Social psych PS112 PDF

Preview

Summary

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PS112 University of Warwick Psychology Introduction to Social Psychology What social psychology is NOT    Personality psychology o Looks at individual differences  Behaviour across a wide range of situations o Social Psychology looks how different people are in the SAME situati...

Description

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PS112

University of Warwick Psychology

Introduction to Social Psychology What social psychology is NOT 





Personality psychology o Looks at individual differences  Behaviour across a wide range of situations o Social Psychology looks how different people are in the SAME situations Sociology o Unit of study comparison of groups, culture, institutions o Social psychology analyses individuals WITHIN these Folk wisdom o Common sense explanations without empirical evidence  People are more complex

What is social psychology? The scientific study of HOW people’s thoughts, feelings, and, behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others (Allport, 1954) The scientific study of the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of individuals in social situations (Gilovich et al., 2012) Explaining behaviour ~ the situation 









Behaviour influenced by internal and external factors o Internal: things about the person (personality or attitudes) o External: things about the situation or the environment  Social psychology focuses on external Behaviour is complex o Many factors can explain it; important to focus on one or two at a time in an experiment o Demonstrating that one factor is important does not mean that other factors are not important The Bottomless Soup Bowl Experiment o Wansink et al. (2005)  18oz bowls  2 conditions; normal and secret refilling  Results: amount of soup left in the bowl determined when people stopped eating AND how full they felt The Plate Size Experiment o Wansink (2006)  Serving the same amount of food on a larger plate causes people to eat more and feel less full  Small plate movement: applying social psych to real life The Tetanus Vaccine Experiment o Leventhal et al. (1965)  Pps shown scary info about tetanus and asked if they planned to stop by student health services to get a vaccine  Nearly 100% said yes  Half pps asked to determine specific time when to get vaccine  Actual vaccination rates at end of semester  Control group: 3%  Intention group: 28%  Conclusion: small situational changes can have big behavioural consequences

Interpreting reality  



Perception requires substantial interpretation and is subject to lots of error Construal o Interpretation of a stimulus  Through experience, people develop default, go-to assumptions about the world  Often implicit but substantial impact on behaviour  Objective facts not always important  Person’s subjective interpretation of those facts is what motivates their behaviour Organ Donation Example o Thaler & Sunstein (2009)  Opt-in ‘check here to become organ donor’  Average donation rate for opt-in countries = 15%  Opt-out ‘check here to not be an organ donor’  Average donation rate for opt-out countries = 98%  Why?  Construal  Opt-in makes it seem like normal behaviour to NOT donate  Opt-out makes it seem like normal behaviour is TO donate  People like to fit in

Automatic vs controlled processing  





Most of what brain does is automatic Some is controlled o Two metaphors of unconscious thought  Homunculus theory (incredibly outdated, incredibly wrong)  The computer model/metaphor (useful, but not perfect) Telling More Than We Can Know o Nisbett & Wilson (1977)  Most of what happens in brain is not available to conscious thought, so people are often unable to accurately determine what influenced their own behaviour  Doesn’t stop people from trying  People often feel the need to know why they do the things they do, so they come up with plausible, though ultimately false reasons Laugh Track Research o Gruner (1993)  Most people don’t like laugh tracks  Group 1: scene without laugh track  Group 2: scene with laugh track  Results: group 2 thought scene was funnier  Conclusions  Seemingly unimportant environmental stimuli influence personal judgements  People often very bad at determining how situational factors influence them

Social Influence The collections of ways that people impact one another. Changes in attitudes, beliefs, feelings or behaviours resulting from the real or imagined presence of others. 





Conformity o Changing behaviour in response to real or imagined pressure from others  DO Compliance o Changing behaviour by responding favourably to an explicit request, possibly from a superior  WANT Obedience o Responding to an explicit request from someone who has power over you  COMMAND

Conformity 

 

Automatic mimicry o Conformity can be automatic such as automatic mimicry  E.g. yawning when others yawn, laughing when others laugh  People with an empathic orientation or those with high need to affiliate are more likely to automatically mimic others  Chameleon effect Conformity can be conscious o E.g. lining up when boarding at airport Two main types of conformity o Informational Social Influence  Other people can be useful sources of info about what is appropriate in a given situation o Normative Social Influence  Sometimes we want to be accepted by others, so we do what they do because going against them would cause conflict, disapproval or judgement

Factors influencing conformity 









Group size o Larger groups have more ISI and NSI  Peak at 3-4 people, then effect of group size levels off Unanimity o If there is a break in unanimity, even if it is not in line with the person’s private belief, it is enough to reduce conformity o If there are other dissenters, it becomes easier to dissent, even if you are dissenting in different ways Expertise and status o Expert opinions carry more weight and the disapproval of high status people hurts more o NSI more likely Culture o Independent (collectivist) groups and females tend to conform more (focus on social relationships) Construal of disagreement o If there is a good reason for the majority view to differ from yours, you don’t feel pressure to conform

Compliance  





Influenced via a direct attempt by someone without authority/power over us – NOT obedience Three main types o Reason-based o Emotion-based o Norm-based Reason-based o Reciprocal concessions; ‘door-in-the-face’ technique  Request large favour that you know target will decline  Follow up with more modest request for what you really want  Make it seem like you are sacrificing something  Cialdini et al. (1975)  Cond 1: chaperone group of juvenile delinquents on a zoo day trip  Cond 2: counsel juvenile delinquents 2 hours per week for 2 years followed by chaperoning group to zoo day trip  17% vs 50% o Foot-in-the-door technique  Small, initial request anyone would agree to  Follow up with larger request for what you really want  Freedman & Fraser (1966)  Cond 1: “Will you display this large sign in your yard?”  Cond 2: “Will you display this small sign in your window?” THEN “will you display this large sign in your yard?”  17% vs 76%  Change in self-schema via self-perception; ‘if I agreed to the first one then I must be the kind of person who supports this cause’ o That’s-not-all technique  Add something new to original offer  Burger (1986)  Cond 1: cupcake + 2 cookies for $0.75  Cond 2: cupcake for $0.75 “and we’ll throw in 2 cookies!”  40% vs 73%  Add-on feels like a gift  Elicits norm of reciprocity; ‘if you are offering to give me something extra, I should offer something in return…like buying’ o ‘Even a penny helps’ technique  Legitimise tiny contributions  Thus, invalidating thought that someone “can’t really afford to give”  Make people feel okay about giving what they can  Increases percent of people who donate money to charities but doesn’t lower the amount that is typically given Emotion-based o Positive mood  Increases compliance  Isen et al. (1976)  Pps got phone call from someone who spent last dime on misdialled phone call and requested ppt dial the intended number and relay the message  Cond 1: simply received call

 Cond 2: 20 minutes before the call, ppt received small gift  10% vs 100% Construal  If you’re happy and feel good, you assume other people’s intentions are good  Forgas & East (2008)  Pps watched happy, neutral or sad film clip  Watched deceptive or truthful interview of individual who denied committing theft  Positive mood increased trust, decreased lie detection  Negative mood decreased trust, increased lie detection  Positive mood maintenance  Saying no to a request is awkward and creates negative affect  To stay feeling good, you have to comply  Isen and Levin (1972)  Pps given cookie (pos mood) or not (neutr mood)  Asked if they’d serve as confederate for quick experiment  ½ told role was to help ‘real’ ppt  ½ told role to harm ‘real’ ppt ֍ Pos mood increased compliance ONLY when task involved helping someone else, but not hindering them o Negative mood  Increases compliance… specifically guilt  Harris et al. (1975)  Asked Catholics to donate money to March of Dimes  Cond 1: Asked while walking into confession  Cond 2: Asked while walking out of confession  More donations before than after  Negative state relief hypothesis  Doing something for someone else helps to make you feel better Norm-based o Descriptive norms  Objective, factual description of what most people do (DO) o Prescriptive norms  What most people should do according to some rule or tradition (SHOULD DO) o By providing info about how other people typically behave, you elicit conformity  Desc: ISI  Presc: NSI o Schultz et al. (2007)  Homeowners received messages about how much electricity used in prev weeks and how much average use was in neighbourhood  Those who consumed more than average, started consuming less  Those who consumed less than average, started consuming more  Counteracting negative effect: info accompanies by smiley or frowny face to indicate approval or disapproval o Goldstein et al. (2006)  Small cards in hotel rooms asking guests to reuse their towels  Normative info on cards manipulated 



o

 Cond 1: No normative info  Cond 2: ‘majority of past guests have reused their towels’  Cond 3: ‘majority of past guests who stayed in this room have reused their towels;  The stronger the norm info, the more compliance  Maj in room > maj > no norm Cialdini et al. (2006)  Placed signs in Petrified Forest National Park to stop people from taking petrified wood with them  Sign 1: ‘many past visitors have removed the petrified wood from the park, changing the state of the Petrified Forest. Please help stop this problem’  Sign 2: ‘Majority of past visitors have left the petrified wood in the park, preserving the natural state of the Petrified Forest’  Theft 4x lower for sign 2 than sign 1  People more responsive to descriptive norms

Obedience 

The Milgram Experiments o Experiment described as ‘study on learning’; o Pps told randomly assigned ‘teacher’ where they deliver electric shocks as punishments to the ‘learner’ whenever he/she answered question incorrectly o ‘Learner’ was always a confederate who never received any shocks o 15v to maximum 450v o Each incorrect response; shock level went up 15 more volts o During experiment confederate screams in pain o Towards end, stops making noises o When ppt wants to stop, experimenter says vague things  Milgram didn’t believe many would go all the way  A panel of expert psychiatrists predicted that no more than 1% of subjects would continue to 450v  66% went to full 450v  Variations  Proximity to victim  Learner becomes more salient, conformity decreases (the closer the less likely)  Proximity to authority  Authority becomes less salient, conformity decreases (the further, the less likely) ֍ Making it easier to disobey is more effective than increasing the desire to obey  Experimenter released from responsibility  Step-by-step procedure; ‘slippery slope’  Lack of practice disobeying authority  Almost ALL pps pointed out learner was suffering  Many DID say out loud that they refused to continue

Groups 



What is a group? o A collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree o Must be connected to each other in some way and depend on each other to some extent Social facilitation o Triplett (1898)  The fastest times were recorded when cyclists competed directly against each on the same track at the same time  Cyclists pedalled faster when they were around other people than when they were alone  First ever social psych experiment  40 kids in lab, turn fishing reels as fast as possible  Reels faster when around other kids doing the same thing o Same effects found in animals: ants dig more earth, centipedes run faster, and dogs eat more when others around o Allport  Asked Harvard and Radcliffe students to refute philosophical arguments as best they could in 5-minute period  Students did better when they worked alone than when they worked with others  Presence of others can also inhibit performance on arithmetic, memory tasks, and maze learning o Social facilitations  Enhances performance when performing a simple/well-learned task  Impairs performance when performing difficult/novel task o Zajonc (1965)

o

o

 Michaels et al. (1982)  Covertly watched pool players playing alone at SU, rated ‘skilled’ or ‘unskilled’  Then walked up and watched them  Skilled = better  Unskilled = worse Why?  Mere presence  Makes us alert/vigilant  Agents unpredictable, need to act fast  Evaluation apprehension  If others evaluate us, we have increased arousal  Don’t want to look bad, so we get nervous  Distraction-conflict theory

o

o

o

o

 Awareness of other’s presence creates conflict between attending to person and task  Decreased attention increases probability we will execute a dominant response automatically  If a well-learned task, dominant response is good, if novel/difficult task, dominant response poor Mere presence  Markus (1978)  Pps told to go into adjacent room to wait for other pps to arrive  While there, had to put on ‘special experiment gear’  Take off shoes  Oversized socks on top of own socks  Oversized lab shoes  Oversized lab coat  When changing pps either  Alone  With another person watching attentively  With a repairman working with his back to the ppt  Well learned tasks (own shoes) quicker  Novel tasks (lab wear) slower Evaluation apprehension  Cottrell et al. (1968)  Pps given list of 10 nonsense words  Pps asked to pronounce two of the words 1,2,5,10 or 25 times  Given pseudo recognition task  Words flashed on screen too fast to recognise  Told to identify the words  None of the presented words were in the study list  Completed the task alone in presence of 2 students who watched attentively or 2 blindfolded observers  Higher dominant responses when evaluative audience present Distraction-conflict theory  Sanders & Baron (1975); Baron et al. (1978)  Pps in dual-task experiments show social-facilitation effects  Pps are less attentive to additional tasks when others are present Social loafing  Exerting less effort when working on a group task in which individual contributions cannot be monitored  Similar to diffusion of responsibility  Reduced in pps who are more interdependent  Women social loaf less than men  East Asians social loaf less than Westerners



Group decision making o Precise, factual answer: groups make better decisions than individuals o Individuals may still be concerned with:  Being judged by others  Pleasing the leader  Not hurting people’s feelings  Avoiding responsibility if things go wrong o Groupthink  Style of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts ina realisting manner  JFK: Bay of Pigs  In 1961, CIA wanted to used Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro  Kennedy and top advisors approved invasion of Bay of Pigs  Exiles poorly trained, lacked air support, ammo and escape route  Most surrendered, many died  ‘perfect failure’  Kennedy’s top advisors unwilling to challenge bad ideas because it might disturb perceived/desired group agreement  Occurs when:  Group ruled by directive leader who makes his/her wishes known  Group is highly cohesive  Group isolates itself from contrary opinions  A few symptoms:  Illusion of invulnerability  Collective rationalisation  Self-censorship  Outcomes:  Diverse opinions not shared  Bad decisions  Prevention strategies:  Group leaders to remain impartial  Group members must seek divergent opinions  Create subgroups beforehand  Seek anonymous opinions  Do anything else to promote being correct over maintaining solidarity o Risky shift  Tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would maker  Stoner (1961)  Gave pps 12 scenarios where they could make a cautious or risky decision  Pps first responded individually then met with other pps to discuss each dilemma and arrive at a consensus  On 10/12 scenarios, group recommended riskier options than average of individual recommendations  When asked to re-evaluate, they became more extreme o Group polarization  Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individuals  Make people more risky or more cautious, depending on which way people were leaning beforehand

o

Group polarization or risky shift?  If group decision making effects are really about extremity (not riskiness), they should occur even for non-risk-assessment topics  Moscovici & Zalloni (1969)

o

o

 French pps expressed opinions about (a) General Charles DeGaulle and (b) Americans  First, individually  Then, as a group  Group opinion of CDG more positive as group  Group opinion of Americans more negative as group Explanations for group polarisation  The persuasive arguments account  When people share their ideas, everyone gets exposed to new arguments, which pushes you further in that direction  The social comparison account  When you make a decision, you’re motivated to think it’s good  Risk as a valued trait  Americans value risk-seeking (inherent part of capitalism); risk elicits halo effect  Pps from other cultures don’t show risky shift Modern issues in group polarisation  Modern technology provides opportunities for people to be exposed to ideas from all sides of an argument  Most people insulate themselves from different opinions  When people want to discuss important issues, they seek out forums that they already agree with, and leave with stronger, more polarised attitudes  It allows people to easily find others who agree with them



Leadership and power o Who becomes a leader?  Popular Western idea: coercion, cunning, trickery  However, this isn’t really the case  Aggressive, sneaky, selfish people get kicked out of groups  Useful, group-oriented skills  Talents that help group achieve goals  Knowledge/skills relevant to important group tasks  Provide rewards to group  Selflessly share resources  Show concern for other group members  Extra verts  People with high emotional IQ o Power  Fundamental aspect of social relations  Humans arrange themselves into social hierarchies based on power starting at age 2  Within 1 week, college dormmates automatically form power hierarchies  Why?  Power hierarchies make group interactions run smoothly  Determines how resources will be divided  What is power?  The ability to control one’s own and other’s resources  Not the same as:  Status: respect and prominence over others  Authority: control over others that comes from institutionalised roles  Dominance: behaviour with goal of acquiring/showing control over others  Power and behaviour  Approach-inhibition theory of power  Power c...