Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
to
Social Psychology
Chapter 1
Class Outline
I. The Mysteries of Social Life
II. What Is Social Psychology?
III. Major Theoretical Perspectives of Social
Psychology
1
9/17/2010
2
9/17/2010
3
9/17/2010
Children who
Child h gott a rewardd for
f a goodd grade
d
actually performed worse on later tests.
4
9/17/2010
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural Perspective
• Sociocultural perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that searches for the
causes of social behavior in influences from
larger social groups
5
9/17/2010
Sociocultural Perspective
• What drives social behavior?
Forces in larger social groups such as:
• norms within cultural groups
• social class differences
• nationality/ethnicity
• fads/trends
Sociocultural Perspective
• Social norm -
a rule or expectation for appropriate social
behavior
• Culture -
the beliefs, customs, habits, and language
shared by the people living in a particular time
and place
Sociocultural Perspective
• Sociocultural theorists might ask:
What are the differences in social behavior across
cultures?
For example, women in some societies marry more
than one man (polyandry).
6
9/17/2010
Evolutionary Perspective
• Evolutionary perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that searches for the
causes of social behavior in the physical and
psychological predispositions that helped our
ancestors survive and reproduce
Evolutionary Perspective
• What drives social behavior?
Genetic predispositions inherited from our ancestors
that promoted their survival and reproduction, such
as:
• The tendency to automatically recognize an angry face
• The tendency for mothers to feel protective of their
children
7
9/17/2010
Evolutionary Perspective
8
9/17/2010
9
9/17/2010
85
Students who
played a violent
video game
Retaliatory demonstrated
Aggression
((unpleasant
p
significantly
noise level) higher levels of
retaliatory
aggression
80
Nonviolent Violent
Type of Videogame
10
9/17/2010
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural
Forces in larger social groups
such as: norms, fads, social
Evolutionary class, ethnic identity,
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
11
9/17/2010
Sociocultural
Genetic predispositions that
promoted our ancestors’
Evolutionary survival and reproduction, suc
as: the bond between parent
and
d child
hild
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Classically conditioned
preferences;;
p
Social Learning habits rewarded by others;
imitation of behavior we have
Social Cognitive seen rewarded in others
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
12
9/17/2010
Class Outline
I. The Person
I. Motivation
II. Knowledge
III. g
Feelings
II. The Situation
III. The Person / Situation Interaction
1
9/17/2010
Motivation
• What are your goals?
What goals do you have for today?
What goals do you have for this semester?
What goals do you have for your career?
What goals do you have for your life?
Motivation
• Gain Status
Get Well-
Well-Paying, Highly
Respected Job
Earn High Grades
Attend Take Study for
Class Notes Exams
2
9/17/2010
Motivation
• Attention -
the process of consciously focusing on aspects
of our environment or ourselves
Motivation
• Automaticity -
the ability of a behavior or cognitive process to
operate without conscious guidance once it’s
put into motion
Motivation
• Willpower -
the self-control strength used to overcome
counterproductive impulses to achieve
difficult goals
3
9/17/2010
Willpower
• Participants in one experiment were
asked to eat radishes rather than nearby
cookies.
• Others were asked to eat cookies and
ignore the radishes.
• The students were then asked to solve
puzzles (which, unbeknownst to them,
were actually impossible).
25:00 25:52
20:00 18:54
Persistence 15:00
on puzzles
(minutes) 10:00 8:21
5:00
4
9/17/2010
Motivation
• Thought suppression (Wegner, 1989)
– People cannot control their thoughts when they are
instructed to control their thoughts
– The “white bear” effect
• Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
– Instructions restricting freedoms are resisted
– People may strive to restore decision-making
freedom
– “You can’t tell me what to do!”
Knowledge
Our view of ourselves and the world
Knowledge
• Schema -
a mental representation capturing the general
characteristics of a particular class of
episodes, events, or individuals
e.g., a fancy restaurant
• Exemplar -
mental representation of a specific episode,
event, or individual
e.g., Barton G’s
5
9/17/2010
Knowledge
• Priming -
the process of activating knowledge or goals,
of making them ready for use
e.g.,
g , easier to think of the word for a toucan after
you’ve thought about parrots
Feelings
• Attitudes
• Emotions
• Moods
Feelings
• Attitudes -
favorable or unfavorable evaluations of particular
people, objects, events or ideas
• Emotions -
relatively intense feelings characterized by
physiological arousal and complex cognitions (e.g.,
(e g
fear, anger, joy)
– Emotions are more intense than attitudes
• Moods -
relatively long-lasting feelings that are less focused
than emotions and not directed toward a particular
target
6
9/17/2010
Counterfactual Thinking
The process of imagining alternative “might
have been” versions of actual events
• “If only” statements generated following an
event with salient,, alternative ppossible
outcomes
• Olympian study
• Norm Theory
– The easier it is to imagine that things turned out
differently (i.e. the more abnormal a situation is),
the greater the emotional reaction that results
Counterfactual Thinking
• “If only” thoughts of what might have been
• Particularly salient when an alternative
outcome can be easily imagined
• This occurs when an abnormal or exceptional
event takes place
7
9/17/2010
NEGATIVE EVENT
ABNORMALITY
NEGATIVE AFFECT
COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING
AFFECTIVE RESPONSE
CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION
ALTERED JUDGMENT
8
9/17/2010
Persons as Situations
• Descriptive norm -
information about what people commonly do
in a situation
E.g. Wearing shorts is common in parks in
Canada rare on streets in Mexico
Canada,
• Injunctive norm -
rules that define what is typically approved
and disapproved of in a situation
• Scripted situation -
a situation in which certain events are
expected to occur in a particular order
Persons as Situations
• Pluralistic ignorance -
the phenomenon in which people in a group
misperceive the beliefs of others because
everyone in the group is acting inconsistently
with their beliefs
Culture
• Individualist culture -
a culture that socializes its members to think of
themselves as individuals and to give priority
to their own personal goals
• Collectivist culture -
culture that socializes members to think of
themselves as members of a larger group and
to place the group’s concerns before their own
9
9/17/2010
10
9/17/2010
Non-violent game
50
Violent game
45
Amount of 40
Aggression 35
30
25
>
Inexperienced
Non-violent game
50
Violent game
45
Amount of 40
Aggression 35
30
25
>
Inexperienced Experienced
11
9/17/2010
12
9/17/2010
Social Cognition
Chapter 3
Class Outline
I. Heuristics & Biases
II. Attribution Theories
1
9/17/2010
2
9/17/2010
3
9/17/2010
Errors
• Confirmation Bias
– A tendency to search for information that confirms
one’s preconceptions
• Behavioral Confirmation
– Self-fulfilling prophecy
• When an initially inaccurate expectation leads to actions
that cause the expectation to come true
More Errors
• Illusion of Control
– Perception of uncontrollable events as subject to
one’s control or as more controllable than they are
• Regression
g Toward the Mean
– The statistical tendency for extreme scores or
extreme behavior to return toward one’s average
4
9/17/2010
Considering Alternatives
• With
W ddifficult
cu dec
decisions,
s o s, it iss ooften
e helpful
e p u to
o
play the Devil’s Advocate – i.e., to consider
the opposite side of the argument
• Cognitive
g heuristics -
mental shortcuts used to make judgments
5
9/17/2010
Availability Heuristic
• Availability Heuristic -
a mental
t l shortcut
h t t – estimating
ti ti the
th likelihood
lik lih d
of an event by the ease with which instances
of that event come to mind
6
9/17/2010
Attributional Logic:
Seeking the Causes of Behavior
• Attribution theories -
theories designed to explain how people
d
determine
i theh causes off behavior
b h i
Attribution Theories
• Theories that describe how people explain the
causes of others’ behavior.
• E.g., Kelley’s attribution theory
– Internal vs. external attributions
• Internal attribution: disposition, attitude, personality,
etc.
• External attribution: situation, circumstance, aspect of
the environment, etc.
Attributional Logic
• Correspondent inference theory -
people presume a behavior corresponds to an
actor’s internal disposition if the behavior:
- was intended
- had foreseeable consequences
- was freely chosen
- occurred despite countervailing forces
7
9/17/2010
Attributional Processes
8
9/17/2010
Sadness
• People who are mildly depressed are more
thorough when thinking about social events
When extra thought is beneficial, being a bit sad
makes us more accurate
When extra thought interferes with effective
processing, being a little sad hurts
9
10/9/2010
Self Presentation
Chapter 4
Class Outline
I. Presenting the Self
I. Detecting Deception
II. Appearing Likable
III. Appearing Competent
IV. Conveying Status & Power
What Is
Self‐Presentation?
• Self presentation ‐
the process through which we try to control
the impressions people form of us
Self presentation is synonymous with impression
management
1
10/9/2010
Why Do People
Self‐Present?
• To acquire desirable resources
• To help “construct” our self‐images
• To enable our social encounters to run more
smoothly
Why Do People
Self‐Present?
• Dramaturgical perspective ‐
perspective that much of social interaction
can be thought of as a play, with actors,
performances, settings, scripts, props, roles,
etc.
Problems with Self‐Presentation
• Self‐presentation can backfire
– E.g.,
• Can lead to health problems
– Sun tanningg
– Eating disorders
– Smoking/drug use among teenagers
2
10/9/2010
When Do People
Self‐Present?
• When we think others are paying attention to
us
• When others can influence whether or not we
reach our goals
h l
• When those goals are important to us
• When we think observers have impressions of
us that are different from the ones we desire
The Spotlight Effect:
• Gilovich and colleagues asked Cornell students
to sit in room with five other subjects while
wearing a Barry Manilow T‐shirt
The Spotlight Effect:
• The student who wore the shirt then
predicted how many of the other students in
the room could recall and identify who was on
the shirt
the shirt
3
10/9/2010
The Spotlight Effect:
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Predicted Actual Control
• The students who wore the t‐shirt
predicted that nearly half of the others
would know who was on the shirt
The Spotlight Effect:
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Predicted Actual Control
• In reality, less than a quarter of the
other subjects recalled who was on the
shirt
The Spotlight Effect:
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Predicted Actual Control
• Control students who watched the
subjects on video closely predicted how
many students would identify the shirt
4
10/9/2010
Self‐Presentation
• Self‐presentation differs according to a
personality trait called self‐monitoring
• Self‐monitoring: the tendency to change
b h
behavior in response to the self‐presentation
h lf
concerns of the situation
Self‐Monitoring
• High self‐monitors:
Are inconsistent across situations
Are good at assessing what others want and
tailoring their behavior to fit those
tailoring their behavior to fit those
demands
• Low self‐monitors:
Look inside themselves to decide how to act
Don’t change as much across situations
Self‐Monitoring
• Low self‐monitors have a relatively
consistent ‘self’ regardless of the
situation
5
10/9/2010
Self‐Presentation
– Illusion of transparency
The tendency for people to overestimate the
degree to which their personal mental state is
known by others
known by others
Detecting Deception
Human Lie Detectors
• In general, people are not very good at
detecting deception
– Meta‐analysis: 57% accuracy rate (Vrij, 2000)
• Verbal vs. Nonverbal Cues
– People tend to use nonverbal cues
6
10/9/2010
Deception Detection
• Discriminating between liars and truth‐tellers
• Physiological Measures
– Polygraph
• Behavioral Measures
Behavioral Measures
– Microexpressions
• Neuropsychological Measures
– EEG and fMRI
Polygraph
• Not as much a lie detector as it is an
emotion/anxiety detector
• Measures physiological responses
– Blood pressure
– Pulse
– Respiration rate
– Galvanic skin response
• Believed that specific patterns of physiological
reactions to questions are indicators of
deception
Polygraph Output
Heart rate
Blood pressure
Respiration rate
7
10/9/2010
Guilty Knowledge Test
• Does not assess emotions/stress
• Assesses presence/absence of knowledge about
event
q
• Requires much information about the criminal
event
• Procedure:
– Give subject multiple‐choice test regarding “facts” of
crime
• E.g., “was the individual killed with a knife, gun, rope, etc.?
– Require “yes”/”no” responses to each item
GKT
• Interpreting results
– Increased physiological response to “correct”
option indicates guilty knowledge
– Truthful innocents should not
Truthful innocents should not show pattern of
show pattern of
increased response to “correct” options
– Guilty liars will show pattern of increased
response to “correct” options
Other Methods
• Behavioral‐Physiological Measure
– Voice Stress Analysis / Psychological Stress
Evaluation
• Behavioral Measures
Behavioral Measures
– Gestures
– Eye Gaze
– Microexpressions (see Paul Ekman)
• Neuropsychological
8
10/9/2010
Other Methods
• Neuropsychological Measures
– Guilty Knowledge Tests
– EEG (Electroencephalogram)
– fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
• Blood flow to different areas of the brain
• Cognitive Based Verbal Measures
– Liars report fewer details
– Longer response latencies
– Report fewer contextual and sensory details
– Impart less emotion
Bottom Line
• There is no perfect lie detector
– Currently, there is no effective method for
detecting deception
• Humans are not good judges of who’s lying or
being honest
being honest
– Average person no better than chance
– Trained investigators only slightly better than
chance
– Some individuals are very good
• But unknown why they are, nor what they are basing
their judgments on
Goals of Self‐Presentation
• To be seen as likeable (ingratiation)
• To be seen as competent (self‐promotion)
• To be seen as powerful (intimidation)
9
10/9/2010
Appearing Likeable
• Ingratiation ‐
an attempt to get others to like us
Potential Friends and Power‐ Holders
• We are generally interested in being liked by
people with whom we want to start or
maintain a friendship and by people who are
i
in positions of power
iti f
Express Liking
for Others
Goal:
To appear
To appear
likeable
10
10/9/2010
Goal:
To appear
To appear Create Similarity
likeable
Goal:
To appear
To appear Create Similarity
likeable
Make Ourselves
Physically Attractive
Attractive Benefits
• Attractive people receive many benefits,
including:
They are seen as more honest
They are more likely to be hired for
managerial positions and elected to public
office
They are paid more
They receive shorter sentences for felonies
11
10/9/2010
Goal:
To appear
Create Similarity
lik bl
likeable
Appearing Competent
• Self‐promotion ‐
An attempt to get others to see us as
competent
Staging Performances
Goal:
To Appear
To Appear
Competent
12
10/9/2010
Goal:
To Appear
To Appear
Competent
Claiming Competence
• Claims of competence are appropriate:
When they are invited
• (e.g. at job interviews)
When they are second‐hand
When they are second‐hand
• (e.g. if friend talk us up or if we show people letters of
recommendation)
Goal:
Using the Trappings of
To Appear
To Appear C
Competence
t
Competent
13
10/9/2010
Goal:
Using the Trappings of
To Appear
To Appear C
Competence
t
Competent
Making Excuses or
Claiming Obstacles
The Paradox of Self‐Handicapping
• Self‐handicapping ‐
withdrawing effort or creating obstacles to
one’s future successes
e g drinking the night before an important exam
e.g., drinking the night before an important exam
Display Artifacts of
Power
Goal:
To Convey
To Convey
Status
14
10/9/2010
Goal:
To Convey
To Convey
Status
Goal:
Associate with People of
To Convey
To Convey St t and
Status dPPower
Status
15
10/9/2010
Personal Associations
• Basking in reflected glory ‐
broadcasting our associations with successful,
high‐status others and events
• Cutting off reflected failure ‐
di t i
distancing ourselves from unsuccessful, low‐
l f f l l
status others or events
Goal:
Associate with People of
To Convey
To Convey St t and
Status dPPower
Status
Non-verbal
Non-
dominance
Status and Power and Nonverbal
Expressions
• Body language ‐
p p
the popular term for non‐verbal behaviors
like facial expressions, posture, body
orientation, and hand gestures
16
10/9/2010
Status and Power and Nonverbal
Expressions
• Compared to low‐status people, high‐status
people are more likely to:
Maintain eye contact when speaking
Pay less attention when listening
Pay less attention when listening
Interrupt others
Place themselves in positions of prominence
Touch others and enter others’ personal space.
17
10/9/2010
Attitudes & Persuasion
Chapter 5
Class Outline
I. ABCs of Attitudes
II. Attitude Change / Persuasion
I. Elaboration Likelihood Model
III. Attitude Consistency
I. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Attitudes
• A favorable or unfavorable evaluation of a
particular thing
1
10/9/2010
Attitude Formation
• Attitudes spring from several sources:
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
Observational learning
Observational learning
Heredity
Attitudes
• Components of attitudes
– Affective component: emotional reactions
– Behavioral component: actions/behaviors
– Cognitive component: thoughts and beliefs
Attitude Strength
• Strong attitudes:
Are more likely to remain unchanged as time passes
Are better able to withstand persuasive attacks or
appeals specifically directed at them
appeals specifically directed at them
2
10/9/2010
Attitude Strength
• The two main reasons strong attitudes resist
change are
Commitment ‐
people are sure they are correct
Embeddedness ‐
people have connected these attitudes to other
features of their self‐concept, values, and identity
Types of Attitudes
• Attitudes may be explicit or implicit
– Explicit Attitudes: Attitudes we consciously
endorse and can easily report
– Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary,
Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary
uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
Do attitudes predict behavior?
• LaPiere and a Chinese couple
– Were refused service only 1/250 times
– >90% of these places said they would refuse
service
3
10/9/2010
When do attitudes predict behavior?
• Correspondence (level of specificity)
– Attitudes will predict behaviors better if they are
both measured at the same level of specificity
both measured at the same level of specificity
• Aggregation
– Attitudes will predict “averaged” behaviors more
than individual behaviors
When do attitudes predict behavior?
• Social influence
– bogus pipeline
• Strength of attitude
Strength of attitude
– Vested interest
– Personal experience
– Accessibility
Attitude‐Behavior Consistency
• The following factors influence the likelihood
that a person’s attitude will be consistent with
his behavior:
Knowledge
Personal relevance
Attitude accessibility
4
10/9/2010
Attitude‐Behavior Consistency
• Theory of planned behavior ‐
Theory stating that best predictor of
behavior is one’s behavioral intention,
which is influenced by:
hi h i i fl db
‐One’s attitude toward specific behavior
‐Subjective norms regarding the behavior
‐One’s perceived control over the behavior
How do attitudes guide behavior
• Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior
– Rational processes drive behavior. We are guided by
• Our attitudes toward a behavior
–Look at the + or – consequences of the behavior
• The subjective norms
–Will others approve or disapprove of the behavior?
• Perceived behavioral control
–People’s appraisal of their ability to actually
behave
Theory of Planned Behavior
Attitude
(One’s evaluation of the specific
behavior in question)
Perceived
Behavioral Control
(One’s perception of how
difficult it would be to perform
the behavior)
5
10/9/2010
Does behavior predict attitudes?
• Self Perception Theory
• Role
A set of norms that defines how people in a
given social position ought to behave
What Is
Persuasion?
• Persuasion ‐
change in private attitude or belief as a result
of receiving a message
How would you design a study to measure the
effectiveness of techniques of persuasion?
6
10/9/2010
Measuring Attitude Change
• Nonreactive measurement ‐ measurement
that does not change a subject’s responses
while recording them
Covert techniques are more nonreactive than self‐
Covert techniques are more nonreactive than self
reports
The Within‐Subjects Design
• A before‐and‐after design
1. Measures people’s attitudes on a topic
2. Provides half of those people with a persuasive
message
3. Measures the change in people’s attitudes
However, step one could sensitize people to an
issue, so it may not test the effectiveness of
the argument alone
The Between‐Subjects Design
• The after‐only design assesses persuasion by
measuring attitudes only after the persuasion
attempt
• It requires random assignment
It requires random assignment
7
10/9/2010
The Between‐Subjects Design
• If the attitudes on the after‐measure alone are
significantly more favorable to the message in
the experimental group than in the control
group the message was probably effective
group, the message was probably effective
Cognitive Response Model
a theory that locates the most direct cause of
persuasion in the self‐talk of the persuasion
target
• Counterarguments ‐
arguments that challenge and oppose other
arguments
• Inoculation procedure ‐
a technique for increasing individuals'
resistance to an argument by first giving them
weak, easily defeated versions of it
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
there are two routes to attitude
change—the central route and the
peripheral route
• Dual process model of persuasion ‐
a model that accounts for the two ways
that attitude change occurs—with and
without much thought
8
10/9/2010
ELM Outline
I. The Audience
II. The Source
III. The Message
ELM Outline
I. The Audience
A. Motivation
1. Personal Relevance
2. g
Need for Cognition
B. Ability
I. Audience Factors
• Message recipients will consider a
communication deeply (via the central
route) when they have both:
– the motivation
the motivation
– the ability
9
10/9/2010
Factors Influencing Motivation
• Factors that influence a person's
motivation to process a message deeply:
Personal relevance of the topic (does it
matter to you?)
Need for cognition ‐
tendency to enjoy and engage in deliberate
thought
Factors Influencing Ability
• Factors that influence a person's ability
to process a message deeply:
– Knowledge
– Time
– Cognitive Load
High Lasting
motivation Central processing, change that
and ability to i.e. the quality of the resists fading
think about message arguments and
the message counterattack
Message
Peripheral
Temporary
Low processing, i.e.
change that
motivation surface features like
that is
or ability to the communicator’s
susceptible to
think about attractiveness or the
fading and
the message # of arguments
counterattack
presented
10
10/9/2010
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• Petty & Cacioppo (1984) asked college
students to read arguments in favor of
mandatory comprehensive exams
• Students would be required to pass these
exams before being allowed to graduate
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• The issue was either highly relevant to them
(They would personally have to take the exams to
graduate)
• Or of low relevance to them
Or of low relevance to them
(Policy would not take effect for ten years – long
after they’d graduated)
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• Arguments were either high quality
e.g., “Average starting salaries are higher for
graduates of schools with exams”
• Or low quality
Or low quality
“Exams would allow students to compare
performance with other schools”
• Some students heard only three arguments
• Others heard nine arguments
11
10/9/2010
High
12 Low
10
personal stake,
stake more
6
strong arguments
4 were more
convincing
2
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
High
12 Low
10
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
High
12 Low
10
8
Attitude T
6
Students who wouldn’t be
4 affected didn’t process
quality
2
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
12
10/9/2010
ELM Outline (cont’d)
II. The Source
A. Credibility
1. Expertise
2. Trustworthiness
B. Similarity
C. Attractiveness
II. The Source
• Who is presenting the message?
Expertise & Trustworthiness
• People rely on the credibility of a
communicator principally when the message
is highly complex
• Expertise
– Having unique knowledge and experience
• Trustworthy
– Portray honesty by reducing appearance of
persuasion for personal interests (“for your own
good”)
– Present both sides of the argument
13
10/9/2010
Similarity & Attractiveness
• The communicator of the message is seen as
more likable…
– The more similar they are to you
– The more physically attractive they are
The more physically attractive they are
ELM Outline (cont’d)
III. The Message
A. Reason vs. Emotion
B. Discrepancy
C. One‐Sided vs. Two‐Sided
D. Primacy vs. Recency
III. The Message
• Central processing is based on an examination
of the quality of the message / persuasive
argument
14
10/9/2010
Reason vs. Emotion
– Fear appraisals: Fear can create attitude
change IF the audience is told how to avoid
the danger
– Positive emotions: Feeling good leads to a
gg
more positive outlook, which increases
one’s tendency to use the peripheral route
to persuasion
• E.g., People who watch commercials while
eating are more easily persuaded than those
who watch the commercials but don’t eat
Discrepancy
• How extreme a position should you take in
order to maximize attitude change?
• Moderate discrepancy is best ‐ too extreme a
position will lead people to quickly reject and
position will lead people to quickly reject and
refute the arguments
One‐Sided vs. Two‐Sided
• When trying to persuade, is it better to
acknowledge opposing viewpoints?
• One‐sided is better if:
– Audience already agrees
Audience already agrees
– Audience is not aware of opposing views
• If either of these situations do not hold, two‐
sided arguments are better
15
10/9/2010
Primacy vs. Recency
• When trying to persuade, is it better to give
your message before or after your opponent?
• Depends on time…
primacy vs. recency
Time
Message 1 Message 2 Decision
Primacy
Time
Message 1 Message 2 Decision
Recency
The Goals of Persuasion
• Why do people change their attitudes
and beliefs?
• Individuals may yield to a persuasive
message in order to
message in order to
hold a more accurate view of the world
be consistent with themselves
gain social approval and acceptance
16
10/9/2010
• Belief perseverance
Persistence of one’s initial conceptions, as
when the basis for one’s belief is discredited
but an explanation of why the belief might be
but an explanation of why the belief might be
true survives
Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Consistency principle ‐
principle that people will change their
attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and actions to
make them consistent with each other
• Balance Theory (Heider, 1946)
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive dissonance ‐
unpleasant state of psychological arousal
resulting from an inconsistency within one's
important attitudes beliefs or behaviors
important attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
• Counterattitudinal action ‐
a behavior that is inconsistent with an existing
attitude
17
10/9/2010
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Discrepancies between attitudes and behavior
produce aversive arousal (cognitive
dissonance)
• People are motivated to reduce arousal
People are motivated to reduce arousal
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
• Change attitude • “Smoking isn’t unhealthy”
• Change behavior • Quit smoking
• Add consonant • “Smoking helps me lose
cognitions weight”
• Minimize the • “We’re all going to die, so I
importance of the might as well enjoy myself”
conflict • “I had no choice – everyone
• Reduce perceived else was smoking”
choice
3 Reasons for Cognitive Dissonance
1) Justifying attitude‐discrepant behavior
2) Justifying effort
3) Justifying difficult decisions
18
10/9/2010
1) Justifying attitude‐discrepant
behavior
Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
• Participants perform a dull task
• They are then asked to tell another person that the
experiment was fun
• Some people are paid $1, some people are paid $20
for the lie
• Question: Which group of people will later rate the
task as more enjoyable?
Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
Rating
of task
enjoyment
Insufficient Justification
• Insufficient justification
– You acted contrary to your attitudes for no tangible
reason
– You have to convince yourself that your behavior
You have to convince yourself that your behavior
was not inconsistent with your attitudes
– Change attitude to match behavior
19
10/9/2010
2) Justifying effort
• People alter their attitudes to justify that for
which they suffer.
– E.g., the sex discussion study
– The discussion was “one of the most worthless
and uninteresting discussions imaginable.”
2) Justifying effort
Rated
enjoyment
of discussion
2) Justifying effort
• People alter their attitudes to justify that for
which they suffer.
– E.g., the sex discussion study
– Hazing rituals
– When Prophecy Fails
p y
20
10/9/2010
Quotes from the cult members
• “I have to believe the flood is coming on the
twenty‐first because I’ve spent all my money. I
quit my job, I quit computer school…I have to
believe.”
• “I’ve had to go a long way. I’ve given up just
about everything. I’ve cut every tie. I’ve burned
every bridge. I’ve turned my back on the world.
I can’t afford to doubt. I have to believe. And
there isn’t any other truth.”
3) Justifying difficult decisions
• Once people make a tough decision (between two
equally‐appealing options), they tend to convince
themselves that they made the best decision
• “Spreading of alternatives”
– E.g., product ratings
Justifying difficult decisions
Chosen item
Unchosen item
Rated
attractiveness
of product
21
10/9/2010
4 necessary components of cognitive
dissonance
1) Behavior must produce negative consequences
2) Feeling of personal responsibility
– E.g., negative consequences were foreseeable and
g, g q
freely chosen
3) Physiological arousal
4) Attribution of arousal to own behavior
– Not to external cause
22
10/9/2010
Social Influence
Chapter 6
Types of Social Influence
I. Persuasion
II. Mindlessness
III. Conformityy
A. Acceptance
B. Compliance
IV. Obedience
Social Influence
• A change in overt behavior caused by real or
imagined pressure from others
1
10/9/2010
Mindlessness
• Many decisions are made without careful
thought
• We are often persuaded by unimportant
variables
– E.g., photocopier study, spare change study
Photocopier Study
100
90
80
70
Percent 60
h
who 50
agreed 40
30
20
10
0
No excuse "In a rush" "Need to
make copies"
Spare Change Study
Money
made
Request
2
10/9/2010
Goals of Social Influence
• Social Approval
• Consistency
• Accuracy
Conformity
• changing one’s behavior to match the
responses or actions of others (not necessarily
due to pressure)
Conformity
3
10/9/2010
Line Studies (Asch)
Types of Conformity
• Normative social influence
– We conform because we want to be liked and
accepted by others
Conformity
4
10/9/2010
Light Study (Sherif)
8
7 Participant A
6 Participant B
5 Paticipant C
Inches of
perceived 4
movement 3
2
1
0
Pregroup Group Group Group
session 1 session 2 session 3
Types of Conformity
• Informational social influence
– We conform to others' behavior because we
believe they know more about the correct way to
behave than we do
– This type of conformity works best when
individuals are uncertain of reality
• Acceptance
– Conformity that involves both acting and believing
in accord with social pressure
Compliance
• Conformity that involves publicly acting in
accord with an explicit request while privately
disagreeing
• Behavior change in response to a direct
Behavior change in response to a direct
request
5
10/9/2010
Compliance Techniques
1. Reciprocity
2. Commitment & Consistency
3. Social Proof
4. Liking
5. Scarcity
6. Authority
1. Reciprocity
• “Treat others as they treat us”
• Christmas card study:
– 578 cards sent to random people
– 117 sent a card in return!
1. Reciprocity
• Door‐in‐the‐face technique
1. Make a large request (and get turned down)
2. Make a smaller request
6
10/9/2010
1. Reciprocity
• Control group – people were asked:
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid chaperons
for juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo?”
• Experimental group – people were asked:
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid
counselors to juvenile delinquents 2 hrs./week for
2 years?”
“No? OK, would you be willing to serve as unpaid
chaperons for juvenile delinquents on a day trip
to the zoo?”
Door‐In‐The‐Face
50
45
40
Percent 35
agreeing to 30
2nd request 25
20
15
10
5
0
With no large 1st request With a large 1st request
7
10/9/2010
1. Reciprocity
• Supermarket samples and censor battles
2. Commitment & Consistency
• Once we make a commitment, we feel
pressure to behave consistently
– Cognitive dissonance
Examples of Commitment and
Consistency
• Beach towel study
8
10/9/2010
Beach Towel Study
100
90
80
70
60
Percent 50
who 40
intervened 30
20
10
0
2. Commitment and Consistency
• Foot‐in‐the‐door technique
1. Get person to comply with a small request
2. Increase the request
– “DRIVE CAREFULLY” study
DRIVE CAREFULLY Study
80
70
60
Percent 50
who agreed 40
to billboard 30
20
10
0
Control Small initial request
9
10/9/2010
2. Commitment and Consistency
• Low‐balling
1. Secure agreement with a request
2. Reveal hidden costs
3. Social Proof
• We view a behavior as correct in a given
situation to the degree that we see others
performing it
• While often accurate, this can lead us to
respond to ‘false’ social proof
p p
– E.g., canned laughter on sitcoms
– Tip jars
– Doomsday cult
When does social proof work?
• Uncertainty – When people are unsure of
how to act, they look to others.
• Similarity – The more similar others are to
you, the more likely you are to look to them
to determine what to do.
– E.g., Person‐on‐the‐street
10
10/9/2010
4. Liking
• People are more likely to comply with people
they like
What determines who we like?
• Physical attractiveness
– Halo effect
• Similarity
• Familiarity
– Mere exposure effect
Mere exposure effect
5. Scarcity
• Opportunities seem more valuable to us
when they are less available
– Limited numbers
– Limited time
11
10/9/2010
5. Scarcity
• E.g., cookie study
• Psychological reactance – we want what we
cannot have
• Works for two reasons:
1. Scarcity implies social proof
1 Scarcity implies social proof
2. We hate to lose an opportunity we once had
6. Authority
• We tend to comply with authority figures
– Even if authority is unrelated to the request!
12
10/9/2010
Obedience
Obedience
• Changing one’s behavior in response to a
directive from an authority figure
Milgram’s Obedience Studies
• How far would people go in the name of
following authority?
13
10/9/2010
Milgram’s Obedience Studies
• Participants are instructed to deliver shocks
to a ‘learner’ whenever the learner makes a
mistake
14
10/9/2010
Milgram’s obedience studies
• Shocks range from 15 volts to 450 volts;
shocks increase with each mistake by the
learner
Milgram’s Obedience Studies
• 75 volts Grunts
• 120 volts Shouts in pain
• 150 Refuses to continue the
experiment
• 200 Complains about heart
condition
• 300 Screams; refuses to
answer
• 330+ Silence
15
10/9/2010
Experimenter’s Orders
• “He’s fine. Go on.”
• “The experiment requires that you go on.”
• “It is absolutely essential to go on.”
• “You have no choice. You must go on.”
What People Predicted
• Disobey at around 135 volts
• Only 0.1% would deliver the maximum
possible shock of 450 volts
What Really Happened
Shock level % Obeying
Slight-strong shock (15- 100%
240)
Intense shock (255-300) 88%
Extreme intensity shock 68%
(315-360)
Danger: Severe shock 65%
(375-420)
XXX (435-450) 65%
16
10/9/2010
Factors That Affect Obedience
• The authority
– Legitimacy
– Proximity
• The learner
– Proximity
P i it
• The procedure
– Gradual escalation
– Dissenters
Ethics of the Milgram
Experiment
17
10/9/2010
Obedience
• Behavior change produced by the commands
of authority
– Mindlessness
– McDonald’s Strip Search
Nurse Study
• Unknown physician called hospital nurses and
told them to administer an obvious drug
overdose to patients
• Medication needed written orders, the drug
was unfamiliar to the nurses, the dosage was
, g
extremely high and had harmful effects
• Nonetheless, 21 out of 22 nurses immediately
obeyed!
Eardrop Study
• A patient is suffering from an earache
• Doctor orders ear drops to be “placed in R ear.”
• The nurse reads the orders and promptly puts
the ear drops into the patient’s anus
18
5/17/2011
Affiliation &
Friendship
Chapter 7
Goals of Affiliation
I. Getting Social Support
II. Getting Information
III. Gaining Status
IV. Exchanging Material Benefits
What Is a Friend?
• Friend -
someone with whom we have an
affectionate relationship
• People’s personal definitions of
friendship include such features as the
following:
– Friends participate as equals
– Friends enjoy each other’s company
– Friends help each other in times of need
1
5/17/2011
Domain-General Models
• Reinforcement-Affect Model
• Social Exchange Theory
2
5/17/2011
Similarity-Attraction Rule
• Being around people who share our attitudes
makes us feel good
3
5/17/2011
4
5/17/2011
100
75
Percentage
Wanting to 50
Wait With
Others 25
0
Low Fear High Fear
5
5/17/2011
100
75
Percentage
Wanting to 50
Wait With
Others 25
0
Low Fear High Fear
6
5/17/2011
Getting Information
• Other people can provide a wealth of facts
helpful for solving problems in the physical
world
– Example: How to build a fire
• When it comes to social realities (do others
perceive you as friendly?), other people’s
opinions are more or less all that matters
7
5/17/2011
Similarity to Us
• Many studies support the theory that when
we’re uncertain, we prefer information from
similar others
• But if the issue is highly important to us, we
prefer affiliating with others who can give us
accurate information, whether they are similar
or not
8
5/17/2011
9
5/17/2011
Gaining Status
• People often form alliances to improve their
position in the social dominance hierarchy
10
5/17/2011
Attribution of Success
Ackerman et al., Evolution & Human Behavior, 2007
PARTNER
6
Responsible for success
Women
Men
4
SELF
Kin Friends Strangers
Partner relationship
Status by Association
• Students in one experiment were assigned to
the “Blue Team,” to work together on
intellectual problems
• They were later told that their team scored
either:
– Above 90 % of people their age
– Below 70 % of people their age
– Controls were given no information
11
5/17/2011
100
Percent 80
Taking a
60
“Blue
Team” 40
Badge 20
Failure No Success
Information
• Students whose team had performed well “basked
in reflecting glory,” proudly displaying their team
affiliation
100
Percent 80
Taking a 60
“Blue
40
Team”
20
Badge
Failure No Success
Information
• Students whose team had performed poorly “cut
off reflected failure” by avoiding wearing the
badges
Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford (1986)
12
5/17/2011
13
5/17/2011
Authority
Ranking
Equality
Matching
Market
Pricing
Equality
Matching
Market
Pricing
Market
Pricing
14
5/17/2011
Authority Military
Ranking squad
Market
Pricing
Authority Military
Ranking squad
Children
Equality Individuals trade playing a
Matching according to rational rules game
of self-interest, taking
goods and services in
Market proportion to what they Customer &
Pricing put in, and seeking the Shopkeeper
best possible “deal”
Individual Differences in
Communal Orientation
• People who have a communal orientation are
less concerned with keeping careful track of
inputs and outputs in their relationships with
others
15
5/17/2011
16
5/17/2011
17
5/17/2011
Chapter Outline
• Defining Love and Romantic Attraction
• The Defining Features of Love
• Are There Different Varieties of Love?
• The Goals of Romantic Relationships
• Obtaining Sexual Gratification
• Establishing Family Bonds
• Gaining Resources and Social Status
• Breaking Up (and Staying Together)
1
5/17/2011
Sternberg’s Triangular
Theory of Love
Passion
•
Romantic Companionate
Love Love
• •
Intimacy Commitment
Fatuous Love
2
5/17/2011
What is attractive?
• Waist-to-hip ratio of .7 for women
What is attractive?
• Waist-to-hip ratio of .7 for women
• Men find “baby-faced” features attractive in
women – big eyes, big forehead, round
cheeks, small nose, wide smile
3
5/17/2011
So what is attractive?
• Waist-to-hip ratio of .7 for women
• Men find “baby-faced” features attractive in
women – big eyes, big forehead, round cheeks,
small nose, wide smile
• Facial symmetry
• Women find “masculine” features attractive in
men – V: broad shoulders and small waist, large
jaw
4
5/17/2011
DATE
5
5/17/2011
Gender Differences in
Sexuality
• Men and women differ in their criteria for
sexual partners
• But their criteria for long-term partners are
very similar
6
5/17/2011
80
60
Not a single
About half of woman said
40 both sexes said “yes” to the
“yes” to the date sexual
20 invitation.
0
Go Out Go to Apt. Go to Bed
Physical Attractiveness
• 3 lines of evidence to suggest physical
attractiveness may be biological:
– Infants (2-months old) look longer at faces
considered attractive than at faces considered
unattractive
– Cross-cultural consistency of what is beautiful
– Some features are consistently and reliably
associated with attractiveness
7
5/17/2011
Sociosexual Attitudes
• Sociosexual orientation -
individual differences in tendency to prefer
either:
Unrestricted sex (without the necessity of love)
Restricted sex (only in the context of a long-term,
loving relationship)
8
5/17/2011
Cheating
• Imagine you discover the person with whom
you’ve been seriously involved has become
interested in someone else
• What would distress you more?
1. Imagining partner falling in love and forming a
deep emotional attachment
2. Imagining partner having sexual intercourse with
that person
9
5/17/2011
Bridge Study
• Men crossed either:
– Wobbly, shaky bridge 230 feet above rapids
– Sturdy bridge 10 feet above the ground
Bridge Study
• Men crossed either:
– Wobbly, shaky bridge 230 feet above rapids
– Sturdy bridge 10 feet above the ground.
• They were met by a female research assistant
who gave them her number
Men on shaky bridge were more likely to call
than men on sturdy bridge (Dutton and Aron,
1974)
Misattribution of Arousal
(Excitation Transfer)
10
5/17/2011
11
5/17/2011
Attachment Styles
Attachments marked
by trust that the other
SECURE
will continue to provide
love and support
Defensive detachment
AVOIDANT from the other
Fear of abandonment;
ANXIOUS/
feeling that one’s needs
AMBIVALENT are not being met
12
5/17/2011
SINGLES ADS
Singles’ ads by
young men show Oldest preferred
no preference for Youngest preferred
20younger partners
DIFFERENCE FROM
20
But older men prefer Marriages show a
partners younger than similar pattern
TARGET'S AGE
10
themselves 10
0 0
-10 -10
Women of all ages ask
for men around their
own age or older
-20 -20
10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s
MALE'S AGE FEMALE'S AGE
13
5/17/2011
Culture, Resources,
and Polygamy
• Monogamy -
marital custom in which one man marries one
woman
• Polygamy -
marriage involving more than one partner,
includes:
Polyandry -
one woman weds more than one husband
Polygyny -
one man weds more than one wife
Culture, Resources,
and Polygamy
• Polyandrous woman’s multiple husbands are
usually brothers who share limited resources.
• Extreme polygyny (e.g., harems) involves:
Steep social hierarchy
Great wealth in some families
Possibility of starvation for others
Social Exchange in
Committed Relationships
• Equity rule -
each person’s benefits and costs in a social
relationship should match the other’s benefits
and costs
Occurs in low-intimacy relationships
14
5/17/2011
When Dominance
Matters
• Women in one study read about a man who
was either
Dominant or
Non-dominant
• And either
Agreeable or
Disagreeable
15
5/17/2011
Nondominant
9 Dominant
Desirability 7
as a Date 5
Disagreeable Agreeable
• When the man was disagreeable, women
found him undesirable as a date, regardless of
whether he was dominant or nondominant.
Nondominant
9 Dominant
Desirability 7
as a Date 5
Disagreeable Agreeable
• When he was agreeable, women found him
desirable as a date
- and his desirability was enhanced if he was also
dominant
16
5/17/2011
17
5/17/2011
18
5/17/2011
Prosocial Behavior
Chapter 9
Chapter Outline
• 5 Steps to Helping Behavior
• Goals of Prosocial Behavior
Improving Our Basic Welfare:
Gaining Genetic and Material Benefits
Gaining Social Status and Approval
Managing Self-Image
Managing Our Moods and Emotions
• Does Pure Altruism Exist?
Helping Behavior
• Prosocial behavior
– action intended to benefit another
• Benevolence
– action that benefits another person
intentionally for no external reward
• Pure altruism
– action intended solely to benefit another for
no external or internal reward
1
5/17/2011
Social Responsibility:
The Helping Norm
• Social responsibility norm -
societal rule that people should help those who
need their assistance
Number of Bystanders
100
Alone
1 other bystander
80
4 other bystanders
Percent 60
who
40
helped
20
0
60 seconds 150 seconds
2
5/17/2011
Bystanders as sources of
information about helping
• Pluralistic Ignorance -
phenomenon that occurs when bystanders to an
emergency, trying to look poised, give
misleading cues to others that no help is
needed
3
5/17/2011
Bystanders as sources of
information about helping
• In one study, researchers pumped smoke into a
lab while students filled out a questionnaire
Some students were left alone
Some with two other real participants
Some with two other confederates who pretended
nothing was wrong
80
60
Percentage
Reporting 40
Smoke 20
Bystanders as sources of
information about helping
• Results suggest that people look to others to
provide information
• If no one else seems upset, that suggests this
isn’t an emergency
4
5/17/2011
Others as Others as
Others as Sources of Sources of
Sources of Whether Approval or
Help Helping is Disapproval
Called For for Helping
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
1. Noticing
– In order to help, we must notice that there
is an emergency.
– Other people can distract our attention
5
5/17/2011
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
2. Interpreting the event as an emergency
– Is the situation really an emergency or are
we misinterpreting something?
– When ambiguous, we look to others. If
they’re not panicking, we don’t panic.
– But everyone is looking to everyone else;
therefore, no one looks panicked!
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
3. Taking responsibility
– When alone, people feel responsible
– When others are present, people place the
responsibility on everyone else
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
4. Knowing how to help
– Do we know how to help?
– Provide assistance directly, call someone
else…
– Lack of competence
6
5/17/2011
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
5. Deciding to help
• Audience inhibition
• The more people, the greater the potential
embarrassment
• Rewards and costs
7
5/17/2011
A Stranger in Distress
• Heroism – actions that involve courageous risk
taking to obtain a socially valued goal
– Doesn’t include risky behavior for fun
– Can be either deliberative or automatic
– Might also involve people who take other risks, like
donating body parts for transplant, Peace Corp
members, doctors etc.
When do we help?
Situational influences
• Number of bystanders
• Time pressure
– Good Samaritan study
When do we help?
Situational influences
Time pressure
• Theological students were either early or late
to give a talk
• Encounter a man slumped on the street,
coughing and groaning
• Early 63% helped
• Late 10% helped
8
5/17/2011
When do we help?
Situational influences
• Number of bystanders
• Population density
• Time pressure
– Good Samaritan study
• Priming
– Broken down motorist
• Mood
– Happiness (smiling, aromas, cookies, dimes)
– Guilt (confession, breaking a camera)
When do we help?
Situational factors
• Attractiveness
• Similarity
– Empathy
9
5/17/2011
When do we help?
Situational factors
• Attractiveness
• Similarity
– Empathy
– Genetic relatedness
• Familiarity
– Friends
– Depends on ego-relevance
• Self-focus / Awareness
Situational Factors
• Helping those you like or those who are close to
you
– People are more likely to help their own family members
and friends
– You are more likely to help people that are similar to
you
– Familiarity is related to proximity: more likely to live
near and have more contact with your relatives (70% of
people do)
– You are more likely to help physically attractive
people
10
5/17/2011
Genetic Relatedness
and Helping
• Would you lend your car to your brother?
What about your grandfather?
What about a cousin?
What about an attractive stranger?
• Michael Cunningham and his colleagues asked
people whether they would be willing to help
other people in different situations
80
60
Percentage
Volunteering 40
to Help
20
0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (attractive
siblings, parents) cousins) strangers)
children)
Degree of Relatedness
11
5/17/2011
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• The tendency to help relatives over strangers is
stronger when the help is more related to
survival
• Participants in one series were asked to
imagine scenarios like the following:
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• There are three people asleep in different
rooms of a burning house:
A cousin
A grandfather
An acquaintance
• You have time to rescue only one
• Which do you save?
12
5/17/2011
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• There are three people who need you to run a
small errand to the store:
A cousin
A sister
An acquaintance
• You have time to help only one
• Whose errand do you run?
3.0
For everyday help,
people tended to help
2.5
close relatives more
than non-relatives
Tendency
2.0
to Help
1.5
1.0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (acquaintances)
siblings, parents) cousins)
children)
Degree of Relatedness
3.0
The difference became
even more pronounced
2.5
in life-or-death
situations
Tendency
2.0
to Help
1.5
1.0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (acquaintances)
siblings, parents) cousins)
children)
Degree of Relatedness
13
5/17/2011
Situational Factors
14
5/17/2011
Situational Factors
• Self-focus / Awareness: Situations that focus us
inside should increase our helping behaviors.
Making someone look in a mirror make them self-
conscious and more likely to render help
Labeling Effects
• Our self-images are greatly influenced by how
others see us; if you label someone as helpful,
they will live up to the label
• Labeling a child as “kind and helpful”
increases his or her later willingness to donate
prizes to other children (Grusec & Redler,
1980)
15
5/17/2011
Gender Differences
• Gender: Male
– Men are likely to help women due to:
• Gender differences in skills
• Sexual attraction
• Women are more likely to seek help
– Men are more likely to render aid when physical
danger is involved
• They render help that is daring, forceful, noble,
and directed at strangers and friends alike
16
5/17/2011
Gender Differences
• Gender: Women
– Women are more likely to render emotional aid and
informal counseling in personal matters, especially
for those in their families and friendship circles
– In a meta-analysis, Eagly and Crowly found 172
studies that included 50,000 male and female helpers
• Men helped more in dangerous situations
• Women helped more in emotional situations
17
5/17/2011
18
5/17/2011
Increased
Observation Increased Increased
Chance
of Another Negative Chance That
That Help
in Clear Emotional Help Will Be
Will Be
Need of Aid Arousal Offered
Offered
If Rewards
Are Large
If “We”
Connection
Altruism Debate
• Negative State Relief Model (Cialdini)
– People engage in helping behavior to counteract
bad moods or reduce the feeling of negative
emotions like sadness
– An egoistic explanation of helping behavior
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson)
– When people experience empathy they will engage
in truly altruistic helping behaviors
– A purely altruistic explanation of (some) helping
behavior
19
5/17/2011
Presence of Sadness
• Helping can be increased by events triggering
temporary sadness, such as:
Reminiscing about unhappy experiences
Reading depressing statements
Failing at a task
Witnessing harm to another
Costs/benefits of Helping
• Students in one study were put into either:
happy
sad or
neutral mood
• Then given an opportunity to help a non-
profit organization
Costs/benefits of Helping
• The benefits of helping were either:
Low - help was for Little League
High - American Cancer Society
• Costs of helping were either:
Low: Sit at donations desk
High: Collect door-to-door
20
5/17/2011
60
and benefits
40
20
0
Happy Neutral
Mood Weyant (1976)
60
40
20
0
Happy Neutral Sad
Mood Weyant (1976)
21
5/17/2011
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
Egoistic motive
22
5/17/2011
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
100
Difficult escape
Easy escape
80
Percentage 60
who helped
40
20
0
High Low
Empathic concern
23
5/17/2011
An egoistic alternative
• Cialdini and his colleagues argue - there is an
egoistic explanation of these findings:
Empathy causes an observer to feel kinship with the
victim, thus tapping into a basic selfish motivation
– to serve myself by serving those who share my
genes
24
5/17/2011
Aggression
Chapter 10
Chapter Outline
• What Is Aggression?
• Theories of Aggression
• Social Goals of Aggressing Against
Another
What is Aggression?
• Aggression -
any behavior intended to harm another who is
motivated to avoid harm
It is behavior (not angry feelings)
It is intended (not accidental harm)
It is aimed at hurting (not assertiveness or
playfulness)
1
5/17/2011
What is Aggression?
• Assertiveness -
behavior intended to express dominance or
confidence
• Assertive behavior (such as returning an
undercooked dish in a restaurant) is NOT
aggressive unless it is also intended to harm
another person
Definition Example
Indirect
Aggression
Direct
Aggression
2
5/17/2011
Forms of Aggression
Definition Example
Indirect
Spreading a
Aggression Attempt to
rumor that
hurt another
your ex-
Direct without
romantic
Aggression obvious face-
partner has a
to-face
venereal
conflict
disease
Forms of Aggression
Definition Example
Indirect
Aggression Behavior
A hockey
intended to
Direct player
hurt
Aggression punches
someone
another
“to his or
player
her face”
Types of Aggression
• Emotional Aggression / Hostile Aggression
aggression where the goal is harm to another
– Behavior that is an end in itself
– Usually motivated by anger
– “Hot” aggression
• Instrumental Aggression
aggression where harm to another is done to
achieve some other (nonaggressive) goal
– Behavior is a means to an end
– Calculated actions
– “Cold” aggression
3
5/17/2011
Types of Aggression
Definition Example
A child
Hurtful throws a
behavior temper
Emotional that stems tantrum
Aggression from angry after mom
feelings refuses to
Instrumental
buy candy
Aggression
Types of Aggression
Definition Example
Hurting A mother
another to spanks a
accomplish child to
Emotional
another discourage
Aggression
(non- him from
Instrumental aggressive) repeating a
Aggression goal tantrum
Gender Differences
• There is no clear sex difference in reporting
feelings of anger
• Women are more likely to use physical
aggression against partners (e.g., slapping)
• But male’s aggression is more likely to do
physical harm
• Females use more indirect aggression (e.g.,
spreading rumors)
4
5/17/2011
Theories of Aggression
• Instinctive Theories of Aggression
• Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
• Aggression Cues Theory
• Cognitive-Neoassociation Theory
• Social Learning Theory
Catharsis
• Catharsis – releasing pent-up energy
– Freud believed that if we don’t release our
pent up emotions, it will lead to psychological
harm
– Based on Lorenz’s theory
– Do football players become less aggressive
after football?
• No, they become more aggressive
5
5/17/2011
Catharsis
• Bushman – A study confederate insulted a
participant, who then:
– 1) punched a punching-bag while thinking of
it as exercise
– 2) punched a punching-bag while thinking
about the person who just insulted them, or
– 3) controlled sitting (not doing anything).
– #3 was the least angry, #2 the most
Catharsis
• Geen – A confederate angered a participant by
disagreeing with his or her opinion. Then, on a
learning task, the participant either
– 1) shocked the confederates who erred or
– 2) simply noted the errors
– Then they engaged in a second learning task
and a second shock task
• People who gave shocks the first time
around gave shocks that were even more
aggressive the second time
• Wouldn’t they have vented all of their rage?
Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis
• Original - Theory that aggression is an
automatic response to any blocking of goal-
directed behavior
• Revised - theory that any unpleasant
stimulation will lead to emotional aggression
to the extent that it generates unpleasant
feelings
6
5/17/2011
• Frustration
interference with a goal-directed behavior
sequence
• Displacement
directing aggression towards something /
someone that was not the source of the
frustration
• Vicarious Aggression
frustration satisfied by seeing the aggressor
aggressed against
Original Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis
Frustration
(and only frustration)
Aggression
(of all forms)
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
(Reformulated)
Any Other
Frustration Pain Heat Unpleasant
Experience
Negative Feelings
Emotional Aggression
7
5/17/2011
0.6
Players Hit Per Game
0.5
0.4
0.3
below 70 70-79 80-89 90 +
Temperature ( Degrees Fahrenheit)
Reifman, Larrick, & Fein, 1991
8
5/17/2011
Heat
• More violent crimes are committed in the
summer than any other month
40
35
30
Percentage 25
of yearly 20
total 15 Uprisings
10 Family disturbances
Rapes
5
Assaults
0
Winter Spring Summer Fall
9
5/17/2011
Feelings of Arousal
and Irritability
• Excitation transfer theory -
theory that anger is physiologically similar to
other emotional states, and any form of arousal
can enhance aggressive responses
Example: Students were more aggressive after
watching nonviolent erotic films or riding an
exercise bike
Not angered
Angered
Shock level
delivered by
participants
10
5/17/2011
6
5
Number of
4
Shocks
Delivered to 3
Other 2
Subject 1
11
5/17/2011
Negative Feelings
Angry Thoughts
and Associations
Fight
Negative Feelings
OR
Fight Flight
Negative Feelings
OR
Objects or
Events Angry Thoughts Fearful Thoughts
Priming and Associations and Associations
Aggression
Fight Flight
12
5/17/2011
Negative Feelings
Objects or Angry
Events Angry Thoughts Fearful Thoughts
Thoughts and
Priming and Associations and Associations
Associations
Aggression
Fight Flight
Negative Feelings
Objects or Angry
Events Angry Thoughts Fearful Thoughts
Thoughts and
Priming and Associations and Associations
Associations
Aggression
Fight
Fight Flight
13
5/17/2011
Alcohol
• Alcohol increases aggression
– Weakened inhibitions (letting your true feelings out)
– Narrowing of focus, leading to an inability to use
cognitive functioning to override aggression
– Placebo effects (expectations)
14
5/17/2011
Violent Media
– Correlational studies
– Longitudinal studies
– Experimental studies
Violent Media
Correlational studies
• More violent TV watching = more
aggressiveness
– Even when we account for other variables
15
5/17/2011
Violent Media
Longitudinal studies
• Kids who watch violent TV are more likely to
commit a serious criminal offense later in life
A longitudinal study
45
40
35
Seriousness
30
of criminal
25
acts by age
20
30
15
10
5
0
Low Medium High
Violent Media
Longitudinal studies
• Viewing violence at age 8 predicted
aggressiveness at age 19
• Aggressiveness at age 8 did NOT predict
viewing violence at age 19
• Viewing violence precedes aggressiveness, not
the other way around
16
5/17/2011
Violent Media
Experimental studies
• Participants either watch violent TV or non-
violent TV
– Watching violent TV increases aggression in the
lab, the classroom, the lunchroom, the playground,
and the athletic field
• Freedman: Review of field experiments and
correlational research
– Consistent positive correlation between viewing TV
violence and aggression
– However, there is little convincing evidence in
natural settings
6
Boys
5
Girls
Average
4
duration of
aggressive 3
responses
2
0
Nonviolent TV show Violent TV show
17
5/17/2011
18
5/17/2011
19
5/17/2011
Pornography
• Nonviolent pornography:
– Lowered aggressiveness
– Attitude change
• Violent pornography:
– Greater male-to-female aggressiveness
– Greater acceptance of violence against women
– Greater acceptance of rape myths
20
5/17/2011
Violent Pornography
• Correlational and experimental data suggest
that a relationship between pornography and
men’s hostility to women:
Does exist to some extent
Is particularly found in violent pornography
Is more likely among men who have several risk
factors for violence against women
(Malamuth et al., 2001)
Reducing Violence
• Gerald Patterson and his colleagues found that
teaching parents to reward non-aggressiveness
can reduce aggressive behavior
• In general, psychologists feel that punishment
may not always be effective in training people
to be nonaggressive
21
5/17/2011
22
5/17/2011
Prejudice,
Stereotyping, &
Discrimination
Chapter 11
Chapter Outline
• Definitions
• Current Forms of Prejudice
• Types of Stereotypes
• Forms of Discrimination
• Goals of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and
Discrimination
• Prejudice -
a generalized attitude toward members of a
social group
• Stereotype -
a generalized belief about members of a group
• Discrimination -
behaviors directed toward others because of
their group membership
1
5/17/2011
2
5/17/2011
Strength of 3
recommendation for
admission 2
1
Barely Non-prejudiced Highly Prejudiced
recommend Participant’s Rating Participant’s Rating
Modern Racism
• Modern racism: A form of prejudice that
surfaces in subtle ways when it’s safe, socially
acceptable, and easy to rationalize
• People perceive themselves as fair, but still
harbor negative feelings towards members of
other racial groups
3
5/17/2011
Types of Attitudes
• Attitudes may be explicit or implicit
– Explicit Attitudes: Attitudes we consciously
endorse and can easily report
– Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary,
uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
Sexist Attitudes
Sexism—one gender is superior to the other
• Hostile Sexism
– Belief that men should be dominant over women
– OR Negative attitudes toward the opposite sex
• Benevolent Sexism
– Belief that women should be protected as the weaker sex
– OR Positive, but stereotypical, attitudes toward the
opposite sex
4
5/17/2011
5
5/17/2011
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination
• Men are more likely to harass than are women
• But whether men harass or not depends on the
man and on the situation
• In one study, male students were asked to train
a young woman on a complex word-processing
task
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination
• The men were introduced to the female trainee
by a male graduate student who acted either:
Sexist – put his arm around trainee, visually checked
out her body
Professional – respectful of trainee
6
5/17/2011
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination
• The dependent variable in the research was the
amount of sexuality expressed by the male
student while instructing the female trainee
• Results depended on the participant’s chronic
disposition to harass
4
Sexuality
of Physical 3
Contact 2
1
Professional Sexist
Disposition to Role Model’s Treatment of Woman
Harass
Low
High
• Stereotyping -
process of categorizing an individual as a
member of a particular group and then
inferring that he or she possesses the
characteristics generally held by members of
that group
7
5/17/2011
Stereotypes
• Stereotype: A belief that associates a group of
people with certain traits
• E.g.
– Athletes
– New Yorkers vs. Californians
– Car salesmen
– College students
• Stereotypes are not necessarily negative and
can be accurate
• The problem with stereotypes is when they
overgeneralize
8
5/17/2011
Stereotype Threat
• In one study, black and white students were
asked to take a difficult exam taken from the
verbal portion of the GRE (Graduate Record
Exam)
• For some students, race was made salient by
asking them to report it at the beginning of the
test
10
Number of 8
Items
Answered 6
Correctly
(adjusted by 4
SAT score)
2
0
Not Salient Salient
Student’s Race
Black
Salience of Race
White
9
5/17/2011
Stereotype Threat
• Stereotype threat -
the fear that one might confirm the negative
stereotypes held by others about one’s group
– Anxiety causes this to come true
Stereotype Threat
• White men did worse on athletic tasks they
thought tapped “natural ability”
• But black men did worse if they thought it
tapped “athletic intelligence” (Stone et al,
1999)
• White men did worse in math when they
thought they were being compared to an Asian
(Aronson et al, 1999)
• Differences in performance due solely to
expectation
Stereotype Threat
White students
Black students
Test
performance
Nondiagnostic of Diagnostic of
abilities abilities
10
5/17/2011
Stereotype Threat
30
Men
25 Women
20
Performance 15
10
0
Gender difference not Gender difference
expected expected
Stereotype Threat
• Stereotype threat sometimes leads people to
disidentify with those arenas where society
expects them to fail
• Disidentify -
to decide that the arena is no longer relevant to
their self esteem
• Self-handicapping
11
5/17/2011
12
5/17/2011
13
5/17/2011
Eyewitness Identifications
• Cross-race identifications
– Witnesses are poorer at accurately identifying
individuals of a different race than those of their
same race
– Known as the “cross-race effect” (CRE), “own-race
bias” (ORB), or “other-race effect”
14
5/17/2011
15
5/17/2011
16
5/17/2011
Failure
• People whose self-esteem is threatened by
failure may attack members of out-groups
Example: Students in one study derogated a Jewish
student after they themselves failed (Fein &
Spencer, 1997)
Low-Status Sorority
High-Status Sorority
2.0
Amount of
Negative Bias
against 1.0
Members of
Other Sororities
0
Low High
Subjects’ Self-Esteem
17
5/17/2011
Low-Status Sorority
High-Status Sorority
2.0
Amount of
Negative Bias
against 1.0
Members of
Other Sororities
0
Low High
Subjects’ Self-Esteem
Goal-based approach
• Give people alternative ways to satisfy their
goals
Example: Students who got to affirm their self-worth
by writing about things important to them later
expressed less stereotypes about a Jewish job
candidate (Fein & Spencer, 1997)
Cognitively Taxing
Circumstances
• 1-704-8926 – Imagine trying to keep that
number in mind while also forming an
impression of “Hilda,” an elderly woman
• Students used more stereotypes in forming
impressions if their minds were occupied with
remembering an eight digit number (Pendry &
MacRae, 1994)
• Cognitive Load
• Time Pressure
18