Psychology 1000

Chapter 13:
Social Psychology:
How Others Affect Us
Outline
 What is social psychology?

 Social influence

 Helping and harming others

 Attitudes and persuasion

 Prejudice and discrimination

What Is Social
Psychology?
The study of how
people influence
ocial
others’ behavior, psychology
beliefs, and
attitudes
Humans as a Social Species
Need-to-belong Social contagion:
theory: Humans have Looking to others for
a biologically based knowledge or deciding
need for interpersonal how to act
connections. Social facilitation:

Social comparison The presence of others

theory: We seek to can enhance our
evaluate our abilities performance in certain
and beliefs by situations.
comparing them with
those of others.
Humans as a Social Species

 We crave strong, stable

social relationships

 Being alone is painful

Downward
Comparison

Upward
Comparison
 Social Comparisons
I give more money
to charities than I am
most people generous
similar to me

I give about the

same money to I am average
How Social charities as most in generosity
Generous Comparison people similar to me
Am I?

I give less money

to charities than
most people I am stingy
similar to me

Social Outcome of Social

Question Conclusion
Comparison Comparison
www.snopes.com
Social Facilitation

 When the mere presence of

others enhances our
performance
 Bicyclists racing
 Cockroaches running
mazes

 Can also experience social

disruption (choking)
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Dispositional Situational
Fundamental
“He probably got
“He’s such a
attribution error: careless driver. He
caught in some bad
traffic, and then he was
Tendency to never watches out
late for a meeting.”
for other cars.”
overestimate the
impact of
dispositional
influences on
other people’s
behavior
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Fundamental Attribution Error
Causes:
 We may overlook or be unaware of situational
information

 We may underestimate the power of the situation

 Fully taking the situation into account requires

cognitive resources, which may or may not be
available
Actor-Observer Difference
 Exception to the Bias: We
don’t apply it to ourselves!

 Observers tend to make

dispositional attributions only
for another actor’s behavior
 We tend to make situational
attributions for our own
behavior
 we think we drive too fast
because of “special
circumstances”
 others think we drive too
fast because we’re jerks
Actor-Observer Difference
 Reasons for the Actor-Observer Difference:
 Perceptual Salience

 Availability of information

 Cognitive resource requirement is lower

Social Influence:
Conformity and
Obedience
 Conformity
Tendency of people to alter their behavior as
a result of group pressure

Asch study:
 Subjects in group asked
to compare and match
line lengths
 Confederates picked
wrong line
 Subjects conformed to
wrong answer 37% of the
time across all 12 trials
Deindividuation

Tendency of
people to engage
in uncharacteristic
behavior when they
are stripped of their
usual identities
Stanford Prison Study

PROCEDURE:
PROCEDURE:

 Subjects
Subjects randomly
randomly assigned
assigned
role
role of
of guard
guard or
or prisoner
prisoner

RESULTS:
RESULTS:

 Guards
Guards began
began to:
to:
 Treat

Treat prisoners
prisoners cruelly
cruelly
 Subject

Subject them
them toto harsh
harsh
punishments
punishments
 Become

Become increasingly
increasingly sadistic
sadistic

 Many
Many prisoners
prisoners began
began to
to
display
display signs
signs of:
of:
 Depression

Depression
 Hopelessness

Hopelessness
 Anger

Anger

 Study
Study stopped
stopped early
early
Groupthink

Emphasis on group
unanimity at the expense of
critical thinking
Examples:
 Bay of Pigs
 Challenger explosion
Symptoms of Groupthink
Group Polarization: Going to Extremes
Group polarization:
The tendency of group discussion to
strengthen the dominant positions of
individual group members
Cults
 Groups that exhibit intense and
unquestioning devotion to a
single cause

 Promote groupthink in four major

ways
 Have a persuasive leader who
fosters loyalty
 Disconnect members from the
outside world
 Discourage questioning of
assumptions
 Gradually indoctrinate
members
Cult Myths
 Cult members are emotionally disturbed
 Most are normal, but leaders are often seriously
mentally ill

 Cult members are brainwashed and turned into

unthinking zombies
 Techniques do not permanently change beliefs
Aspects of Cult Indoctrination
 Selective targeting of potential recruits
 Isolation of recruits
 Sleep deprivation
 Repetition
 Denial of privacy
 Reciprocity
 Fear-mongering
Cults
 Can be resisted via inoculation effect:
 Convincing people to change their minds about
something by first introducing reasons why the
perspective might be correct and then debunking
them
Obedience:
The Psychology of
Following Orders
Obedience:

Adherence to
instructions from those
of higher authority
Obedience:
Milgram Study
 “The effects of punishment on memory”

 Word pair memorization task

 “Teacher”: delivers painful electric shocks

to learner for incorrect answers

 “Learner”: a middle-aged man with a

heart condition (confederate)
Obedience: Following Commands
Milgram’s Shock Generator

Shock Generator
Caution

On

Amp Meter

Amps Intensity
Resistance

Very
Slight Moderate Strong Intense Extreme
Shock Shock Shock
Strong
Shock Shock
Danger XXX
Shock

Slight
Moderate
Very Strong
Strong Intense
Extreme
Danger
XXX
ShockShock ShockShock
Shock Shock
Statements By Shock Recipient:

Shock Generator
Caution

On

Amp Meter

Amps Intensity
Resistance

Very
Slight Moderate Strong Intense Extreme
Shock Shock Shock
Strong
Shock Shock
Danger XXX
Shock

“LetAll!
“That’s me Get
out me
of here! Let
here!me out of here!
out ofExperimenter:

This Really …silence...

I told youMy heart’s
I had heartbothering
trouble. me!…
“Ugh!”
“Hey! Hurts!”
My heartYou“Treat
is starting
have nonobother
to response
right mehold
to now!meashere!
a wrong response.
Get me out ofDeliver
Let here,
me out! the
please!
Let menext
….Let higher
meLet
out! out!” level of shock.”
me out!”
Obedience: Following Commands
 Milgram asked students and colleagues to predict
what 100 hypothetical “teachers” would do
 Guessed that very few teachers would even go
beyond the “Very strong shock” level (195-240
volts)
 Actual results?
How Many Obeyed?

Shock Generator
Caution

On

Amp Meter

Amps Intensity
Resistance

Very
Slight Moderate Strong Intense Extreme
Shock Shock Shock
Strong
Shock Shock
Danger XXX
Shock

All Still
All Still
All Still1 of Over 60% Still
4 8 more
1 of
All Obeyed
Obeying
Obeying Stopped
Obeying Stopped Obedient
Milgram Study: Results
Milgram Variations
 Closer proximity between teacher and learner
reduced extent of obedience
 Watching the proceedings, rather than participating,
leads to passive acceptance of the activities
 Experimenter disagreement reduces the extent of
obedience
Milgram Variations
Helping and Harming
Others: Prosocial
Behavior and
Aggression
Bystander Nonintervention

[from the March 27, 1964 New York Times. Copyright ©

1964 by the New York Times Co.]

37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police

Apathy at Stabbing of Queens Woman Shocks Inspector

By MARTIN GANSBERG

For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-

abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a
woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. Twice the
sound of their voices and the sudden glow of their bedroom
lights interrupted him and frightened him off. Each time he
returned, sought her out and stabbed her again. Not one Kitty
person telephoned the police during the assault; one witness Genovese
called after the woman was dead.
Bystander Nonintervention

Why we don’t help:

 Pluralisticignorance
 Diffusion of
responsibility
Bystander Intervention
Across three classic
experiments of bystander
intervention, the percentage
of people helping when in
groups was markedly lower
than the percentage of people
helping when alone.

Video: Smoke filled room

study
Social Loafing
 Refers to when people
slack off in groups
 The whole is less than
the sum of its parts

 Due partly to diffusion of

responsibility and
influenced by cultural
factors

 One antidote is to ensure

that each person in the
group is identifiable
Prosocial Behavior and Altruism
People are more likely
to help when they:
Are unable to escape from a
situation
Have adequate time to intervene
Are in a good mood
Are less concerned about social
approval
Are extraverted
Are trained in life-saving
techniques
Have been exposed to research
on bystander intervention
Altruism
Aggression:
Why We Hurt Others

Situational influences:
 Interpersonal provocation
 Frustration
 Media influences
 Aggressive cues
 Arousal
 Alcohol and other drugs
 Temperature
Aggressive Cues: Weapons Effect
 The tendency for weapons, such as guns, to enhance
aggressive thoughts, feelings, and actions
Aggressive Cues: Weapons Effect
 Berkowitz and LePage (1967):
 Students received 1 (not annoying)
or 7 shocks from a partner
(annoying)
 Students given opportunity to
“return the favor”
 Nothing on table during experiment

Vs.
 A 12 gauge shotgun and .38 caliber
revolver lying on the table near the
shock button
 Berkowitz & LePage (1967)

66
55
Number of
44
Shocks
33
Delivered to
Other 22
Subject 11

Other Subject Other Subject

Rewarding Annoying
weapons
present Weapons did not But annoyed
increase aggression participants delivered
when participants more shocks when
no weapons were not annoyed guns were present
present
Aggression and Arousal
 Unrelated physiological arousal can be linked to
anger-related thoughts and cognitions
 This can increase anger-related aggression
 Exercise bike study:
Aggression and Alcohol
 Lowers inhibitions, makes us
less cautious
 Interferes with our ability to
process information and think
reasonably
 May increase fear, defensive
attributions
 Reduces empathy for victims
 All of these factors contribute to
aggression
Aggression and Temperature

 High temperatures are associated with:

 More aggressive horn-honking, road-rage
 Increases in assaults
 Increases in murders
 Increases in urban riots
 Drivers without air conditioners are more
aggressive than those with A/C
 More bean balls in MLB on hot days
 0.6

0.5
Players Hit Per
Game

0.4

0.3
below 70 70-79 80-89 90 +
Temperature (Fahrenheit)
(Reifman, Larrick, & Fein, 1991)
Aggression: Why We Hurt Others
Individual, gender, and
cultural influences:
Personality traits:
• High levels of negative emotions
• Impulsivity
• Lack of closeness to others
Sex Differences:
• Higher level of physical
aggressiveness among males
than females
• Girls higher than boys in
relational aggression
Cultural differences:
• Southern “culture of honor”
Culture of Honor
Dov Cohen et al. (1996)
 As the participant walked down the hall, a
confederate of the experimenter walked out of a door
marked “Photo Lab” and began working at a file
cabinet in the hall. The confederate had to push the
file drawer in to allow the participant to pass by him
and drop his paper off at the table. As the participant
returned seconds later and walked back down the
hall toward the experimental room, the confederate
(who had reopened the file drawer) slammed it shut
on seeing the participant approach and bumped into
the participant with his shoulder, calling the
participant an “asshole.”
Culture of Honor
 Study Results:
14
12
% Testerone Level

10
8 Northern
6 Southern
4
2
0
Control Insult
Attitudes and
Persuasion:
Changing Minds
 “She is
such a nice
Attitudes
person.”
Beliefthat includes an
emotional component

They do predict behavior

relatively well when they’re:
• Highly accessible
• Firmly held
• Stable over time
• Held by low self-monitors

Recognition heuristic: More

likely to believe something
we’ve heard many times
Attitude Change
Cognitive dissonance
theory: “I repeated
“I am a good, gossip about my
A discrepancy between loyal friend.” friend Chris.”
two beliefs leads to an
unpleasant state of tension
we’re motivated to reduce.
How to reduce the
unpleasant state?
Attitude Change:
Ways of Reducing Dissonance
Smoking will
not cause
cancer in me
Smoking

gn nge
on
Causes

i ti
Co ha
Cancer

C
Dissonant Cognitive Change I do not
Cognitions Dissonance smoke
AdBehavior
d
Co Con
gn so
I Smoke iti n a
on nt
Smoking
relaxes me
Dissonance Theory:
Research Paradigms
Testing Cognitive Dissonance Theory

 Induced Compliance Paradigm

 Effort Justification Paradigm

 Early Research: Induced Compliance
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)
14
12
Enjoyability

10
8

6
4

2
0
Control $1 $20

 Those receiving $1 rated task as more enjoyable (attitude change)

 Those receiving $20 didn’t change their attitude at all

Early Research: Effort Justification
100
95
Interest Ratings

90
85
80
75
70
65
60
Control Mildly Sexually Explicit
Suggestive

Aronson and Mills (1959): Extreme effort was not

justified by the dull result, so the extreme group
changed the cognition “This group is dull” to “This
group is interesting”
Attitude Change
tion p re s sion ry
e r c e p Im t t he o
Self-p ory n a g em e n
th e ma

We acquire our We don’t really

attitudes by observing change our attitudes,
our behaviors. but report that we have
so that our behaviors
appear consistent with
our attitudes.
Persuasion: Humans
as Salespeople
Central Versus Peripheral
route
Persuasion techniques:
 Door-in-the-face
 Low-ball
 Foot-in-the-door
Two Routes to Persuasion
 Central route processing occurs when people attend
to and think about the message

 Peripheral route processing occurs when people

rely on simple cues to make judgments, rather than
the strength of the arguments
Persuasion Audience Processing Persuasion
Attempt Factors Approach Outcome

High Lasting
Central (systematic) change that
motivation
processing, focused resists fading
and ability to
on the quality of the and
think about
message arguments.
the message counterattacks

Message
Peripheral (heuristic) Temporary
Low processing, focused change that
motivation on surface features that is
or ability to (communicator’s susceptible to
think about attractiveness, # fading and
the message arguments
presented).
counterattacks
Persuasion Techniques:
Foot-in-the-Door
 Foot-in-the-door
 compliance with an initial, small request makes us
more likely to comply with a later, larger request
 Due to self-perception
 Due to consistency motivations
 TACTIC FIRST STEP SECOND STEP

Foot-in-
the-Door Gain Target’s
Compliance
With a Small
Request

example:
“Would you
sign a petition
to help the
homeless”
 TACTIC FIRST STEP SECOND STEP

Foot-in-
the-Door Gain Target’s Make A
Compliance Related,
With a Small Larger
Request Request

Would you sign

Would you go
a petition to
work at a
help the
soup kitchen?
homeless?
Foot-in-the-Door

Would you agree to put

up this sign in your
lawn?
 Compliance: Foot in the Door

 Freedman and Fraser (1966):

 Went door to door and asked to put large “drive
carefully”
 16% complied when no prior demands made
 Other residents asked to sign petition or put small
sign in window
 When larger request made two weeks later, 55%
complied
Compliance: Low-Ball

 Low-Ball
 we agree to an initial, attractive deal
 something happens to alter the bargain
 bad elements are introduced, or good elements

are remove
 we still go along with the modified, worse deal
 we are committed to the course of action, and
don’t want to revise our behavioral intentions
TACTIC FIRST STEP SECOND STEP

Get an
Agreement to a
Specific
Low-Ball Arrangement

Get Customer
to Agree to Buy
a New Car for
$15,000
TACTIC FIRST STEP SECOND STEP

Get an
Agreement to a Change The
Terms of The
Specific Arrangement
Low-Ball Arrangement

Get Customer “Oh, you

to Agree to Buy wanted tires
and seats?
a New Car for Then that’ll be
$15,000 $15,999.”
Compliance: Door-in-the-Face
Reciprocity
 Door-in-the-face
 refusing an initial, large request makes us more
likely to comply with a later, smaller request
 Due to pressure to honor the norm of reciprocity
 we feel urge to repay a favor with a favor
Compliance: Door-in-the-Face
 Cialdini et al. (1975):
 Students asked to accompany juvenile delinquents
on 2 hour trip to zoo
 If only request, 16% accepted

 Others asked to be a counselor to juvenile

delinquents for 2 years (no one accepted)
 However, 50% agree to take them on a trip to the
zoo
Prejudice and
Discrimination
 Prejudice, Stereotypes, & Discrimination
p
Stereot y e Pre jud ic
e
i scr i mi n atio n
D

A belief, positive or Drawing negative Negative behavior

negative, about the conclusions about a toward members of
characteristics person, group of outgroups
of members of a people, or situation
group that is applied prior to evaluating
generally to most the evidence
members of the • Can lead to
group discrimination
• Can lead to prejudice

Ultimate attribution error: the assumption that behaviors among

individual members of a group are due to their internal
dispositions.
The Nature of Prejudice
In-group bias: Out-group
Tendency to favor homogeneity:
individuals within our Tendency to view all
group over those from individuals outside our
outside our group group as highly similar

U THE
S M
Adaptive conservatism: Evolutionary principle that creates a
predisposition toward distrusting anything or anyone unfamiliar or
different
 Material Costs of Prejudice,
Stereotyping, and Discrimination

Schulman et al., (1999):

 Physicians were only 60% as likely to suggest a top-

rated diagnostic test for black “heart patients” as for
whites.

 Even when blacks presented same symptoms, and

gave identical information about themselves
Material Costs of Prejudice,
Stereotyping, and Discrimination

Ayres & Siegelman (1995):

 One study found white men were offered better
deals on cars:
 $109 less than White women
 $318 less than Black women
 $935 less than Black men
Roots of Prejudice: A Tangled Web

 Scapegoat hypothesis
 Just-world hypothesis
 Conformity

 Individual differences
The Times: Prejudice and
Discrimination Then and Now
 Some forms of blatant, explicit racism remain today

 However, overall blatant racism has been on the

decline

 Over the past forty years, white people report

increasingly favorable views toward issues such as
 Racial integration
 Interracial marriage
Underground Prejudice
 The Implicit Association
Test and implicit racism,
sexism, and other
prejudices
 True finding or
unfalsifiable?
 Other means of testing
implicit prejudice?
Implicit Prejudice

 Correll et al. (2002):

 Video game study
 Decide as quickly as possible whether a male
target was armed or not
 Click “Shoot!” if armed, “Don’t shoot” if unarmed
 Participants who scored best would receive money
(but had to respond in less than a second)
Implicit Prejudice

Correll, Park, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2002)

Implicit Prejudice

Correll, Park, Judd, and Wittenbrink (2002)

4
3.5
Errors per 20 trials

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Black target White target

Respond "shoot" to unarmed target Respond "don't shoot" to armed target

– Replicated with black and white participants

Combating Prejudice: Robbers
Cave Study
 Boyswere randomly
separated into two
groups.
 Rattlers and Eagles
 Competitions fostered
hostility between
groups.
Combating Prejudice: Robbers
Cave Study

Experimenters contrived
situations requiring
cooperation for success.
 Result: There was a
dramatic decrease in
hostility between groups.
Combating Prejudice: Jigsaw
Classrooms
Jigsaw classroom:
Educational
approach designed to
minimize prejudice by
requiring all children to
make independent
contributions to a
shared project