Social Psychology Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

First social psychology experiments  Norman triplett social influence o Social facilitation  Mere presence  Max Ringelmann social influence o Social loafing  Experimental design definitions o Operational definition o Construct validity o Advantages and disadvantages of correlational research (correlation does not equal to causation) o Random sampling vs. random assignment  Correlational research vs. experimental research o Experimental research includes causation  Independent variable vs. dependent variable (the result we need to find)  Double-blind experiment  External validity: what is it and considerations o Mundane realism o Experimental realism  Ethics in social psych o Review of experiment necessary o Debriefing  Social Psychology Today- What is the trending now? What is social psychology? - The scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context Genetic and Evolutionary Perspectives 1. Behavioral genetics  Examines the effects of genes on behavior 2. Evolutionary psychology  Uses the principles of evolution to understand human behavior 3. Social neuroscience  Study of the relationship between neural and social processes Cultural Perspectives 1. Cross-cultural research - Examine similarities and differences across a variety of cultures 2. Multi-culture research  Examine racial and ethnic groups within cultures

Measuring variables 1. Self-report: it’s a scale in which participants disclose their thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions 2. Bogus pipeline technique: a procedure in which participants are led to believe their lies will be verified by an infallible lie detector. They report facts about themselves more accurately and endorse socially unacceptable opinions more frequently when they believe that their lies will be verified. 3. Observation:  interrater reliability: the level of agreement among multiple observers of the same behavior  correlational research o not showing causation o 3 ways to explain the result:  A causes B  B causes A  A third factor causes A and B Experiments  Random Sampling vs. Random Assignment o Random sampling is not necessary for establishing causality o Random assignment concerns not who is selected to be in the study but rather how participants in the study are assigned to different conditions  Independent and Dependent Variables o IV: factors that might cause changes on DV o DV: a factor that experimenters measure to see if it is affected by the independent variable  Subject Variable: A variable that characterized preexisting differences among the participants in a study  Internal Validity vs. External Validity o Internal Validity: reasonable certainty that the independent variable did cause the effects obtained on the dependent variable o External Validity: the results obtained under one set of circumstances would also occur in a different set of circumstances  Mundane Realism vs. Experimental Realism  Mundane Realism: the research setting resembles the real-world setting of interest  Experimental Realism: the degree to which the experimental setting and procedure are involving to the participants and lead them to behave naturally and spontaneously o Confound: a factor caries consistently along with the manipulation

  

Experimenter Expectancy: the results you find in your experiment may be produced by your own actions rather than by the independent variable Deception: A method that provides false information to participants Confederate: accomplice of an experimenter who, in dealing with the real participants in an experiment, acts as if he/she is also a participant

Behavioral economics, political and moral issues, and other approaches 1. Behavioral Economics  How psychology, particularly social and cognitive psychology, relates to economic decision making 2. Politics and Moral Philosophy  brings together a mix of social psychology, political science, philosophy, and neuroscience 3. Environmental Studies, Public Health, and Related Areas Recent Social Psychology Headlines Why do scientific research? • Commonsense vs. Scientific research  Commonsense knowledge is often wrong or contradictory “Opposites attract” “birds of the feather flock together” “absence makes the heart grow fonder” “out of sight, out of mind” Social Psychology and Common Sense 1. the “knew-it-all-along” phenomenon 2. Common sense seems to explain many social psychological findings after the fact  But common sense is sometimes wildly inaccurate and often misleading in its simplicity  Unlike common sense History of Social Psychology • First social psychology experiments - Norman Triplett (1897-1898): social influence o Study1: pedal bike alone vs. pedal bike in room with others pedaling (social facilitation) o Study2: children wind fishing reel alone vs. wind fishing reel with other children watching (MERE PRESENCE) - Max Ringelmann (1880’s): social Influence o Individual effort exerted on rope pulling

o Men pulling on rope alone vs Men pulling rope with a group o As group size increased, individual effort decreased (SOCIAL LOAFING) Basic and Applied research • basic research - Goal is to increase our understanding of human behavior - Often designed to test a specific hypothesis from a specific theory • applied research  Focuses more specifically on making applications to the world and contributing to the solution of social problems Developing ideas: beginning the research process Theory an organized set of principle used to explain some phenomena. Lead to new hypotheses (exposure to violent media desensitizes youth and leads to aggressive behavior Hypothesis: testable prediction about how and why an event will occur. Based on observation existing theory or previous research findings (more hours spent playing violent media, more aggressive teenagers become.)

Chapter 7, Sep. 6th Social Influence: Conformity + Compliance + Obedience Conformity  Conformity: tendency to change our perceptions, opinions & behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms





o How are our behaviors, opinions & perceptions influenced by people and things around us? o Automatic/ Unconscious Social Influence o Social Mimicry: coping the behavior, language, physical appearance of others The Chameleon Effect / behavioral mimicry (Chartrand &bargh,1999) 1. tendency to adopt the postures, gestures & mannerisms of interaction partners 2. trained confederates to repeat behaviors (rub face or shake leg) 3. observed behavior of participant Evolutionary role of mimicry o Communication & survival o Infants mimic within 72 hours of birth

o 9-month-old: mimic abstract emotions (sadness, joy) o Animals mimic: vocal, behavioral  Social Role of Mimicry  Fosters affiliation, rapport, liking o when confederates mimic behavior of interaction partners (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999) o greater liking of confederates o smoother interaction o feeling ostracized from a group? -> mimic to increase belonging  Norms: standards, rules of expected behavior set by a group  Pros & Cons: o It is essential for individuals to maintain communities and coexist peace o It can also come with harmful consequences, as when people drink too heavily at parties, cheat on taxes, or tell offensive jokes because they believe others are doing the same  Muzafer Sherif (1936) 1. Autokinetic Effect – A Classic Case of Suggestibility Time 1: participants sat alone and reported their judgments to the experimenter Time 2, 3, 4: estimates presence of others Overtime people make estimates to fit what others are saying/ converged on a common perception 2. Important points: 1) ambiguous task with no right answer 2) P’s relied on each other for answer 3) changed their perceptions to fit group norm  Line Judgment Task (Solomon Asch, 1951) o Standard line & Comparison line: people tend to choose the wrong answer in order to fit in the group norm. o Normative influence: conform because we fear the consequences of appearing deviant, to fit in 1. went along with the clearly incorrect majority – 37% of the time 2. 50% conformed for at least at least half of the trials The rest conformed on an occasional basis 3. never conformed – 25% of the participants  Sheriff vs. Asch studies  Sheriff: Ambiguous auto kinetic effect – informative influence – private acceptance Conform because we believe others are correct in their judgments Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs (acceptance, conversion, internalization – long-term)  Asch: simple-line judgments – normative influence – public conformity



   

 



Conform because we fear the consequences of appearing deviant; conform to fit in Superficial change in overt behavior only. People often respond to normative pressures by pretending to agree even when privately they do not (compliance – shortterm) Factors influence conformity 1. Group Size - conformity increases with group size – but only up to a point 2. An ally that is a dissenter - Conformity dropped by 80% in Asch study - Freedom to voice disagreement becomes a norm - It is substantially more difficult for people to stand alone for their convictions than to be part of even a tiny minority - any dissent can break the spell cast by a unanimous majority and reduce the normative pressures to conform 3. Social Norms - What norms are - how much one should conform to norms Individualist cultures: value independence, self-reliance & autonomy Collectivist cultures: value interdependence, cooperation & social harmony 4. Gender Differences How and why do we resist conformity? Belongingness vs. Distinctiveness Moderate uniqueness is the goal Snyder (1980): undergrads led to believe they weren’t unique in their beliefs: “10.000 other undergrads had same beliefs & goals’ o Changed their beliefs to be unique o Optimal distinctiveness theory Processes and Outcomes of Minority Influence How do majorities and minorities create change? o Single process theory  Both use the same process o Dual process theory  Majority Influence: majorities elicit public conformity through stressful normative pressures to bear on the individual  Minority Influence: minorities elicit private conformity by leading others to become curious and rethink their original positions Majority and Minority Viewpoint Influences on Conformity o Depends on type of judgment  Majorities have greater impact on factual questions  Minorities exert equal impact on opinion questions



o Also depends on how and when conformity is measured  Majorities have more influence when measured directly, publicly, or immediately  Minorities exert a strong influence when measured indirectly or privately, when attitude issues are related but not focal to point of conflict, or after passage of time Culture and Conformity o Individualism: A cultural orientation in which independence, autonomy, and selfreliance take priority over group allegiances o Collectivism: a cultural orientation in which interdependence, cooperation, and social harmony take priority over personal goals Sep 13th

Obedience  Behavior change produced by the commands of authority o Typical authority figures?  Social Roles: Police, president, doctor  Characteristics of authority figures?  Expertise, power, label/title, confidence when speaking, influence, race (mainly white), gender (male), height (being tall), levels of education, etc.  Symbols of authority?  Guns, suits, white coat, o Stanley Milgram: Forces of Destructive Obedience (1963)  Obedience to authority  Three roles in the study  Experimenter  Confederate (role: learner)  Participant (role: teacher) 60-65% of the them shocked the highest level  N=40 men  20-50 years old  Varying educational backgrounds (elementary dropout to doctoral degree holders)  Participant (teacher)  Test word pair memory of confederate  Administer electric shocks for incorrect answers (punishment)  Testing room  Confederate strapped into chair and electrodes applied  Confederate indicates he has a heart problem

 Participant is given mild shock  Testing begins  Participant seated in front of shock generator  Experimenter seated near participant in separate room  Participants protested, experimenter provided prods to continue  Please continues  The experiment requires that you continue o Surveyed 110 psychiatrists, students, middle-class adults  Psychiatrists predicted:  Most subjects would quit after 135 volts  Only 4% would shock up to 300 volts  gradually increase shocks)  Blame-the-victim  Participants were tormented by experience  No gender differences (male only)  Findings replicated – different countries /different age groups  65% threw the 450-volt switch  The victim  Situational characteristics of the victim and environment  Being seated next to the victim reduced obedience to 40%  Having to force the victim’s hand onto a shock plate reduced obedience to 30%  Obedience was only 15% if the victim had a prior relationship with the victim (unpublished experiment  Authoritarian Personality: submissive toward figures of authority but aggressive toward subordinates  Measured by the F-Scale (Fascist scale)  Rigid, intolerant of dissent, punitive  More willing to administer larger shocks in Milgram studies o Social Impact theory  Social influence depends on three factors:  The strength of the source  The immediacy of the source to the target in time and space (closer space reveals to stronger obedience)  The # of sources  Group size: 3-5 people will elicit more conformity than 1-2 people  Unanimity



 Cohesion: group “togetherness”, feeling of connection among group members  Status of the responder  Public response  Prior commitment o Obedience in the 21st century o Conforming to Toles: Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment Zimbardo (1971): classic study of role conformity and obedience o Do people act in accordance with the social roles they occupy? o Created a prison in the basement of Psych building  Randomly assigned – 12 guards and 12 prisoners  Psychological testing; drug testing; criminal history  Depersonalization  Prisoners: Named by numbers, white smocks  Guards: Reflective glasses (like a face mask, symbol) o Demand characteristics:  Participants change behavior to be consistent with the expectations of the experimenter  Researchers avoid by giving “cover story”  Ecological Validity  Methods, materials, and setting of study mirror real-life situation

Compliance  Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct request  The norm of reciprocity o It dictates that we treat others as they have treated us  Leads us to feel obligated to repay acts of kindness, even when unsolicited  Can also be used to sanction retaliation against those who have caused us harm o It is relatively short-lived, at least for small acts of kindness  From small to large o The foot-in-the-door technique: two step compliance technique in which an influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request. Basically, you first request for a smaller amount of something then increase the size of it, or ask for a bigger request  Effectiveness: self-perception, seeing yourself as a kind person  Works when motivated to be consistent with self-image







o Lowballing: secure agreement with a request and then increase the size of that request by revealing hidden costs (salesman sells cars: secure you a decent price then say the boss wouldn’t approve that discount)  Effectiveness: Psychology of Commitment From large to the small o Door-in-the-face: request with one that is so large that it is rejected to make the real request (the smaller one) to be accepted  Effectiveness: Conceptual contrast, to the person exposed to a very large initial request, the second request “seems smaller”  Refusing to help on one request may trigger feelings of guilt o That’s-not-all: request something hard then immediately decrease the apparent size of that request by offering a discount or bonus  Cupcakes purchasing increased from 44% to 73% after customers were told the price has reduced from 1 dollar to 75 cents To resist the trap of compliance techniques o Be vigilant o Do not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity o Recognize when these tactics are being used and respond accordingly Compliance techniques work smoothly only if they are hidden from view Sep. 18th

Assertiveness: When people say no  Evolutionary Factors in Helping Others (Chapter 10) Why Do People Help? o Kin Selection  Preference toward helping our genetic relatives  The highest the risk is, the most related person will be willing to help



o Reciprocal Altruism (互利共赢/相互的利他主义)  Altruism that involves an individual helping another (despite some immediate risk or cost and becoming more likely to receive help from the other in return o Indirect reciprocity  A kind of reciprocal altruism in which an individual who helps someone becomes more likely to receive help from someone else o Arousal: Cost Reward Model o Negative State Relief Model: the proposition that people help others in order to counteract their own feelings of sadness Dovidio et al (2006) o Help others when the potential rewards are high relative to the costs o Process of determining whether you will help  Perceive an emergency

o o o o

 Experience physiological arousal/shock  Motivated to reduce negative arousal  “bystander calculus”  Costs of helping > benefits of helping Empathy-Altruism hypothesis Altruistic motivation Moral Obligation: Right Thing to Do Help to be consistent with our moral beliefs  Altruistic: motivated by the desire to increase another’s welfare  Egoistic: motivated by the desire to increase one’s own welfare  Daniel Batson: the motivation behind some helpful actions is truly altruistic  Batson’s Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis  The proposition that empathic concern for a person in need produces an altruistic motive for helping - Empathy is the basic factor in promoting prosocial behavior; involves - Perspective taking: seeing world through eyes of someone else - Empathic concern: positive feelings toward others involving other-oriented feelings, such as sympathy, compassion, and tenderness  Egoistic vs. Altruistic motives  Two factors determine whether helping behavior is result of altruism or egoism - Empathic concern - Ease of escape  Batson, et al (1981): Helping experiment – whether it’s egoistic or altruistic??  Paired with confederate (Elaine)  Assigned role of observer  Alaine hooked up to machine delivering painful electric shocks  After several shocks, elaine reveals shock experience in childhood  Experimenter asks participant to change places with Elaine  Manipulated  Empathic concern - High: Elaine’s value is similar to yours - Low: Elaine’s value is different from yours  Ease to escape:  LOW HELPING



 

 Empathic concern low  Escape was easy  ALTRUISTIC HELPING  Empathic concern high  Regardless of ease of escape  EGOISTIC HELPING  Empathic concern low  Escape was difficult When Do People Help? (Challenges to helping) o Bystander effect: the presence of others inhibits helping  Kitty Genovese Case: None of her 38 neighbors helped as they witnessed her ordeal  Latané & Darley  Intercom study  Pleads for help from another participant  Alone vs. Group o Pluralistic Ignorance: the state in which people in a group mistakenly think that their own individual thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are different from those of the others in the group o Diffusion of responsibility: the belief that others will or should take the responsibility for providing assistance to a person in need o Audience Inhibition: reluctance to help for fear of making a bad impression on observers Avoiding Bystander Effect o Point out who you want to help you How to get help in a crowd? o Making eye contact, pointing at someone, ask a direct request

Chapter 6, Sep 20th Attitudes 

   

A positive, negative, or mixed reaction to a p...