S o c i a l

Defining Social Psychology

P s y c h o l o g y

Scientific study that attempts to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings and behaviour

of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others Integration of the psychological functioning of individuals with the social settings in which this functioning takes place. We look at individual behaviour as it interacts with its social context, and as it, more often than not derives from that context Origins of Social Psychology Origins in the late 19th and early 20th centuries Europe - Marx, Le Bon, Durkheim, Freud etc. Marx: research on material impact that economic circumstances have on lives, impact of development of class on European society Le Bon: peoples behaviour in groups, understanding mobs and people in large crowds, explaining how people act in large groups Durkheim: one of the founding fathers of sociology, situating individual behaviours in social settings, large amounts of research into suicide Freud: theories about individual personality development, towards the end of world war one he attempted to understand how people can behave so destructively on such a large scale tried to explain peoples aggressive impulses, took theories about individual psychology and extended them to groups 20th Century USA In the aftermath of the two world wars, American society had escaped the large scale devastation, many people emigrated to America Government had to deal with large numbers of people with different languages and subcultural identities, needed theories explaining the behaviour of different groups After discovery of Nazi death camps, there was a large desire to understand how seemingly normal people act in such horrifically brutal ways towards other people Between the two world wars there was the Great Depression which led to large scale poverty, Government needed to understand class dynamics and how to manage groups of people to prevent them from becoming violent Social psychology is categorised by need to solve problem, pragmatic focus, much research was conducted on people focused on managing and predicting group behaviour Dominant Focuses of Social Psychology Attitudes and Attitude Change Consumer psychology, making people buy things

Understanding what creates peoples negative/positive attitudes and how to manage and influence them

Small Groups Dynamics and Processes Intra-group relations, how they react with each other and how people act within a group How group dynamics influence behaviour How groups relate to other groups, how the compare themselves, how they compete Cognitive Psychology Information processing about the social world, how people interpret and make sense of it Formation of attitudes and first impressions Methodological Focus If we are to study peoples beliefs, how we can do this Whether it is possible to accurately measure peoples beliefs and attitudes and apply them to individual behaviour, testing research methods reliability and validity Levels of Analysis Doises (1986) 4 levels of explanation Individual/Internal: explanations for peoples behaviour in the social world tend to focus on internal psychological dispositions e.g. personality, ideals and values Interpersonal/Situational: explaining peoples behaviour in terms of the social situation they are in, observing small group dynamics, intra-group Group/Positional: social events that happen between groups, inter-group Ideological/Societal: explanations for peoples behaviour based on the ways in which their actions are shaped by things like class and ideologies Doise believes that a comprehensive social explanation should take into account all levels

The Self and the Social

The Self It is a personality concept, not something that actually exists Theoretical concept used to describe the definition of the core aspects of who we think we are As a result of the process of observing ourselves and our interactions with other people, reflecting on our thoughts and behaviours and we get a sense of who we are, define ourselves Used to be thought of as an individual concept, something that belongs to each person uniquely Social psychology defines self as something that develops through interaction with others Because we are reflexive and self aware, our sense of self relates to how we perceive our own actions, how we compare our actions and behaviours in the past and how other people are acting and behaviour Sense of self is based on comparison, evaluative concept Compare ourselves with others, if we compare positively leads to positive self image vice versa Based on this we develop a sense of self presentation, defines how we react with the world

Key question is whether there is only one sense of self, or if we could argue whether people can have multiple sense of selves - people act differently in different situations We have an expectation of how we act, but different situations can cause us to act differently Approaches to the Self Individualistic Definitions Unitary, consistent concept, basic essence Refer to types of personalities, types of self that different people have Believes that the sense of self defines our core being, determines how we interact with the world, behaviour is a result of internal psychological processes that are relatively consistent Social Cognitive Definitions Thinking process, how we make sense of the world Patterns of information processing determine our personalities These patterns of information processing lay down habits which become usual behaviour, called schemas which form our self concept, how we make sense of the world They can be learned and unlearned, sense of self becomes more changeable We can learn to process information in different ways, change our sense of self Social Identity Theory Sense of who we are derives from the groups we are a part Need to take into account the influence of social context on who we are Positive self esteem results from group status Sense of who we are is contextual, results from situation we are in, groups we are in Identity is not core, fixed or part of our essence - is changeable and constructed Schemas and the Self Concept Schemas: organisation of beliefs about ourselves that guide information processing Our cognitive scheme is always going to be self referential, open to bias - we tend to interpret information about the world in a way that makes us feel good about ourselves Are evaluative, based on a comparison of ourselves with other people Schemas incorporate our sense of who we are in relation to other people as well as ourselves in context, our social and cultural roles and identities Social Identity Theory and Social Categorisation Group membership impacts on selfhood All the different ways of categorising and classifying people impacts on who we think we are Processes that Occur as Being Part of a Member of a Group Social Categorisation We compare ourselves to other people, we combine people and events that seem to be similar and equivalent into certain categories

 It is a natural and spontaneous process in order to simplify things, the effects can be negative and lead to stereotyping We create a system of categorisation in order to interact with the world We place social value on certain categories - usually those we are members of, we view ingroups positively and out-groups negatively Social Identity Self concept based on our knowledge of group membership We attach value and emotional significance to the groups we are a part of We set boundaries between in-groups and out-groups Begin to stress characteristics that define the group, take on group behaviours to define ourselves - dressing, behavioural patterns - in order to draw distinctions Categorisation, Identity and Comparison Compare groups to determine which are better, not an objective comparison Comparison process is shaped by social status Evaluate our individual and group characteristics in relation to other groups, attach value to differences in order to give structure to the social world Attach meanings to different groups, define which ones we want to be a part of Social Identity Management Comparison is an evaluative process with positive and negative outcomes People dont want a negative social identity, strive towards developing positive social identity When comparison with group is negative, we try to manage social identity Factors Determining Social Identity Management Whether or not boundaries between groups are permeable, flexible How stable the hierarchy of status is How legitimate and accepted the status hierarchy is Strategies of Social Identity Management Mobility: if boundaries between groups are permeable, we change groups Creativity: become creative with how we define meaning from our group memberships, change group characteristics Competition: when we believe that status hierarchy is fundamentally unfair group mobilises towards social action in order to change overall system

Social Presentation and Perceptions

General People are self reflexive, this leads us to represent ourselves in a particular way Our presentation of ourselves is informed by how we think others want us to be The self that we present to the world is mediated by contextual influences and is shaped by broader social norms, values and belief systems

Our presentation is a performance of a particular identity, each time we perform our identity in a particular way we refer back to other people who perform similar identities and socially acceptable patterns of behaviour

Impression Management Attempt to accentuate the positives and eliminate the negatives Assume a mantle of false modesty, self effacing about skills Attempt to promote ourselves, emphasise positive qualities Impression Formation How we form first impressions of people and how we add information to the impression over time Non verbal behaviour, pay attention to facial expressions, body language, group membership indicators - we focus on overt behaviours We tend to infer that people are the way they act, assume that particular personality traits are grouped with others Bias towards people acting as an individual, over people acting in a group Negative perceptions of people are weighted more heavily than positive ones Attribution Theory Attributions are when we infer causality for peoples actions, assume that through forming a first impression we can explain what causes peoples behaviours Attribution seems to be a basic cognitive process that we do naturally Common Sense Reasoning: patterns of reasoning we use to explain peoples behaviour, are based on shared assumptions on how the world works and how people work We tend to link what people are doing with who they are, on the basis of that we form our attitudes towards them and how to behave towards them Attributions allow us to interpret reality in a certain way and shapes our behaviour Attributions allow us to simplify the social world and react faster Are usually formed on the basis of single context experiences, dont have all the information about other people - jump to conclusions

People vs Situation Motivational Forces External forces: situational and environmental restraints that dictate behaviour inwards Internal forces: personal, internal pressure that motivate behaviour outwards Any persons behaviour at any given moment is a combination of those forces When making attributions we tend to assume that internal forces have more say in how people act than the external ones

Inferring Traits We assume there is a correlation between how people act and how they intend to act Self serving bias in attributions leads to fundamental errors in attribution making When do we attribute what?

We look for consistency in behaviour, leads us to believe its motivated by internal forces Distinctiveness of the behaviour, we analyse the behaviour in context - if the situation is such

than the behaviour might be justified we attribute behaviour to external forces We search for consensus, whether other people in the same situation act in the same way Fundamental Attribution Error We tend to underestimate context and overestimate personality, even when we know the situation is artificial Perspective and Situational Awareness We explain our own behaviours in terms of the environment when we are acting When we are observing we explain other peoples behaviour through internal means Hindsight allows us to incorporate situational explanations How self aware we are impacts on how we interpret behaviour

Social Influence: Groups vs Individuals

Social Facilitation Social Facilitation: the effect of others presence on our behaviour, we change our behaviour in group contexts - or when we imagine ourselves to in a group context Zajonc (1965) Being in groups enhances arousal, neural excitation, aware of things and ready to react Physiological arousal enhances dominant impulses, perform basic tasks more easily Impedes performance of complicated tasks, performance nerves Positive and negative experiences are intensified in a group, experiences are more uniform Evaluation Apprehension We want to create good impressions, want other people to like us More concerned with this with strangers, than with friends Hawthorne Studies Intent was to look at the effect of lighting on productivity Productivity increased uniformly - not because of the lighting but because of observation Social Loafing Teamwork results in collective laziness, when people act in groups they tend to exert less effort Being in a group reduced the responsibility the individuals feel for the finished product, result Rewarding people reduces social loafing Social loafing is reduced by familiarity between group members Social cohesiveness, group working well together reduces social loafing Making individuals responsible for specific individual components of the task De-individuation De-individuation: loss of self awareness that fosters responsiveness to group behaviour, norms Increased arousal and decreased sense of individuality results in diminished inhibitions

How we think of ourselves as individuals fades, group identity takes over Can result in a sense of accomplishment, being part of something Becomes negative when it results in a mob mentality, because individuals dont feel individually responsible and group situations foster anonymity results in deviant behaviour Factors determining likelihood of mob mentality Size of the group - bigger the group, more likely to develop mob mentality Physical anonymity - if we feel we cant be identified or blamed for our actions, more likely

Activities group is engaging in - physiologically and emotionally arousing activities De-individuation is usually reinforced by the group, members actively week de-individuation Group Purposes and Functioning Social/collaborative groups They develop naturally and are informal Norms and behaviours develop over time

Task orientated groups Are artificial and exist to accomplish a particular task They usually exist in a highly structured environment Clear set of rules for norms and behaviours Everyone needs a specific task Normative Social Influence Change individual behaviour to suit group Group develops a set of norms and everyone who is part of that group changes to conform Occurs in social and task Usually begins in form on behavioural compliance, dont internally accept norms but comply Over time the more accustomed to behaving in a particular way we get leads to acceptance Informational Social Influence Use other people as cues in how to behave, helps us to make sense of situations Other people affect our interpretations of the social world and how we should behave Usually results in accepting group norms, leads to attitudinal conformity Resistance/Minority Influence When an individual changes group behaviour, individual agency resist conforming Moscovici: gathered a group, planted individuals to deliberately attempt to change behaviour - investigated under what conditions one person could change group opinion If an individual was consistent in their disagreement could influence opinion If person was confident in their opinion, but not arrogant - raises doubt Defection, as soon as one other person agrees - group will follow

Leadership, Group Cohesion and Attraction

Leadership All groups have unequal power relations, 1 or 2 members have more weight in decision making There is a weak relation between some personal characteristics and leadership Leadership is an interaction between some individual characteristics and situational demands Leadership Behaviour Lippitt & White (1943): Leadership Styles The effect of different styles of leadership on task performance Analysed the effect of 3 different styles on productivity and morale Autocratic where group leader told the group what to do, did not allow to discuss the task, controlled things very tightly, didnt allow social interaction that was not task focused Was the most productive in getting the group to do what they needed to do Morale was very low and group members disliked group leader Democratic More flexible and open, group members were allowed to discuss, share their ideas and collectively work out the solution High on productivity but not as much as autocratic Resulted in high morale, individual group members were invested in productivity Laissez-faire Didnt focus on the task or group, were often absent, had no influence Very little productivity, got nothing done Social interaction and morale was good Bales (1950): Dual Leadership Difficult for a person to fulfil two roles of leadership, results in two leaders emerging Task Specialist Focuses on getting the job done, focused on the goals of the group Not focused on relationships between group members Socio-emotional Leadership Not as focused on the task Focused on relationships between group members Contingency Theory Situational Control Need to analyse context to determine which balance of leadership styles is best Level of situational control that leaders might have - highly controlled or uncontrolled Factors determining situational control

 Leader-Member relationships, how the members relate to one another How structured the task is How legitimate the leadership is perceived to be, how much authority the leader has Based on these factors, can determine which leadership style would work best High control when the group members like the leader, low control when they dont High control when the task is structured, low when it isnt High control when the leadership is perceived as legitimate Autocratic works best in extreme high control or low control situations Democratic leadership works best in mid range levels of control Group Cohesion Festinger Group cohesion as a combination of attractiveness and goal satisfaction We have to want to be part of the group and the group has to do something for us These factors together act as forces of cohesion and get people to stay in a group and identify as members of those groups Group cohesion makes people more likely to buy into group values and adopt group norms Group membership become important part of self definition Attraction Factors Similarity Co-operation Interpersonal acceptance Allows us to deal with threats Cohesion and Attraction In group situations we end up perceiving people, ourselves and others, not as individuals but as representative of their social groups We start to act in ways typical of our social groups We tend to like people similar to us and dislike people who are different Start to categorise ourselves and other people Differentiate between in-groups and out-groups, conform to behaviours of our in-groups Group Distinctiveness Tajfel Minimal intergroup experiments What are the basic conditions under which people will start to distinguish between in-groups and out-groups? Bias was based on similarity/likeness Necessary to differentiate between groups, even at the expense of out-group Magnify distinctions between groups and ignore diversity

Norms and Conformity

Norms Group norms: shared beliefs amongst a group of people on what is appropriate behaviour Group norms can be used to describe groups of people, talk about people in terms of their patterns of behaviour as reflective of their norms Group norms are also prescriptive - tell us how to behave in certain contexts, with certain groups of people, refer to uniformities of behaviour that occur when people act in group context Our reactions to situations and attitudes shift to conform with the group, become uniform and can be associated with particular groups of people Norms tell us how we should act in certain situations, background assumptions that guide our behaviour - reduce uncertainty about the social world and help us to choose the correct actions Allow us to make sense of other peoples behaviour, tell us how other people act in terms of their group norms - frame of reference for understanding others This means that group norms make the world seem stable and predictable, people like to think they are in control and that they understand what is going on Once they develop, they are very difficult to shift and change - grows beyond individual members Norms are context and situation specific Norms emerge out of peoples interaction, arise spontaneously and develop through people spending time together - eventually become cultural practices Norm Formation and Suggestibility Sherif (1935) - red dot experiment Norms develop spontaneously through interactions with other people Jacobs and Campbell (1961) - red dot experiment with changing group membership Group norms are independent of individual group members and are enduring Conformity Conformity: when individual behaviour gives way to group behaviours Group behaviours are generally more uniform and typical than individual behaviours Norms are attitudinal and behavioural regularities, when we conform our attitudes and behaviours conform to those of the group - allows us to define ourselves as group members Conformity is related to normative and informational social influences In terms of normative social influence, when we are in a groups situation we shift our behaviour to comply with the group norms - compliance Informational social influence is using other people in a group situation to give us cues at to acceptable behaviour, we use other peoples views and opinions to inform our own, shift our attitudes and beliefs to comply with group norms - acceptance Is Conformity a Bad Thing? There are many negative associations with the word conformity - we think of conforming as denying our individuality Not necessarily the case, most often peoples behaviour is a mix of individual and group factors

Group Pressure Aschs conformity experiments, effect of other peoples incorrect answers on subject 75% of participants conformed at least once, 37% showed conformity Obedience Milgrams (1963): experiments on obedience 65% of research participants went all the way to 450 volts More than half of the people obeyed the authority figure, even though obedience went against their beliefs Factors affecting likelihood of obedience Emotional distance of the victim - when victims were further away, more likely to shock Presence of authority figure - when researcher was present, more likely to shock Institutional authority - in university (institutional) setting, more likely to shock Gender - men were more likely to be disobedient When do we Conform? Group size - when the group is very large, we are more likely to conform Unanimity - when everyone in the group agrees, we are more likely to conform Cohesion - when individual members want to be a member and stay part of the group, increases pressure and we are more likely to conform Status - high status members are more able to exert minority influence and shift behaviour, low status members are more likely to conform Opinion - if we think group behaviour will receive a positive public response, more conformity Prior Commitment - if group has made a series decisions leading to an action, has committed to a particular form of behaviour they are more likely to conform Conformity, Behaviour and Attitudes It is possible to draw a distinction between compliance and acceptance When we treat people as individuals, when they are acting as attitudes their behaviours tend to reflect their individually held attitudes In groups, there is often a disjuncture between behaviour and attitudes, behaviour is more closely aligned to group norms It is easier to commit atrocities when it starts as a gradual process, start complying with innocuous behaviours which leads to acceptance and compliance with horrible actions

Group Decision Making

Group Polarisation Group polarisation: effect of the group situation on our pre-existing attitudes and behaviours Everyone enters a group context with their own attitudes and values Being in a group context often means you have to share attitudes and values amongst that group

People tend to form groups with people who are similar, more often than not people form spontaneous groups with people who share the same attitudes and values as us Being in a group with the same attitudes and values, strengthens them in - individuals pre-existing beliefs will be reinforced and strengthens, their attitudes will become more extreme Risky shift: peoples tendencies to engage in risk behaviour becomes more extreme in a group situation, because the group encourages them - group shares the values and beliefs that support those behaviours Risky shift also results in conservative behaviours becoming more extreme Informational social influence, which exposes people to persuasive arguments, as well as normative social influence contributes to people defining their social identity by their groups Groupthink In a highly cohesive group (group with strong social bonds), there is a desire for everyone to agree - compulsion toward unanimity - which often overrides rational processes for debating options, rational thinking gets sacrificed for the sake of everyone agreeing Groups that are isolated from outside sources of information or interaction with other groups, are more likely to experience groupthink Usually in a groupthink situation, the leadership is not impartial - believes strongly in a particular choice or set of beliefs and the group is influenced to agree This is exacerbated by the group having to make a decision in a stressful situation Groupthink Features Group has the sense that they cannot be touched, cannot be held accountable There is an unwavering belief in the group that what they are doing is morally correct Group committing groupthink will ignore contradictory information that opposes their beliefs Really strong pressure on individual group members to conform, self censoring Group starts to stereotyping other groups and themselves as well, conform to their own stereotypes - individuality is lost and they act as representatives of their group

Roles and Situational Demands Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment Context and role demands leads to the development of particular kinds of behavioural norms These behaviours can escalate beyond what people would normally consider normal Inter-Group Competition Anderson & Morrow (1995) First situation was one of explicit competition, players competed against one another Second situation, players combined scores In first, competition situation people were more aggressive - tried harder Conclusion was that competition situations increased peoples levels of aggression Sherif (1966) First week, 2 groups were separated and unaware of each other, developed group cohesion Second week, were introduced to each other - began competing verbally and then physically Group polarisation and groupthink processes resulted in aggressive competition, hostility towards other groups Conflict: Inter-Group Perceptions Conflict usually arises from one group perceiving that the existence of another group is incompatible with their own group Attribution theory Self serving bias: success and positive behaviour is due to our own actions, failure and negative behaviour is due to context Self justification: when bad deeds cant be blamed on the context, deeds are no longer defined as bad Attribution error: reversal of self justification and self serving bias to create negative impressions of other groups

Social Learning
Social Learning Theory We, as humans, aim our behaviours towards achieving certain ends - the environment blocks certain behaviours, the behaviours which are rewarded are strengthened and reinforced We learn what behaviours are rewarded by watching other people Observational Learning - we learn by observing and imitating other people, particularly people who are significant in our lives Core of group (two or more people who interact with and influence one another) socialisation is learning how to behave in certain contexts Bandura - Bobo Doll Conditioning Children watched adults acting violently towards Bobo doll Adults were a model for aggressive behaviour There were two sets of toys - desirable and undesirable - children went for the desirable toys and adults would come in and force them to play with undesirable toys which upset the children The children became frustrated and acted violently towards Bobo doll, imitating the adults that they had seen being aggressive Aims of Experiment Process of learning - how we learn given behaviours, especially aggressive behaviour Testing frustration-aggression theory Group Contexts Features of Group Contexts Are naturally occurring, spontaneous social construct Consists of individuals in the same place at the same time People sharing attitudes, values, interests, behaviours and goals Involve a sense of identification or belonging A form of organisational structure, difference in status or hierarchies of group members Depending on the purpose of the group, they have varying life spans and commitment levels

Group Socialisation Process of learning how to behave in a give group context, learning the norms for what is appropriate and what is not, learning group values Groups are dynamic, shift over time in terms of behaviours, values and attitudes Group socialisation is ongoing throughout group membership Group Socialisation Processes Tuckman (1965) Concentrated on work groups that are artificial and exist for a particular purpose Process of Group Socialisation Forming: dynamic social process where people decide they will form a particular group

 Storming: jostling for position or status within the group, people defining their positions or roles, trying to gain a high status position, conflict ridden time Norming: where people begin to develop a sense of what the usual behaviour for the group are, define expectations of group members Performing: fulfilling group purpose, achieving a goal Adjourning: once group has achieved goal, it usually disbands Moreland and Levine (1993) Group socialisation as a dynamic process related how committed we are to the group Three Socialisation Processes Evaluation: where current group membership is compared to past memberships in terms of what individual can gain Commitment: based upon outcome of evaluation process the level of commitment is determined - if evaluation is positive individual commitment will be high, if evaluation is negative commitment will be low Role Transition: commitment levels influence membership roles over time, shift between various types of membership positions based on how committed we are to the group Socialisation Roles Non member: person who is not a member of the group Quasi-member: almost a member, but not quite accepted by the group Full member: accepted by the group, member of the group Shifts in Membership Status Investigation - enquire about entry, move from being non-member to quasi-member Socialisation - one learn about group norms and values, are accepted by the group, usually involves ritualistic ways of showing acceptance e.g. confirmation Maintenance - once is a full member have to maintain group membership, do this if we feel we are gaining something from the group, if evaluation is negative will diverge Re-socialisation - group can try to keep member by changing values and behaviours either leading back to maintenance or exit from the group, leaving group usually requires ritualistic ways of showing non-membership e.g. funeral Remembrance - member who leaves remember what has learnt from group, group remembers that person who left was once a member

Attitudes
Definition Individualistic Attitudes Attitude: mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individuals response to all objects and situations with which it is related Attitudes are a preparation for a behavioural response, based upon previous experience It is a mental state situated within neurological functioning, to do with memory and learning

Each individual has their own, unique attitudes based upon their own unique experiences Attitudes are evaluative - they are positive or negative and shape our reactions to those particular people or things

Social Attitudes Attitudes are learned through our experiences in the world and observing other people Attitudes are socially shared phenomena communicated between people Expressed through our actions and social practices, they are widely held values that are features of our environment, therefore particular attitudes on particular things are related to social context Normative types of behaviours that people engage in within particular settings are reproductions of the larger social, cultural attitude Attitudes shape our sense making practices, how we interpret the world Attitudes are not just a social product, they are also social action Ways in which the social world is reflected in the individual person Attitudes and Behaviour Individualistic Attitude is an indirect concept, inferred from peoples behaviour People express attitudes that are different to what they believe and how they behave due to social influence, express attitudes that are socially desirable People often act in ways different to their attitudes due to situational demands or social roles General attitudes to specific behaviours have a weak link but specific attitudes to specific behaviours generally have a stronger link (pollution vs recycling)

Social Behaviour is determined by social position People express broader, socially held attitudes but behaviour is more specific to social position, determined by material constraints (woman walking home)

Changing Attitudes McGuire (1969): Persuasive Impact Assume that people make logical decisions based upon information Therefore, information can change peoples beliefs Change attitudes through convincing them of the rational reasoning behind it In changing attitudes must focus on whether information is received, whether information is being understood and depending on how information is received whether audience is accepting the message Can only be persuasive if people are paying attention and if people are understanding Source Message Channel Audience Outcome Persuasion and Communication Source Factors Credibility - how they appear, apparent education levels, how fluently they speak, evidence Likability - attraction factors, if source is likeable more likely to listen Power - audience more likely to listen to someone more powerful Message Factors Structure - sequencing and building an argument, anticlimax and climax Receiver and Context Factors Persuadability - how gullible the audience is, affected by self esteem, intelligence, gender Festinger & Carlsmith (1959): Forced Compliance Gave people incentives to lie about their attitudes towards behaviour Knew their task was boring but were paid to advertise it as interesting People who were paid more could justify their lying in term of the payment People who were given a small amount of money displayed cognitive dissonance - changed their attitudes in order to justify their lie People with low incentives experienced more attitude change because they had insufficient justification for their behaviours Doesnt apply when people are coerced, when we are forced to behave in certain ways - cognitive dissonance has to be reconciled voluntarily in order to create attitude change Cognitive Consistency/Dissonance Attitudes as expressions of behaviour Strong desire to match how we act and what we believe, want consistency When there is an inconsistency between our thoughts and attitudes and how we behave we feel uncomfortable - aversive emotional state We will be motivated to change this either by modifying our behaviour or attitudes Change peoples attitudes by putting them in situations that force them to act against their beliefs, force cognitive dissonance and therefore force attitudinal change

Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination

Conformity, Attributions and Stereotypes

When outsiders look at a group they perceive them as acting in a uniform way, when we are in a group context we take on behaviours we see as usual for that group - behavioural norms The groups we are in influence the way we see others, how we perceive and make sense of other people - attitudinal norms Attributions: we tend to make a bias in our attributions; we explain otherss behaviour in terms of who they are and we explain our own behaviour in terms of our context Intersection of group norms and the attributions we make lead us to make judgements about people in terms of their group memberships Stereotypes: categorise and classify people in terms of their group memberships, we assume that they are their group membership and reduce the world in that way Stereotyping looks at the way we process information and how we interpret other people Stereotyping and Prejudice Stereotyping is a basic perceptional process based on attribution theory and group norms We generalise our perceptions of people based on what we perceive as group types, compare

their behaviour with our mental representation of what group they fit into Stereotyping reduces other peoples subjectivities to simply representing the groups we believe they are part of, not entirely innocent A potential negative consequence is that we form our attitudes based on our perceptions of them, not based on who they are as people Attitudes are either positive or negative, have an evaluative emotional component Prejudice: the attitudes that form towards others based on stereotypes, negative attitudinal response to a stereotype - biased against people because of their group memberships Prejudice is attitudinal, affects our emotional responses and behavioural tendencies, biases the way in which we perceive them - only look for evidence that confirms our prejudgement Social Representations Our perceptions are mediated by our cultural context Our overarching moral systems and the beliefs we have of the world affect our prejudices Serge Moscovici (1960s): Social Representations Attitudes are not individual things, are formed by widely held structures of beliefs The ways in which we represent people towards ourselves (literally and mentally) create the environment for our thinking Social representations give us a framework for thinking about the world, located in social ways of making sense - our values and cultural beliefs determine what we believe is significant and how interpret them Functions of Social Representation Conventional: establish a system of meaning, allow us to simplify the world Prescriptive: they tell us what sense should be made based on past social conventions When we watch other peoples behaviour we classify at either being something we have seen before or something completely new

On the basis of that classification we start objectifying the behaviour, once we have decided where the person fits in and decided our classification of them is real we start forming attitudes Attitudes are formed in relation to the various social representations of others, attitudes relate to imaginary representations of others - not to the actual people The imaginary representations are framed and embedded in social constructs

Discrimination Stereotyping is attitudinal and cognitive, prejudice is perceptual and discrimination is behavioural Discrimination: unjustifiable negative behaviour towards a group or its particular members, not based on who they are but based on their group membership Discrimination often becomes institutionalised within a society in forms of exclusion practices Behavioural consequence of stereotyping and prejudice In order to reduce discrimination is necessary to change peoples prejudice and attitudes

The Contact Hypothesis: Gordon Allport Increased exposure and interaction between groups leads to decreased stereotyping and prejudice - people become more tolerant if they are forced to interact It is difficult to maintain prejudice if your continued experience shows your assumptions to be incorrect - leads to cognitive dissonance Key Aspects Structural and institutional support for exposure and interaction People need to be equal, cant differ vastly in terms of socio-economic variables

How Pervasive is Prejudice? Assume that prejudice leads to negative values and therefore negative behaviour towards others Prejudice is long lasting, the images contributing to the stereotypes are ingrained within society We do not refer to prejudice overtly, make it more socially acceptable Kevin Durrheim and John Dixon: SA Beaches Did research into patterns of behaviour between people on newly desegregated beaches White people would go the beach earlier and earlier to try avoid black people Dress up their reasons in socially acceptable ways, stopped expressing overtly racist ideals Probabilistic stereotyping: started stereotyping based on a likelihood of behaviours occurring Sources of Prejudice Unequal Status Unequal social status, access to social and material resources, leads to boundaries Creates a strong distinction between groups, competition between social groups Competition creates aggression between groups, creates stereotypes and prejudice Religion Religion goes hand-in-hand with traditional, and therefore more conservative belief systems Conservative belief systems dont like diversity There is a correlation between being religious and displaying prejudice This correlation decreases when people are really religious (live out the religious convictions) Self-fulfilling Prophecy When people know they are being stereotyped and so act in ways that conform to the stereotype - strengthens the stereotype Usually happens in a dynamic between people in high status and low status groups People in low status groups cannot resist the stereotype and so conforms

 Stereotype Threat The effect of being stereotyped on your own expectations or performance When people are subjected to a stereotyping process it is likely to affect their thinking behaviours and they are more likely to conform to the stereotype

Aggression, Violence and Inter-Group Conflict

Aggression Humans display violent behaviour towards each other both individually and collectively Aggression or violence is physical or verbal behaviour intended to inflict harm Hostile violence or aggression is acted out for its own sake Instrumental violence is where we use violence or aggression for another social purpose

Biological Theories of Aggression Location for source of our aggressive behaviour is situated within our biological make up Intra-personal explanation for aggression - means theres nothing we can do about it, something humans will always display because it is part of our biological make up, can only manage Sigmund Freud: Instinct Theories Peoples behaviour is determined largely by unconscious motivational forces Eros/Life Drive: instinctual motivation to do the things we need to do to survive Thanatos/Death Drive: self destructive motivation for our negative or antisocial behaviours, unconscious desire to return to an earlier state of being without burden of consciousness Aggression stems from the death drive - destructive impulse Neural Theories Explain peoples behaviour as a result of brain functioning Research into the ways in which different areas of the brain affect our behaviour

Prefrontal cortex of the brain is responsible for decision making, deciding between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and for regulating aggressive behaviour People who sustain injury to prefrontal cortex lose ability to regulate mood Genetic Theories Suggests that people who act aggressively or violently are genetically predisposed towards it Result of evolution - faster reactions, higher temperament led to evolutionary success Biochemical Theories The effect of chemicals on our biological functioning - neurotransmitters, hormones Testosterone is strongly related to levels of aggression Serotonin, usually related to depression, higher levels lead to neurological arousal Steroids, alcohol can make us more aggressive, high correlation between interpersonal violence and alcohol abuse Social Learning Theory

We learn how to behave by watching other people, aggressive role models leads to aggression Very often, in terms of cultural value systems, aggression and violence is rewarded If aggressive behaviour is rewarded and losing breeds submission leads to people wanting to model behaviour to be aggressive

Frustration Aggression Theory Humans are goal directed, we orient our behaviour towards particular ends We are motivated to act in particular ways and have expectations of the result Sometimes the environment in which we are acting blocks the achievement of our goals, prevents us from succeeding - leads to frustration If we are blocked for long periods of time frustration manifests in other ways - firstly with ourselves and then the environmental circumstances Because we often cant challenge environmental circumstances, our anger gets diverted, turn it to other targets unrelated to the source - downwards Relative depravation: feel we are in an unfair situation, occurs in a range of social situations Intergroup conflicts develop from collective frustration and relative depravation Influences on Aggression Uncomfortable Environmental Circumstances Pain: if we are attacked physically, our natural response is to attack back Heat: higher average temperature makes people more aggressive, uncomfortable environmental circumstances reduces our levels of patience and tolerance Crowding: leads to a violation of personal space leads to frustration aggression Physiological Arousal Our reactions are heightened when we are physiologically aroused - more likely to be violent Stimulation of the body heightens emotional responses Effect of Violence in the Media When we are faced with depictions of violent behaviour that are glamorised it affects our attitudes towards that behaviour Pairing of violence with comedy, no long lasting effects Group Influences on Aggression Group Norms Conformity, group obedience and social normative factors lead to aggressive behaviour If the group norms involve aggression and violence leads to increased aggression and violence amongst group members Competition between Groups Discrimination and competition between groups leads to aggressive behaviour De-individuation and Mob Mentality Lose our sense of personal responsibility - leads to increased aggressive behaviour

Ethnicity and Race

Definition Ethnicity: shared social features that contribute towards the groups unique social identity Ethnicity comprises of features such as core beliefs and values (religion and behavioural moral traditions), customs and traditions, shared history, language (language use, idioms, metaphors) Ethnicity is self definitive as well as a way in which we can define others Ethnicity and ethnically located social practices are not fixed, they are dynamic and change to adapt to cultural circumstances It is also relational and doesnt adhere to any individual members, we are born into an ethnicity which is defined for us by other people Implies an active participation - we have to do our cultural, is performative Ethnicity as a Source of Conflict In group situations we use social categorisation, identify with people like us Ethnicity is tied with our perception of ourselves and our perception of others - on an individual as well as on a group level We have a tendency towards feeling a bond with people like us and making distinctions Making distinctions between groups leads to competition and conflict On the basis of our stereotypes we develop attitudes which leads to certain behaviours We attach social significant to the differences we perceive, particularly between ethnic groups

Fishman (1968): Ideologised Positions We can take relatively neutral similarities and differences and make them emotionally significant because we are invested in distinguishing ourselves from others This results in the belief that our groups characteristics are social differences and that it is right and normal to distinguish along those lines Any number of insignificant social features can be used to create stereotypes Ethnicity and Conflict Conflict between groups tends to reinforce our group tendencies Competition and shared threat strengthen and place importance upon group identity features These group identity features become imposed upon people This means that in conflict situations there are very rigid group divisions and boundaries Conflict also contributes towards group cohesion factors Ethnic identities become political identities in a conflict situations, become a point of commonality

around which people can mobilise action Conflict situations tends to polarise groups of people - people characterise others on the basis of their ethnicity until the ethnicity is a reason for conflict Ideology Ideology: broad, widely shared belief system that is reflected in social practice and structure Belief of how things should be and how things should work that forms the background of how we think we should behave, act - shared social view of reality The society we live in and the broad, social, structural values shape our identities Either we can conform to and repeat the societal values or we can resist them

Ethnocentrism: Ideology and Ethnicity Psychological effect of being in a group on our identities Being in a group has a positive effect on our identity Positive in-group identity comes as a result of negative feelings towards out-groups Perception of our particular in-group as superior to all the others Contributes towards sense of uniqueness and common history that are part of ethnicity The value system of our particular ethnic group is viewed as normal, right The problem with this is that it reinforces the traditional way of acting and behaving, leads us to believe that group distinction is real and natural Racism When we divide people according to race we make distinctions between groups of people based on outwardly observable physical features Our prevailing ideologies shape our notion of ethnic identities If our broad social belief system holds that biological differences between people are a basis on which we can divide people we will believe that it is a natural way of distinguishing people We will define ourselves and other people based on race - it becomes part of ethnic identities We use race to maintain distinctions between people and to explain ethnic differences - this is an error and attributes a social difference as having a biological difference Once you start ascribing a social identity as biologically based - it cannot be changed The belief in the hierarchy in racial groups has been used to justify oppression between groups Racism and Ethnicity Ideology of racism influences how people define and enact their ethnic identities Confuses race and ethnicity, we start treating them as if they are interchangeable Culture becomes biological and cultural differences become naturalised If we refer to culture as race it leads to a stereotyping of ethnicities as race The racially organised way of looking at ethnicity influences the way we understand ourselves and others - ethnicity becomes race based

Sex and Gender

Sex and Gender Sex: biologically determined differences in human body shape - male or female Society has a binary view of sex - male or female - despite significant percentage of children born with gender abnormalities Gender: socially constructed cultural differences in behaviour and social roles based upon sex Refers to masculine and feminine The binary of male versus female maps onto the gender binary of masculine versus feminine Successfully executing a masculine gender role qualifies you to be identified as a man vice versa Gender is the social interpretation of sex Sexual orientation refers to the target of a persons sexual desire Sex Based Cognitive Differences

Verbal abilities Mathematical abilities Verbal spatial reasoning Aggression

Biological Theories Biological theories assume that there is a close link between sex and gender Come from an evolutionary perspective, argue that there are intrinsic differences based on gender - these differences are related to biology and cannot be changed There are different orientations towards action between males and females and between people who are masculine or feminine - leads to different roles in society and development of different skills and abilities Tend to be quite essentialistic - tend to tie social phenomena to our biology which makes it difficult to resist the consequences of our biology Think about sex and gender as divorced from society Dont have choice or agency in determining the way in which we act Psychoanalytic Theories Talks about psychosexual development theory Based on children, notice that they are asexual Children are quite sexually orientated Stages of Psychosexual Development Oral - arises from breastfeeding Anal - arises from potty training, learning control Phallic - centres on genetalia Oedipus: males have possessive desire towards our mother which leads to competition with father over mother, learn that in order to possess someone like mother have to emulate someone who has possession of her - emulate father Electra: Females develop penis envy because the phallus symbolises power, identify with mothers sexual characteristics in order to possess a man with a penis Social Learning We take on particular roles, responsibilities, tasks and expectations based on gender differences Gender roles are strongly linked to social representations of what genders should act like Views gender as an active participatory state - something we do

Cognitive Development Categorising things we experience in the world, once we have done this every subsequent time we come into contact with it we add to the knowledge Kohlbergs Gender Labelling: we identify people as male/female based on what we observe Our knowledge becomes more complex as we get older, is an individualistic interpretation Because it is a stage theory implies that everyone should go through it in a particular order This way of classifying enforces the binary approach, masculine or feminine

Gender Schema Theory Builds on the cognitive and social learning theories - both of these treat people as passive Schema theory argues that culture and societies definitions of masculinity and femininity form the background against which we build our gender knowledge framework We actively develop our schemas of gender knowledge from our experiences, which informs our own attitudes and impacts upon our gender identities Sees gender as socially mediated, links gender performance to stereotyping representation and argues that we build our knowledge on the appropriate framework Gender schemas are linked to stereotypical representations of gender Social Constructionism We need to take broader social value systems into account, be critical of everyday assumptions Those particular ways of looking at sex and gender reproduce political values Our knowledge of sex and gender reproduces particular values, in language (only have two categories - masculine and feminine), in sex (believe should be between man and woman) and in our practices and actions (bathrooms are separated) Our knowledge systems, languages and practices reflect a particular social organisation We assume this organisation is natural, but we dont have to treat it as being as natural - we have some notions of sex and gender that are regarded as more true than others Particularly those versions that reinforces the binary of sex leads to gender and differentiates Sex and gender is socially mediated and is relational and performative (something we act out) We do this in order to recognise ourselves in terms of the gender categories and so others can recognise us - every time we perform our gender in a particular way we reproduce values The way we perform our gender can either conform to or resist our notions of gender We assume that gender categories are natural, social constructionism argues it is not Resisting social structure of gender often leads to discrimination Gender roles limit our freedom and agency in a particular way If we see sex and gender as a paired, natural binary it limits us in specific ways, creates pressure on us to conform to gender stereotypes - difficult for people who dont fit

Feminist Theory Developed from a strong critique of the social quo based on gender The ways in which traditional forms of knowledge of sex and gender led to an unequal society Identified the constraints upon womens lives - patriarchy Patriarchy is traditionally conservative and repressive, society is stratified along status lines according to gender - based upon biological differences

Natural expectations define gender roles within society - hunter/gatherer, caretaker Feminists argued that we need to change society to provide equality Critique of assumptions that support oppressive forms of society

Importance Gender is a fundamental axis of oppression, intersects strongly with other forms of oppression Feminist theory is important because it is critical of status quo arrangement Opens up avenues for engaging with the way the world is organised, increase individual agency and to increase individual freedom Led to a strongly voiced, radical critique of masculinity - how people enact masculinity Masculinities Response to feminism, developed as a way of thinking through the issue of being masculine In gender studies, the tendency has been to theorise from the perspective of a white, european male - the idea of masculinity has not been critically examined The effects of patriarchal society on men have not been fully examined With the social changes towards gender equity, masculine studies have started questioning the old ways of being gendered Patriarchal society is doubly oppressive - oppress women, and traditional masculine traditions are very conservative and restrictive, also leads to social sanction of men who deviate Men are now in a situation where they are not sure how they should be acting, old ways are no longer socially acceptable and new ways are not socially accepted yet