple articles, and uncover spectacular results in
order to get additional money from granting organizations have led some researchers
to falsify their findings.
Experimenter bias includes not just purposeful deception, but also the subtler
influences that researchers may unintentionally have on their investigations. Studies
have validated the existence of these impacts, which can be inadvertently introduced
through diverse means. Variations in tone of voice and emphasis during instructions,
minor gestures and facial expressions, and differences in how experimenters interact
with subjects under various settings can all lead to bias. Even while experimenters
may not always be aware of these effects, their expectations of participant behavior
under various settings may have a subtle effect on participants' actions to match
expected results.
One particularly effective strategy is to keep the experimenter uninformed of
both the hypotheses under discussion and the specific settings under which the
individuals are tested. The experimenter is said to be blind to the conditions after this
is accomplished. However, because the experimenter is in charge of implementing the
conditions themselves, achieving this need is frequently difficult or impracticable in
many research circumstances.

If experimental outcomes are influenced by demand characteristics of the

experimental setting, they may not be applicable in other circumstances. It is
commonly acknowledged that being aware of one's involvement in an experiment has
a substantial effect on people's conduct.
Individuals in laboratory tests become aware that they are being observed and
that their behaviors are being scrutinized, which influences their behavior based on
expectations. Similar to this, studies on the placebo effect show that, when
administered an inert chemical, patients frequently report feeling better or
experiencing symptom relief—as long as they think the drug is working. Therefore, in
order to appropriately assess a new drug's efficacy, researchers need to test its effects
against both a control group and a placebo group. Such investigations are commonly
referred to as single-blind experiments because participants are uninformed whether
they are getting the actual medicine or a placebo. To avoid bias, double-blind
experiment are used in medical research, in which neither patients nor doctors know
whether they are given the treatment or a placebo, ensuring that expectations do not
impact the outcome.
 One strategy used in the Orne and Evans experiment to address the issue of
demand characteristics is the simulating control individuals. This strategy is
comparable to using a placebo condition in clinical trials. It is presumed that the
demand features are the same for the simulated control group as well as the
experimental group. The conduct of the experimental group should be markedly
different from that of the simulating controls if the experimental treatment—hypnosis,
for example—is truly effective. However, a major flaw in this logic is that if no
difference is detected, it may be incorrectly assumed that no difference occurs.
In social psychology research, the problem of demand characteristics is
particularly difficult to solve. According to Orne, these worries are less important in
studies when participants are encouraged to answer truthfully and no deception is
used. However, demand features can skew results in trials where deception is frequent
and ideal performance may not be encouraged for numerous reasons. For instance, in
a hypnosis study, participants from all experimental circumstances recalled executing
the acts because they were aware they were part of an experiment. Despite attempts to
convince them otherwise, they were certain that the experimenter had taken
precautions to protect their own safety.

13.3 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

Field Research: Bystander Intervention

A growing number of social psychologists are doing field research because of

problems with things like demand characteristics in lab settings. Rather of
introducing phenomena into carefully regulated lab settings, researchers try to keep
things under adequate control in real-world situations. Because the study is done in
real-world contexts from the beginning, this approach enables them to infer how
differences in independent factors effect dependent variables without the requirement
for generalizing to the actual world. However, compared to laboratory research,
fieldwork in social psychology has distinct difficulties that are frequently harder to
plan and carry out.
The fundamental premise of experimental procedures in laboratory research is
to isolate essential variables from complicated natural circumstances and replicate
components of those scenarios. This enables researchers to methodically alter several
parameters in order to comprehend how they affect the behavior under investigation.
Researchers achieve precise control over the settings by conducting experiments in a
controlled laboratory environment, addressing one of the key obstacles encountered in
field research linked to variable control.

A social psychology phenomena known as the "bystander effect" states that

when there are more people around during a crisis, there is a decreased chance that
anybody will help the victim.

In a laboratory experiment, participants thought they were having a

conversation about personal concerns in college with one, two, or five other students
over an intercom system. The experimenter gave instructions and then left the area.
The students gave their introductions before the conversation started. Abruptly, a
student impersonated someone going through an epileptic episode with convincing
accuracy. The purpose of the study was to see how participants would respond when
they believed there were zero, one, or four other onlookers (in actuality, there was
only one genuine participant at a time; the other voices were pre-recorded).

The data
shown in Table 13.2
shows that the
proportion of people
who attempted to
assist a stranger
declined as the
number of onlookers
increased.
Furthermore, even in
cases where people
made the decision to
react to an
emergency, they did it more slowly if they thought that others were there. This pattern
exemplifies the idea of "diffusion of responsibility," according to which the more
people there are, the less likely it is that any one person will feel compelled to step in
because there are more others who could witness their conduct. In contrast to a
student in a class of five peers, a student in a class of 100 peers is less likely to feel
accountable for responding to a teacher's question.
Bystander intervention field tests are prime examples of professionally
conducted field research. Although variables cannot be controlled with the same
precision as in a laboratory setting, confounding factors cannot be introduced into the
manipulation of independent variables. Other factors are made random in order to
achieve this.

13.4 Experimental Topics and Research Illustrations

Choosing the Dependent Variable: Measuring Stereotypes and

Prejudice

When researching socially sensitive subjects such as racism, social psychologists

frequently question verbal self-reports. People can not even be conscious of their own
prejudices, or they might lie about how they feel in order to fit in with the anti-racist
social standards. As a result, social psychologists have developed alternate techniques
for measuring prejudice in addition to continuing to employ racism surveys. The goal
of these new methods is to identify dependent variables that are less impacted by self-
reporting constraints and the need to fit in with society.
Implicit memory tests allow psychologists to assess memory without asking
direct questions about the study experience. Similarly, social psychologists have
devised implicit attitude measures to detect evidence of prejudice without directly
asking participants to reveal their attitudes.
 In reaction to a real-life occurrence in which white police officers killed a
black immigrant, a new implicit attitude test was developed. When Amidou Diallo
reached for his wallet in February 1999, four New York City police officers fatally
shot him forty-one times because they thought he was reaching for a gun. This
episode raises the question of whether Diallo's race affected the cops' views, leading
them to mistakenly believe the wallet to be a gun.

To carry out this experiment, Payne (2001) devised a priming research with the
following structure: each trial included a brief show of a face on the screen for 200ms,
followed by a presentation of an item for 200ms. Each trial's start and finish were
indicated by visual masks. The face prime was either black or white, and the target
object was either a weapon or a tool.

In one trial, participants were told to ignore the faces and concentrate on identifying
things, such as a tool or a rifle, by hitting a different key. This procedure is depicted in
Figure 13.6. Payne carried out two tests: in the first, participants had an infinite
amount of time to identify the items, and in the second, they had to react within 500
ms of the object's appearance. During the
second trial, subjects were given feedback
during training to assist them learn to
respond rapidly.
Errors were negligible in experiment
1 due to participants' limitless time to
choose things. Payne correctly added a second measure: the speed with which
participants made gun-tool judgments. Reaction times showed a regular trend, as
shown on the left side in Figure 13.7. In general, people recognized weapons more
quickly. Notably, participants responded noticeably faster by tapping the "gun" key
when a gun image followed a black face instead than a white one. In contrast, tools
showed the reverse effect. This shows an interaction between the race of the face
shown as a prime and the thing to be identified.
Participants made more errors in experiment 2 than in the previous experiment
due to the need for speedy replies (within 500ms). This resulted in the formation of
racial bias in the error data, as shown on the right side of Figure 13.7. Errors were
generally more common when tools were mistaken for guns. Notably, tools were
more frequently mistaken for guns when a black face came before them than when a
white one did.
 In the instance of Amidou Diallo, it's possible that police officers reacted
quickly and under pressure. According to Payne's research, encountering a black
individual when under time pressure increases the risk of mistaking an innocuous
object for a gun. Rapid responses necessitate the use of preconceptions, which act as
cognitive shortcuts; regrettably, in American society, a stereotype exists that
associates black people with danger. The gun-tool paradigm has gained popularity as
a means of investigating racial bias; comparable results have been found when
analyzing shoot-or-don't-shoot choices in video games. However, there has been
progress in understanding and reducing prejudice in these game contexts.

KEY TERMS

autokinetic phenomenon implicit attitude measures

blind implicit memory tests
bystander intervention (bystander effect) interaction
conformity obedience
confounding placebo effect
control variables prime
demand characteristics priming
diffusion of responsibility randomization
double-blind experiment single-blind experiment
experimental control simulating control participants
experimental error social norms
experimenter bias social psychology
field research target
visual masks

SUMMARY

Conducting social psychology research might be more difficult than other types of
study due to the complexity of the conditions under investigation, which include
various variables impacting behavior. In view of this, it frequently takes a lot of work
to apply experimental control in order to draw trustworthy conclusions about how
various experimental treatments affect the dependent variable. Any variation in the
dependent variable that is not a result of the independent variable is referred to as
experimental error, and experimental control deals with this problem. Whenever
possible, they should be maintained constant in all circumstances in order to control
these external factors. These factors should be randomly assigned to different
circumstances if controlling them is not practical.
In social psychology study, participant and experimenter expectations might
provide difficulties. Unintentionally influencing outcomes can take several forms,
such as treating volunteers differently depending on the condition. One method is to
make the experimenter unaware of the conditions while testing. But since the
experimenter must carry out the experimental manipulation, this is frequently not
feasible. Experimenter bias effects are typically found while scientific research
proceeds normally.
The issue of participants' behavior being impacted by the demand features of
the experimental setting is potentially more serious than experimenter bias since
demand factors are likely to be common across multiple studies in different facilities.
The expectations of the participants regarding their behavior during the experiment
are known as demand characteristics. Orne invented numerous creative approaches
for determining the impact of demand factors. He used quasicontrol groups, which
simulate participant characteristics and typically assist researchers in determining
whether demand characteristics affect a particular experiment, but do not reveal the
outcome of the experiment in the event that these characteristics are removed.
Doing an experiment "in the field," or in a natural setting, is one way to get
around the problem of demand characteristics. This method gets rid of demand
characteristics since the participants don't know they are in an experiment. These
days, a lot of social psychologists prefer field research since it avoids the problems
with generalization that arise with laboratory investigations. Field research does,
however, have some serious disadvantages. Manipulating an independent variable
effectively while accounting for "nuisance" factors can be difficult. Furthermore,
deciding what to measure is challenging because participants are unaware they are
part of an experiment and cannot be asked to complete activities or provide
comments.
Recently, social psychologists have begun to apply cognitive psychology
methods to subjects such as attitudes. We can learn about people's views and
preferences by studying how long it takes them to respond to circumstances and what
they remember.

SHORT ANSWER TYPE: Give the specific or brief but complete answer of what is
being asked in the question or statement.

1. These first two texts on psychology was written by William McDougall and E. A.
Ross on what year?
2. This occurs when the dependent variable is influenced by a factor other than the
independent variable.

3. This area of research encompasses a wide array of subjects, including how

individuals alter their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; their perceptions of others; the
factors that lead to mutual affection; the reasons behind aggression and violence; and
the components that promote altruism and helpful behavior.

4. He researched the apparent influence of social norms on the perception of an

optical illusion known as the autokinetic phenomenon.

5. It is a substantial cause of experimental error that occurs when another variable

mistakenly fluctuates alongside the independent variable.

6. Which psychologist is known for writing the initial two psychology textbooks
released in 1908?

7. It is a type of variable that is also referred to as being kept constant.

8. It is defined as the general rule of conduct providing advice on how to behave.

9. It reduces the probability of having consistent disparities between groups of

participants in an experiment.

10. It is the inclination for individuals to attempt to satisfy those who are in authority.

11. This type of clinical trial involves only the researcher conducting the study
knowing which treatment or intervention the participant is receiving until the trial
concludes.

12. This includes both intentional dishonesty and the subtler effects that investigators
may unintentionally have on their research.
13. It's a type of clinical trial where neither the participants nor the experimenters are
aware of who is receiving a specific treatment.

14. What do you call it when people's behaviors are greatly impacted by their
awareness of being a part of an experiment, potentially affecting how well the results
of the experiment may be applied in other contexts?

15. During the 20th century, which country witnessed the most notable example of
obedience to authority?

KEY TO CORRECTION
1. 1908
2. Experimental Error
3. Social Psychology
4. Sherif
5. Confounding
6. William McDougall
7. Control Variables
8. Social Norms
9. Randomization
10. Obedience to Authority
11. Single-blind Experiment
12. Experimenter Bias
13. Double-blind Experiment
14. Demand Characteristics
15. Germany

ANALOGY TYPE: Give the word that best completes the analogy and write your
answer on the space provided.

1. medication : as negative expectations : nocebo

2. lurking : social loafing as bystander effect :
3. attentive : as insubordinate : rebellion
4. wounded person : victim as bullseye :
5. Kurt Lewin : as Brunswik : Environmental Psychology
6. experiment : laboratory as uninformed participants :
7. unconscious awareness : as conscious awareness : explicit memory
8. gun : weapon as face :
9. Prejudice : as obedience : Milgram
10. umbrella : rain as white cane :

KEY TO CORRECTION
1. Placebo
2. diffusion of responsibility
3. Obedience
4. Target
5. Social Psychology
6. Single-blind Experiment
7. Implicit memory
8. Visual mask
9. Payne (2001)
10. blind