Chapter 13: What is Social Psychology?
Humans are
uniquely social
• Our success as a
species relies on
“hyper cooperation”
• Our sociality may
partly explain why
humans dominate
the planet
The need to belong
is fundamental
• Social isolation has many
negative impacts (both mental
and physical!)
• In studies, people who are led
to believe they will end up
alone later in life tend to make
more maladaptive choices
Social Comparison Theory
When we have a goal Upward Social
of improvement Comparison
Someone who is inspiring
When we have a goal of Lateral Social
accuracy and assessment Comparison
Someone in a similar situation
When we have a goal Downward Social
of enhancement Comparison
Someone who is worse off
War of the Worlds
Fundamental Attribution Error
• The tendency to
overestimate the
impact of
dispositional
influences on other
people’s behaviour
• In other words, the
things about a
person (rather than
the situation)
Fundamental Attribution Error and War of the Worlds
• Easy to attribute this to
something about “a person”
(e.g., lacking intelligence)
• But there were a number of
situational factors that
made it plausible that any
person would believe it
(e.g., commercial break)
Social behaviour
is contagious!
• We look to others to figure out
what to believe and how to
act, especially in ambiguous
situations
• Leads to mass hysteria and
collective delusions à social
media has increased this!
Conformity and Obedience
Conformity
A change in behavior as a
result of real or imagined
group pressure
Obedience
Adherence to instructions from
those of a higher authority
• Obedience = Vertical
influence (those above us)
• Conformity = Horizontal
influence (those around us)
Conformity: Asch Line Studies
Imagine you are in a study that
asks you to say out loud which of
the three comparison lines
matches the standard line?
The answer “C” seems obvious,
but other participants keep
answering “B” – what do you do?
75% conformed to the incorrect answer at least one time
Obedience: Milgram Study
What percentage of participants will obey the experimenter and go all the way to 450 volts?
Obedience: Milgram Study
About
two-thirds
went all
the way!
Milgram Studies: Factors that Altered Obedience
• The greater the psychological
Initial Study 65% distance between the
Verbal Recordings 62% teacher (participant) and
experimenter (researcher),
Run down office 48% the less the obedience
Teacher and learner together 40%
• The greater the psychological
Teacher and experimenter apart 22-30% distance between the
Non-professor in charge 20% teacher (participant) and
learner (confederate), the
Teacher instructed someone else 93%
greater the obedience
Milgram Studies:
Lessons
• “Evil behaviour” can
be ordinary
• Situational influences
can be powerful
Deindividuation and Group Think
Stanford Prison Study: A study of deindividuation?
Deindividuation: tendency of people to engage in uncharacteristic
behaviour when they are stripped of their usual identities
Zimbardo’s Instructions to Guard
“We can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a
sense of fear to some degree, we can create a notion of
arbitrariness that their life is controlled by us, by the
system, you me…. they‘ll have no freedom of action,
they can do nothing, or say nothing that we don’t
permit, we’re going to take away their individuality in
various ways. In general this leads to a sense of
powerlessness” (Zimbardo, 2007, pg. 55)
The guards were encouraged to behave in certain ways, making it difficult to agree with
the conclusion that their behaviour was a “natural consequence” of their assigned role
Deindividuation
Often associated with riots and immoral behaviour, but can occur
in more common scenarios where there is perceived anonymity
Groupthink
• When the
unanimity of a
group is
emphasized at
the expense of
critical thinking
• Group cohesion
is seen as more
important than
group accuracy
Groupthink
• Can lead to both positive and
negative results
• Most often attributed to negative
consequences:
• Contaminated water cover up
• Cults
Preventing & Addressing Groupthink
• Encourage dissent
• Include a “devil’s advocate”
• Inoculation “immunizes” us
against the beliefs of cults
• Same logic as vaccines!
GROUPTHINK
Helping and Harming Others
The Story of Kitty Genovese
Bystander Nonintervention Effect
Influenced by 2 main factors
• Pluralistic Ignorance à is
this really an emergency?
• Diffusion of Responsibility
à more people = less
responsibility
Latané And Darley: Model of Helping
No skills or
Diffusion of knowledge
Pluralistic Responsibility
Not noticed/ Ignorance
Stimulus
overload
Factors that
Reduce Bystander
Nonintervention
• Enlightenment effect
• Less concern about
social approval
• Perceiving self as
competent
• Extroverted personality
• Male? Depends!
Social Loafing
Social loafing:
phenomenon that
explains why
individuals
become less
productive in
groups
• Product of diffusion of responsibility
• Solution: make each person’s contributions identifiable
Aggression
Aggression: Situational
& Cultural Influences
• Frustration
.. and other negative feelings
• Exposure to media violence
• Alcohol – disinhibition & myopia
• Warmer temperatures
• Culture of Honour (e.g., Southern
American states)
Aggression: Individual and Sex Differences
Physical aggression is Relational aggression is
more common in males more common in females
Certain personality traits are linked with aggression:
high level of negative emotion, impulsivity, & lack of closeness to others
Attitudes and Persuasion
Attitudes and Behaviour
Attitude: a belief that has an
emotional component
• “How do you feel about the
death penalty?”
It is assumed that attitudes
help guide behaviour, but they
don’t always predict behaviour
• E.g., LaPiere study
Attitudes and Behaviour
If attitudes changed behaviour then
why do we often engage in behaviours
that do not reflect our attitudes?
Examples:
• Positive attitude toward going to bed
early but regularly staying up late
• Negative attitudes towards drugs
but continuing to use drugs
… and this relationship is influenced by other factors
Attitude Change
Through Cognitive Option 1: alter first
belief à my friend
Dissonance is not actually nice
Option 2: alter
second belief à
they did not steal,
Example: Cognitive Dissonance: this is a rumor
• Belief 1: My friend is nice The unpleasant
• Belief 2: My friend stole tension that arises Option 3:
money, which is not a nice introduce another
thing to do when we have
conflicting thoughts belief à my friend
or beliefs is nice, they only
stole money
because they are
desperate
Persuasion: The Elaboration Likelihood Model
Messages we receive can
be processed through
central or peripheral routes
Attitude change
• Central: strong
and long lasting
• Peripheral: weak
and temporary
Persuasion: Foot-in-the-door technique
Start with a smaller request
before making a bigger one
Why does it work?
• Cognitive dissonance
Persuasion: Door-in-the-face technique
Start with a bigger request Why does it work?
before making a smaller one • Guilt from rejecting first ask
Persuasion: Lowball technique
The price is advertised
below the ”actual” price
and then the buyer is
informed of all the desired
“add-ons” after agreeing
E.g., car advertisements,
new homes from builders
Why does it work? Already feel a sense of commitment / excitement about the deal
Persuasion: “But-you-are-free” technique
Asking someone to do something
for while informing them that they
can refuse / say no
Why does it work?
• Gives a sense of autonomy and
reduces feeling of pressure
Prejudice and Discrimination
Prejudice: negative snap judgments we Stereotype: beliefs about the characteristics
make about people and situations using of members of a group that is applied
limited amount of information generally to most members of the group
“Stereotypes can be the seeds from which prejudice grows”
• We have a tendency to perceive people as either similar
Where do (in our group) or dissimilar (outside our group) to us
stereotypes • In-group bias: we favour those within our group over
& prejudice those outside our group
come from? • Out-group homogeneity: we view those outside our
group as highly similar
What is at the
Root of Prejudice?
A couple theories:
• Scapegoat hypothesis – blaming others for
our misfortunes
• Just world hypothesis – blaming others for
their own misfortunes in order to maintain
an assumption that the world is fair
Common thread: we are motivated to blame
other people for bad things that happen
The Road to Discrimination
• Prejudice can be subtle – we make
these judgments explicitly and
implicitly!
• Stereotypes are “natural,” but
what do individuals do about them?
• Accept or fight against?
• Stereotypes and prejudice are
mental representations
• Discrimination is the action that
follows from mental representations
Combating Prejudice
Examples:
• Robbers Cave Study
• Jigsaw Classroom
“Antidote”: cooperation in
working towards a shared goal