Conformity
My Homepage
& WebCT
All Slides Shown in Class
Course Packet
Course related readings and
activities (for fun)
Syllabus
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/
faculty/madon/homepage.htm
Social Influence &
Conformity
Social Influence: Use of social
power to change the behavior or
attitudes of others in a
particular direction
Conformity: Change in behavior
or attitude as a result of real
or imagined social influence
cp
3 Types of Conformity
1. Acceptance:
– publicly conform
– privately agree
2. Compliance:
– publicly conform
– privately disagree
3. Obedience:
– conform to command
Norms
Rules for accepted or expected
behavior.
Autokinetic Effect Study
Estimate how far point of
light moved in dark room
After many trials, individual’s
estimates converged
Repeated procedure in a
group situation
cp
Autokinetic Effect Study
cp
The Autokinetic Effect
Study
Retained group norm when tested
alone later
Acceptance. Publicly conformed
and privately agreed
Autokinetic Effect Study
Informational social
influence:
Used others’ estimates
to guide own estimates
The Line Study
A control group (who did study
alone) almost always gave
correct answer.
Compliance. Publicly conformed
but privately disagreed
The Line Study
Normative social influence:
Conformed to be
accepted by group
The Johnny Rocco Case
Mode
Deviate
Slider
Most common
viewpoint
Most deviant
viewpoint
Most deviant
then most
common
viewpoint
cp
The Johnny Rocco Case
Participants rated who they most
wanted to leave the group
Mode
4.47
Slider
4.76
Not Significantly
Different
Deviate
6.11
Wanted Deviate
to go the most
cp
Milgram Quote
“The social psychology of this
century reveals a major
lesson:
Often it is not so much the
kind of person a man is as the
kind of situation in which he
finds himself that
determines how he will act”
Reciprocation
Reciprocation
Two forms of Reciprocation
1) Repayment
Giving to those who have
given to you
Christmas Card Study
Phil Kunz, a psychologist at Brigham Young University
in Provo Utah sent 578 Christmas cards (signed
“Joyce and Phil”) to strangers living in Chicago,
Illinois.
117 (over 20%) sent a card in return
A significant number of return cards had notes
or letters enclosed
Only 6 of the 117 people who returned a card
said they could not remember them
cp
Repayment
Donations
without
gift
Donations
with
gift
18%
35%
Repayment
Obligation
Guilt
Evolutionarily adaptive
Reciprocation
Two forms of Reciprocation
2) Concessions
Make concession in return
for concession made by
another
Reciprocation
Two step procedure:
1. Large request (get No!)
2. Smaller request (get Yes!)
Works because:
– 1st request makes 2nd request seem
more moderate and acceptable
– By making a 2nd, more moderate,
request the requester appears to have
made a concession, which makes other
person feel obligated to make a
reciprocal concession
cp
Reciprocation
Door-in-the-Face
Technique
County Youth Study:
Cialdini et al. (1975)
Independent variable: Request
Experimental group:
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid
counselors to juvenile delinquents 2
hrs./wk for 2 years?” (inflated request)
“No? Ok, would you be willing to serve as
unpaid chaperons for juvenile
delinquents on a day trip to the zoo?”
(concession)
Control group: Asked....
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid
chaperons for juvenile delinquents on a
day trip to the zoo?”
cp
County Youth Study
% agreeing to go to zoo
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Control Group
Experimental Group
cp
Door-in-the-Face
Technique
Factors that reduce its effectiveness:
–Initial request too
extreme
–Request for selfish
purposes
–Delay between 1st and 2nd request
cp
That’s Not All Technique
Two step strategy:
1. Inflated request
2. Offer discount or
bonus
Cupcake Sale:
Burger (1986)
3 Conditions:
That’s Not All:
• Cost per cupcake $1.25, then
reduced to $1.00
Bargain:
• Cost per cupcake $1.00, had
been $1.25
Control:
• Cost per cupcake $1.00
cp
Cupcake Sale
% who bought a cupcake
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
That's Not All
Bargain
Control
cp
Concession
Responsibility
Satisfaction
Commitment & Consistency
Commitment and
Consistency
Remember cognitive dissonance?
Feeling of anxiety or tension
Arises when behaviors
= attitudes
“Please call if you have
to change your plans.”
30% no show rate
“Will you please call if
you have to change your
plans?”
10% no show rate
Commitment and
Consistency
Once we make a
commitment, we
feel pressure from
ourselves and others to
behave consistently with
that commitment.
CP
Beach Towel Study
(Moriarty, 1975)
Control group: no commitment
Experimental group: commitment:
“Could you please watch my
things”
Beach Towel Study
100%
Percent who intervened
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Control
Experimental
CP
Here’s another example...
Researchers asked 1/2 of the residents in an
apt. complex to sign a petition to create a
recreation center for the handicapped
2 weeks later, all residents were approached
and asked to donate money to the cause
This reflects a two-step process for the
1/2 of participants who signed the petition:
Step 1: obtain commitment (i.e., petition
signature) Step 2: get consistency in
behavior (i.e., donate $)
CP
Results
Control
Group
Experimental
Group
53%
92%
This process is called...
The Foot-in-the-Door
Technique
Foot-in-the-Door
Technique
Compliance with small request
increases chance of compliance
with larger request later
American Cancer
Society Study
(Cialdini & Schroeder, 1976)
Control Group:
“I’m collecting money for the
American Cancer Society.
Would you be willing to help
by giving a donation.”
Experimental Group:
“I’m collecting money for the
American Cancer Society.
Would you be willing to help
by giving a donation. Even a
penny would help.”
CP
Percent who donated money
American Cancer Society
Study
60%
$30.34
50%
40%
30%
$18.55
20%
10%
0%
Control
Experimental
CP
Commitments “grow their
own legs”
People add reasons and
justifications to support the
commitments they have
made.
This causes prior
commitments to be selfperpetuating because people
will stick to their prior
commitments even when the
original factor leading to
compliance is gone.
CP
Low Ball Technique
Costs concealed until
commitment is made
Quit Smoking Study
(Joule, 1987)
Smokers asked to complete
survey
After committing, told “no
smoking”
85%
12%
Commitment and
Consistency
Why does it work?
•Consistency is valued
•Consistency saves mental
resources
Factors that Affect
Commitment and
Consistency
Is the commitment voluntary or
forced?
He that complies against his
will is of his own opinion
still
Is the commitment made in public or
private?
Did the commitment take effort or
not?
Is the commitment made actively or
passively?
CP
Aids Awareness Study
Active:
answer ‘YES’ on
2 items
Passive:
skip 2 items
74%
26%
Scarcity
Scarcity
People value things that are
less available
Scarcity
Scarcity creates potential
for loss.
Fear of loss more important
than possibility of gain
Home Insulation Study
Gonzales et al., (1988)
Cost of
Poor
Insulation
More likely to
insulate their
homes
Savings
from Good
Insulation
Self-Examination Study
Meyerwitz & Chaiken (1987)
Lose
potential
health
benefits
More likely to
perform selfexaminations
Gain
potential
health
benefits
Strategies Derived
from Scarcity Principle
1. Limited Numbers:
– Customer told that a particular
product is in short supply
2. Time Limits:
–Customer told that there is a
deadline to the sale of a product
cp
Why Does the Scarcity
Principle
1. Heuristic:
• People use an item’s availability
to judge its quality
Why Does the Scarcity
Principle
2. Reactance to loss of freedom:
• Scarcity makes people feel like
their freedoms are reduced
• Reduction of freedom produces
reactance
Reactance and Toy
Preference
Brehm & Weintraub (1977)
Toddlers put in room with
attractive toys
One toy behind a Plexiglas sheet
that was:
– 1 foot high (no barrier)
– 2 feet high (barrier)
Toddlers made contact with toy
behind the barrier 3 times faster
cp
Reactance and Teen Love
Driscoll, Davis, & Lipetz (1972)
The more parents objected to
their teens’ relationship, the
more in love the couples said
they were, and the more the
couples wanted to get married.
The couples’ love increased as
parental interference increased
and decreased as parental
interference decreased
cp
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Scarcity
1. New scarcity
People are more likely to want
something that has just become
scarce than something that has
already been scarce for some
time
cp
Cookie Study
Worchel, Lee, & Adewole (1975)
Showed people a jar of cookies
Jar had either:
– 10 cookies in it
– 2 cookies in it
People rated cookies as more desirable,
more attractive, & more expensive
when there were only 2 in the jar.
They were the SAME cookies!
cp
Cookie Study: A
Modification
Participants given jar of:
– 2 cookies (Always scarce)
– 10 cookies, which was then
replaced with a jar of 2 cookies
(Newly scarce)
More positive reaction to the newly scarce
cookies than the always scarce cookies
cp
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Scarcity
1. New scarcity
2. Competition for scarce
resources
People are more likely to want a
scarce item that they are
competing for
cp
Social Proof
Social Proof
Determine correct behavior by
seeing what others are doing.
Balthazar Gracian
Observation made over 350
years ago:
“Not all turn the goods
over or look deep. Most
run where the crowd is –
because the others run.”
Social Proof
Milgram et al. (1969)
1
Confederate
looking up
15
confederates
looking up
45%
looked up
85%
looked up
Social Proof:
Craig & Prkachin (1978)
1.Administered shock to
participant
2.Asked participant how painful
shock was
3.Took physiological measures of
pain
Participants felt less shock on
both pain indices if they were in
the presence of another
participant who was apparently
experiencing little or no pain
CP
Other Forms of Social
Proof
Canned Laughter
Person-on-the-street
testimonies
Why Does Social Proof
Promote Conformity?
Why does it work?
– People make fewer errors when
they “follow the crowd”
– Following the crowd is easier –
takes less mental effort
CP
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Social
Proof
Uncertain about
correct behavior
Certain about
correct behavior
Social Proof
works better
under
conditions of
uncertainty
CP
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Social
Proof
Dissimilar
Similar
Social Proof
works better when
others are similar
to the self
CP
Copycat Suicides
Schmidtke & Hafter (1988)
Examined # of suicides following
broadcast of FICTIONAL TV show
•TV show lasted 6 weeks
•Depicted 19 yr. old male who
committed suicide by leaping in front
of a train
Following the series, railway suicides
increased substantially
This increase was greatest for males
who were same age as TV character
Copy cat suicides called the Werther Effect
CP
Fluctuations in U.S. suicides before, during,
and after 26 publicized suicide stories
(Phillips, 1974).
1500
Number of 1000
suicides in
comparison
to to what
would have
normally
500
been expected
0
-500
-1
0
1
2
Months
3
CP
Authority
Authority
People comply with requests
more when requester is in a
position of authority
Obedience Study
• Psychological problems
• Men
• Unaware of harm
Stanley Milgram
Milgram’s participants obeyed
because of the experimenter’s
authority, and not because of
abnormal psychological
problems
cp
Obedience Study:
Replications
Experimenter told “teacher” to
stop delivering the shock even
though the “learner” clearly
indicated that he wanted the
study to go on
100% of the time, the “teacher”
stopped delivering shock
cp
Obedience Study:
Replications
The experimenter (the authority
figure) was hooked up to the
shock generator, and the
“learner” gave the directives to
continue
100% of the time the “teachers”
stopped delivering shock when
the experimenter said to
cp
Obedience Study:
Replications
Two experimenters gave
contradictory orders. One
ordered the “teacher” to
continue giving the shock, the
other ordered the “teacher” to
stop
“Teachers” asked for consensus,
but 100% of the time ultimately
stopped delivering shock
cp
Why Do People Obey
Authority?
1. Socialization practices
From a very young age, we are
taught that obedience to
authority is the correct way to
behave
cp
Why Do People Obey
Authority?
1. Socialization practices
2. Heuristic
Authority is a heuristic for
knowledge and wisdom
cp
Symbols of Authority
1. Title
High status title increases
compliance and obedience
Doctor’s Orders
Hofling et al. (1966)
Researcher called nurses’
stations
Identified self as physician
Directed nurse to give drug to
patient
“This is Dr. Smith, from
Psychiatry, calling. I was
asked to see Mr. Jones this
morning, and I’m going to have
to see him again tonight. I
don’t have a lot of time, and
I’d like him to have some
medication by the time I get
to the ward. Will you please
check your medicine cabinet
and see if you have some
Astroten? That’s A-S-T-R-OT-E-N.
The medicine cabinet contains a
pillbox:
ASTROTEN
5 mg. capsules
Usual dose: 5 mg
Maximum daily dose: 10 mg
The researcher continues, “You have
it? Fine. Please give Mr. Jones 20
milligrams of Astroten, that’s 4
capsules. I’ll be up in 10 minutes, and
I’ll sign the order then, but I’d like
the drug to have started taking
effect.
Doctor’s Orders
There were 4 reasons why the
nurse should have refused the
order:
•Prescription given over the phone,
which was in violation of hospital
policy
•Medication was unauthorized
•Dosage was obviously and
dangerously excessive
•Physician was unknown to the nurse
cp
95% of the nurses obeyed!!!
Symbols of Authority
1. Title
2. Clothes
People comply more when
requester’s clothes denote
authority
Symbols of Authority:
Clothes
Bickman (1974)
“You see that guy over there
by the meter? He’s over
parked but doesn’t have
any change. Give him a
dime.”
No
Uniform
42%
Uniform
92%
Symbols of Authority
1. Title
2. Clothes
3. Trappings
People comply more when
requester’s things denote
wealth or status
Horn Honking Study
Doob & Gross (1968)
Luxury Car
Economy Car
Liking
Liking
People prefer to comply with
requests made by individuals
who they like
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Liking
1. Physical attractiveness
Why Attractiveness
Works
Halo Effect:
One very positive trait possessed
by a person influences the total
judgment of that person.
Attractiveness is one such very
positive trait
cp
Devil Effect:
One very negative trait possessed
by a person influences the total
judgment of that person.
cp
Attractiveness
Kulka & Kessler (1979)
Attractive victim –
Unattractive Defendant
$10,051
Unattractive victim –
Attractive Defendant
$5,623
Attractiveness
Stewart (1980)
1. Evaluated attractiveness of 74
male defendants prior to trial
2. Followed the defendants to
find out their trial outcomes
Result: Unattractive defendants were 2 times more
likely to get a jail sentence than attractive
defendants
cp
Attractiveness
Kurtzburg, Safar, & Cavior (1968)
Jail Inmates: All with facial disfigurements
Got plastic
surgery
Also received
rehabilitation
counseling
services
Did not receive
rehabilitation
counseling
services
Did not get
plastic surgery
Also received
rehabilitation
counseling
services
Did not receive
rehabilitation
counseling
services
cp
Attractiveness
Kurtzburg, Safar, & Cavior (1968)
Results:
Inmates who had the plastic
surgery were significantly
LESS likely to return to jail
regardless of whether they
had counseling or not
cp
Attractiveness
More likely to be helped
More persuasive
Liked more
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Liking
1. Physical attractiveness
2. Similarity
3. Praise
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Liking
1. Physical attractiveness
2. Similarity
3. Praise
4. Familiarity
Familiarity
Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)
A person is more familiar
with mirror image
Person’s friends more familiar
with the person’s true image
Familiarity
Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)
Percent
100
75
Friends
50
Participants
25
0
Mirror
True
Image
Participants liked their mirror image more
Friends liked participants’ true image more
cp
Factors that Influence
Effectiveness of Liking
1. Physical attractiveness
2. Similarity
3. Praise
4. Familiarity
5. Mere association
Relationships
Filtering Model of Mate
Selection
Romantic relationships involve 4
fixed stages:
–
–
–
–
Stage
Stage
Stage
Stage
1: Proximity Filter
2: Stimulus Filter
3: Value Filter
4: Role Filter
cp
Filtering Model of Mate
Selection
Stage 1: Proximity Filter:
Identify pool of eligible mates
“Narrowing the Field stage”
Filtering Model of Mate
Selection
Stage 2: Stimulus Filter:
Relationship based on
external attributes
(e.g., physical attractiveness)
“Attraction stage”
Filtering Model of Mate
Selection
Stage 3: Value Filter:
Relationship based on a shared
value and belief system
Determine similarity
“Attachment stage”
Filtering Model of Mate
Selection
Stage 4: Role Filter:
Relationship based on
successful fulfillment of
one’s roles
“Commitment stage”
Social Exchange Theory
Based on the Max-Min principle
– People seek to maximize their
benefits and minimize their
costs
– A relationship is more
satisfying the more rewards
and fewer costs it entails
cp
Social Exchange Theory
Rewards: All positive things that a
close relationship offers people.
These are all of the reasons why
somebody would want to be in a
relationship.
Costs: All of the downsides to a
relationship. These are all of
the reasons why somebody
would not want to be in a
relationship.
Outcome: The difference
between the rewards and costs
of a relationship.
Outcome = Rewards - Costs
cp
Social Exchange Theory
Additional factors that influence
one’s interpretation of the
outcome:
Comparison level (CL): The standard
against which the outcome is
compared.
Comparison level alternative (CLalt): A
person’s expectations about his or her
other alternatives.
cp
Self-Disclosure
Reveal intimate aspects
of self to another
Social Penetration Theory
Proposes that:
1. Relationships progress from
superficial exchanges to more
intimate ones.
2. Specific stages of
relationships are characterized
by specific patterns of selfdisclosure
cp
Social Penetration Theory
Stage 1: Initial encounters
– Self-disclosure follows strict
pattern of reciprocity
Stage 2: Established
relationships
–Self-disclosure does NOT follow
strict pattern of reciprocity.
Partners self-disclose but do not
expect nor receive reciprocity
each time they self-disclose
cp
Self-Disclosure
We……
disclose to people we like
like the people we disclose to
like people who disclose to us
Love in the Lab
1. Two strangers put in a room
together for 90 minutes
during which time they
exchange intimate
information
2. They stare into each
others’ eyes for 2 min.
without talking
3. “Tell the other person what
you like about him/her”
4. Participants leave by
separate doors
cp
Psychological “Love Potion”
Want somebody to
fall in love with you?
1. Talk intimately with them
2. Do a risk taking activity
together
3. Acknowledge your feelings: “I
like you”
Groups
Terms to Know
Group: Two or more people who
interact for more than a few
moments, feel like a group, and who
influence each other via
interdependent goals/needs.
Aggregate: A collection of people who
are in the presence of one another,
but do not typically interact for
more than a few moments and who
do not feel like a group.
Independent goals/needs.
Critical difference:
– Level of interaction
– Feeling
– Interdependent vs. independent
goals/needs
cp
Are These Groups?
Yes
Five people waiting at the
No same corner for a bus
Yes
People attending a worship
No service
Yes
Yes
No
No
The ‘Spice Girls Fan Club’
Students in a seminar class
cp
Effects on Behavior
1. Similarity
Group Norms:
Expected behavior of all
group members
Sorority Study
Crandall (1988)
Alpha Sorority Norm: Moderate binging
Beta Sorority Norm: Heavy binging
Sorority Study
Crandall (1988)
New Members of Alpha
Moderate
binging
More Popular
Too much – too little
binging
Less Popular
cp
Sorority Study
Crandall (1988)
New Members of Beta
Heavy
binging
Light or no
binging
More Popular
Less Popular
cp
Effects on Behavior
1. Similarity
Social Roles:
Expected behavior of
particular members
Effects on Behavior
2. Performance
Groups influence
performance on tasks
Ant Study
Chen (1937)
Observed ants excavating soil for
4 days
–
–
–
–
Day
Day
Day
Day
1: alone
2: groups of 2
3: groups of 3
4: alone
How long did the ants take to begin
excavating?
How much soil (in weight) was
excavated?
cp
Time to Begin (seconds)
Ant Study
Chen (1937)
200
150
100
50
0
Alone
Group of Group of
2
3
Alone
The ants took longer to begin
when they worked alone
cp
Weight Moved
Ant Study
Chen (1937)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Alone
Group of Group of
2
3
Alone
The ants moved more soil when
they worked in groups
cp
Cockroach Study
Gates & Allee (1933)
1. Taught cockroaches to learn a maze
whereby they could escape the light
by running into a dark bottle.
2. The maze was difficult for a roach
to learn.
3. Learned the maze alone, groups of
two, groups of three
Result: Learned maze faster
when alone, than when in a group
cp
Zajonc: An Integrative
Theory
Proposed that:
– Presence of others increases
arousal
– Arousal enhances whatever
response is dominant
Dominant response: Response elicited
most easily and most quickly
– Easy tasks: Correct response is
dominant
– Difficult tasks: Incorrect
response is dominant
cp
Cockroach Study: A
Replication
Zajonc et al. (1969)
Running Time
250
200
Alone
150
Presence of
others
100
50
0
Simple
Difficult
Maze Type
The presence of others (a)
improved running times in the
simple maze but (b) worsened
running times in the difficult
maze
cp
Social Facilitation Effect
The strengthening of the
dominant
response in the presence of
others
Or
The presence of others improves
performance on simple tasks
but worsens performance on
difficult tasks
cp
Effects on Behavior
3. Deindividuation
Loosening of normal
constraints on behavior
Factors that Influence
Deindividuation
1. Group size
Large Group
More
deindividuation
Small Group
Factors that Influence
Deindividuation
2. Accountability
High
Low
Accountability Accountability
More
deindividuation
Factors that Influence
Deindividuation
3. Anonymity
Anonymous
More
deindividuation
Not
Anonymous
Anonymity Study
Zimbardo (1970)
Anonymous
Coats – Hoods
Not
Anonymous
Normal Clothes
Name Tags
Gave 2 times
more shock
cp
Conflict & Peacemaking
Conflict
Belief that one’s
behaviors/goals
are not compatible
with the behaviors/goals
of others
cp
Factors that Influence
Conflict
1. Social Dilemmas
Conflict between
self-interests and group interests
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Prisoner
A
Confesses
Does Not
Confess
5
10
Confesses
5
Prisoner
B
Does Not
Confess
0
0
10
1
1
cp
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Country
A
Develops
Nuclear Arms
Does Not
Develop Nuclear
Arms
Moderate
High
Develops
Nuclear Arms
Moderate
Country
B
None
None
Does Not
Develop
Nuclear Arms
High
None
None
cp
Social Dilemma
1. Prisoner’s dilemma is an
example of a social dilemma
2. When faced with a social
dilemma…
– each party personally better off when
they act selfishly
– both parties worse off as a group
when they act selfishly
– as a group, the parties would have
been better off if they had acted
unselfishly
Tragedy of the Commons
Wasting shared resource by
acting in one’s self-interest
cp
Factors that Influence
Conflict
1. Social Dilemmas
2. Competition
People competing for same
resources believe their individual
self-interests are not compatible
cp
Peacemaking
Gordon Allport:
The Contact Hypothesis
Contact between
members of different
groups lessens conflict
Peacemaking
1. Mere Exposure
Different groups thrown
together to “work it out”
Peacemaking
1. Mere Exposure
2. Cooperation
Working cooperatively toward a
superordinate goal reduces
conflict
Jigsaw Classroom
Child 1
Canaries
Child 5
Cats
Group 1:
Ethnic/gender mix of 5
kids
learning about pets
Child 2
Hamsters
Child 4
Dogs
Child 3
Goldfish
Canary
expert
group
Hamster
expert
group
Goldfish
expert
group
Dog
expert
group
Cat
expert
group
cp
Stereotypes & Prejudice
A, B, C’s
A = Affect (prejudice)
B = Behavior (discrimination)
C = Cognitions (stereotypes)
Prejudice, Discrimination, &
Stereotypes
Prejudice: Positive or negative feeling
about a person based on attitude
about the person’s social group
membership
Discrimination: Unfair treatment of a
person or group in comparison to
others who are not members of the
same social group
Stereotypes: Attributes believed to
describe a social group
cp
Group Differences
Groups differences exist:
• College drop out rates
• College GPA
• SAT scores
• GRE scores
• ACT scores
Stereotype Threat
Fear that one will be viewed or
treated in way consistent with
a negative stereotype, or fear
that one will confirm the
stereotype
cp
Stereotype Threat Study
Steele & Aronson (1995)
Invalid Test
Valid Test
AA = W
AA < W
cp
Stereotype Threat Study
Steele & Aronson (1995)
14
Test Scores
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Invalid Test
Valid Test
African Americans Whites
cp
Stereotypes
Stereotypes
Attributes believed
to describe a group.
Stereotypes
Personal stereotype: attributes
an individual believes describes
a group
Consensual stereotype:
attributes many people believe
describe a group
Stereotype Formation
Categorization:
Classifying stimuli
into different groups
Labeled Lines Study
Tajfel & Wilkes (1963)
A
B
CP
Labeled Lines Study
Tajfel & Wilkes (1963)
The labels caused participants to:
1.
perceive the lines in group A as
highly similar to to one another
2. perceive lines in group B to be
highly similar to one another
3. perceive large differences
between the line groups
CP
Labeled Lines Study
Tajfel & Wilkes (1963)
Overestimate similarity within
groups
 (within category homogeneity)
Exaggerate differences between
groups
 (accentuation of inter-category
difference)
CP
Stereotype Formation
People naturally categorize others into
groups
People perceive members of a group
as more similar to one another than
they really are and as more different
from other groups than they really
are
The ways that group members are
perceived to be similar to one another
and different from other groups
becomes the content of the
stereotype associated with their
social group
CP
Outgroup Homogeneity
Effect
People perceive out-group
members as more similar than
in-group members
Amount of contact
Intimacy of contact
Stereotype Maintenance
Subtyping:
Disconfirming targets tagged as
“exceptions to the rule”
Stereotyping
Applying one’s stereotype to an
individual
Ambiguous Behavior
(e.g., poking)
African
American
White
More mean
& threatening
cp
Function of Stereotypes
Cognitive Miser Perspective:
Stereotyping easier than
judging targets according
to personal attributes
Time Pressure Study
Kruglanski & Freund (1983)
Essay
Ashkenazi
Jew
Sephardic
Jew
Manipulation
Time Pressure
No Time Pressure
cp
Time Pressure Study
Kruglanski & Freund (1983)
85.00
80.00
B
C
75.00
70.00
65.00
D
D
60.00
Time Pressure
Ashkenazi Jew
No Time Pressure
Sephardic
cp
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
A false belief that leads to its own
fulfillment:
1. Perceiver develops false
belief about a target
2. Perceiver treats target in a
manner consistent with false
belief
3. Target responds to the
treatment in such a way as
to confirm the originally
false belief
cp
Two Types of SFPs
Positive SFPs:
1.
Perceiver overestimates target’s
ability
2. Perceiver treats target consistent
with that overly positive belief
3. Target responds by confirming the
overly positive belief
cp
Two Types of SFPs
Negative SFPs:
1.
Perceiver underestimates target’s
ability
2. Perceiver treats target consistent
with that overly negative belief
3. Target responds by confirming the
overly negative belief
cp
Dumb Rat - Smart Rat
Study
Positive Belief
Smart
Rat
Negative Belief
Dumb
Rat
Learned the
maze faster
cp
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
and Stereotypes
Self-fulfilling prophecies
can contribute to social
problems
Interview Study
Study 1
Do W treat AA and W different?
Participants interviewed
confederate for a job
Confederate: African American or
White
cp
Interview Study
Results: Study 1
Interview length: AA < W
Distance: AA > W
Eye contact: AA < W
Speech dysfluencies: AA > W
cp
Interview Study
Study 2
Does differential treatment
influence behavior?
Confederates interviewed participant
for job
Treated participant like AA or W
were treated in Study 1
cp
Interview Study
Results: Study 2
Treated like
African
Americans
Worse
Performance
Treated like
Whites
Better
Performance
cp
Prejudice
Positive or negative feeling about
person based on attitude about
person’s group
Causes of Prejudice
1. Competition between groups
2. Simple distinction between
groups
Realistic Group Conflict
Theory
Prejudice stems from
competition between groups
cp
Terms
Group: Individuals who are
interdependent
In-Group: Social group to which a
person belongs
Out-Group: Social group to which a
person does not belong
Intergroup relations: When
individuals from one group
interact with individuals from
another group
cp
Summer Camp Studies
Purpose:
Competition
Prejudice
Robber’s Cave Study
Phase 1: In-group Identity
Build cohesion among in-group
Robber’s Cave Study
Phase 2: Intergroup Conflict
Create competitive environment
Robber’s Cave Study
Each boy rated own group and other
group
brave
tough
friendly
sneaky
smart aleck
stinker
Robber’s Cave Study
Bean Toss:
– Collected as many beans as possible
– Estimate # beans in a sack
Overestimated beans
collected by in-group
Underestimated beans
collected by out-group
cp
Robber’s Cave Study
Phase 3: Restoring Harmony
Create harmonious environment
with superordinate goals
(goals that can only be achieved
if both groups work together
cooperatively)
Robber’s Cave Study
Competition led to prejudice.
When competition removed,
prejudice stopped
Minimal Group Paradigm
Simple distinction
between groups causes bias
cp
Minimal Group Paradigm
1. Alone & anonymous
2. Estimated dots
3. Labeled: Over- or Underestimators
4. Completed pay off matrices
cp
Minimal Group Paradigm
Payoff Matrix
#26, one of the:
overestimators
(in-group)
7 8 9 10
#17, one of the:
underestimators
(out-group)
1 3 5
7
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Boys most often selected 12:11 strategy
Fairness combined with ingroup profit
cp
Aggression
Is It Aggression?
A hit man kills an unfaithful husband for 1,000 dollars
A jealous man kills his wife and her lover
A prison ward executes a criminal
A depressed person commits suicide
A man mentally rehearses a murder
A hunter kills an animal for a trophy
A Girl Scout tries to help an elderly women cross
the street, but trips her by accident
A person punches a hole in the wall in anger
One person calls another a racial slur
A person slams a door shut after an argument
cp
Aggression: What is it?
Any form of behavior directed
toward the goal of harming or
injuring another living being
who is motivated to avoid such
treatment
• Behavior
• Directed toward a living organism
• Intentional
• Victim motivated to avoid harm
cp
Types of Aggression
1. Instrumental aggression:
A means to an end
Intentional harm for
purpose other than desire to
inflict harm
cp
Examples of
Instrumental Aggression
A hit man kills an unfaithful husband for 1,000 dollars
A prison ward executes a criminal
A hunter kills an animal for a trophy
An American soldier kills an Iraqi soldier
cp
Types of Aggression
2. Hostile aggression:
Aggression IS the
end goal
Intentional harm done
for purpose of inflicting harm
cp
Examples of
Hostile Aggression
A jealous man kills his wife and her lover
One person calls another a racial slur
Self-Esteem: valuing yourself
Narcissism: inflated view of
self
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
High in
Narcissism
More
aggressive
Low in
Narcissism
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
2. Aversive (unpleasant) situations
– provocation
Provocation Study
O’Leary & Dengerink (1973)
Computer programmed to give:
–consistently high shocks
–shocks of increasing intensity
–shocks of decreasing intensity
–consistently low shocks
What level shock did the
participant give in return?
Shock Given By Participant
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1
2
Trial
Consistently high shock
Consistently low shock
3
4
Increasing shock
Decreasing shock
cp
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
2. Aversive (unpleasant) situations
– provocation
– hot temperatures
Temperature and Violent Crime
Anderson (1987)
Temperature associated with…
 murder
 rape
 aggravated assault
Temperature not associated with…
robbery
burglary
motor vehicle theft
Temperature
Violent crime higher when it’s
hot outside
Implication:
Hot cities should have many more
violent crimes than cold cities
Hotopolis vs. Coolton
Hotopolis
Pop. 600,000
Hot days: 70
Coolton
Pop. 600,000
Hot days: 30
4 more murders in Hotopolis
14 more rapes in Hotopolis
122 more assaults in Hotopolis
Alternative Explanations
Culture: More crimes in south
than north because south more
steeped in a “culture of
violence”
Demographics: Temperature
doesn’t matter. Age, race, SES
of South is what matters
Idle hands: More crimes summer
than winter because children
out of school and adults on
vacation
cp
Hot Temperature Study
Anderson et al., (1997)
Looked at relationship between
temperature and crime from
1950 - 1995
Findings rule out each
alternative
explanations…………………
RESULTS
1. Violent crime higher in hotter summers
than cooler summers in both South and
North (rules out culture)
2. Violent crimes higher in hotter summers
than cooler summers in the same cities
(rules out demographics)
3. Violent crime higher in hotter summers
than cooler summers even though in both
summers kids are not in school and adults
take vacations (rules out idle hands)
cp
Global Warming
Increases of 2 - 8 degrees
Increase in temperature should
result in increase in violent
crime
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
2. Aversive (unpleasant)
situations
3. Physiological arousal
Arousal
Excitation-Transfer Theory
• Physiological arousal dissipates
slowly
• Arousal caused by 1st event can
be misattributed to 2nd event
cp
Bridge Study
Dutton & Aron (1974)
Low Bridge High Bridge
Low arousal
High arousal
Bridge Study
Dutton & Aron (1974)
Arousal caused by high bridge
misattributed as sexual
attraction
Men on high bridge:
Called experimenter more
Stories had more sexual
content
cp
Excitation Transfer
Theory
Misattribution occurs
unconsciously
Misattribution more likely when
people believe arousal of first
event has worn off, when it
actually hasn’t
This theory may explain why hot
temperatures increase
aggression
cp
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
2. Aversive (unpleasant)
situations
3. Physiological arousal
4. Alcohol
Alcohol
Strong correlation between
alcohol use and violent crimes
Typical Experimental
Design
Did they believe
they were
drinking alcohol
Did they
actually
drink
alcohol
Yes
No
Yes
25%
25%
No
25%
25%
cp
Findings
Believe
drinking
alcohol
Are
drinking
alcohol
Believe
drinking
alcohol and
are
drinking
alcohol
Aggressive
Aggressive
Most
aggressive
cp
Causes of Aggression
1. Narcissistic Personality
2. Aversive (unpleasant)
situations
3. Physiological arousal
4. Alcohol
5. Aggressive cues
-weapons
-violent media
Aggressive Cues
1. Weapons
“Guns do not only permit violence,
they can stimulate it as well.
The finger pulls the trigger, but
the trigger may also be pulling
the finger.” (Berkowitz, 1968)
Weapon Study
Berkowitz & Le Page (1967)
Contents on Adjacent
Table
Revolver &
Shotgun
Sporting
equipment
1
25%
25%
10
25%
25%
Number of
Shocks
Given to
Participant
cp
Weapon Study
Berkowitz & Le Page (1967)
10 shocks
+
Weapons
Table
10 shocks
+
Sports
Table
More Shocks
Fewer Shocks
Weapons Effect
cp
Honking Study
Turner et al. (1975)
Rifle
+
Vengeance
Bumper
Sticker
____
Honked
Rifle
+
Friend
Bumper
Sticker
No Rifle
+
No Bumper
Sticker
____
____
Honked Honked
You fill in the
percentage of
people who honked
cp
Aggressive Cues
1. Weapons
2. Violent media
•Amount TV children watched at
age 8 correlated with number
violent crimes committed by age
30
• Violent media affects some
people more than others
• The effects of TV violence
accumulate
cp
Violent Porn
Aggression
The Anecdotal Evidence
Violent pornography especially
likely to increase aggression
Aggressors report that their
violence against women caused by
violent pornography
(e.g., Ted Bundy)
Violent Porn
Aggression
The Empirical Evidence
Sales soft-core Rates of rape
magazines
in all 50 states
Non-violent
pornography
Aggression
Violent
pornography
cp
Reducing Aggression
What doesn’t work:
• Viewing violence
• Verbal expression of anger
• Displacing aggression to inanimate
objects
Reducing Aggression
What does work:
• Delay
• Distraction
• Relax
• Incompatible response
cp
Helping
Why do People & Animals
Help?
1. Socio-Biological Theory
Behavior understood in
terms of reproductive
success
cp
Why do People & Animals
Help Strangers?
Kin Protection
Predisposed to help
others who share our genes
cp
Kin Protection
Identical
Twins
More helpful
to one another
Fraternal
Twins
Kin Protection
After natural disasters…
1. Family members
2. Friends & neighbors
3. Strangers
Kin Protection Study
Burnstein et al. (1994)
Predictions:
1. Help family over non-family
2. Help is proportional to
relatedness
3. Help young over old
cp
Kin Protection Study
Burnstein et al. (1994)
Life & Death
Situations
More likely to help
relatives than
non-relatives
cp
Kin Protection Study
Burnstein et al. (1994)
Tendency to Help
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sibling
Cousin
Relatedness
cp
Kin Protection Study
Burnstein et al. (1994)
Tendency to Help
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1 yr.
10 yrs.
18 yrs.
45 yrs.
75 yrs.
Age of Victim
cp
Why do People & Animals
Help Strangers?
2. Perceived similarity
Help others who appear
similar to oneself
Why do People & Animals
Help Strangers?
3. Norms
a) Reciprocity Norm
b) Social Responsibility Norm
Why do People & Animals
Help Strangers?
Reciprocity Norm
Give help to receive help
Reciprocity Norm
People will help those who:
1.
2.
3.
Recognize them
Live close enough to return the
favor
Have the recourses to return the
favor
People are less likely to help
another if doing so puts their
life in danger
cp
Why do People & Animals
Help Strangers?
Social Responsibility Norm
Help others
because they should
Social Responsibility Norm
Help those who
can’t help themselves
children
disabled
poor
Social Responsibility
Norm Study
Barnes et al. (1979)
Doesn’t
feel like
taking good
notes
Family
Emergency
More willing
to help
cp
Lecture Outline:
Helping Part 2
Bystander Effect
Five steps to helping
Factors that affect helping
–
–
–
–
–
role models
time pressure
mood
personality traits
religiosity
Bystander Effect
The tendency to NOT help
another in need when others are
present.
cp
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
Crowd effect: Distraction
cp
Smoke Study
Darley & Latane (1968)
Alone
Group
5 seconds
20 seconds
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
Crowd effect: Social proof
cp
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
3. Take responsibility for
providing help
Crowd effect:
Diffusion of responsibility
cp
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
3. Take responsibility for
providing help
4. Decide how to help
Two Ways to Help
1. Direct help:
e.g., CPR, pushing an attacker
away
Two Ways to Help
1. Direct help:
2. Indirect help:
e.g., calling the police
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
3. Take responsibility for
providing help
4. Decide how to help
Crowd effect: Confidence
cp
Percent Helping
Results: Falling Ladder
Study
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RNs
Students
Confederate
Alone
cp
Five Steps To Helping
1. Notice an emergency
2. Interpret event as an
emergency
3. Take responsibility for
providing help
4. Decide how to help
5. Providing help
Crowd effect: Embarrassment
Audience Inhibition
Audience Inhibition
Effect
A crowd (or audience)
inhibits people from helping
because people don’t want
to appear foolish in front
of others.
Factors that Affect
Helping
1. Role Models
Orphan Fund Study
Rosenhan & White (1967)
Role model
48%
No role model
0%
Factors that Affect
Helping
1. Role Models
2. Time Pressure
Good Samaritan Study
Darley & Batson (1973)
Factor 1: Content of talk:
Job opportunities
vs.
Good Samaritan Bible Parable
Good Samaritan Study
Darley & Batson (1973)
Factor 2: Tardiness
Early
vs.
Late
Good Samaritan Study
Darley & Batson (1973)
Percent Helping
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Early
Late
cp
Factors that Affect
Helping
1. Role Models
2. Time Pressure
3. Mood
Maintain positive mood
View others more positively
Think about rewards over
costs
Feeling Guilty Study
McMillen & Austin (1971)
Not Guilty
(didn’t lie)
Guilty
(lied)
2 min.
63 min.
Factors that Affect
Helping
1. Role Models
2. Time Pressure
3. Mood
4. Personality Traits
Empathic people
People who can take
another’s perspective
Factors that Affect
Helping
1. Role Models
2. Time Pressure
3. Mood
4. Personality Traits
5. Religiosity
Long Term Nurturing
Helping:
Religious > nonreligious
Emergency Helping:
Religious = nonreligious
cp
Social Psychology & Health
Stress and Coping
Unpleasant state of arousal
coping ability
<
problems of life
Top 5 Stressors
for College Students
•Concern over meeting high standards
•Being lonley
•Fear of wasting time
•Troubling thoughts about the future
•Not getting enough sleep
Types of Stressors
Major life events
Everyday hassles
Stress and Coping
Potential Stressor:
Something new
Something different
Stress and Coping Model
Lazarus & Folkman (1984)
Stage 1: Primary Appraisal
Is potential stressor
a threat or challenge?
No
Feel no stress
Yes
Go to Stage 2
CP
Stress and Coping Model
Lazarus & Folkman (1984)
Stage 2: Secondary
Appraisal
Can I cope with the
stressor?
Yes
Feel No Stress
No
Feel Stress
CP
What Makes an Event
Stressful?
Positive vs. Negative
Negative events more
stressful
• Lower self-esteem
• Create more problems
than they solve
What Makes an Event
Stressful?
Negative vs. positive
Predictable vs. unpredictable
Unpredictable events more
stressful
What Makes an Event
Stressful?
Negative vs. positive
Predictable vs. unpredictable
Timing
Content
What Makes an Event
Stressful?
Negative vs. positive
Predictable vs. unpredictable
Controllable vs. uncontrollable
Uncontrollable events more
stressful
Yoked Shock Study
Staub et al., (1971)
Participant 1
In control
Participant 2
Yoked
Better able
to tolerate shock
CP
Perceived Control Shock
Study
Geer, Davison, & Gatchel (1970)
Phase 1
Feel shock
Press Switch
CP
Perceived Control Shock
Study
Geer et al., (1970)
Phase 2
Perceived Control
No Control
Lower Skin Conductance
CP
Ways of Coping
Psychological
Reframe event
Ways of Coping
Psychological
Social support
Get help
Instrumental Support
Informational Support
Appraisal Support
Emotional Support
Ways of Coping
Psychological
Social support
Biological
Eat right
Sleep right
Exercise
Meditate
Biological Coping Study
(Brown, 1991)
High Stress
Low Stress
Fit
Few
Illnesses
Not Fit
Few
Illnesses
Fit
Few
Illnesses
Not Fit
Many
Illnesses