Chapter 16
Social Behavior
When an observer is biased in favor of making internal attributions
in explaining others' behavior, the observer is making
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
a stereotypical error
the self-serving error
the self-effacing error
the fundamental attribution error
Table of Contents
When an individual has a tendency to attribute his/her success to personal
factors and his/her failure to situational factors, the individual is demonstrating
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
the fundamental attribution bias
the self-effacing bias
the self-serving bias
defensive attribution
Table of Contents
ANSWERS:


D
C
Table of Contents
Social Psychology






Person perception
Attribution processes
Interpersonal attraction
Attitudes
Conformity and obedience
Behavior in groups
Table of Contents
Person Perception: Forming
Impressions of Others






Effects of physical appearance
Cognitive schemas – age, profession, ethnicity
Stereotypes – learned
Prejudice and discrimination-attitude vs. action
Subjectivity in person perception
Evolutionary perspectives
– stereotypes separate friend from foe
– spotlight effect
– illusion of asymmetric insight
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Attribution Processes: Explaining
Behavior

Attributions
– Internal vs. External

Biases in attributions
– Fundamental attribution error
– Defensive attribution – blaming the vicitim
– Self-serving bias

Cultural influences
– individualistic - self-serving and fundamental att. err.
– collectivistic
Table of Contents
Figure 16.1 Causes of Success and Failure: Attribution
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
In regards to interpersonal attraction, which of the following sayings
is most accurate?
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
opposites attract
he who hesitates is lost
to know me is to love me
birds of a feather flock together
Table of Contents
Which of the following is not one of the major components of an attitude?
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
cognitive
perceptual
affective
behavioral
Table of Contents
A person experiences an unpleasant state of tension when related attitudes
or beliefs are inconsistent or contradict each other according to
a
.
b
.
c
.
d
.
the persuasion model
the elaboration likelihood model
cognitive dissonance theory
observational learning
Table of Contents
ANSWERS:



D
B
C
Table of Contents




Learning To Love Eating Grasshoppers
Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone, and Levy (1965) demonstrated that
“nice guys” as sources for persuasive messages can be less
persuasive than “nasty guys.” The study involved ROTC students,
military reservists, and college students. They were told that the study
was about survival skills needed for the "new mobile military." A key
survival skill needed was to experience and develop a taste for novel
foods (specifically, grasshoppers.) There were two major conditions in
the study: A ‘Nice Guy’ condition and a ‘Nasty Guy’ condition. The ‘Nice
Guy’ entered the room with a warm greeting, pleasantly interacted with
the other people in the room, and expressed sensitivity for the
participant’s discomfort. The ‘Nasty Guy’ startled the people in the room
with an abrupt and demanding entrance. He was gruff and rude in
demeanor and he went out of his way to berate the ‘assistants’ in the
room.
In the end, the people in the ‘Nasty Guy’ condition professed much
greater liking for grasshoppers as food than the people in the ‘Nice
Guy’ condition. Some even took extra grasshoppers home to share with
their friends and family.
WHY?
Table of Contents



With the ‘Nice Guy’ the dissonance produced between disliking
grasshoppers and eating them could be reduced by thinking that
they ate the grasshoppers because the speaker was such a nice
guy. Therefore, there was no need to change their feelings
about the grasshoppers.
With the ‘Nasty Guy’ the dissonance produced between disliking
grasshoppers and eating them could NOT be reduced by
thinking that they ate the grasshoppers because of the speaker:
he was a jerk. The only way to reduce the dissonance was to
change their attitudes about eating grasshoppers to be
consistent with their grasshopper eating behavior.
Zimbardo, P. G., Weisenberg, M., Firestone, I., & Levy, B.
(1965). Communicator effectiveness in producing public
conformity and private attitude change. Journal of Personality,
33, 233-255.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Close Relationships: Liking and
Loving

Key factors in attraction
–
–
–
–
–
–

Physical attractiveness
Matching hypothesis
Similarity
Reciprocity - self-enhancement
Romantic Ideals
Proximity
Perspectives on love
– Hatfield & Berscheid – Passionate vs. Companionate love
– Sternberg - Intimacy and commitment fig. 16.4
– Hazen & Shaver – love as attachment fig. 16.5

Evolutionary perspectives
– Mating priorities – reproductive fitness
Table of Contents
Social Relations- Attractiveness

Proximity
Geographic nearness– perhaps the most powerful
indicator of friendship.
Proximity provides opportunities for aggression, but
much more often it breeds liking.
People are most likely to like, and even to marry,
those who live in the same neighborhood, who sit
nearby in class, who work in the same office, who
share the same parking lot.
Table of Contents
Social RelationsAttractiveness

Mere Exposure Effect
 repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them

Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture
Table of Contents
Social Relations- Attractiveness

Similarity
We are likely to become friends
with other who are similar to us
in attitudes, intelligence, age,
and economic status. Similarity
breeds content.
Table of Contents
Social Relations

Passionate Love
 an aroused state of intense
positive absorption in another
 usually present at the beginning of a love
relationship

Companionate Love
 deep affectionate attachment we feel for
those with whom our lives are intertwined
Table of Contents
Figure 16.4 –
Sternberg’s view
of love over time
Figure 16.5
Table of Contents
Attitudes and Attitude Change

3 components
– cognitive, affective, and behavioral

Factors in changing attitudes
– source, message, and receiver
– two sided arguments and fear arousal are effective

Theories of attitude change
– Learning theory - classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and
observational learning.
– Cognitive Dissonance theory
– Self-perception theory - people infer their attitudes from their
behavior
– Elaboration likelihood model – central route to persuasion
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Yielding to Others: Conformity

Conformity – Solomon Asch (1950s)
– Classic experiment
• Group size – larger groups increase conformity
• Group unanimity – one dissenter makes subject less
likely to conform
Table of Contents
Social Influence
50%
Difficult judgments

40
Percentage of
conformity to
confederates’
wrong answers
Conformity highest
on important
judgments
30
20
10
Easy judgments
Participants
judged which
person in
Slide 2 was
the same as
the person in
Slide 1
0
Low
High
Importance
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Yielding to Others: Obedience

Obedience – Stanley Milgram (1960s)
– Controversial landmark experiment
– “I was just following orders”
• Milgram found that 65% of the men administered all 30 levels of
the shock, even though they displayed considerable distress at
shocking the learner.
Table of Contents
Obedience
Obedience
– compliance of person is
due to perceived
authority of asker
– request is perceived as a
command

Stanley Milgram
Milgram interested in
unquestioning
obedience to orders
Table of Contents
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Basic study procedure
– teacher and learner
(learner always
confederate)
– watch learner being
strapped into chair
– learner expresses
concern over his “heart
condition”
Table of Contents
Stanley Milgram’s Studies
Teacher goes to another room with
experimenter
 Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts,
labels “slight shock” to “XXX”
 Asked to give higher shocks for every
mistake learner makes

Table of Contents
Stanley Milgram’s Studies


Learner protests more
and more as shock
increases
Experimenter continues
to request obedience
even if teacher balks
120 “Ugh! Hey this really hurts.”
150 “Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all.
Get me out of here. I told you
I had heart trouble. My heart’s
starting to bother me now.”
300 (agonized scream) “I absolutely
refuse to answer any more.
Get me out of here. You can’t hold
me here. Get me out.”
330 (intense & prolonged agonized
scream) “Let me out of here.
Let me out of here. My heart’s
bothering me. Let me out,
I tell you…”
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Obedience
Percentage
of subjects
who obeyed
experimenter
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
The majority of
subjects continued
to obey to the end
Moderate
Very
Extreme
XXX
Slight (75-120) Strong
strong Intense intensity Danger (435-450)
(15-60)
(135-180) (195-240) (255-300) (315-360) severe
(375-420)
Shock levels in volts
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Explanations for
Milgram’s Results
 Abnormal group of subjects?
– numerous replications with variety of groups
shows no support
 People in general are sadistic?
– videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show
extreme distress
Table of Contents
Follow-Up Studies to Milgram
Table of Contents
Critiques of Milgram
Although 84% later said they were glad
to have participated and fewer than 2%
said they were sorry, there
are still ethical issues
 Do these experiments really help us
understand real-world atrocities?

Table of Contents
Social Relations

Ingroup Bias
 tendency to favor one’s own group

Scapegoat Theory
 theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing
someone to blame

Just-World Phenomenon
 tendency of people to believe the world is just
 people get what they deserve and deserve what they get\
 explains ‘blaming the victim’
Table of Contents
Social Thinking

Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
 tendency for people who have first agreed to a small
request to comply later with a larger request

Role
 set of expectations about a social position
 defines how those in the position ought to behave
Table of Contents
Behavior in Groups: The Influence of Other
People

The bystander effect - Darley and Latane (1968)
– Kitty Genovese
– Diffusion of responsibility

Group productivity and social loafing
 Decision making in groups
 Polarization
 Groupthink
 Deindividuation
 loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations
that foster arousal and anonymity
Table of Contents
Social Influence

Some individual resist social coercion
Table of Contents
Social Facilitation
Table of Contents
Groupthink









Eight warning signs of groupthink:
The illusion of invulnerability
Belief in the inherent group morality
Rationalization of group views
Stereotyping of out-groups
Self-censorship
Direct pressure on dissenters
Self-appointed mindguards
The illusion of unanimity





Four key preventative strategies:
Establish an open climate
Avoid the isolation of the group
Assign the role of critical evaluator
Avoid being too directive
Table of Contents
Social Influence

Superordinate Goals
 shared goals that override differences among people and
require their cooperation

Social Facilitation
 improved performance of tasks in the presence of others
 occurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with tasks that
are difficult or not yet mastered

Social Loafing
 tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling
their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when
individually accountable
Table of Contents
Social Relations

Bystander Effect
 tendency for any given
bystander to be less
likely to give aid if
other bystanders are
present
Table of Contents
Social Influence

If a group is likeminded, discussion
strengthens its
prevailing opinions
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Social Relations

Ingroup
 “Us”- people with whom
one shares a common
identity

Outgroup
 “Them”- those perceived
as different or apart from
one’s ingroup
Table of Contents
Social Identity and Cooperation
Social identity theory
– states that when you’re assigned to a group, you automatically
think of that group as an in-group for you
– Sherif’s Robbers Cave study
• 11–12 year old boys at camp
• boys were divided into 2 groups and kept separate
from one another
• each group took on characteristics of distinct social group, with
leaders, rules, norms of behavior, and names
Table of Contents
Robbers Cave (Sherif)

Leaders proposed series of competitive interactions
which led to 3 changes between groups and within
groups
– within-group solidarity
– negative stereotyping of other group
– hostile between-group interactions
Table of Contents