Social Psychology
The scientific study of how we think about,
influence and relate to one another…
AP PSYCHOLOGY: UNIT III
Introduction: Fact or Falsehood?
 Most people refuse to obey an authority
figure who has told them to hurt an innocent
person

False
 In order to change people’s racist behaviors,
we first need to change their racist attitudes

False
 We are less likely to offer help to a stranger if
other bystanders are present

True
Introduction: Fact or Falsehood?
 Individuals pull harder in a team tug-of-war than when
they pull in a one-on-one tug-of-war

False
 The higher the morale & harmony of a social group, the
more likely its members are to make a good decision

False
 From research on liking & loving, it is clear that
opposites do attract

False
 Studies of college & professional athletic events
indicate that home teams win about 60% of the time

True
Social Psychology:
Social Thinking,
Attribution
Explaining Behavior
Social Thinking: Attribution
 Attribution Theory (Fritz Heider)
 The
theory that suggests the way
in which we explain the behavior
of others…
We
attribute behavior to internal
dispositions or external situations
Example
• Was my friend a jerk because he had a bad
day or is he simply a bad person?
Social Thinking: Attribution
Social Thinking: Attribution
 3 Factors:
 Internal
vs. External causes
Dispositional
 Distinctive
Is
factors vs. Situational factors
or Consistent behavior
this an isolated incident or does it occur often?
 Consensus
Are
other people acting the same way?
Social Thinking: Attribution
 Fundamental Attribution Error
 The
tendency for observers, when
analyzing another’s behavior, to
overestimate the impact of personal
disposition and underestimate the impact
of the situation
Example
How do students typically view a
teacher’s cranky behavior?
• Most probably attribute it to their
personality, as opposed to their profession…
Social Thinking: Attribution
You believe
that cheating is
bad/wrong...
But you cheat
on your math
test…
Your teacher
was mean; in
that class it was
okay…
Social Thinking: Attribution
 What is the function of
the fundamental
attribution error?
 To
protect our self-esteem
If we do something
wrong, it makes us feel
better to blame outside
factors, as opposed to
blaming ourselves
Social Thinking: Attribution
 Defensive Attribution
 Tendency
to blame
victims for their
misfortune

One feels less likely to
be victimized in a
similar way
Also
know as “Just-World Bias”
 “What
terrible criminals these prisoners must
have been to receive such treatment…”
Social Psychology: Social
Thinking, Attitudes
Making Social Judgments
Social Thinking: Attitudes
 Attitudes

Feelings, based on our beliefs, that predispose
our reactions to objects, people, and events
Social Thinking: Attitudes
 Components of Attitude
 Attitudes
may include up to
3 different components
 Affective
Component
 Feelings stimulated by an object of thought
 Cognitive Component
 Beliefs about the object of an attitude
 Behavioral Component
 Predispositions to act in certain ways toward
an attitude object
Social Thinking: Attitudes
 Dimensions of Attitude
 Attitudes may vary along several crucial dimensions
 Strength
 How firmly held? Durable over time? Impact on
behavior?
 Accessibility
 How
often & how quickly does it come to mind?
 Ambivalence
(mixed feelings)
 Conflicted evaluations that include both positive
and negative feelings
 The higher the level of ambivalence the less
predictive of behavior
Social Thinking: Attitudes
 Methods of Attitude Persuasion
 Central Route Persuasion
 Occurs when interested/analytical people
focus on the arguments & respond with
favorable thoughts
 Example: Followers of world religions

Peripheral Route Persuasion
 Occurs when people are influenced by incidental
cues, such as a speaker’s attractiveness or
endorsements by respected people
 Example: Kennedy v. Nixon (1960)
Social Thinking: Attitudes
#1) Source (WHO)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Credibility
Expertise
Trustworthiness
Likability
Attractiveness
Similarity
#2) Message (WHAT)
• Fear appeal v. logic
• One-sided v. two-sided
argument
• Number of strong or weak
arguments
• Repetition
#3) Channel (DELIVERY)
•
•
•
•
•
In person
On TV or radio
Via audiotape
Via internet
Via telephone
#4) Receiver (TO WHOM)
•
•
•
•
Personality
Expectations
Initial attitude on issue
Strength of preexisting attitude
Factors in Attitude Persuasion
Social Thinking: Attitudes
 Cognitive Dissonance Theory

The theory that we act to reduce the dissonance
(discomfort) we feel when two of our thoughts are
inconsistent
 Attitudes vs. Actions
 Example
A
person who smokes, yet
knows the health risks will
either…
• Stop smoking, or
• Rationalize that nothing bad
will happen to them
Cognitive Dissonance Example
The cheesecake
calls out to Coach
King causing
feelings of guilt
Social Psychology:
Social Influence, Conformity
Adjusting one’s behavior
or thinking to coincide
with a group standard;
yielding to real or
imagined social pressure
Normative Behavior
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SOCIALLY
ACCEPTED NORMS THAT EXIST WITHIN
OUR SOCIETY?
CONSIDER VARIOUS SETTINGS:
PUBLIC SETTINGS, BATHROOM, ELEVATOR,
CLASSROOM, DINING, PHONE CONVERSATIONS
Social Influence: Conformity
Influential Studies
 Asch’s
Conformity Study
(Solomon Asch, 1955)
 50 subjects; young,
undergraduate men
 Found that participants
conformed on 37% of all trials
• 75% conformed at least once
• Of the 50 participants…
 13 never caved
 14 conformed on more
than half of the trials
Social Influence: Conformity
 Conditions that Strengthen Conformity

Feelings of incompetence or insecurity

Group size; at least 3 people

Group is unanimous

Admiration of the group’s status/attractiveness

No prior commitment to any other response

Strong cultural “respect” for social standards
Social Influence: Conformity
 Reasons for Conforming

Normative Social Influence
 Conformity to social norms
for fear of negative social
consequences

Informational Social
Influence
 Conformity to social norms when one looks to
others for guidance about how to behave in
ambiguous situations
Normative
Social Influence
or
Informational
Social Influence?
Social Psychology:
Social Influence, Compliance
A change in behavior
prompted by a direct
request, as opposed to
social norm pressure
Social Influence: Compliance
 Foot-in-the-Door
Phenomenon

The tendency for people
who have first agreed to
a small request to comply
later with a large request
 Considerations
 The
original small agreement creates a bond between
the requestor and the requestee
 Pro-social
technique
requests are especially effective with this
Social Influence: Compliance
 Door-in-the-Face
Phenomenon

The tendency for
people who have
first disagreed to
a large request, to accept a more reasonable request
 Considerations
 The
individual feels guilty for turning down the first
request; fears rejection if they continue to decline
 The
second request looks good compared to the first
Social Influence: Compliance
 Low-Ball Technique

The tendency for people to
accept an unattractive detail
if it is introduced after the
deal is made, but not the
other way around
 Considerations
 People
will behave consistently to their beliefs
in order to sustain their commitment
 Many
may believe that they can’t back out
after the initial agreement
Social Influence: Compliance
 Ingratiation
 Involves getting someone to like you in order to
obtain compliance with a request
 Considerations
 Flattery:
Focus on positive elements in order to
let the “target” know that you think highly of
them
 Opinion
Conformity: Agree with the beliefs &
values of the “target;” allow them to “convince”
you of their opinion
 Self-Presentation:
Present yourself in a manner
that the “target” would like
Social Psychology:
Social Influence, Obedience
A form of compliance that
occurs when people follow
direct commands, usually
from someone in a
position of authority
Social Influence: Obedience
Influential Studies
 The Milgram Experiment
(Stanley Milgram, 1974)
“I was only following
orders…”
 Adolf Eichmann
 Administration
of
electrical shocks
(varying levels)
Findings?
“The most fundamental lesson of our study is that ordinary people, simply doing
their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in
a terrible destructive process…” – Stanley Milgram
Milgram’s Experiment
 How can cognitive dissonance theory
be applied?
 What factors impacting level of
obedience were identified?
 What ethical issues emerged?
 How does gender impact obedience?
Social Influence: Which One?
Influential Studies


Stanford-Prison Experiment
(Philip Zimbardo, 1972)

Goal: See how role of guard or
prisoner impacted behavior

Demonstrated the power of
“roles,” as well as deindividuation
Abu Ghraib Prison (Iraq, 2004)
The power of social roles and the situation

Conformity? Compliance? Obedience?
“Prisoner” and “Guard Behaviors and Reactions
The “Guards”
The “Prisoners”
Used demeaning, degrading
language; harassed and
intimidated
Became docile, subservient
Shot a fire extinguisher at
prisoners
Uncontrollable crying and rage
Made visiting bathroom a
privilege
Planned and staged “rebellion”
Removed stocking caps, tearing
off uniforms, barricading cells
Stripped prisoners naked;
removed beds/blankets
Gave up all attempts at rebellion
Allowed privileges (food, teeth
brushing)
Assumed “every-man-forhimself” attitude
Sought to break prisoners’ spirit Became completely passive and
dehumanized – “robot-like”
(after 6 days)
Social Psychology:
Social Influence, Groups
Consists of two or
more individuals
who interact and are
interdependent…
CLASS ACTIVITY
Take out a scrap piece of paper
and prepare to respond to the
following prompt
IF YOU COULD DO ANYTHING
HUMANLY POSSIBLE WITH COMPLETE
ASSURANCE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE
D E T E C T ED O R H E L D R E S P O N S I B L E ,
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Common Responses
Pro-social, Anti-social, Non-normative
 Aggression
 Spying
 Charity
 Eavesdropping
 Academic dishonesty
 Travel
 Crime
 Social disruption
 Escapism
 Political activities
 Sexual behavior
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Decision-Making
 Deindividuation
People lose their sense of self and follow group behavior
 Abandonment of normal restraints
 Act without thinking; going along with group


Examples:
 Food fight
 Yelling at referee or umpire
CLASS ACTIVITY
TASK:
AS A GROUP, YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES
TO CREATE PAPER AIRPLANES THAT ARE
IDENTICAL
POINTS AWARDED:
•
1 POINT - EACH IDENTICAL AIRPLANE CREATED
•
1 POINT – EVERY FOOT IT FLIES
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Decision-Making
 Groupthink
 When
members of a cohesive group emphasize
concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in
arriving at a decision
 Typically
considered a
“diseased” group process
• Bay of Pigs Invasion
• Challenger Explosion
CLASS ACTIVITY
CONSIDER THE QUESTION I GAVE YOU
YESTERDAY AS YOU ENTERED CLASS
YOU HAVE BEEN GROUPED TOGETHER WITH
THOSE THAT SHARE YOUR VIEWPOINT
As a group, defend your viewpoint by creating
a list of reasons as to why Donald Trump
will or will not be our next president
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Decision-Making
 Group Polarization
 The
enhancement of a group’s
prevailing inclinations through
discussions within the group
 May
produce a shift towards a
more extreme decision
 Typically
considered a “normal”
group process
Initial
Response
After Group
Discussion
Agree
56
8.8
5.4
Disagree
4.6
4
4
3.25
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Performance
 Social Facilitation
 An
individual’s performance is impacted by the
presence of others
Pool players who made 71% of
• Things you do well…
• will like improve with an
audience
• Things you find difficult…
• may become more difficult
with an audience
their shots when alone, made
80% when they had spectators
Home Team
Winning %
Sport
Games
Studied
Baseball
23,034
53.5
Football
2,592
57.3
Ice Hockey
4,322
61.1
Basketball
13,596
64.4
Soccer
37,202
69.0
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Productivity

Reasons for reduced individual productivity in
groups?
Social
loafing
A
reduction in effort by individuals when they
work in groups as compared to when they work by
themselves
• Tug-of-War
• Group projects
Consider the Following
• How might the following impact
behavior/performance?
• Group size (larger or smaller)
• Friendship groups
• Prize/Reward
Groupthink, Social loafing, Group polarization
Social Influence: Group Influence
Group Influence on Helping Behaviors
 Bystander
Effect Becoming the Bystander
When We Avoid
•
A
social phenomenon in which people are less likely to
Social
theory
provide exchange
needed assistance
when they are in groups, as
to when they
areexchange
alone
•opposed
Social behavior
is an
process aimed at
 Summarizing many different studies, psychologists
maximizing benefits and minimizing costs
estimate that…
• Weighing the consequences of getting involved
• People who are by themselves provide help 75% of the time
• People who are surrounded by others help 53% of the time
• Reciprocity norm
•Expectation
that people will help, not hurt, those
WHY?
• What
doeshelped
inactionthem
by other people suggest?
that
have
 Diffusion
• Need
to give of
asresponsibility
much as we receive
Kitty Genovese
 Murdered outside her Queens, N.Y. apartment on
March 13, 1964
 38 witnesses saw assailant stab Genovese



“I didn’t want to get involved”
“We thought it was a lover’s quarrel”
“Frankly, we were afraid”
“For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens
watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew
Gardens. . . . Not one person telephoned the police during the assault; one
witness called after the woman was dead.”
- Martin Gansberg, New York Times
Social Psychology:
Social Relations, Prejudice
Social Relations: Prejudice
 Prejudice
 Unjustifiable positive or negative attitude toward a
group; often based on stereotypes
Generally involves beliefs, emotions & behavioral
dispositions
 Age, sex, height, income, disability, race, etc.

 Discrimination
 Unjustifiable & negative behavior toward the members
of a group
 Do prejudice and discrimination always go
hand-in-hand?
Social Relations: Prejudice
 Examples
 In
one study, most white participants
perceived a white man shoving a black man
as “horsing around”; however, when they
saw a black man shoving a white man, they
interpreted it as “violence”
A
black New Jersey dentist who drove a
gold BMW was stopped more than 75 times
within a year
Social Relations: Prejudice
 Example
 In Los Angeles, 1115 landlords
received identically worded
emails from a would-be
tenant (actually a researcher)
expressing interest in vacant
apartments advertised online

Encouraging replies came back to:
 56% of emails signed “Tyrell Jackson”
 66% signed “Said Al-Rahman”
 89% of those signed “Patrick McDougall”
Social Relations: Prejudice
 Roots of Prejudice
 In-Group
People with whom one shares a common identity; “us”
 In-group bias
 The tendency to favor one’s own group


Out-Group

Perceived as different or apart from one’s in-group; “them”
 Significance?
 Once an in-group is established, prejudice and
discriminatory treatment of the out-group soon
follows…
Social Relations: Prejudice
 Realistic Conflict Theory
 Prejudice & discrimination will be increased
between groups that are in conflict over a limited
resource
 Examples
 Native population of (name a country) & the
colonists who wanted the land
 Scapegoating
 Prejudice provides outlet for anger/aggression by
providing someone to blame

When does this phenomenon become most
prevalent? High Prejudice
Social Relations: Prejudice
How do people learn prejudice?

Social Identity Theory
 Formation of person's identity within a particular
group is explained by social categorization, social
identity & social comparison


Helps explain why people feel need to categorize, or
stereotype, others producing in-group sense of “us versus
them” that people adopt toward out-groups
Stereotype Vulnerability
 The effect that people’s awareness of the
stereotypes associated with their social group has
on their behavior

Self-fulfilling prophecy
Social Psychology:
Social Relations, Attraction
“Hey good-looking”
 Florida State University (1989)
 Young
(moderately attractive) women
approached male students at random
 50% agreed to go out sometime
 70% agreed to visit apartment
 75% accepted sexual proposition
Social Relations: Attraction
The Rules of Attraction
(Key Factors)
 Proximity/Physical Closeness
 Availability
proximity

depends heavily on
Mere Exposure Effect
The phenomenon that repeated
exposure to novel stimuli increases
our liking of them
 “He grew on me…”
 Applies to our perception of our self
as well
 We tend to favor those who are
similar to ourselves

Agree or Disagree
LOOKS ARE THE
MOST IMPORTANT
THING TO ME
Social Relations: Attraction
The Rules of Attraction
(Key Factors)
 Physical Attractiveness
 Research
indicates that
attractive people of both sexes
enjoy greater mating success
 We
also consider our OWN
LEVEL of attractiveness when
pursuing partners
 The “Matching” Hypothesis
Agree or Disagree
I WOULD BE WILLING TO
GO ON A BLIND DATE
Agree or Disagree
I WOULD BE WILLING TO
USE ONLINE RESOURCES
TO FIND A MATE
Social Relations: Attraction
The Rules of Attraction
(Key Factors)
 Similarity Effects
Birds of a feather flock together…
 Age,
race, religion, social class, education,
intelligence, physical attractiveness, values and
attitudes…
 Serves to validate us


Similarity causes attraction; however, attraction can also
foster similarity…
Reciprocity of Liking

The tendency of people to like people who like them
Agree or Disagree
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT
I LIVE WITH MY PARTNER
BEFORE WE ARE MARRIED
Social Relations: Attraction
Components of Love (Robert Sternberg, 1997)
Intimacy
 Feelings of closeness; emotional ties
 Passion
 The physical aspect of love; characterized by
large swings in positive & negative emotions
 Commitment
 The decisions that one makes regarding a
relationship

 May coexist, but don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand…
Sternberg’s
Triangular
Theory of
Love
Social Relations: Attraction
 Secure Attachment
(56% of adult subjects)

I find it relatively easy
to get close to others…

I am comfortable
depending on others
and having them depend
on me…

I don’t often worry about being abandoned or
about someone getting too close to me…
Social Relations: Attraction
 Avoidant Attachment
(24% of adult subjects)

I am somewhat
uncomfortable being
close to others…

I find it difficult to trust
them & difficult to allow myself to depend on them…

I am nervous when anyone gets too close…

I often feel that partners want me to be more intimate
than I feel comfortable being…
Social Relations: Attraction
 Anxious-Ambivalent
Attachment
(20% of adult subject)

I find that others are
reluctant to get as close
as I would like…

I often worry that my
partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay
with me…

I want to merge completely with another person, and
this desire sometimes scares people away…