UNIT 14 Social Psychology Attribution theory (Fritz Helder) Dispositional vs. situational attribution Fundamental attribution error Self-serving bias They won only because the best athletes on the Central State’s teams were out with injuries – talk about good fortune. ▪ External (situational) ▪ Internal (dispositional) ▪ External (situational) ▪ Internal (dispositional) They won because they have some of the best talent in the country. Anybody could win this region; the competition is so far below average in comparison to the rest of the country. They won because they put in a great deal of effort and practice. Fundamental Attribution Error – underestimating situational influences when evaluating the behavior of someone else. He swerved into my lane because he is a jerk. Actor-observer bias – attributing others’ behaviors to disposition but your own behaviors (even the same behaviors) to situational factors. Example: He swerved into my lane because he is a jerk, but I swerved into the next lane because I was trying to avoid an animal in the road. Self-serving bias – crediting your own successes to disposition, but attributing your own failures to situation. Example: I won the game because I’m talented. I failed the test because the questions were unfair. Personal relationships Political relationships Job relationships Attitude Central route persuasion Peripheral route persuasion The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon “start small and build” People come to believe in the idea they have supported Actions feed attitudes which feed actions Easier to change attitudes than actions Foot-in-the-door phenomenon – the tendency for people who agree to a small request to comply later with a larger one (examples, “please drive carefully”, Korean War, People’s Temple, training torturers, cheating) Role-Playing Affects Attitudes Role Stanford study Abu Ghraib prison Role playing - subjects who play a role often begin to “become” the role (Zimbardo’s prison study) Cognitive Dissonance: Relief From Tension Cognitive dissonance theory “Attitudes follow behavior” Cognitive dissonance theory states that we are motivated to reduce this uncomfortable feeling by changing our beliefs to match our actions. The dissonance (uncomfortable feeling) is less if we feel that we were forced to perform the action. Thus, the larger the pressure used to elicit the overt behavior, the smaller the tendency to change opinion. Chameleon effect Conformity Solomon Asch study CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE SOLOMON ASCH STUDY Conditions That Strengthen Conformity One is made to feel incompetent or insecure Group has at least three people Group is unanimous One admires the group’s status One has made no prior commitment Others in group observe one’s behavior One’s culture strongly encourages respect for social standards Reasons for Conforming Normative social influence Informational social influence Obedience Milgram’s studies on obedience ▪ Procedure ▪ Results ▪ Ethics ▪ Follow up studies “Teacher” is the subject in the experiment who administers the “shocks”. “Learner” is the confederate that received the shocks (when out of sight, the learner was a tape recording) “Authority” is the person administering the experiment; says “please go on”. CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE: OBEDIENCE CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE: OBEDIENCE CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE: OBEDIENCE CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE: OBEDIENCE Factors that increase obedience: 1. Physical proximity of authority figure. 2. Perceived legitimacy of authority figure. 3. Distance or depersonalization of victim (learner). 4. Lack of a model for defiance. Factors that did NOT affect obedience: 1. Age 2. Profession 3. Gender 4. Mention by “learner” of a “slight heart condition”. Ordinary people being corrupted by an evil situation Social Facilitation Task difficulty ▪ Home vs. Away Crowding effects ▪ Comedians and Actors ▪ Practical lesson Social Loafing Reasons why? ▪ Less accountability ▪ Tug of war ▪ Clapping/Shouting experiments ▪ View themselves as dispensable ▪ Group projects in school Deindividuation Less self conscious and less restrained when in a group situation ▪ Ku Klux Klan experiment ▪ Face paint/Masks Group Polarization Group Polarization Group Polarization Group Polarization Group Polarization Group Polarization Internet terrorist organizations ▪ “us vs. them” Groupthink Examining few alternatives Selective gathering of information Examining few alternatives Pressure to conform within group or withhold criticism Collective rationalization Bay of Pigs Challenger explosion Iraq WMD Marshall Plan Cuban Missile Crisis Culture Norm Personal space Pace of life Changes over the generations Social control (Power of the situation) vs personal control (Power of the individual) Abu Ghraib Communisim Christianity Rosa Parks Inventions Minority influence Prejudice Negative attitude Stereotype Beliefs, emotions, predispositions Discrimination Negative behavior PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? PREJUDICE: HOW PREJUDICED ARE PEOPLE? http://implicit.harvard.edu Social Inequalities Blame the Victim dynamic Us and Them: Ingroup and Outgroup Ingroup (ingroup bias) Outgroup Emotional roots of prejudice Scapegoat theory ▪ 9/11 Categorization Outgroup homogeneity Other-race effect/Own race-bias ▪ 3-9 months Vivid cases (9/11) Just-world phenomenon Hindsight bias Aggression Genetic Influences Twin studies Neural Influences Amygdala Frontal Lobe Biochemical Influences Influence of alcohol Higher levels of testosterone Lower levels of serotonin Saliva studies Aversive Events Frustration-aggression principle ▪ Fight or flight reaction ▪ Aversive stimuli (physical pain, personal insults, foul odors, hot temperatures, cigarette smoke) Social and cultural influences Ostracism (Rejection-induced aggression) Parent-training programs Aggression-replacement programs Observing models of aggression Rape myth Role of pornography/X-rated film study ▪ View partner as less attractive ▪ Women’s friendliness seem more sexual ▪ Sexual aggression seems less serious Acquiring social scripts Media influence/Song lyrics Do video games teach, or release violence? Grand Theft Auto example/Mortal Kombat Catharsis hypothesis? Effect of virtual reality BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGGRESSION BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGGRESSION BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGGRESSION BIOPSYCHOSOCIAL UNDERSTANDING OF AGGRESSION Proximity Mere exposure effect “In me I trust” Online matchmaking and Speed Dating Physical attractiveness First impressions Frequency of dating/Feelings of popularity/Others initial impressions of their personalities. Similarity Similarity breeds content Reward theory of attraction What factors make a person seem attractive? 1. Proximity (mere exposure effect) class photo demo Sally Wesley Sam Maryla Physical appearance Many qualities vary by culture, but a few are consistent: - Youth in women, maturity in men. “Baby” features = large head, large forehead, low set eyes, nose, and mouth, large, round eyes, small nose, round cheeks, small chin Source: www.beautycheck.de Source: www.beautycheck.de Source: www.beautycheck.de Love Passionate love ▪ Schactor two factor theory ▪ College men aroused by fright test ▪ Bridge test Companionate love ▪ Better to choose or have someone choose a partner for you with similar background and interests? Equity 1. Faithfulness 2. Happy sexual relationship 3. Sharing household chores Self-disclosure Altruism Kitty Genovese Bystander Intervention Diffusion of responsibility Bystander effect ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM ALTRUISM Social exchange theory Reciprocity norm Social-responsibility Wesley Autrey norm Conflict Social trap Mirror-image perceptions Self-fulfilling prophecy Contact (positive correlation) Cooperation Superordinate goals ▪ 9/11 ▪ Interracial cooperative learning Communication Win-Win Conciliation GRIT