Social psychology (branch) –
• effects of social variables & cognitions
– individual behavior & social interactions
• social cognition• social influence-
Social context –
combo of…
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
people
activities & interactions among people
setting (behavior occurs)
expectations & social norms governing behavior (setting)
adapt behavior to demands of
social situation
ambiguous situations:
cues from others (behaviors) in setting
Situationism –
• environmental conditions influence behavior as much or
more than their personal dispositions
– thoughts / feelings / behaviors
Dispositionism• internal forces dictate behavior
– genes / traits
Social role –
• socially defined patterns of behavior expected
– setting or group
ascribed
achieved
Role Conflict
 What to do?
 How?
 When?
Script –
• knowledge: sequence of events & actions expected in setting
Social norms –
• expectations regarding  appropriate & acceptable
– attitudes & behavior
 general  specific
 emergent norm
• adjustment period…new person
1) notice regularities
2) negative consequences
• T. Newcomb’s study… influence students’ political views
• if grp opinion/fact clearly wrong?
The Asch Effect
Solomon Asch
• influence of a grp majority on judgments of an individual
– real or imagined social pressure
Experiment:
• deception: study on visual perception
• procedure…
Correct estimated (percent)
No opposition (control)
100
With partner
80
60
Alone against majority
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Critical trials
9
10
11
12
Results…
• discomfort & disbelief  3/4th / 76% succumbed
• conformed = 1+ times / 37% critical trials
• 1/4th independent
related studies = 50-80% conform
• factors influencing pressure:
– size of majority
– presence of a partner (dissenter)
– discrepancy b/w correct answer & majority position
• other studies…
– judgment of task (difficult or ambiguous)
– especially competent members
– public v private response
social influence
normative- motivation: gain social acceptance & approval
informational- motivation: correctness
• individual heroic defiance– remain true to personal values [“whistleblowers”]
– usually despised by colleagues & pay high price
social loafing- expend less effort on grp task
– assess individual contribution?
• reduced or eliminated…
1- familiarity of grp
2- highly valued grp
3- task is meaningful or unique
deindividuation
social facilitation- others (presence) enhances individual performance
– arousal & motivation increase
• increase performance… 1- simple task (well learned)
2- evaluation
• “groupthink”- attempt to conform opinions to consensus
conditions promoting
grp isolation
cohesiveness
directive leadership
lack of procedures
homogeneous [social background & ideology]
high stress  external threats (all $$ on grp leader)
• that’s-not-all
• door-in-the-face
• foot-in-the-door
• low-ball approach
• historical evidence…
• 1st obedience experiment @ Yale
– teacher instructed: punish memory errors of learner
• @ 375v- learner’s scream  thud = silence
– all participants stopped BUT then continued
end = 450v or teacher’s refusal
Shocking Results
• “He can’t stand it! I’m not going
to kill that man in there! You hear
him hollering? He’s hollering…
Who is going to take the
responsibility if anything happens
to that gentleman?”
• “You mean I’ve got to keep going
up with that scale? No sir, I’m not
going to kill that man!”
• 20 variations…
social models = huge influence
• no lasting issues [most fine w/]
• participants went along b/c experiment
• reality? agreed to participate = obey orders
– same w/ real soldiers
Stanford Prison & Milgram
• good people  situational conditions
– other studies…
Hoffling (’66):
Sheridan & King (’72):
Bickman (’74):
nurses
puppy
actor on street
• likelihood to provide help?
– person or situation
Factors Decreasing Help…
• grp size*
– diffusion of responsibility
• vague or ambiguous situations
• personal costs / benefits
100
Percentage helping
2-person groups
80
3-person groups
60
6-person groups
40
20
0
20
80
120
160
200
240
Seconds: beginning of emergency
280
Does Training Encourage Helping?
• no personality traits @ issue
• helpers often have had…
– training
– education
Need help? Ask for It!
• T. Moriarity (’75) positive situational power
– favor  creates human bond --- shared social world
sense of responsibility develops
ask for help
reduce ambiguity
[problem & steps to assist]
identify specific individuals
does not insure safety --- ??
Influences Our Judgments of Others?
others’ behavior but also…
interpretation of actions w/in
social context
Social reality –
subjective interpretation of other people & of relationships w/ them
Reward theory of attraction –
• social learning: like best = those max. rewards @ minimum cost
– benefits…
Proximity
Similarity
Self-Disclosure
Physical
Attractiveness
Matching hypothesis –
• prediction: most find friends & mates = same level of attractiveness
Expectancy-value theory –
• decide whether or not to pursue a relationship
– potential value of relationship
– expectations of success in establishing relationship
Leon Festinger(’59) & J. Merrill Carlsmith
• Cognitive dissonance –
– conflicting cognitions, actions (voluntary) conflict w/ attitudes
highly motivating state
Resolution of Cognitive Dissonance
1. changing your attitude is the easiest way to solve this
– Ex: I am a loyal friend, but yesterday I gossiped about my
friend Chris . . . Well I can’t change my action . . . but I don’t
want to change my view of myself, so my attitude about
Chris must be wrong.
 He is more of an acquaintance than a friend.
2. Increase # of supporting elements – # of thoughts that
back one side.
– It was awesome gossip / people needed to know / they
won’t mind / etc
3. Reduce importance of one of both of the sides
– person I gossiped with won’t really tell that many people.
• attribution– actions & outcomes to personal traits NOT situational forces
homeless v. successful athlete
F.A.E.–
• tendency: emphasize internal causes & ignore external pressures
[remind ourselves of circumstances]
– more like a bias
attributional charity-
• Blaming the Victim
• Just-world hypothesis
– Retributive justice
• actor-observer discrepancydouble standard!
– self-serving bias –
credit for success but denies responsibility for failure
• self-effacing bias-
Prejudice –
– neg. attitude (individual) based solely on grp membership
 powerful force!
ethnocentrismstereotyping-
Discrimination –
– neg. action against individual result of grp membership
• numerous sources…
– defensive reactions / distinguish strangers
Dissimilarity & Social Distance
• In-group v. Out-group
– individual identifies
Economic Competition
Media Stereotyping
Scapegoating
Conformity to Social Norms
Research suggests possible tools:
New role models
Equal status contact
Legislation
power of situation: helps us
understand violence & terrorism,
broader understanding…
requires multiple perspectives
that go beyond boundaries of
traditional psychology
• intense competitive situation  conflict
Cohesiveness:
• solidarity, loyalty, & a sense of grp membership
Aggression (violence):
• refer to behavior that is intended to cause harm
Mutual interdependence –
• shared sense: need for each other
– order to achieve common goals
Terrorism
Terrorism –
use of violent, unpredictable acts by a small
group against a larger group for political,
economic, or religious goals
multiple perspectives can provide important
insights on the problems of aggression, violence,
& terrorism
Ten Steps Toward EvilGetting Good People to Harm Others
1. Provide people with an ideology to justify beliefs
for actions
2. Make people take a small first step toward a
harmful act with a minor, trivial action and then
gradually increase those small actions
3. Make those in charge seem like a “just authority”
4. Slowly transform a once compassionate leader
into a dictatorial figure
5. Provide people with vague and ever changing
rules
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
Ten Steps Toward EvilGetting Good People to Harm Others
6. Relabel the situation’s actors and their
actions to legitimize the ideology
7. Provide people with social models of
compliance
8. Allow verbal dissent but only if people
continue to comply behaviorally with
orders
9. Encourage dehumanizing the victim
10. Make exiting the situation difficult
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007
Social Inequality
Prejudice develops when people have money,
power, and prestige, and others do not. Social
inequality increases prejudice.
Social Divisions
Ingroup: People with whom one shares a
common identity. Outgroup: Those perceived as
different from one’s ingroup. Ingroup Bias: The
tendency to favor one’s own group.
Mike Hewitt/ Getty Images
Scotland’s famed “Tartan Army” fans.
Emotional Roots of Prejudice
Prejudice provides an outlet for anger [emotion]
by providing someone to blame. After 9/11
many people lashed out against innocent
Arab-Americans.
Cognitive Roots of Prejudice
One way we simplify our world is to categorize.
We categorize people into groups by
stereotyping them.
Michael S. Yamashita/ Woodfin Camp Associates
Foreign sunbathers may think Balinese look alike.
 How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we react to it
Situational attribution
“Maybe that driver is ill.”
Tolerant reaction
(proceed cautiously)
Dispositional attribution
“Crazy driver!”
Unfavorable reaction
(speed up & race past,
give a dirty look)
Negative behavior