Survey of Modern Psychology
Social Psychology Part 1
Definition
• Social Psychology is the study of individual behavior
in groups
– This is in contrast to sociology, which studies
group behavior
Group Behavior Trends
Social
Norms
Group Behavior Trends
• Bystander Effect
• Diffusion of Responsibility
• Situational Influences
– Pluralistic Ignorance
Situational Influences
• The bystander effect: the presence of others
inhibits helping
• Diffusion of responsibility: the belief that
others will or should take responsibility for
providing help
Bystander Effect and Diffusion of
Responsibility
Participants were told that they would be in a
study about personal problems that students
often face. Each person would be in a separate
room and communicate via intercom because
of the sensitive nature of the conversation.
There would be groups of 2-6 people.
One “participant” briefly mentioned that he or
she had a seizure disorder that was often
triggered by stressful situations.
Bystander Effect and Diffusion of
Responsibility
(Latane and Darley, 1970)
The actual participant heard the confederate
feign a seizure over the intercom.
If the participant believed that he or she was in
a pair and therefore the only one who knew
about the emergency, the participant tried to
get help.
When the participant thought that he or she
was part of a larger group, the participant was
less likely to seek help.
Situational Influences
• Pluralistic ignorance – each individual believes
that his or her own thoughts and feelings are
different from those of other people, even
though everyone’s behavior is the same.
When we are unsure of whether there is an
emergency, we look to others for how to act.
We may then assume that, if no one else is
panicking, we should not panic either.
Pluralistic Ignorance
Latane and Darley, 1968
Participants were put in rooms alone or with
two other people to complete questionnaires.
A few minutes after starting, smoke began
seeping into the room through a vent.
Pluralistic Ignorance
Latane and Darley, 1968
When participants were alone:
•
50% took action within 4 minutes
•
75% took action within 6 minutes (the
maximum time experimenters allowed the
study to continue)
Pluralistic Ignorance
Latane and Darley, 1968
When participants were in groups:
•
Only one person took action within 4
minutes
•
Three took action before the end of the 6
minutes
– By this time, the smoke was so thick that
participants had to fan it away to see the
questionnaires
Pluralistic Ignorance
Latane and Darley, 1968
Participants assumed that if there was a real
emergency, one of the other participants
would take action. Because they did not, they
interpreted the situation as being safe.
Evaluating Others
•
•
•
•
Fundamental Attribution Error
Choice
Expectedness
Consequences
Attribution Theory
Fritz Heider (1958)
How we judge other people.
A set of theories that describe how people
explain causes of behavior
Attribution Theory
• Personal attribution
– Attribution to internal characteristics of an actor,
such as ability, personality, mood, or effort
• Situational attribution
– Attribution to factors external to an actor, such as
the task, other people, or luck
Attribution Theory
• We make judgments about behavior based on:
– The person’s degree of choice
– Expectedness of the behavior
– Intended effects or consequences
Choice
We assume that it says more about a person
when they purposefully made a choice than if
they were forced into a choice.
Choice
Participants read a speech that was supposedly
written by another college student.
The speech either favored or opposed Fidel
Castro.
Some participants were told that the author had
chosen their position, others were told that
the author was assigned that position.
Choice
When participants believed that the author had
a choice in what to write, they assumed that
the author’s essay correctly corresponded to
their attitudes.
Graph p. 103
Expectedness
We assume that we
can infer more
about a person if
their behavior is
atypical.
Intended Effects
What did the person want to happen?
• Acts that give multiple desirable outcomes give
us less information about motives
For example, if a person lives in a large apartment
in a good neighborhood with low rent, it is
unclear exactly what made them choose that
apartment. However, if it’s a small apartment
with high rent, we can assume that the person
lives there because of the good neighborhood.
Decision Making Biases
•
•
•
•
Availability
False Consensus
Base Rate Fallacy
Counterfactual Thinking
Decision Making Biases
Availability: we overestimate how frequently an
event occurs based on how easily it comes to
mind.
• Participants were asked which is more
common, words that start with the letter “R”
or have “R” as their third letter
Availability
• Participants tended to report that more words
start with “R,” though it’s actually more
common as a third letter.
• It’s easier to think of words that start with a
letter.
This is especially true if…
Attribution Biases
False consensus
We over estimate the percentage of people
who agree with us
Attribution Biases
Base-rate fallacy
We are more influenced by a small number of
dramatic instances than actual occurrences.
For example, people may over-estimate the risk
of dying in a hot air balloon accident because
of the unique and dramatic nature of the
event.
Attribution Biases
Counterfactual thinking – the tendency to
imagine alternative outcomes that might have
occurred but did not. This is influenced by
how easy it is to imagine the other outcome.
Counterfactual Thinking
• We are more upset by, and fixate more on,
what might have occurred after taking an
action than inaction
• One would feel worse after selling a stock
before it went up (“I could have made $500 if I
had not sold”) vs. not selling a stock before it
drops (“I would have saved $500 if I had sold”)
Counterfactual Thinking
It is easier to think of the alternative if you are
on the verge of a cutoff point.
• For Olympic athletes, it may be more
disappointing to win silver than win bronze.
– Silver medalists focus on having not won the gold
and what they did wrong
– Bronze medalists focus on having beaten the
competitor in 4th place
Fundamental Attribution Error
The tendency to focus on the role of personal
causes and underestimate the impact of
situation on other people’s behavior.
Fundamental Attribution Error
Imagine you did poorly on a test; you might say
that conditions were not ideal (room was cold,
the guy next to you was playing a banjo, etc.)
but you are a smart person who actually knew
the material.
Fundamental Attribution Error
If someone else did poorly on that same test,
you’re more likely to assume that the person
did not know the material and therefore their
poor performance was their own fault.
Activity
Festinger’s Study (1959)
Participants were told that the experimenter was
studying various measures of performance.
The participants were then instructed to perform
boring and repetitive tasks for an hour.
Steps in Dissonance
Dissonance happens when:
1. Negative consequences
2. Feeling of personal responsibility
– Freedom of choice
– Foreseeable consequences to actions
3. Discomfort
4. Attribute discomfort to one’s own behavior
… Kool Aid Study
Kool Aid Study
Harmon-Jones et. al., 1996
Later on, participants
were asked how much
they actually liked the
beverage.
Ways to reduce dissonance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Change your attitude
Change your perception of the behavior
Add consonant cognitions
Minimize the importance of the conflict
Reduce perceived choice
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Example: You want to save money, but just went
on a shopping spree
1. Change your attitude
“I don’t need to save money that badly”
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Example: You want to save money, but just went
on a shopping spree
2. Change your perception of the behavior
“I didn’t spend that much”
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Example: You want to save money, but just went
on a shopping spree
3. Add consonant cognitions
“I used coupons, so I actually saved money”
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Example: You want to save money, but just went
on a shopping spree
4. Minimize the importance of the conflict
“It’s ok, I had fun!”
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Example: You want to save money, but just went
on a shopping spree
5. Reduce perceived choice
“I had no choice; I was encouraged to help
the economy by spending”
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
Undergraduate students were selected to be in a study about
the psychological effects of prison life
• 24 males were randomly assigned to be prisoners or
guards
– Participants were determined to be healthy, drug free, and
mentally stable
• Participants agreed to be in a 2 week long study
– Half would be prison guards, other half would live in a
“prison” for the 2 week period
• Zimbardo played the role of prison superintendent
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• “Guards” dressed in uniforms, and “prisoners” were
dressed in prison jumpers with ankle chains
• Prisoners were to be referred to only by their number
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• Guards had no formal training, but were told to expect
that the prisoners could be dangerous. Guards were
responsible for keeping order and encouraged to demand
respect
• Prisoners were told to expect some level of harassment
and/or humiliation, and lack of privacy
• Guards were allowed to subject the prisoners to some
physical punishment
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• On the second day, the prisoners rebelled and tried to
reassert their individuality
• Guards quickly responded by removing cots from the
prison cells, stripped the prisoners, put some in solitary
confinement (a closet) and harassed the prisoners
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• Guards started a “privilege” cell, where they placed the
three prisoners least involved in the rebellion
– These prisoners received privileges in front of the other
prisoners in order to stir resentment and break down
solidarity among prisoners
• Shortly after, guards put the “privileged” prisoners back in
the regular cells and gave “bad” prisoners the privilege cell
• This gave the impression that some prisoners were
informants for the guards and further destroyed the bond
among prisoners by causing them to mistrust each other
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• Solidarity among guards increased after the rebellion
because they felt that the prisoners had given reason to
mistrust them and seemed potentially dangerous
• Treatment of the prisoners became increasingly worse
• Prisoners and guards grew to identify with their assigned
roles
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• Prisoners were given a parole hearing
• Zimbardo offered the prisoners the chance for parole if
they would forfeit the money they’d earned so far
• Most participants were agreeable, even though they
technically could have opted out of the experiment*
– Prisoners were so absorbed in their role that they essentially
forgot that they were not really prisoners
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
The experiment finally ended after an outside observer
pointed out the horrible conditions
• Most of the guards were disappointed that the study
ended early
• Prisoners were initially traumatized by the experience, but
reportedly they later found it educational and there were
no long term negative effects
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
Zimbardo concluded that the participants’ behavior showed
the power of the situation and how setting and assigned
roles of authority made people behave in ways that they
normally would not.
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
Some objections to the Prison Study:
• Zimbardo himself was actively involved rather than just an
observer
• Participants self-selected to be in the study
• It is unclear whether participants actually identified with
their roles, or if they were playing out how they believed a
prisoner or prison guard would act
• No control group!
Stanford Prison Study (Philip
Zimbardo)
• There did not seem to be any initial measure of attitudes
about authority or the prison system
– Were the participants actually more sadistic or authoritarian
than the average person? If so, their behavior cannot be so
strongly attributed to the power of the situation
For more information: http://www.prisonexp.org/
Notable Research in Social Psychology
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
The study used two locations: a shaky suspension
bridge and a non-shaky bridge in Canada
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
• A male or female interviewer was stationed on
either bridge
• The interviewer introduced him/herself to men
walking alone as a psychology student doing a
survey. After the man completed the survey the
interviewer gave him a phone number so that
he could call for the results
• The primary question for researchers is what the
participants would do with the phone number…
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
• A larger percentage men asked were willing to
complete the survey for the female interviewer
than the male
• There was more sexual imagery in answers for
the female interviewer than the male
interviewer, and significantly more for
participants crossing the shaky bridge than the
stable bridge
• More participants took the phone number from
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
These results pertain to the female interviewers:
• Participants who crossed the shaky bridge were
significantly more likely to call for the results of the
survey
• Participants who crossed the shaky bridge were
significantly more likely to ask the interviewer on a date
than the ones who crossed the stable bridge
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
Interviewer
# Filling in
Questionnaire
# Accepting
Phone #
# Phoning
Sexual Imagery Score
Control Bridge
22/33
16/22
2/16
1.41
Experimental
Bridge
23/33
18/23
9/18
2.47
Control
Bridge
22/42
6/22
1/6
.61
Experimental
Bridge
23/51
7/23
2/7
.80
Female
Male
Notable research
“Shaky bridge study” Aron and dutton, 1974
Explanations:
• Aron and Dutton theorized that crossing the shaky
bridge caused physiological arousal and the men
attributed the cause to the woman and therefore
believed that they were attracted to her
• Another possibility is that the men who crossed the
shaky bridge were actually more willing to take risks
and were therefore more likely to pursue the woman
Notable research
“closing time study” Pennebaker et.al., 1979
• Researchers obtained participants at local bars
near their university
• Participants were asked once at either 9:00
pm, 10:30 pm, or 12:00 am to rate the
attractiveness of same-sex and opposite-sex
customers in the bar
– (all bars used closed at 12:30)
– The researcher asked the participant to rate the
customers as a whole rather than on an individual
basis
Notable research
“closing time study” Pennebaker et.al., 1979
When it got later,
participants
reported
opposite-sex
customers in
the bar as
being
significantly
more attractive
Notable research
“closing time study” Pennebaker et.al., 1979
Explanations:
• When we are under time constraints and
pressured to make a choice, we need to make the
option that we chose more attractive to explain
why we chose it
• The people who were in the bars at the end of the
night who wanted to leave with someone
therefore made the options that they had left
seem more appealing