Social Behavior

1. Social Behavior Chapter 16

2. Social Psych Basics: • Principles: • People don’t like to stand out. • People’s attitudes are malleable. • People would rather that someone else take responsibility. • Beliefs follow behavior, and not the other way around.

3. Social Psych Basics: The Big Chart • YOU WILL CRY OUT IN GRATITUDE ON TEST DAY IF YOU LASER FOCUS ON THIS CHART! • Instructions: You will be assigned a subtitle. Find and learn the key words, summarize them in the “Notes” column, and then create a verbal story (quickly) that incorporates all of the key words in your category. Explain your key words, tell someone the story, and let them ask questions. Audience members will write down key words in their chart. You may look in Myers, the other textbooks, and the internet for them. • Time to prepare: 20 min • Time to teach: 25 min.

6. “Attribution Processes” • attributions, • fundamental attribution error, • self-serving bias • Role-playing (see Zimbardo)

7. Person Perception:Forming Impressions of Others • Effects of physical appearance • People tend to attribute desirable characteristics such as sociable, friendly, poised, warm, competent, and well adjusted to those who are good looking. • Research on physical variables in person perception indicate that facial features that are similar to infant features influence perceptions of honesty (baby-faced people being viewed as more honest). • Cognitive schemas • People use social schemas, organized clusters of ideas about categories of social events and people, to categorize people into types.

8. Figure 16.1 Examples of social schemas

9. Attributions • Read through these comments. • “They won because all of their team members must take steroids. Look at those muscles! They all look like East German Olympians!” • “They won only because our best two athletes on the team were out with injuries—talk about good luck!” • “They won because they have some of the best talent in the country” • “Anybody could win this region; the competition is far below average in comparison to the rest of the country.” • “We only lost because our star player was dehydrated. Did you know she couldn’t even spit she was so dehydrated?” • “They won because they get to practice with state of the art equipment. Little rich kids!” • “Our coach is incompetent. That’s why we didn’t win.” • “They won because they put in a great deal of last-minute effort and practice, and they were incredibly fired up for the regional tournament after last year’s loss.”

10. Key to Attributions Activity • “They won because all of their team members must take steroids. Look at those muscles! They all look like East German Olympians!” external-stable (environmental, permanent physical state) • “They won only because our best two athletes on the team were out with injuries—talk about good luck!” external-unstable (environment/luck) • “They won because they have some of the best talent in the country” internal-stable (talent) • “Anybody could win this region; the competition is far below average in comparison to the rest of the country.” External-stable (depends on comparison to others, ability) • “We only lost because our star player was dehydrated. Did you know she couldn’t even spit she was so dehydrated?” internal-unstable (not environmental, physical state) • “They won because they get to practice with state of the art equipment. Little rich kids!” external-stable (equipment is environmental, richness is somewhat permanent) • “Our coach is incompetent. That’s why we didn’t win.” Internal-stable • “They won because they put in a great deal of last-minute effort and practice, and they were incredibly fired up for the regional tournament after last year’s loss.” Internal-unstable (came from inside, last minute decision)

11. Fundamental Attribution Error vs Self-Serving Bias • Fundamental Attribution Error: making external attributions about others when they best us and internal attributions about them when they fail. • EX. Jessica beat me on the test because the teacher likes her more. • EX. Jessica failed the test because she’s an idiot. • Self-serving bias: making attributions about yourself that depict you as competent and right. • EX. I beat Jessica on the test because I’m smarter than she is.

12. Role Playing and Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment • Adopting a role means striving to following the social prescriptions, or social norm, which defines that role. • Zimbardo randomly assigned some students as “guards” and others as “prisoners.” • Most guards developed disparaging attitudes, and some devised cruel and degrading routines.

14. “Trying to Change Attitudes” • source and factors, • message and factors, • two-sided argument, • central route to persuasion (Myers 685) • receiver and factors, • cognitive dissonance • self-perception theory

15. Social Behavior:Attitudes? What determines whether or not you form an attitude on something, how strong that attitude is, and whether or not you will change your mind once the attitude is formed? Use the picture prompts as idea starters.

16. What Are Attitudes Made Of? 3 components • Cognitive: beliefs about object of thought • Affective: feelings stimulated by object of thought • Behavioral: predispositions to act in certain ways toward an attitude object

17. Factors in changing attitudes Factors in changing attitudes • Source: the origin of the information; the source has high credibility and is trustworthy and likeable. • Message: the content of what you’re saying; two-sided arguments that use only strong points and successfully arouse fear are effective. • Receiver: susceptibility to persuasion not linked with personality, but it is linked with forewarning. Receiver more receptive if the argument does not interfere with strong attitudes and beliefs. Receiver less receptive is he/she already knows something about the topic, b/c sparks analysis.

18. Two Routes to Persuasion • Elaboration Likelihood Model • Two routes reflect the tension between wanting to be right and wanting to be efficient. • Central Route: Persuasion occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts. • People who follow the central route carefully scrutinize the information contained in a message and answer two types of questions: • Does the message fit well with what I already know? • How does this information affect me? • Peripheral Route: Persuasion that results when people are influence by incidental cues such as the speaker’s attractiveness. • People are not always going to think carefully about your message. • Sometimes the arguments in favor of your message are also weak. • What happens when elaboration likelihood is low? How do we change people’s attitudes in the absence of much thought?

19. Theories of Attitude Change Theories of attitude change • Learning theory: Attitudes may be shaped through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning. • Cognitive Dissonance theory: inconsistent attitudes cause tension and that people alter their attitudes to reduce cognitive dissonance. LEON FESTINGER is the theorist who explored this. • Self-perception theory: People infer their attitudes from their behavior. We behave and then we infer our beliefs from our behaviors. Not the other way around. • Elaboration likelihood model: Central routes (when people carefully ponder the content and logic of persuasive messages) to persuasion yield longer-lasting attitude change than peripheral routes (persuasion depends on nonmessage factors such as attractiveness of the source).

21. “Conformity and Obedience” • Asch and deindividuation (Myers, 698) • Milgram and authority

22. Social Psychology: Conformity and Obedience, and the Mob • Conformity occurs when people yield to real or imagined social pressure • Example: You maintained a well-groomed lawn to avoid ticking off the neighbors. • Deindividuationis the loosening of self-awareness in groups. You simply play the role because, when in a group, you don’t feel as accountable or as “yourself.” • Example: I’m a member of this group, and the group says that “B” is the right answer. I disagree. If I get the answer wrong, it’s the group’s fault.

23. Solomon Asch (1951, 1955, 1956) • 1955: A group of seven subjects, all male undergraduate students, were shown a large card with a vertical line on it and were then asked to indicate which of the three lines on a second card matches the original “standard line” in length.

24. Solomon Asch ctd. • Everyone in the group are given a turn to match the line lengths, and then they announce their decision in a group. • The subject the 6th chair didn’t know it, but everyone else in the group is an accomplice of the experimenter. • All accomplices give the correct answer for the first two trials. Beginning on the third trial, they begin to give the wrong answer. • Out of the next 15 trials, the accomplices give the same incorrect answer on 11 of them. • What did the person in the 6th chair do?

25. This experiment was repeated with 50 different young men. • The 50 participants in the 6th chair conformed to the wrong answer 37% of the time. • 13 never caved in to the group, and 14 conformed on over half the trials! • Why do people conform? • Deindividuation: the loosening of self-awareness in groups. You simply play the role because, when in a group, you don’t feel as accountable or as “yourself.”

26. Stanley Milgram (1963) • How can regular citizens be persuaded to act in cruel ways?

27. Obedience: yielding to authority. • EX. That man is wearing a white lab coat and sports the title, doctor. Therefore, I am willing to take this medication, even though I am uncertain about it. • Deindividuation: the loosening of self-awareness in groups. You simply play the role because, when in a group, you don’t feel as accountable or as “yourself.” • EX. The man in charge is telling me to shock the guy when he gets the answer wrong. If the guy dies, it’s not my fault.

28. Stanley Milgram ctd. • Subjects were a diverse collection of 40 men from the local community recruited through advertisements to participate in a study at Yale. • The subjects were told that the purpose of the experiment was to study the relationship between mental acuity and stress. • Each subject would meet the experimenter and another subject, a likeable, 47-year-old accountant. The accountant was actually an accomplice to the experimenter, but the subject didn’t know it. • The subject was “the teacher” and the nice accountant was “the learner.” These assignments were made through a rigged drawing.

30. Milgram ctd. • The subject watched as the accountant was strapped into an electrified chair through which a shock could be delivered. • The subject was told that the shock would be painful but “would not cause tissue damage.” • The subject was taken into a room next door that housed the shock generator that he was told to control. • The 30 switches varied from “Slight Shock” to “XXX.”

31. Milgram ctd. • The accountant was asked questions. When he answered them correctly, he was not shocked. When he answered them incorrectly, the subject was told to administer increasingly severe shocks for each wrong answer. • THE SHOCKS WERE NOT REAL, BUT THE SUBJECT DIDN’T KNOW IT! • As the severity of the false shocks increased, the accomplice would begin to scream, beat on the wall, and beg for mercy. • When the level of the false shocked was nearing its severest, the accomplice would all silent, as if he was no longer conscious.

32. Milgram ctd. • As the shocks continued, the subject would ask the experimenters things like, “Should I stop now?” or “Am I hurting him?” The subjects were told by the experimenters to continue until the end of the experiment. • 65% of the subjects delivered the entire series of shocks. Why? • Obedience and deindividuation

33. “the essence of obedience is that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions.” —Stanley Milgram

35. “Behavior in Groups: Joining with Others” • bystander effect, • social loafing, • social facilitation (opposite of social loafing), • group polarization, • group think, • group cohesiveness • in-group/out-group (Myers, 707) • Ethnocentrism (Weiten 683), • Prejudice (Weiten 683)

36. The Bystander Effect • In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until  too late. Report of this event shocked the city and the nation, and became the impetus for research on the psychological phenomenon that became known as the “Bystander Effect” by psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané.

37. The Bystander Effect • One reason that the bystander effect occurs is  the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. • Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. • The presence of others makes one feel less personally responsible for responding to events and each additional person present lowers the chances of anyone helping at all. People tend to assume that someone else will provide the necessary help, especially when there are many others around who could potentially do so.

38. Other Group Phenomena • Social loafing: exerting less effort in a group, because someone else will do it • Social facilitation: try harder and perform better in a group to make yourself look good. Works well for simple tasks in which you have confidence in your performance. • Group polarization: tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. EX. The hate group decided to blow up vacant cars of people at the opposing rally instead of just picketing with signs on the street.

39. Other Group Phenomena • Group cohesiveness: group members possess bonds linking them to one another and to the group as a whole. Group cohesion develops from a number of binding social forces that act on members to stay in the group. • Groupthink: group cohesiveness comes first. The mode of thinking that happens when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus without critical evaluation of alternative ideas or viewpoints. EX. Family Court. “We don’t really care what you decide for your kids, as long as you both agree.”

40. In and Out Groups • In-group: the group that you’re apart of or partial to. People favor (bias) their in-group. • Out-group: the groups containing “others.” Not your group and not partial to it. People handicap (bias) their out-group. • In and out group biases can lead to racial, cultural, linguistic, gender, religious, and other kinds prejudice. It is related to ethnocentrism.

41. Person Perception:Forming Impressions of Others • Stereotypes • A normal cognitive process involving widely held social schemas that lead people to expect that others will have certain characteristics because of their membership in a specific group. • Ex. Gender, age, ethnic, and occupational • Prejudice and discrimination • Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a person because of group membership, while discrimination is an action. • Memory biases are tilted in favor of confirming people’s prejudices. • Transmission of prejudice across generations occurs in part due to observational learning and may be strengthened through operant conditioning.

42. Ethnocentricism • Ethnocentrism: Ethnocentrism is a belief that your society, group, or culture is superior to all others. Very often this means that differences in groups (e.g., your group has more old people than ours) are seen as somehow bad.

44. Social Psych Odds and Ends

45. Attraction • The matching hypothesis (Weiten, 657) • Suggests that people are attracted to others who are of the same perceived level of attractiveness as themselves. Initially this was based purely on looks and physical attractiveness, but it has since been suggested that other characteristics such as humor or intelligence can compensate for looks (Goffman (1952). • Attitude similarity (pg. 658) • People tend to choose partners who have similarities to themselves in culture, upbringing, religion, . . . in other words, people who end up together are similar in their beliefs and backgrounds. • Statistically-speaking, opposites DO NOT attract. • Attitude alignment (pg. 658) • Inevitability, a couple knows of or discovers differences in attitude. In a long-term relationship, partner’s beliefs/attitudes will shift in the direction of the other person’s belief/attitude. • EX. A conservative, gun-toting member of the NRA marries a bleeding-heart liberal. In 20 years, the conservative may insist on putting solar panels on the house and the liberal may enjoy going to the shooting range with his/her spouse.

46. Attraction: Why do people like each other? • The important thing to remember: Opposites DO NOT attract. • Sometimes we think that opposites attract simply because prominent features of a person’s life do not match those of their partner. However, if we examine their overall attitudes, beliefs, interests, and physical appearance, we find they’re very similar. • Similarity: this principle states that we are attracted to people who are similar to us. It is the rule; not the exception. • Alignment: a social principle that says that often times our attitudes will shift toward those of a friend, spouse, or other family member as we get to know and respect them. EX. Bob may always be a democrat, but once he’s been married to his republican wife for 10 years he decides that he’s okay with capital punishment and that he can at least understand a pro-life person’s point-of-view.

47. Love and Liking • Perspectives on love • Hatfield & Berscheid – Passionate vs. Companionate love: Can co-exist. • Sternberg - Intimacy and commitment are subdivisions of “companionate love.” Intimacy= warmth, closeness, and sharing and commitment=intent to maintain a relationship in spite of the difficulties and costs

48. Altruism • Unselfish behavior and attitude towards the welfare of others. • Intentional behaviors that benefit another person • Behaviors which have no obvious gain for the provider • Behaviors which have obvious costs for the provider (e.g. time, resources) • Is there really altruism? Altruism is often for self-benefit e.g., power, status, reward, psychological gain. • What matters in judging the act is the actor's intended outcomes.

49. Sex vs Gender Sex Gender • Biological • Primary and secondary sex characteristics • Mostly the same for all humans. Changes b/c evolution. • EX. Reproductive plumbing • EX. You’re a guy, and you’re harrier than that girl sitting next to you. • Societal • Society’s interpretation of how you should look, think, and behave due to your sex • May vary significantly from culture to culture • Ex. Men should not wear skirts. • Ex. Women are more emotional than men