All Social Psychology Notes FINAL EXAM Week 8
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination •
•
•
Stereotypes (cognitive): the generalized perceptions, elie!s, and e"pectations a person has ao#t $e$ers o! so$e gro#p o Sche$as ao#t entire gro#ps o! people o E%ects o! stereotypes on eha&io#r can e a#to$atic and #nconscio#s Prejudice (afective): a negative attitude to'ard an indi&id#al ased solely on the person(s $e$ership in so$e gro#p, incl#ding an irrational hostility to'ard a partic#lar gro#p ) on one 'ord*pre+#dg$ent Discrimination (behavioural): di%erential treat$ent o! indi&id#als 'ho elong to di%erent gro#ps
Stereotypes •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stereotypes are are a type o! sche$a ) generalized elie!s ao#t ao#t $e$ers o! a gro#p ased on race, gender, religion, etco May or $ay not e acc#rate, $ay e positi&e or negati&e o Most researchers researchers elie&e it is e&en possile to ha&e a sche$a that yo# don(t personally elie&e eg. /ther people think that 0ro#p X has 1#alities, #t I don(t2ighest co$$#nicaility or gossip &al#e o! traits st#dy Schaller, 3on'ay, and 4anch#k, 5665Stereotypes are !or$ed thro#gh social categorization ) the classi7cation o! persons into gro#ps on the asis o! co$$on attri#tes o 2elps #s !or$ i$pressions 1#ickly and #se past e"periences to g#ide ne' interactions Devine (199): s#ggests that o#r parents and $edia $ay ha&e started an early process that has no' eco$e a#to$atic Serious dra!bac": y categorizing people, 'e o!ten o /&eresti$ate the di%erences et'een gro#ps o 9nderesti$ates the di%erences 'ithin gro#ps o 4his $ay ias o#r perceptions perceptions We ha&e a strong tendency to di&ide people into in:gro#ps and o#t:gro#ps o S#ch gro#p identi7cations can pro$ote an in:gro#p ias*o!ten it eco$es an ;#s &s. the$< attit#de #onse$uences: o E"aggerate di%erences et'een in:gro#ps and other o#t:gro#ps o 3reates an o#t:gro#p ho$ogeneity e%ect ) a pheno$enon o! o&eresti$ating the e"tent to 'hich $e$ers 'ithin other gro#ps are si$ilar to each other eg. 4hey all look the sa$e to $e-
4hree Le&els Le&els o! Stereotypes Stereotypes • • •
Public: 'hat 'e say to others ao#t a gro#p Private: 'hat 'e conscio#sly think ao#t a gro#p, #t don(t say to others %mplicit: #nconscio#s $ental associations g#iding o#r +#dg$ents and actions 'itho#t o#r conscio#s a'areness
Stereotypes and Pre+#dice in Action •
Who has the razor= Allport and Post$an, >?@-
o
o o
o
S#+ects 'ere sho'n a pict#re depicting t'o $en, one lack and one 'hite, con!ronting each other on a s#'ay car 4he 'hite $an has a straight straight razor in his his hand A!ter &ie'ing the pict#re, the 7rst s#+ect descries it to a second s#+ect, 'ho in t#rn descries it to another, and so on A!ter a !e' retellings, the straight razor ends #p is in!erred to e- in the hand o! the lack $an
Interesting Beplication •
Coon and Da&ies >?8- s#+ects see a cartoon story o! 5 $en interacting on the s#'ay, and at the end o! the interaction, one $an p#lls a kni!e o Di%erent s#+ects see one o! three di%erent &ersions >- Coth $en are 'hite ) Man A has the kni!e 'earing a s#it5- Coth $en are 'hite ) Man C has the kni!e 'earing 'ork clothes- /ne is lack, one is 'hite ) White $an has the kni!e &etrieval phase: oth recall and recognition tests o &ecall test: no sti$#li, +#st ;descrie the $an 'ho p#lled the kni!e< o &ecognition test: see t'o &ersions o! the critical pict#re correct kni!e:holder, or kni!e in the /42EB $an(s hand- instr#ctions are ;pick the one yo# sa' e!ore< 4here is a correct correct and an incorrec incorrectt &ersion !or the participants participants 'ho sa' the original story 'ith t'o 'hite $en, AND also !or those participants 'ho sa' the original story 'ith one 'hite $an and one lack $an
•
So$e 3onse1#ences o! Stereotypes and Pre+#dice •
•
Sel'perpetuating stereotypes o Subtyping: acco$$odating gro#ps o! indi&id#als 'ho de&iate !ro$ one(s stereotype y thinking o! the$ as a special category o! people 'ith di%erent properties ) the role o! attri#tion in $aintaining or changing a stereotype o Subgrouping: acco$$odating gro#ps o! indi&id#als 'ho de&iate !ro$ one(s stereotype y !or$ing a ne' stereotype ao#t this s#set o! the gro#p 3an stereotypes act#ally create sel!:!#l7lling prophecies= Wood et al., >?@o White $ale 9ni&ersity st#dents inter&ie'ed 'hite and lack $ale high school st#dents seeking e$ploy$ent o White inter&ie'ers o! lack applicants relati&e to 'hite inter&ie'ers o! 'hite applicantsSat !#rther a'ay 3ond#cted shorter inter&ie's Made $ore speech errors o Appeared to ca#se lack applicants to eco$e #nco$!ortale ollo!up e*periment: 'hite $ales 'ere applicants treated like lack applicants 'ere treated in the 7rst e"peri$ent they per!or$ed si$ilarly to lack applicants in e"p. > d#ring the inter&ie' Stereotype threat: a sel!:con7r$ing apprehension that one 'ill e e&al#ated ased on a negati&e stereotype Steele, >??
•
•
Stereotype Acti&ation Stereotype:Bele&ant Stereotype: Bele&ant Sit#ation 3apacity 9nder:Per!or$ance
Sel!:3ategorization
Stereotype 4hreat
Aro#sal
Bestricted
Pre+#dice and Discri$ination • •
•
• • •
• •
/#r !eelings and actions to'ards $e$ers o! social gro#ps Where does pre+#dice co$e !ro$ and 'hy does it persist= o 4hreats to sel!:estee$ sel!:estee$ o &ealistic #on+ict heory: pre+#dice ste$s !ro$ direct co$petition et'een &ario#s social gro#ps o&er scarce and &al#ed reso#rces o Social categorization categorization o Scapegoating: pre+#dice is the res#lt o! $e$ers o! a do$inant gro#p eco$ing !r#strated and taking their !r#stration o#t on $e$ers o! a 'eaker gro#p -odern prejudice: thinking that $inorities are seeking and recei&ing $ore ene7ts than they deser&e and a denial that discri$ination discri$ination a%ects their o#tco$es 4raditional 4raditional racis$ racis$ &s. $odern $odern racis$ ) $icroaggr $icroaggressions essions article article >GDiscri$ination 'itho#t a'areness i$plicit pre+#diceSe"#al 2arass$ent as 0ender Discri$ination Fitzgerald, >??o As $any as H6 o! 'o$en s#r&eyed reported ha&ing een se"#ally harassed d#ring their acade$ic or 'orking li&es o Besearch sho's that $en are $ore likely to harass than are 'o$en C#t does 'hether $en harass or not depend on the $an, and on the sit#ation= In one st#dy, $ale st#dents 'ere asked to train a yo#ng 'o$an on a co$ple" 'ord: processing task Pryor, LaJite, and Stoller, >??Bes#lts did not depend on the IJ #t rather depended on the participants chronic o disposition to harass o So the sit#ational !actor here 'as relati&ely #ni$portant
So$e 3osts o! Pre+#dice and Discri$ination •
•
Schulman et al. (1999) o Physicians 'ere only G6 as likely to s#ggest a top:rated diagnostic test !or lack heart patients as !or 'hites e&en 'hen lacks presented sa$e sy$pto$s, and ga&e identical in!or$ation ao#t the$sel&es /yres and Siegelman (1990) o 4his st#dy !o#nd !o#nd that 'hite 'hite $en 'ere 'ere o%ered etter etter deals on cars cars K>6? less than 'hite 'o$en K>8 less than lack 'o$en K?H less than lack $en
Bed#cing Pre+#dice and Discri$ination •
•
#ontact hypothesis o Stereotypes, pre+#dice, and discri$ination to'ard a gro#p 'ill di$inish as contact 'ith the gro#p increases o 0etting to kno' and hope!#lly to #nderstand a gro#p o 0et t'o gro#ps to 'ork to'ards a co$$on goal ) cooperation helps co$petition h#rts 0ro#p contact is considered e%ecti&e 'hen* o /#t:gro#p $e$ers ha&e traits and ailities challenging negati&e stereotypes o 3ontact is s#pported y local a#thorities and nor$s o 0ro#ps are o! e1#al stat#s, at least in contact setting o 3ontact is at indi&id#al le&el o 3ontact is re'arding o 0ro#ps 'ork to'ard co$$on goals
Week ?
Social %n+uence •
•
What is Social In#ence= o A change in eha&io#r in response to the intentional or #nintentional #nintentional in#ence o! others o It $ay or $ay not e acco$panied y a change in attit#de 4he three $ain types o! social social in#ence in#ence o 1) #on'ormity: a change in response to social nor$s no press#re is re1#iredo ) #ompliance: #ompliance: a change in response to a direct re1#est o 2) 3bedience: a change in response to a co$$andorder
3on!or$ity •
•
•
Social norms: r#les indicating indicating ho' people are e"pected to eha&e in a speci7c sit#ation ) they can e Descriptive: ho' do people typically eha&e= o o %njunctive: ho' sho#ld people eha&e= Why nor$s= o 4o 4o reg#late reg#late social interaction interaction ie. Make Make eha&io#r consistent consistent and predictalepredictaleo 4o 4o pre&ent social social chaos 4o 4o pro&ide pro&ide a#to$atic g#ides g#ides !or eha&io#r eha&io#r o he #hameleon 4fect (#hartrand and 5argh, 1999) o So$eti$es 'e con!or$ a#to$atically and #nintentionally o Participant and con!ederate 'orked on a task together IJ ) con!ederate r#ed eye, shook !oot, or did nothing DJ ) ho' did participant eha&e= 4he e%ect o! a$ig#ity a$ig#ity In a$ig#o#s sit#ations, sit#ations, people tend to rely on o in!or$ation pro&ided y others o Sheri! >?- asked st#dents to +#dge the apparent $o&e$ent o! a stationary light on a 'all /uto"inetic efect: a stationary spot o! light in a dark roo$ appears to $o&e Sheri', 19267put yoursel' in the role o' the participant7 o Day 1: participant stares at a pinpoint o! light ao#t >H !eet a'ay 4he light see$s see$s to e $o&ing #t #t yo# can(t e s#re A!ter a !e' seconds it disappears Sheri! ho' !ar did it $o&e= Participant I($ not really s#re, #t $aye ao#t 8 inches o Day : the participant is no' +oined y three con!ederates 4his ti$e all !o#r !o#r stare stare at the pinpoint pinpoint o! light ao#t ao#t >H !eet a'ay a'ay Again yo# think it $o&ed ao#t 8 inches Sheri% ho' !ar did it $o&e= >- 5 inches 5- an inch or t'o - oh, no it can(t e $ore than one inch Participant oh, I g#ess ao#t G inches E&eryone else looks at yo# like yo#(re crazy o Day 2: the sa$e sit#ation as day 5 e"cept this ti$e yo# reply ;ao#t @ inches< o Day 8: the sa$e sit#ation as day 5 e"cept this ti$e yo# reply ;it(s proaly like 5 inches< What happened= Di&erse indi&id#al +#dg$ents 1#ickly con&erged on gro#p nor$
•
• •
•
Each de&eloped o'n nor$ o Nor$ persisted a!ter indi&id#als le!t the gro#p o Nor$ persisted 'hen original $e$ers 'ere replaced y ne' $e$ers Asch original st#dy on con!or$ity >?H>o Which o! the lines on the le!t $ost closely $atches line A on the right= In this early &ersion, Asch had >G ;na&e< participants 'ith > con!ederate 'ho ga&e o incorrect ans'ers Bes#lts Bes#lts participants la#ghed atridic#led the con!ederate A!ter his initial st#dy, Asch cond#cted a series o! e"peri$ents $ost done 'ith > participant and H:8 con!ederates >?HHo Beal participants 'o#ld gi&e their +#dge$ent a!ter se&eral con!ederates had already gi&en theirs o Besearch 1#estion 'o#ld participants con!or$ to o&io#sly incorrect ans'ers= o When alone, ?H o! the participants got all the ans'ers correct*#t 'hen con!ronted y the #nani$o#s incorrect $a+ority, participants con!or$ed o! the ti$e, in !act, H 'ent against their o'n eyes at least once i! the gro#p ga&e a 'rong ans'er Why did participants con!or$= So$e participants said they didn(t 'ant to look silly or e re+ected y the rest o! the gro#p o 4his is re!err re!erred ed to as normative social in+uence: they 'anted to ;7t in< in< 'ith the others So$e participants said it 'as eca#se they tho#ght the others $#st ha&e had etter eyesight or e etter in!or$ed in so$e 'ay o 4his is re!err re!erred ed to as in'ormational social in+uence: they 'ere asically #tilizing others as a so#rce o! in!or$ation o
•
•
•
•
When are 'e $ore likely or less likely to con!or$= •
4he !ollo'ing !ollo'ing 'ere in#ential in#ential inso!ar inso!ar as con!or$ity con!or$ity 'as concerned concerned roup sie: as the n#$er o! people increases so does con!or$ity o o %ncompetent and insecure individuals: 'hen one is $ade to !eel inco$petent or insec#re con!or$ity is likely o roup;s status and attractiveness: attractiveness: kind o! goes 'itho#t saying*i! it(s a gro#p yo# 'ant to e a part o!, yo# 'ill likely con!or$ to its opinions o Presence o' an ally: the presence o! a tr#e partner, 'ho agreed 'ith the participant, red#ced red#ced con!or$ity y 86 : 'hen 'e ha&e an ally, 'e can di%#se the press#re eca#se 'e are not the only one reaking the nor$ S#stantially $ore diOc#lt to stand alone !or one(s con&ictions than 'hen one is part o! e&en a tiny $inority Any dissent can red#ce the nor$ati&e press#res to con!or$ o %ndependence: so$e people care $ore ao#t standing #p !or their rights than eing disliked
Di%erence et'een Asch and Sheri! st#dies •
•
Sheri': eca#se o! a$ig#ity, participants t#rned to each other !or g#idance o Participant didn(t kno' it 'asn(t the correct ans'er ) reasonale to consider other(s &ie's o Participants later adopted social nor$s con!or$ity leads to internalization/sch: participants o!ten !o#nd the$sel&es in an a'k'ard position ) it 'as o&io#s that the gro#p 'as 'rong o Participants kne' there 'as a correct ans'er con!or$ity does not lead to internalization-
4ypes 4ypes o! 3on!or$ity 3on!or$ity •
•
Private con'ormity: changes in oth o&ert eha&io#r and elie!s Public con'ormity: s#per7cial change in o&ert eha&io#r only
Acti&e and P#lic 3o$$it$ents •
St#dents in one e"peri$ent 'ere asked to +#dge lines in an Asch:type e"peri$ent De#tsh and 0erard, >?HGo Ce!ore hearing gro#p $e$ers $ake erroneo#s +#dg$ents So$e pri&ately 'rote do'n their +#dg$ents acti&e co$$it$ent only/thers 'rote their +#dg$ents and ga&e the$ to the e"peri$enter acti&e pl#s p#lic co$$it$ent3ontrol gro#p
Minority In#ence and 3on!or$ity • •
Dissent !ro$ a $inority can red#ce con!or$ity !ro$ the $a+ority 2o' do $inorities in#ence others= 4hro#gh their o'n behavioural style: o Make their proposition proposition clear at the o#tset o Stick to their original proposition ) consistency in its position is key o Withstand the $a+ority in#ence o Don(t appear to e dri&en y sel!:interest
3o$pliance •
•
•
4he lang#age lang#age o! re1#est re1#est o 4alking 4alking !ast and and catching people people o% g#ard g#ard can i$pro&e i$pro&e co$pliance rates o People can e disar$ed y the si$ple phrasing o! the re1#est ) ho' yo# ask !or so$ething can e $ore i$portant than 'hat yo# ask !or -indless con'ormity Langer et al. >?8o People o!ten engage in $indless con!or$ity y oeying internalized social nor$s 'itho#t delierating ao#t their actions o 4he ad&antage to to $indless con!or$ity con!or$ity is that is !acilitated !acilitated o#r getting getting thro#gh the day ) in $ost cases, it leads to appropriate eha&io#r o 2o'e&er, there is a cost to acting on a#to$atic pilot ) so$eti$es, 'e end #p !ollo'ing the 'rong social nor$ and eha&e inappropriately 3ialdini >??H- proposed that co$$on in#ence tactics #tilize G asic principles 1) Social validation (consensus): one sho#ld e $ore 'illing to co$ply 'ith a o re1#est !or eha&io#r i! it is consistent 'ith 'hat si$ilar others are thinking especially 'hen #ncertain- ) ased on the social co$parison theory Beingen >?85- ) list techni1#e he asked participants to donate $oney to a 'orthy ca#se*participants 'ho 'ere 7rst sho'n a list o! others 'ho had donated agreed to gi&e $ore $oney ;Salting< the tip +ar ) #onsistency: #onsistency: o he ootintheDoor techni$ue: the tendency !or people 'ho 7rst agreed to a s$all re1#est to co$ply later 'ith a larger re1#est Freed$an and Fraser >?GG- ) called ho#se'i&es and asked the$ i! they 'o#ld ans'er a !e' 1#estions ao#t soap all agreed-*later, $ade a second
re1#est o! those ho#se'i&es and an additional gro#p 'o#ld they allo' a H: G $an tea$ to co$e o#t and in&entory their ho#sehold prod#cts, prod#cts, 'ith the !reedo$ to go thro#gh all closets and dra'ers= Agree$ent 55 5 nd re1#est only- and H > st and 5nd re1#estshe lo!ball techni$ue: people 'ho agree to an initial re1#est 'ill o!ten still co$ply 'hen the re1#ester ;$odi7es< the conditions ) people 'ho recei&e only the costly re1#est are less likely to co$ply 3ialdini et al. >?8- ) the a$ e"peri$ent Mentioned #p !ront ) 5@ agreed o Mentioned later ) HG agreed initially o o A!ter $entioned, none changed the their $ind ) ?H act#ally sho'ed #p A!ter $aking an acti&e choice !or so$ething, people take ;$ental possession< o! it and it eco$es part o! their sel!:concept It is o!ten easier to contin#e 'ith the co$$it$ent than to change the sel!:concept 2) /uthority: 'e are $ore likely to co$ply 'ith so$eone 'ho is or rese$les- a legiti$ate a#thority 5ic"man (1968): e"peri$enter dressed in street clothes &s. sec#rity g#ard #ni!or$ ) ;yo#(&e< seen the g#y o&er there y the $eter= 2e(s o&erparked #t doesn(t ha&e any change. 0i&e hi$ a di$e.< Walked o#t o! sight ) co$pliance @5 street clothes- &s. ?5 #ni!or$
anouse (196): sent a s#r&ey to doctors 'ith either a K56 che1#e or the pro$ise o! a K56 che1#e, i! the s#r&ey 'as ret#rned S#r&ey ret#rned ) 8 che1#e 7rst- &s. GG che1#e later3he1#es cashed ) ?H respondents- &s. 5G non:respondents#ialdini et. /l (1960): the door:in:the:!ace techni1#e a!ter so$eone t#rns do'n a large re1#est, the re1#ester !ollo's #p 'ith a s$aller re1#est ) a concessionAsked college st#dents i! they 'o#ld ser&e as #npaid +#&enile delin1#ency co#nsellors co#nsellors !or 5 ho#rs a 'eek, !or 5 years No one agreed 5nd re1#est 'o#ld they e 'illing to take a gro#p o! +#&enile delin1#ents on a 5 ho#r trip to the zoo= Agree$ent ) >H 5 nd re1#est only- and @8 > st and 5nd re1#ests0) riendship?li"ing: 'e are $ore 'illing to co$ply 'ith !riends or other likeale indi&id#als 2o' do salespeople get others to like the$= Physical attracti&eness, attracti&eness, si$ilarity, co$pli$ents ingratiationingratiationAttracti&e !#nd raisers !or A$erican 2eart Association otained @5 co$pliance co$pared to 5 !or #nattracti&e !#nd raisers Beingen Beingen and ernan, >??
o
o
o
E$s'iller et al. >?>- e"peri$enter in ;hippie< &s. ;straight< clothes asked st#dents !or a di$e ) co$pliance GG $atching clothes- &s. $is$atched clothes=) Scarcity: heuristic ) i! it is scarce, it $#st e &al#ale, and reactance @ 'e react against loss o! !reedo$ y 'anting ite$ Worchel, Lee and Ade'ole >?HSho'ed participants a +ar o! cookies 4here 'as 'as either 5 or >6 cookies in the the +ar When 5 cookies, rated as $ore desirale, attracti&e and e"pensi&e St#dy 5 ) +ar 'ith 5 cookies al'ays scarce- &s. +ar 'ith >6 cookies, 'hich 'as replaced 'ith +ar or 5 cookies ne'ly scarce3ookies $ore in de$and recently 'ere no' rated as $ore desirale, attracti&e, and e"pensi&e
o
Pers#asion 2o' Attit#des are 3hanged •
•
•
Persuasion: e%ort to change others( elie!s, attit#des, and eha&io#rs thro#gh the #se o! &ario#s types o! $essages 4here are are se&eral !actors in&ol&ed in attit#de attit#de change change o 4he so#rce so#rce o! the $essage $essage the co$$#nicatorco$$#nicatoro 4he $essage o 4he target a#dience o 2o' the $essage is co$$#nicated the channel-
he 4laborationAi"elihood -odel: a cogniti&e theory o! pers#asion Petty and 3acioppo, >?8G-
Message i$portant processing Pers#asi& e Message Message #ni$portant processing capacity lo'
3entral Bo#te 3are!#l processing o!
Peripheral Bo#te 2e#ristic processing o!
Attit#de change depends on strength o!
Attit#de change depends on presence p resence o! pers#asion c#es ) he#ristic processing
/edience •
•
•
Most a#thority 7g#res ha&e een gi&en their a#thority y society ) 'e are +#st told to !ollo' 'hat they tell yo# to do E&ery person at so$e ti$e in their li!e has !ollo'ed a s#perior 'itho#t 1#estioning 'hy they are doing 'hat they are doing Milgra$(s 1#estionnaire >?Go E&eryone ans'ering Milgra$(s 1#estionnaire said they 'o#ld re!#se to p#nish the learner
o o o
4hey also elie&ed elie&ed that other people people 'o#ld disoey disoey Most people re+ect #nnecessary pain and there!ore 'o#ld not !ollo' r#tal orders 4he responses responses o! college college st#dents, psychiatrists, psychiatrists, and $iddle:class $iddle:class ad#lts all predicted that only > or 5 o! the general pop#lation 'o#ld oey s#ch orders !#lly, ad$inistering the highest shock a&ailale
Milgra$ /edience E"peri$ents • •
Psychiatrists Psychiatrists g#essed that > in >666 'o#ld go clear to @H6 &olts only ;tr#e psychopaths
Factors A%ecting /edience in /riginal St#dy • • • •
Prestige and stat#s o! a#thority 7g#re ) s#pported y prestigio#s instit#tion Person gi&ing orders 'as close at hand ) Milgra$ 'as right there Jicti$s 'ere depersonalized ) o#t o! sight Presence o! others 'ho disoey ) here, no role $odels 'ho disoeyed
In Beplications* • •
•
•
Aegitimacy Aegitimacy o' authority: 'hen a ;clerk< ga&e the orders, orders, co$pliance 'as 56 Pro*imity o' authority Bgure: 'hen Milgra$ ga&e co$$ands y telephone, co$pliance dropped to 5> 4motional distance: 'hen learner 'as in the sa$e roo$, !#ll co$pliance dropped to @6 : 'hen teacher applied learner(s hand to shock plate, co$pliance !ell to 6 roup in+uence: 'hen t'o con!ederates ;re!#sed< to keep going, only >6 o! real s#+ects !#lly co$plied 'ith the orders
E"planations !or /edience •
•
#ognitive dissonance: eha&io#r shocking learner- conicted 'ith elie! learner is a decent persono So sol#tion is to alter elie! ) ;he(s s#ch an idiot he deser&es to get shocked< he e*perimental procedure itsel': participants 'ere led to !eel relie&ed o! personal responsiility !or the &icti$(s 'el!are o 0rad#al escalation o! shocks 'as #sed
Week >6
roup 5ehaviour and Aeadership What is a 0ro#p= •
•
According to social psychologists, a gro#p can e de7ned as a collection o! people 'ho are percei&ed to e onded together in a coherent #nit to so$e degree 3haracteristics o! ;tr#e gro#ps< Lickel, 5666o Me$ers interact 'ith one another o!ten o 4he gro#p gro#p is i$portant i$portant to its $e$ers o Me$ers share co$$on goals and o#tco$es o Me$ers are si$ilar to one another in i$portant 'ays
4he Presence Presence o! /thers •
Social 'acilitation: i! per!or$ance can e indi&id#ally e&al#ated, the presence presence o! others 'ill e aro#sing ) this 'ill i$pro&e per!or$ance on si$ple tasks #t inter!ere 'ith per!or$ance on co$ple" tasks
•
•
•
riplett (196): 'as one o! the 7rst scientists to ask the 1#estion ;'hat happens 'hen indi&id#als +oin together 'ith other indi&id#als=< indi&id#als=< o 4riplett, 4riplett, 'ho 'as 'as a icycling icycling enth#siast, enth#siast, noticed that that cyclists per!or$ed per!or$ed etter in races than 'hen they 'ere ti$ed riding the co#rse alone -ere presence o' others and social 'acilitation: sa$e res#lt 'hen he asked children to 'ind 7shing reels as 1#ickly as possile 4riplett 4riplett >8?>8?- tho#ght that that the $ere presence presence o! others others 'o#ld i$pro&e i$pro&e o per!or$ance o Participants: @6 children ages 8:> o Procedures: a trial consisted in t#rning the reel at the highest rate o! speed #ntil a s$all ag se'ed to the silk and had $ade !o#r circ#its o! the !o#r:$eter co#rse ) the ti$e o! the trial 'as taken y $eans o! a stop:'atch o &esults: all children per!or$ed !aster 'hen in co$petition co$pared to 'hen alone For a long ti$e, the social !acilitation pheno$enon 'as &ie'ed as a #ni&ersal principle* o So$e $ay ha&e e&en called it a ;pro&en !act< o Qa+onc >?GH- 'ent ack and analyzed the research he !o#nd that there 'ere so$e e"ceptions 'hen the task 'as no&el or co$ple", the presence o! an a#dience i$paired per!or$ance on the task o 4riplett 4riplett 'as only partially right*the right*the type type o! task 'as an an i$portant deter$inant deter$inant to s#ccess as 'ell
Why does Social Facilitation /cc#r= •
Distraction con+ict theory (Sanders, 191): attentional conict et'een !oc#sing on task and inspecting the distracting sti$#l#s creates aro#sal ) can h#rt per!or$ance so$eti$es and help so$eti$es o Presence o! others can create a distraction leading to poorer per!or$ance o C#t so$eti$es 'ill sti$#late greater e%ort to o&erco$e the attentional conict o ;4#nnel &ision< can help on so$e tasks
0ro#p Ceha&io#r •
•
Social loaBng: a gro#p:prod#ced red#ction in indi&id#al o#tp#t in easy tasks in 'hich contri#tions are pooled Latane et al. >??- sat participants in a gro#p o! G people* o Clind!olded participants and had the$ p#t on headphones o Played clapping or sho#ting o&er headphones o IJ tho#ght they 'ere $aking noise alone or 'ith H others o Bes#lts > less noise 'hen they tho#ght others 'ere also $aking noise
Why does Loa7ng 2appen= •
•
•
Difusion o' responsibility: responsibility: in a gro#p 'e !eel ale to share responsiility and this $ay lead to a red#ction o! e%ort reerider efect: i! 'e !eel like o#r contri#tion is not essential*still ene7t !ro$ the gro#p and give little in return lo' return lo' inp#t, high o#tp#tSuc"er efect: 'illing to do yo#r share #t not more than that especially i! others are !ree:riding!ree:riding- ) since e&eryone is ene7tting and getting credit, yo# don(t 'ant to e the s#cker 'ho does all the 'ork and no recognition-, there!ore do the minimum re1#ire$ent
We Loa! Less When* • • •
Personal e%orts are identi7ale A task is challenging, challenging, appealing, in&ol&ing 4he task is $eaning!#l $eaning!#l and i$portant
• • • • •
We think o#r contri#tion is essential We are 'orking 'ith !riends &s. strangers 4he gro#p gro#p e"pects to e p#nished p#nished !or poor per!or$ance per!or$ance 4he gro#p gro#p is s$all 4he gro#p gro#p is cohesi&e cohesi&e
Deindi&id#ation Deindi&id#ation 4heory • •
• •
A social psychological acco#nt o! the indi&id#al in the cro'd A psychological state o! decreased sel!:e&al#ation, ca#sing anti:nor$ati&e and disinhiited eha&io#r Anony$ity has een sho'n to a$pli!y the e%ect ) eg. Wearing a $ask Why does deindi&id#ation lead to i$p#lsi&e acts=
0ro#p Ceha&io#r •
•
•
roup polariation: the e"aggeration, thro#gh gro#p disc#ssion, on initial tendencies in the thinking o! gro#p $e$ers o!ten $ani!ests itsel! as a shi!t to'ards the opinion o! the $a+ority I$agine yo# 'ere considering the pros and cons o! going to grad school, and yo# talked it o&er 'ith t'o gro#ps o Cour Cour 'amily: 'ho 'as initially slightly opposed to the idea o Cour Cour 'ello! students: 'ho 'ere initially slightly favourable A!ter disc#ssion 'ithin each gro#p o 4he gro#p gro#p that initially initially !a&o#red grad school school 'o#ld e e&en $ore strongly strongly in !a&o#r !a&o#r o 4he gro#p gro#p that initially initially dis!a&o#red dis!a&o#red grad school school 'o#ld e e&en e&en $ore opposed opposed
Why do 0ro#ps Polarize a!ter Disc#ssion= •
•
Persuasive arguments: 'ith e&en a slight ias in one direction, yo#(ll hear $ore !a&o#rale arg#$ents on that side Social comparison: 'hen $e$ers realize the gro#p is leaning in one direction, they $ay seek acceptance y $o&ing !#rther in that direction direction
0ro#pthink •
•
•
• •
4endency 4endency o! the $e$ers $e$ers o! highly highly cohesi&e gro#ps gro#ps to ass#$e ass#$e that their decisions cannot cannot e 'rong, that all $e$ers $#st s#pport the gro#p(s decisions, and that in!or$ation contrary to these decisions $#st e ignored Leads to gro#p decision:$aking process that is not opti$al, so$eti$es disastro#s, eca#se the gro#p(s pri$ary goal is consens#s instead o! acc#racy 4hey see$ to ha&e ha&e a greater desire to get get along and agree agree 'ith one another than than to generate and critically e&al#ate alternati&e alternati&e &ie'points and positions 4he deterioration deterioration o! gro#p gro#p +#dg$ent prod#ced y stri&ing !or consens#s consens#s Be&ised gro#pthink !ra$e'ork article @- ) t'o $oderators ti$e press#re and leadership style-
Sy$pto$s o! 0ro#pthink •
•
4he gro#p gro#p o&eresti$ating o&eresti$ating their $ight $ight and right* right* o Ill#sions o! in&#lneraility ) o&er:opti$is$, lind to 'arnings o 9n1#estioned 9n1#estioned elie! in the gro#p(s $orality Me$ers eco$e close:$inded Bationalization disco#nts challenges y +#sti!ying their decisions o o 2olding a stereotyped &ie' o! the opponent 'eak, d#$-
•
Press#res to'ards #ni!or$ity 3on!or$ity press#re ) those 'ho raise do#ts are re#%ed ridic#ledo o Sel!:censorship ) disagree$ents are #nco$!ortale Ill#sions o! #nani$ity ) e&eryone keeps 1#iet, see$s like e&eryone is #nani$o#s o o Mind g#ards ) so$e $e$ers keep in!or$ation that 'o#ld lead to 1#estion- !ro$ the gro#p
2o' can 'e Pre&ent 0ro#pthink= • • • • •
Ce i$partial don(t endorse any position Enco#rage critical e&al#ation de&il(s ad&ocate S#di&ide the gro#p Enco#rage and 'elco$e criticis$s !ro$ o#tsiders Ce!ore i$ple$enting, call a second:chance $eeting
Leadership in 0ro#ps •
• •
•
What $akes a great leader= o he great person theory: certain key personality traits $akes a person a great leader, regardless o! the sit#ation the leader !aces Intelligence, e"tra&ersion, e"tra&ersion, charis$a, socially skilled, adapti&e, e"ile, con7dent, o desire !or po'er, etc o Bole o! integrati&e co$ple"ity S#ed!eld, >??8Aeadership styles: transactional transactional &s. trans!or$ational trans!or$ational leaders he role o' the situation: #ontingency theory o' leadership (iedler, 196) o 4ask:oriented 4ask:oriented leader leader getting the +o +o done o Belationship:oriented leader !eelings and relationships a$ong people ender and leadership: the dile$$a !acing 'o$en in leadership positions ) eha&ing in a co$$#nal &s. agentic !ashion
Week >>
/ggression and Prosocial 5ehaviour What is Aggression= •
•
Altho#gh there are se&eral di%erent de7nitions o! aggression, social psychologists tend to de7ne it as !ollo's o A physical or &eral eha&io#r that is intended to ca#se either physical or psychological psychological pain to so$eone 4here are are three $ain ideas in that that de7nition o >- 4he presence presence o! a eha&io#r, hence o$issionnegligence does not constit#te aggression o 5- 4he ca#sing o! har$ or pain to so$eone intentionally, hence asserti&eness, accidents and play don(t constit#te aggression, since they lack the intent to h#rt another - 4he nat#re o! the har$ ca#sed to the person can e either physical or o psychological. psychological. It has to e noted that $any social psychologists psychologists consider threat to rep#tation or social relations, a third type o! har$ ca#sed to a person. 4hey re!er to it as relational aggression, aggression, since it is intended to destroy one(s relations 'ith others. It is considered to e the type o! aggression $ani!ested $ost o!ten y 'o$en
Di%erent 4ypes o! Aggression
•
We disting#ish et'een se&eral di%erent types o! aggression depending on the sit#ation, relational aggression eing only one o! the$. 2o'e&er, 'e 'ill !oc#s on the $ain di%erent types, 'hich are o Direct aggression: 'hen 'e ha&e !ace to !ace contact 'ith the person o %ndirect aggression: 'hen 'e are trying to h#rt another 'itho#t contact, as s#ch it o!ten in&ol&es an agent eg. 2iring a hit $an, spreading r#$o#rso
Sit#ational Approaches to Aggression •
•
•
•
Foc#s on ho' !actors ;o#tside< the person ) the en&iron$ent or sit#ations ) can play a part in aggressi&e eha&io#r he 'rustrationaggression 'rustrationaggression hypothesis (Dollar et al. 1929): ho' !r#strating e"periences ca#se aggressi&e eha&io#r En&iron$ent triggers aggression ) the occ#rrence o! aggression al'ays pres#pposes o the e"istence o! !r#stration and, contrari'ise, the e"istence o! !r#stration al'ays leads to so$e !or$ o! aggression o 0oal response eing locked he revised 'rustrationaggression hypothesis (5er"o!it, 19=, 199): it is not +#st !r#stration !r#stration that can res#lt in in aggression aggression o People(s perceptions o! eing depri&ed o! 'hat they 'ant Any a&ersi&e e&ent can res#lt in !r#stration o o 4h#s, any #npleasant #npleasant e"perience e"perience co#ld e e a contri#ting contri#ting !actor to s#se1#ent aggression eg. Ceing ins#lted, #n!airly criticized, p#shed, 'aiting in a long 1#e#e, eing #nco$!ortaly hot, etc4*citation trans'er and aggression model (illmann, 1968, 192): oth the person and sit#ation need to e considered 'hen atte$pting to #nderstand aggression o E$phasize ho' people cogniti&ely appraise their physiological and psychological states o! heightened aro#sal or e"citation o Misattri#tion o! aro#sal ) idea that 'e $ight incorrectly $ake sense o! heightened state o! aro#sal, percei&ing it as eing ca#sed y so$ething other than 'hat act#ally had ca#sed it
4he E"citation E"citation 4rans!er 4rans!er Model o! Aggression Aggression •
Aro#sing sti$#li lingering state o! aro#sal s#se1#ent pro&oking e&ent $isattri#tion o! aro#sal opport#nity to act aggressi&ely aggressi&e act
Sit#ational Approaches to Aggression •
eneral aggression model (/nderson and 5ushman, EE): incorporates $any di%erent approaches to aggression 'ith the idea that aggression in&ol&es oth the person and the sit#ation o Se&eral potential ca#ses o! aggression, s#ch as person !actors, sit#ation !actors and internal states o Foc#ses on the idea o! cycleepisodes o! aggression ) instances o! aggression $ay not end 'ith the aggressi&e act, #t instead, the aggressi&e act and response to it
o
$ay !eed into the cognitions and a%ecti&e response response o! the person 'ho aggresses and others- and can res#lt in other aggressi&e or non:aggressi&e eha&io#r 4heory acco#nts acco#nts !or the notion notion o! desensitization desensitization to &iolence, &iolence, as it takes takes into consideration consideration ho' a person can e changed y pre&io#s episodes o! potential or act#al aggression aggression o&er ti$e and 'ith repetiti&e e"position e"position to &iolence, the person eco$es less responsi&e to sti$#li eg. Jiolent i$ages-
What is Prosocial Ceha&io#r= •
;Foluntary actions that are intended to help or ene7t another indi&id#al or gro#p o! indi&id#als< Eisen#rg and M#ssen, >?8?o Incl#des helping others, oeying r#les, con!or$ing to social nor$s, cooperating 'ith others
Why do 'e 2elp /thers= •
•
•
•
•
Sociale*change theory: helping so$eone is essentially a cost:ene7t analysis o Ai$ o! h#$an eha&io#r is to $ini$ize costs and $a"i$ize re'ards o &e!ards: $aterialistic goods, social re'ards, or sel!:re'ard internal and e"ternalo #osts: ti$e, $oney, disco$!ort, incon&enience o I! re'ards o#t'eigh costs, 'e help >in selection theory: e&ol#tionary perspecti&e o People !a&o#r those 'ho are genetically si$ilar eca#se they 'ant their genes to e ;passed on< o More likely to help those 'ho are relati&es o Increases odds o! gene trans$ission &eciprocal altruism: the incenti&e !or an indi&id#al to help in the present is ased on the e"pectation o! eing the potential recipient o! helping eha&io#rs in the !#t#re o Essentially a sel7sh $oti&e !or helping others ased on reciprocity Gegativestate relie' model: people help others to red#ce personal distress o People e"perience an e$pathetic reaction 'hen 'e see so$eone else in distress it $akes the$ !eel #nco$!ortale o When personal distress cannot e relie&ed y other actions eg. A&oiding the person in need o! help-, 'e help to red#ce o#r o'n disco$!ort 4mpathyaltruism 4mpathyaltruism hypothesis: hypothesis: 'hen 'e see so$eone in distress, it prod#ces an e$pathetic response o 4his sy$pathy !or another person person creates creates an internal internal need to red#ce red#ce that person(s person(s distress ) di%erent than negati&e:state relie! $odel eca#se the internal need to red#ce another person(s distress does not ste$ !ro$ personal disco$!ort, #t !ro$ general concern !or the other person o 4his res#lts res#lts in altr#istic altr#istic eha&io#r eha&io#r ) 'e are are $oti&ated to increase increase another(s 'el!are 'itho#t conscio#s regard !or one(s sel!:interests
When Will We 2elp= • • • • • • • • •
I! yo# ha&e an altr#istic $odel I! yo# are not in a r#sh Darley and Catson, >?I! the &icti$ is si$ilar to o#rsel&es S$all to'ns and r#ral areas Fe' ystanders Feeling g#ilty In a goodad $ood -en: p#lic Homen: pri&ate settings
When 'ill 'e N/4 2elp= •
•
he 5ystander 4fect: the $ore ystanders that are present, the less likely any one o! the$ 'ill act to help Darley and Latane, >?G?What ca#ses the ystander e%ect= o 1) Difusion o' responsibility: responsibility: eca#se there are other oser&ers, indi&id#als do not !eel as $#ch press#re to take action the responsiility to take action is tho#ght to e shared a$ong all those present o ) Socially acceptable behaviour (social comparison): 'hen other oser&ers !ail to react, indi&id#als o!ten take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate
Week >5
%nterpersonal %nterpersonal /ttraction and #lose &elationships &elationships Need to AOliate • •
•
•
•
•
•
It is a asic h#$an $oti&e to seek and $aintain interpersonal relationships relationships /#r aOliation 'ith others ser&es &ario#s !#nctions o Positi&e sti$#lation o Social s#pport o Attention o Social co$parison In general, those 'ith a net'ork o! close social ties tend to e happier, healthier, healthier, and $ore satis7ed 'ith li!e than those 'ho are $ore isolated So$eti$es o#r aOliation needs are not $et, eca#se o!* o 3stracism: 'hen an indi&id#al is ignored y others or e"cl#ded !ro$ a social gro#p o Shyness 4his 'ill lead lead to a !eeling !eeling that 'e don(t don(t elong ostracis$ostracis$- or a !eeling !eeling o! depri&ation depri&ation ao#t social relations shynessMay lead to loneliness ) #npleasant e$otional and cogniti&e state ased on desiring close relationships, relationships, #t eing #nale to attain the$ o Dispositionale"istentia Dispositionale"istentiall loneliness o Sit#ational loneliness Social e"cl#sion leads to increased sensiti&ity to interpersonal interpersonal in!or$ation, in less e%ecti&e cogniti&e !#nctioning, and to lo' sel!:estee$ o&er ti$e Ca#$eister, 4'enge, and N#ss, 5665-
Interpersonal Attraction •
•
•
•
4here are are t'o asic necessary necessary !actors !actors in the attraction attraction process process o Pro*imity and e*posure ) propin1#ity e%ect estinger;s study: chartered !riendships in apart$ent co$ple" deter$ined y physical and !#nctional pro"i$ity Why does pro"i$ity lead to liking= o Bepeated e"pos#re leads to !eelings o! !a$iliarity o E&ol#tion !a$iliar things, incl#ding others, $ore likely to e ;sa!e< Physical attractiveness and stereotypes: ;'hat is ea#ti!#l is good< stereotype o 4he elie! that that physically attracti&e attracti&e people also also ha&e other socially desirale desirale characteristics o Cea#ti!#l people are liked $ore y ad#lts, children and in!ants o 3li%ord and 2at7eld >?- ga&e teachers identical in!or$ation in!or$ation ao#t a oy and a girl, #t &aried attracti&eness ) DJ rated intelligence and s#ccess-
o
o
Boszell Boszell et al. >??6- >:H scale o! attracti&eness ) !or each point, people tended to earn an e"tra K5666 Is the stereotype stereotype acc#rate= Why does the stereotype persist=
3lose Belationships •
•
•
•
/!ten in&ol&es three asic co$ponents o >- Feelings o! attach$ent, a%ection, and lo&e o 5- 4he !#l7ll$ent o! psychological needs o - Interdependence et'een partners, 'here a change in eha&io#r o! one res#lts in a change in eha&io#r o! partner According to Aron et al. >??>- the $o&e$ent !ro$ cas#al to close relationships had to in&ol&e the de&elop$ent o! interdependence o 3lose relationships are only possile 'ith the incl#sion o! the other in one(s sel!: concept o 3loseness ) degree to 'hich cogniti&e representations o! the sel!:o&erlaps 'ith the partner 4he 7rst close close relationships relationships de&elop in in the !a$ily ) these these set the stage stage !or the relationships that 'e 'ill !or$ thro#gho#t o#r li&es /ttachment styles (Shaver and 5rennan, 199): o#r earliest de&elop$ental e"periences allo' #s to !or$ t'o ;'orking $odels< o Hor"ing model o' the sel': reects o#r asic !eelings o! sel!:'orth or sel!:estee$ o Hor"ing model o' others: reects o#r asic elie!s in&ol&ing interpersonal tr#st o 4he t'o 'orking 'orking $odels de7ne de7ne di%erent attach$ent styles that in#ence $ost o! o#r close relationships relationships Sec#re attach$ent style Fear!#l:a&oidant Fear!#l:a&oidant attach$ent style Preocc#pied Preocc#pied attach$ent style Dis$issing attach$ent style
Preoccupied attachment style
Secure attachment style
I a$ $ore a%ectionate than $y partner
I 7nd it easy to $eet ne' people
I !all in lo&e easily
I en+oy looking at $ysel! in the $irror
So$eti$es, I tell people too $#ch ao#t $ysel!
I a$ &ery happy 'ith $y li!e right no' Dancing is greatR
My $ost i$portant goal is to e tr#ly appreciated y another person
ear'ulavoidant attachment style
Dismissing attachment style
Whene&er I hear the doorell ring, I a$ #s#ally a little 'orried ao#t 'ho it $ight e
I had rather depend on $ysel! than on other people
I !eel that $ost people don(t like $e I don(t ha&e $#ch to e pro#d o! It(s really $#ch sa!er +#st to think ao#t a relationship instead o! act#ally initiating one
I don(t like to re&eal things ao#t $ysel! to others My !riends seldo$ li&e #p to $y e"pectations I can get along 1#ite 'ell 'itho#t a close e$otional relations relationship hip in $y li!e
3lose Belationships •
What is lo&e= o Stemberg;s riangular heory o' Aove (19=): this researcher elie&es that the n#$ero#s 'ays to de7ne lo&e eg. 3aring, loyalty, attraction, etc- co#ld e red#ced to three essential co$ponents Passion: the se"#al $oti&es and e"cite$ent %ntimacy: closeness !elt y t'o people #ommitment: decision that yo# are co$$itted to $aintain the relationship o Di%erent co$inations o! these three co$ponents help de7ne eight di%erent types o! lo&e o 4he co$ponents o! Sternerg(s Sternerg(s $odel $odel tend to change change in le&el o&er ti$e, 'hich acco#nts !or the changing nat#re o! lo&e in $ost long:ter$ relationships Passion peaks early in relationship, then tends to di$inish grad#ally Inti$acy steadily increases as the relationship progresses 3o$$it$ent $akes a so$e'hat s#dden apparition then re$ain stale and high o&er ti$e
EXAM ) take o#t articles 5@ and 58
