Social Psychology
Attitude
Attraction
Aggression
Group Behavior
Studying the way people relate to others.
AP EXAM: Social Psychology (8–10%)
AP students in psychology should be able to do the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Apply attribution theory to explain motives (e.g., fundamental attribution error, self-serving
bias).
Describe the structure and function of different kinds of group behavior (e.g.
deindividuation, group polarization).
Explain how individuals respond to expectations of others, including groupthink,conformity,
and obedience to authority.
Discuss attitudes and how they change (e.g., central route to persuasion).
Predict the impact of the presence of others on individual behavior (e.g.,bystander effect,
social facilitation).
Describe processes that contribute to differential treatment of group members (e.g., ingroup/out-group dynamics, ethnocentrism, prejudice).
Articulate the impact of social and cultural categories (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity) on selfconcept and relations with others.
Anticipate the impact of behavior on a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Describe the variables that contribute to altruism, aggression, and attraction.
Discuss attitude formation and change, including persuasion strategies and cognitive
dissonance.
Identify important figures in social psychology (e.g., Solomon Asch, Leon Festinger, Stanley
Milgram, Philip Zimbardo).
Attitudes
• A set of beliefs and
feelings.
• Advertising is ALL
based on attitude
formation.
• Mere Exposure
Effect – the more
you are exposed the
more you will like it
• Central Route T.P. v.
Peripheral RouteT.P.
Attitude and Behavior
You have a belief
that cheating on
tests is bad.
But you cheat on
a test!!!
• Do attitudes tell us about
someone’s behavior?
• LaPiere’s Study w/ Asian
family showed attitudes
don’t predict behavior
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• People want to have
consistent attitudes and
behaviors….when they are
not they experience
The teacher was
dissonance (unpleasant
really bad so in
that class it is OK.
tension).
• Usually they will change
their attitude.
• Never consciously aware of
change in attitude
Festinger & Carlsmith’s Cognitive
Dissonance Experiment
• Study participants completed a boring task
and were then were paid to lie and tell the
next subject that it was an enjoyable task.
• Some subjects were paid $20, while others
were paid $1.
• Those who were paid less were found to have
significantly more positive attitudes toward
the experiment.
Social Thinking
 Cognitive dissonance
Compliance Strategies
• People try to change other’s behavior
(since that can then change attitudes)
• Let’s imagine you want a trip to New
York for graduation
• Foot-in-the-door – first get a small
“yes” to get bigger “yes” later
• Door-in-the-face- get big “no” in
order to get smaller “yes”
• Norms of reciprocity – do something
nice and then will have to say “yes”
• Charities will often send a “free gift”
when they send you a donation
catalogue
Compliance Strategies Reading
Summarize the research on each of the following in
one paragraph each:
--Reciprocal Principle
-- Foot in the door principle
--Door in the face principle
Each paragraph MUST HAVE:
--Clear thesis sentence
-- 2 citations of research
Attribution Theory
• Tries to explain how people
determine the cause of the
behavior they observe.
It is either a….
• Situational Attribution- behavior
is product of environment
• Dispositional Attributionbehavior is product of personality
And
• Stable Attribution
• Unstable Attribution
Fundamental Attribution Error
• We tend to
overestimate the role
You probably
of dispositional
attribute it to their
personality rather
factors in the
than their profession.
behavior of other.
But do you really
Individualistic V.
know?
Collectivistic Cultures
We assume that our own
False Consensus Effect
beliefs are the “norm”
and others think like us.
Self-Serving Bias
How do you view your
teacher’s behavior?
When we do something
good its because of us,
and when we do
something bad, its
someone else’s fault.
False Consensus Effect
We tend to overestimate the extent in
which others share our beliefs and
behaviors.
Self-Serving Bias
If you win it is
because you are
awesome…if you
lose, it must have
been the
referees or
weather or….
Stereotypes, Prejudice and
Discrimination
Stereotype:
• Overgeneralized idea
about a group of people.
Prejudice:
• Undeserved (usually
negative) attitude
towards a group of
people. Ethnocentrism
is an example of a
prejudice.
Discrimination:
• An action based on a
idea of prejudice.
Does perception change with
race?
Does race change how we perceive?
Mr. Dycus,
Remember to prove to the students that
racism is still alive by showing them that
pretty awesome power point you made a few
years ago for Contemporary Issues.
Thanks.
Is it just race?
NO
• Palestinians and Jews
• Dub-V Nation vs
inferior neighboring
schools
• Men and Women
But women have some things going for them
like……
Which person would you want to
have a long term relationship
with?
How does prejudice occur?
“Just world” Phenomenon
-people get what they deserve (using
Fundamental Attribution Error)
• In one popular study female and male subjects
were told two versions of a story about an
interaction between a woman and a man. Both
variations were exactly the same, except at the
very end the man raped the woman in one and
in the other he proposed marriage.
• In both conditions, both female and male
subjects viewed the woman's (identical) actions
as inevitably leading to the (very different)
results.
In-Group versus Out-Groups.
• In-Group Bias– experiment with abstract
art groups and then $2/$1, or $4/$3
• Out-Group Homogeniality—assumption
that all “out group” members share the
same traits (stereotyping)
- Information on “out-groups” that we
don’t live with are media (negatively)
driven
Scapegoat Theory- people suffering need
someone to blame
Combating Prejudice
Contact Theory
• Contact between hostile
groups will reduce animosity
if they are made to work
towards a superordinate
goal—a goal deemed more
important than differences
• Education about race?
• Obama’s election as an
example of
Prejudices can often lead to a….
Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy
• A prediction that
causes itself to be
true.
• Rosenthal and
Jacobson’s
“Pygmalion in the
Classroom”
experiment.
• Pygmalion effect
Psychology of Aggression
Two types of aggression
1. Instrumental Aggression–
with a purpose
2. Hostile Aggression- no clear
purpose
Theories of Aggression:
1.Bandura’s Bobo Doll Modeling –
social learning thoery that
humans learn aggression as
children
2. Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis- inherited response
to stress
3. Institutional Aggression
Hot Weather and Aggression
Bandura Bobo Doll Read and
Respond
Write a three paragraph response with each of the
following paragraphs doing this:
Paragraph 1: Describe the study itself including one
citation of evidence.
Paragraph 2: Describe the results and how they can
be applied to life using one citation of the evidence.
Paragraph 3: Summarize the critique of Bandura’s
experiment using one citation of the evidence.
Prosocial Behavior
• Kitty Genovese case in
Kew Gardens NY.
Bystander Effect:
• Conditions in which people are
more or less likely to help one
another. In general…the more
people around…the less chance of
help….because of…
• Diffusion of Responsibility–
more people means
responsibility is divided
• Pluralistic Ignorance
People decide what to do by
looking to others.
Factors that Influence Helping:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Situational ambiguity
Perceived Cost
Diffusion of Responsibility
Similarity
Mood
Gender
Attributions of the cause of need
Social Norms
Attraction
5 Factors of Attraction
Quotes
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking
outward together in the same direction." --- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but few have seen it. --La Rochefoucauld
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive,
and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that
excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.“ --George Bernard Shaw
Ideal Qualities in a Romantic Partner
1
2
3
Less than me
About the same as me
More than me
1
Extraversion
2
Conscientiousness
3
Agreeableness
4
Openness
5
Neuroticism
6
Age
7
Height
8
Education
9
Intelligence
10
Good Looks
11
Social Status
12
Spirituality
13
Dominance
30
Preferred Qualities in Partners
Women
1) Kind/understanding
2) Exciting Personality
3) Intelligent
4) Healthy
5) Easy Going
6) Physically Attractive
Men
Kind/understanding
Exciting Personality
Intelligent
Physically Attractive
Healthy
Easy Going
31
1. Proximity
• Geographic nearness
• Mere exposure effect:
Repeated exposure to
something breeds liking.
• Classroom studies
– Moreland & Beach (1992):
women coming into class; the
more they came to class, the
more other students liked her
• 4 women in study
• Forced proximity = stalking
(which isn’t attractive)
Proximity
Mere exposure (Zajonc, 1966; Moreland &
Beach 1992)
4.6
4.4
4.2
Ratings of
attraction.
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
0
5
10
15
Which version do you prefer?
A
B
2. Reciprocal Liking
• You are more likely to like
someone who likes you.
• Why?
• People like positive feedback
• Even obvious attempts at
flattery increase liking
• Playing TOO hard to get is
viewed as a turn off
• Except in elementary school!!!!
• “Couples curse” of decreasing
affinity
3. Similarity
• Paula Abdul was
wrong- opposites do
NOT attract.
• Birds of the same
feather do flock
together.
• Similarity breeds
content.
Similarily
•
•
•
•
Together
SAT .31*
Phy Attr .32*
Attitudes .50*
•
•
•
•
Breakup
SAT .17
Phy Attr .16
Attitudes .41*
Role of the Internet in Dating
Role of the Internet in Dating
Attitude similarity and attraction
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)
Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked
to rate how much they liked a
stranger after learning he agreed
with varying proportions of their
attitudes expressed on a
questionnaire. (Higher numbers
indication greater liking.)
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
As the graph shows, the greater
the proportion of attitudes
subjects shared with the stranger,
the more subjects liked him
8.00
7.00
6.00
.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00
Proportion of similar attitudes held by
other person
Similarity
• What traits did you want to match your
partner on?
Similarity
– Couples tend to be similar in age, race,
religion, social class, personality, education,
intelligence, physical attractiveness, and
attitudes
– Personality similarity related to marital
happiness.
– Perceived similarity more strongly
associated with marital satisfaction than
actual similarity
42
What personality traits are important
to match on?
• Connection between personality traits and
relationship satisfaction.
• Low neuroticism. A partner higher in neuroticism
might be more critical, contemptuous and defensive
with their partner decreasing satisfaction.
• Higher agreeableness, conscientiousness and
extraversion.
• Matching on Individual Big 5 traits does not predict
satisfaction but matching on overall profile does.
43
Similarity
Matching Hypothesis: We like those who
are like ourselves (Galton, 1870).
Romantic pairs are similar in physical
attractiveness (Zajonc et al, 1987)
Even college roommates, prefer to be of
similar attractiveness (Carlie et al. 1991)
Sense of humor particularly important
(Cann et al., 1995)
Similarity
• Why do we like people like us?
• Why does similarity increase relationship
satisfaction?
45
Mimicry-Similarity in Behavior
• When we want to belong to a group or want
others to like us, we mimic their behavior.
• We like people who mimic our behavior.
• But don’t be too obvious!!!
46
Mimicry: Similarity in Behavior
Behavioral Mimicry
47
People get more similar over time
• Dissimilar looking couples
at marriage look more
similar 25 years later.
• Happier couple look more
similar
• Decades of shared
emotions?
– Facial expression “save”
micro muscles into our
older face.
48
Similarity to Pets
49
4. Liking through Association
• Classical Conditioning can play
a part in attraction.
• I was always attracted to
girls wearing UGA snap
backs…
• Misattribution of arousal
• Negative mood leads to lower
attractiveness ratings
• Unpleasant background music
when meeting a person leads
to subsequent lower
attractiveness ratings
Misattribution of Arousal
5. Physical Attractiveness
Who do you think is friendlier?
Who do you think is more outgoing?
To whom would you be friendlier?
The Hotty Factor
– Halo Effect -- “What Is
Beautiful Is Good”
stereotype
– People tend to attribute desirable
characteristics such as sociable,
friendly, poised, warm, competent, and
well adjusted to those who are good
looking
– Physically attractiveness predicts
dating frequency (they date more).
– Attractive children and adults are
judged and treated more favorably
– Implications for career & salary
– Criminal sentences…
54
What is beauty?
Physical Attraction
Beauty is objective:
1) High level of agreement across cultures
(Langlois et al, 2000)
2) Certain features of faces are reliably
associated with attractiveness
(Cunningham, 1986)
3) Babies prefer attractive faces (Cowley,
1996).
Physical Attraction
Beauty is subjective:
1) Different cultures “improve” beauty in
different ways (Newman, 2000).
2) Different body types are judged to be
more attractive in different parts of the
world (Anderson et. al 1992)
3) Body type standards vary over time
(Silverstein et al, 1986).
Physical Attraction
Things that people agree on:
2) More average faces are more attractive
3) Waist/hip ratio for women is judged
similarly across culture. Men prefer
waists 1/3 narrower than hips (Singh,
1993)
4) Across culture, women prefer men to
have a V-shaped physique (Singh, 1995)
Physical Attraction
Things that people agree on:
5) Women who have large eyes, prominent
cheekbones, small bones and a wide
smile are judged more attractive
(Cunningham, 1986)
6) Men with broad jaws and chiseled
features are judged more attractive
(Cunningham et al, 1990).
Physical Attraction
Situational influences on attraction:
1) Contrast effects (Kenrick et al, 1993)
2) Opinions of same sex peers (for women)
(Graziano et al, 1993)
3) Girls all get prettier at closing time effect,
(Gladue & Delaney, 1990)
4) Glasses (Terry & Macy, 1991)
Physical Attraction
Good male names: Alexander, Joshua, Mark,
Henry, Scott, Taylor, Jonathan Blake Dycus
Good female names: Elizabeth, Mary,
Jessica, Ann, Brittany, Isabella
Bad male names: Otis, Roscoe, Norbert,
Ogden, Willard, Eugene
Bad female names: Mildred, Frieda, Agatha,
Harriet, Rosalyn, Tracy
Beauty and Culture
Obesity is so revered among Mauritania's
white Moor Arab population that the
young girls are sometimes force-fed to
obtain a weight the government has
described as "life-threatening".
Are these cultures really that different?
Courtship
1) Opening Lines
2) Female Courtship Rituals
3) Male Courtship Rituals
Introductions
Kleinke et al, 1990; Cunningham, 1989
Looked at the effectiveness of different
types of opening lines in laboratory, and then
real life settings
Likeability
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
Flippant
Innocuous
Direct
Introductions
Kleinke et al, 1990; Cunningham, 1989
Setting
Best Line
Worst Line
Bar
Do you want to
dance?
Bet I can out-drink
you!
Laundromat Want to have a cup of
coffee while we’re
waiting
Beach
Want to play frisbee?
Those are some
nice undies you
have there
Let me see your
strap marks.
Female Courtship Rituals
Women’s flirting behavior Eibl-Eibesfeldt
(1989):
1) Smile
2) Lift Eyebrows in fast jerky motion
3) Open their eyes wide
4) Lower their eyelids
5) Tilt heads down and to the side
6) Look away
Female Courtship Rituals
Moore (1985; 1989):
Female courtship behaviors were defined as
that specific subset of nonverbal behavior that
consistently resulted in male attention
52 items identified
Courtship found to be more important that
physical attraction for garnering male interest.
Male Courtship Rituals
Male courtship rituals:
Submissive displays: Palms up, shoulder
shrug, tilt head.
Dominance displays: Entering personal
space, putting arm around shoulder, swagger.
Resources displays: Paying for food, drink.
Wearing expensive clothes. Bragging.
Male Courtship Rituals
Male rituals harder to chronicle (Taflinger,
1996):
The less ritualized and more original his
approach is, the more likely a woman is to
accept it
This leads to ad hoc courtship by human
males.
Love
Passionate Love
• My stomach feels weird,
I want to be with you all
the time, I can’t stop
thinking of you kind of
love.
• DOES NOT LAST
FOREVER.
Compassionate Love
• Love that comes from
people living shared lives
together and depend on
one another for love and
support.
• Can last forever…or
cannot
• Can include passionate
love
• Includes self disclosure
Marital Satisfaction over Time
Ratings of marital quality
In a longitudinal study that spanned ten years, married couples rated the quality of their marriages. On
average, these ratings were high, but they declined among both husbands and wives. As you can see, there
were two steep drops, occurring during the first and eighth years of marriage. (Kurdek, 1999.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Years of marriage
Wife
Husband
8
9
10
Changes in Life Satisfaction Before and After Divorce
In this study, 817 men and women who were divorced at some point rated how satisfied they were with
life on a scale of 0 to 10 every year for eighteen years. Overall, divorcees were less satisfied than their
married counterparts-a common result. On the question of whether time heals the wound, you can see
that satisfaction levels dipped before divorce, rebounded afterward, but did not return to original levels.
It appears that people adapt but do not fully recover from this experience. (Lucas, 2005.)
Life Satisfaction Ratings
0.00
-0.50
Divorce
-1.00
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Years Before and After Divorce
4
6
Liking & Loving for Dating Partners and Same-Sex Friends
Index
Women
Men
Love for Partner
89.5
89.3
Liking for Partner
88.7
84.6
Love for Friend
65.3
55.1
Liking for Friend
80.5
79.1
“No man or woman really knows what love is until they have been
married a quarter of a century.” --- Mark Twain
Love marriages
Satisfaction
Arranged marriages
90
80
70
60
50
40
0-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
Years of marriage
10+
Relationship Conflict --- Some Issues
• Jealousy ---
Men
Sexual infidelity (60%)
Women
Emotional infidelity (83%)
• Communication --Demand-withdraw interaction pattern (Females wish to
discuss problems, men avoid/withdraw from such discussions)
• Sex
• Children
• Money
• Different expectations
What predicts stability?
• When is divorce less likely?
– First or second marriage?
– Older or younger at marriage?
– More or less educated partners?
– Stable or unstable jobs?
– Cohabitation or non-cohabitation?
– Parental divorce or no parental divorce?
Group Behavior
How do groups affect our behavior?
Social Facilitation Theory
• If you are really
good at
something….or it is
an easy task…you
will perform
BETTER in front of
a group.
• If it is a difficult
task or you are not
very good at it…you
will perform
WORSE in front of
a group (social
impairment).
Conformity Studies
• Adjusting one’s
behavior or thinking
to coincide with a
group standard.
Asch’s Study of Conformity
Asch’s Results
• About 1/3 of the
participants conformed.
• 70% conformed at least
once.
To strengthen conformity:
•
•
•
•
The group is unanimous
The group is at least three
people.
One admires the group’s status
One had made no prior
commitment
Social Influence
50%
Difficult judgments
40
Percentage of
conformity to
confederates’
wrong answers
Conformity highest
on important
judgments
30
20
10
Easy judgments
0
Low
High
Importance
 Participants
judged
which
person in
Slide 2 was
the same as
the person
in Slide 1
Reasons for Conforming
Khan Academy
Normative Social
Influence:
Informational Social
Influence:
Influence resulting
from a person’s desire
to gain approval or
avoid disappointment
Influence resulting
from one’s willingness
to accept others’
opinions about reality
Would how you dress for school be affected, if
you lived in small-town Texas?
• When could this be
an example of
normative social
influence?
• When could this be
an example of
informative social
influence?
Milgram’s Study
Of
Obedience
Experimenter Prompts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Please continue (or Please go on).
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
Results of the Milgram Study
What did we learn from Milgram?
• Ordinary people can
do shocking things.
• Ethical issues….
• Would not have
received approval
from today’s IRB
(Internal Review
Board).
Group Dynamics
Situational Influence
Home Advantage in Major Team Sports
Sport
Games
Studied
Home Team
Winning
Percentage
Baseball
23,034
53.3%
Football
2,592
57.3
Ice hockey
4,322
61.1
Basketball
13,596
64.4
Soccer
37,202
69.0
Social Loafing
• The tendency for
people in a group to
exert less effort
when pooling efforts
toward a common
goal than if they
were individually
accountable.
• One of the reasons I
hate group work…
Group Polarization
• Groups tend to make
more extreme
decisions than the
individual.
Groupthink
• Group members suppress
their reservations about
the ideas supported by
the group.
• They are more concerned
with group harmony.
• Worse in highly cohesive
groups.
Deindividuation
• People get swept up in a
group and lose sense of
self.
• Feel anonymous and
aroused.
• Explains rioting
behaviors.
Zimbardo’s Prison Study
• Showed how we
deindividualize AND become
the roles we are given.
• Philip Zimbardo has students
at Stanford U play the roles
of prisoner and prison
guards in the basement of
psychology building.
• They were given uniforms
and numbers for each
prisoner.
• What do you think
happened?
Institutional Aggression and
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study
1. Explain the study in one paragraph using both the
“Pathological prisoner syndrome” and “Pathology of
power”.
2. Why didn’t the “good guards” say anything to the “bad
guards”?
3. Describe what happened at Abu Ghraib.
4. What situational factors were at play that led the US
military people to act like they did?
5. Can “cause and effect” ever TRULY be found in these
complicaticated cases of “institutional aggression?
Social Relations
 Conflict
 perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas
 Social Trap or Prisoner’s Dilemma
 Axelrod & Hamilton (1981)
 a situation in which the conflicting parties, by each
rationally pursuing their self-interest, become
caught in mutually destructive behavior
 Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED9gaAb2BEw