🗓️ Unit 10
Social Psychology

PSYC 181 – Intro to Psych

Emma Marshall – Instructor

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

August 6, 2024

What you will learn

Learning Objectives

• Define social psychology
• Describe the fundamental attribution error and explain the role of situational and dispositional attributions
• Define and describe different types of social influence
• Identify major theories of anti-social and pro-social behavior

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Social Psychology How does the presence of other people influence the behavior of individuals, dyads, and groups?

• Social psychology deals with all kinds of interactions between people, spanning a wide range of how we connect: from moments of confrontation to moments of working together and helping others.
• Social psychologists believe that an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by social situations.

Intrapersonal topics

• emotions and attitudes, the self, and social cognition

Interpersonal topics

• helping behavior, aggression, prejudice and discrimination, attraction, relationships, group processes and intergroup relationships

Situationism the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings

Dispositionism the view that our behavior is determined by internal factors (i.e., personality traits and temperament)

• Situationism – the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings.
  • Used by social psychologists.
• Dispositionism – the view that our behavior is determined by internal factors (attribute of a person such as personality traits and temperament).
  • Favored in the U.S.
  • Used by personality psychologists.
• Modern social psychologists often consider both the situation and individual

Fundamental attribution error tendency to overemphasize internal factors as explanations/attributions for the behavior of other people and underestimate the power of the situation

Quizmaster Study

1Design

• Participants were randomly assigned to play the role of either the questioner or participant

2method

• Questioners developed difficult questions to which they knew the answers

• Participants answered questions correctly 4/10 times

3Results:

• Participants disregarded influence of situation and concluded questioner’s knowledge was greater

• Participants were randomly assigned to play the role of either the questioner or participant
• Questioners developed difficult questions to which they knew the answers
• Participants answered questions correctly 4/10 times
• Participants tended to disregard the influence of the situation and wrongly concluded that a questioner’s knowledge was greater than their own

Actor-observer bias phenomenon of explaining other people’s behaviors as due to internal factors and our own behaviors as due to situational factors

• We often make the fundamental attribution error because we do not have enough information to make a situational explanation about the person’s behavior.
• However, when we explain our own behaviors, we have more information available and are more likely to make situational explanations.

Self-serving bias tendency of an individual to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes but situational or external attributions for negative outcomes

Roesch & Amirkham (1997)

Models of attributions

1 Locus of control

• internal vs external

2 Stability

• the extent to which the circumstances are changeable

3 Controllability

• the extent to which the
  circumstances can be controlled

Just-world hypothesis belief that people get the outcomes they deserve

• Based on the belief that the world is a fair place and therefore good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes.

• Allows people to feel that the world is predictable and we have some control over life outcomes.

Social role pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group

• We each have several social roles

• Defined by culturally shared knowledge

• Behavior related to social roles varies across situations

SOCIAL NORMS & SCRIPTS

Social norm a group’s expectation of what is appropriate and acceptable behavior for its members

Script a person’s knowledge about the sequence of events expected in a specific setting

• Scripts vary between cultures
  • often guide behavior

The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts.
• A mock prison was constructed and participants (male college students), were randomly assigned to play the role of prisoners or guards.
• In a very short amount of time, the guards started to harass the prisoner in an increasingly sadistic manner.
  • Prisoners began to show signs of severe anxiety and hopelessness.
  • The two week study had to be ended after six days.

Attitude our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object

ATTITUDE

Affective

• feelings

Behavioral

• effect of the attitude on behavior

Cognitive

• belief and knowledge

3 components: 1. Affective component – feelings. 2. Behavioral component – the effect of the attitude on behavior. 3. Cognitive component – belief and knowledge.

Cognitive dissonance psychological discomfort arising from holding two or more inconsistent attitudes, behaviors, or cognitions

Response to Conflicting Beliefs

Leon Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance

Can reduce dissonance by:

1 Change their behavior

2 Change their belief through rationalization or denial

3 Add a new cognition

Justification of effort has a distinct effect on a person liking a group

THE EFFECT OF INITIATION

• College students volunteered to join a group that would regularly to discuss the psychology of sex.

• Randomly assigned: no initiation, easy initiation, difficult initiation

• Students in the difficult initiation condition liked the group more than students in other conditions due to the justification of effort

Aronson & Mills (1959)

Persuasion process of changing our attitudes toward something based on some kind of communication

Principles of Persuasion

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

Two paths to persuasion:

1. Central Route
   • Logic driven
   • Uses data and facts
   • Direct route to persuasion focusing on the quality of information
   • Works best when audience is analytical and willing to engage in processing of the information
2. Peripheral Route
   • Indirect route
   • Uses peripheral cues to associate positivity with the message
   • Uses characteristics such as positive emotion or celebrity endorsement
   • Results in less permanent attitude change

PETTY & CACIOPPO (1986)

Foot-in-the-door technique persuader gets a person to agree to a small favor, only to later request a larger favor

Conformity

Conformity the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group

CONFORMITY Experiment

Asch’s Experiment:

1Design

• One naive subject, others were confederates

2method

• Confederates purposely gave the wrong answer

3Results:

• 76% of participants conformed to group pressure at least once by also indicating the incorrect line

Factors more likely to conform

• size of the majority

• presence of another dissenter

• public or private nature of the responses

Solomon Asch’s experiment on conformity. He set up a test wherein he would show 3 lines of different lengths to 5 or 6 individuals (I forgot the exact number) who had to state which line was the longest of the 3. The thing is, only the last individual is the participant and the others are actors paid to answer in a specific manner. For the first few questions, they choose the correct answer, but later on they start choosing the wrong one. The participants are conflicted as to whether they will say the correct answer or conform to the wrong answer as to not be judged by others or due to self-doubt of their own answers. In the end, most do conform.

It’s really interesting since it shows how powerful conformity is in the face of doubt, up to a point that some even question their own sanity during the test.

Another variation of the experiment also had interesting results. It had the same set up with 5 individuals with the last person being the participant. However, this time some of the actors say the wrong answer while 1 actor says the correct one. There was an increase in participants who would choose the correct answer and avoid conformity. It shows how much doubt one can have on oneself when alone, but be brought back to self-confidence when they find outside support.

Edit: Conformity in participants might be caused by either being afraid others’ judgement or due to self-doubt.

MOTIVATION TO CONFORM

Normative social influence

• people conform to fit in, to feel good, and to be accepted by the group

Informational social influence

• people conform because believe the group is competent and has the correct information
  • particularly when the task or situation is ambiguous

OBEDIENCE to Authority

Obedience the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure

The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Experiment

1Method

• Participants told to shock “learners” (confederate) for giving a wrong answer to test items

1Results

• Two out of three (65%) participants continued to administer shocks to an unresponsive learner

GROUPTHINK & GROUP POLARIZATION

Groupthink the modification of the opinions of members of a group to align with what they believe is the group consensus

Group Polarization the strengthening of an original group attitude after the discussion of views within a group

SOCIAL FACILITATION & SOCIAL LOAFING

.

Social Facilitation occurs when an individual performs better when an audience is watching than when the individual performs the behavior alone

Social Loafing the exertion of less effort by a person working together with a group

PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION

Stereotype a specific belief or assumption about individuals based solely on their membership in a group

Stereotypes

Prejudice a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group

Discrimination a negative action toward an individual as a result of one’s membership in a particular group

TYPES OF PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION

• Racism
• Ageism
• Homophobia
• Transphobia
• Sexism

Self-fulfilling Prophecy an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true

Learned helplessness

Research on learned helplessness is fascinating. Researchers would put dogs into shuttle boxes (long cage-like structures that the dog could move around in) and would shock the dog through the floor on one side of the box. The dog, at first, could easily escape the shock by moving to the other side of the box. Eventually, the researcher adds a wall so the dog can’t escape the shocks – it just sits there, being shocked without escape. Through this the dog learns helplessness over repeated trials and extended periods of time. Even when the wall is taken down, the dog won’t walk to the other side and avoid the shocks anymore. It has become so used to the pain that it doesn’t even try to escape when escape would be easy.

This research has been used to explain certain aspects of human behavior, especially related to repeated experiences of abuse, addiction, and poverty. It takes a long time to get somebody out of this mindset, and is possibly one of the reasons why people get “stuck” in terrible situations.

Another good study like this is the Elephant tied to a post. Basically, they tied a baby elephant to a post so that it could not run away. It would try but the rope would hold them in a certain area. They never changed the post or rope as the elephant got bigger. When the elephant was fully grown, it still would stay tied to the post even though it could pretty easily just break the rope and pole because of it’s massive size. Really interesting studies are done on learned helplessness.

Confirmation bias tendency to seek out information that supports our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes

IN-GROUPS & OUT-GROUPS

In-groups a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to

In-group bias prejudice and discrimination because the out-group is perceived as different and is less preferred than our in-group

Out-groups a group that we view as fundamentally different from us

Anti-social and Pro-social behavior

Aggression seeking to cause harm or pain to another person

• Hostile
• Instrumental

Frustration Aggression Theory when humans are prevented from achieving
an important goal ➜ become frustrated and aggressive

Evolutionary theory aggression serves an evolutionary function

Why are we violent?

BULLYING

Bullying repeated negative treatment of another person over time

Cyberbullying repeated behavior that is intended to cause psychological or emotional harm to another person

Moral Disengagement

THE BYSTANDER EFFECT

Bystander Effect phenomenon in which a witness or bystander does not volunteer to help a victim or person in distress

Diffusion of responsibility tendency for no one in a group to help because the responsibility to help is spread throughout the group

Darley & Latane (1968)

PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Prosocial behavior voluntary behavior with the intent to help other people

Theories on Motivations to Help

Empathy capacity to understand
another person’s perspective
and emotions

Altruism people’s desire to help others
even if the costs outweigh the benefits of helping

self-serving helping behavior occurs
when egos are involved
and we receive personal benefits

Relationships

FORMING RELATIONSHIPS

What influences who we form platonic and romantic relationships with?

proximity people with whom you have
the most contact

similarity people who are similar to us
in background, attitude, and lifestyle

homophily tendency for people to
form social networks with similar others

Important components

reciprocity the give and take in relationships

• We contribute to relationships,
  but expect to receive
  benefits in return

Self-disclosure the sharing of personal information

• Leads to more intimate connections

ATTRACTION

What features of a person do we find attractive?

Matching Hypothesis people tend to pick someone they view as their equal in physical attractiveness and social desirability

STERNBERG’S TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE

Intimacy sharing details & intimate thoughts and emotions

Passion physical attraction

Commitment standing by the person

Social exchange theory idea that people keep track of the costs and benefits of forming and maintaining relationships

Risbult & Van Lange (2003)