Social psychology - Social Interaction Sequence

THE ELABORATION-LIKELIHOOD MODEL – Richard Petty and John Cacioppo in 1986

• Peripheral Route: Change based on persuasion heuristics (general rules used to solve a problem)
• Central Route: Change based on strength of arguments

How To Resist Persuasion

        Foot in the door technique the persuader achieves success because a small request precedes a larger request. Ex: being asked to try something on without paying, then coming back 1 month later and having larger requests

        Pregiving the persuader gives a reward before making a persuasive appeal.
Ex: being given a holiday if they attend a presentation (advertising condominium sale)

        Aversive Stimulation the persuader pursues you until you give in.

        Debt the persuader reminds you of debts.
Ex: parents reminding kids: “I’ve spent so much money on your education, the least you can do is stay home tomorrow” etc

        Favorable Self-Feeling the persuader suggests that you will feel better about yourself if you consent
Ex: makeup – you are told you look better w/it

        Negative Self-Feeling the persuader suggests that you will feel worse about yourself if you disagree

Ex: charity – feeling guilty about not contributing

        Altercasting the persuader implies that a person with good qualities would agree

        Negative Altercasting the persuader implies that only a person with bad qualities would disagree
Ex: only losers smoke ☺

PERSON PERCEPTION

Harold Kelly’s study on reputations

• Handed out biography of a visiting lecturer
• Half received a biography calling him a “warm individual,” the other half received a biography calling him a “cold intellectual”
• Those who read “warm individual” asked more questions and rated him positively
• Those told he was a “cold intellectual” asked less questions and rated him as cold, though both halves heard the same lecture at the same time

Primacy effect ~ the tendency for early information to be considered more important than later information about a person when forming impressions

• later impressions are formed through the ‘first impression’
• we simplify our impressions of people
• as a result we often make person perception errors

CATEGORIZATION the process by which people use available information to place someone into a group (cognitive category), and assume someone in that category will have particular characteristics

• Transference the unconscious attribution of characteristics to someone we meet because they remind us of someone else with those characteristics
• Functional Inference conclusions are made about someone’s personality based on his or her physical appearance – blonde hair = ditzy?
• Halo Effect a person who has one positive characteristic is assumed to be positive in other ways

Bubble of space concept – the space we try to keep around ourselves while we interact. Size of bubble of space may expand or contract depending on the circumstances

STEREOTYPES ➔ PREJUDICE ➔ DISCRIMINATION

Stereotype a fixed attitude or perception; a way of responding to some person or object solely in terms of the person’s class membership

Prejudice a negative attitude which is unjustified, towards a group of people and the individual persons in the group, often based on stereotypes

Discrimination unjustified negative behaviour towards a group of people and its members

SELF FULFILLING PROPHECIES people act the way they’re expected to in reaction to the way they’re treated

Mark Sibicky and John Dovidio’s experiment

• Paired off 136 undergrads in a “get acquainted” situation
• One student in each pair was the ‘evaluator,’ the other the ‘target’
• Half the evaluators were told that their targets were clients seeking therapy, half told that their targets were just students
• Evaluators treated client targets more negatively than student targets

ATTRIBUTION PROCESS the act of inferring personality traits or motives in others so you can explain their past or present behaviour, hence predict what they may do in the future

Fritz Heider suggests we apply attributions because we THINK we can avoid stress, predict other people’s actions, and understand other people’s behaviour

ATTRIBUTIONS can be classified according to..

• INTERNAL CAUSES (internal attribution) ~ a person’s personality traits or motives
• EXTERNAL CAUSES (external attribution) ~ environmental or situational causes

• Ex: “Did he donate money because he’s generous [internal] or because he wants to be seen as generous [external]?”

ATTRIBUTION BIAS ~ the way we think about the causes of behaviour

• Fundamental Attribution Error the general tendency to see behaviour as a product of internal dispositional motivation rather than external situational factors
• Actor-Observer Bias blaming the situation for our own acts and internal dispositions for the acts of others
• Self-Serving Bias the tendency to attribute our successes to internal characteristics and failures to external circumstances
• Self-Handicapping actions we go through which increase our chance of failure but also provide a more acceptable cause to which we can attribute our failure
• Ultimate Attribution Error the combination of biases in attribution that leads us to praise our own group for good behaviour and other groups for bad behaviour
• Attributional Conflicts in Relationships 

FRIENDSHIP

• Similarity in physical attraction or the ‘matching hypothesis’ – people tend to choose as friends and partners those similar to themselves in attractiveness. Reason: fear of rejection
• Similarity in age, sex, race and economic status – Reason: live amongst people similar to us, people attracted to others with similar attitudes
• Proximity or propinquity – attraction to people who live near us, in contact with us regularly (exposure effect).
• Reciprocity – mutual exchange of feelings, attitudes. Reason: people more open to those who seem to like them

LOVE

• SIMILARITY ~ dating and married couples tend to be similar in age, race, class, religion, education, attitudes, interests
• PROXIMITY ~ tendency to fall in love with people who live nearby
• ATTRACTIVENESS ~ tendency to fall in love with people whose attractiveness matches our own

2 main types of love

• PASSIONATE/ROMANTIC LOVE – highly emotional/erotic first stage of relationship. Ability to consider long term consequences of sexual behaviour limited by intense emotions and irrational thoughts. Emotional high ➔ 6~30 months
• COMPANIONATE/AFFECTIONATE LOVE – develops as passionate love cools. Intimacy and commitment, less passionate, acceptance that your partner is not perfect

Triangular Model of Love ~ Robert Sternberg

CONFORMITY ~ when we change our behaviour to adhere to social norms

SOCIAL NORMS = widely accepted expectations of how people should behave in social situations

We learn social norms from REFERENCE GROUPS = groups that set social norms you are expected to live up to. They determine the goals you should attain, reward you for moving towards them and punish you for moving against them

• Set goals for members (provide comparison points)
• Reward for moving towards them, punish for moving against them

 

SOLOMON ASCH’S STUDY OF CONFORMITY ← early 1950s

• Two cards – one with an 8” line, the other with 3 lines of differing lengths (one 8”)
• Subjects asked to identify the line on the second card which was the same length as the line on the first card
• Controls: answers reported privately, correct 99% of the time
• Experimental: “confederates” hired to say the wrong answer, subjects conformed 2/3 of the time

Factors that influence conformity

• Group size – most likely to conform when there are around 5 people in the group. Maximum pressure – 4~5 people
• Social support – even if one person agrees with you, you are less likely to conform
• Desire to be liked by other members of the group
• Low self esteem
• Social shyness
• Lack of familiarity with the task
• Belonging to a collectivistic society

Belonging to groups satisfy needs for

• Attention
• Belonging
• Affection
• Empowering us to do things

Cults..

• Enforce rules and regulations
• Can be dangerous
• Dominate life
• Have a charismatic leader
• Distorted religious views

Cults provide..

• Instant friendship
• Security
• Group identity
• Structure in people’s lives

SOCIAL FACILITATION ~ when a person’s performance is increased when other members of a group engage in similar behaviour

Robert Zajonc

• The presence of another person changes our performance
• We become energized when another person is around
• With arousal our performance of simple of well-learned tasks are enhanced. We perform better if the task is well known

EVALUATION APPREHENSION – concern about the opinions of others means the presence of other people may improve an individual’s performance

Being part of a group may reduce performance.

• SOCIAL LOAFING – a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups compared to when they work by themselves

• Believe they won’t be found out
• Not held accountable
• Caused by diffusion of responsibility

• DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY – each person has less obligation to help because others are present

• Reduce their effort as group size increases
• “Free ride” on the efforts of others
• Individual sees his contribution as less recognizable; not important

GROUP DECISION MAKING

a) SOCIAL DECISION SCHEMES

• Majority wins scheme – decision supported by majority
• Truth wins scheme – groups recognize one approach is more likely to be correct
• Two thirds majority scheme – agree when two thirds are in agreement
• First shift scheme – group tends to adopt decision made from 1st shift in opinion expressed by group member

b) POLARIZATION taking an extreme position or attitude on an issue

c) RISKY SHIFT – the tendency to make riskier decisions as a member of a group than as an individual

• DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY – if venture fails, blame not placed on you alone. Self serving bias = failure as a result of group decision

G R O U P T H I N K

Members of a group are influenced by..

• Cohesiveness
• Dynamic leader
• Perceived external threat

Characteristics of Groupthink

Feeling of invulnerability – members feel they cannot fail

• People close to the president of USA

Group’s belief in its rightness – believe what they are doing is right

• Heaven’s Gate = Haley-Bopp Comet 1997 ➔ religious belief ascending to a level above human

Discredit contrary information – pressure not to question the prevailing opinion, dismiss other viewpoints

Pressure on group members to conform – group cohesion – not expressing others’ opinions

Stereotype opposition – as ‘communist sympathizers’ or ‘bleeding liberals’ (☺)

Insularity – living or working in isolation. Being prevented from hearing other views, disruptive information

Groupthink can be avoided if..

• Group leaders encourage members to remain skeptical
• Ask probing questions
• Disagree with one another

PHILIP ZIMBARDO’S JAIL

• 11 ‘guards’ and 10 ‘prisoners in a mock jail
• Tested for mental and physical health
• Jail set up in basement corridor of Stanford University
• ‘Guard’ and ‘prisoner’ uniforms
• Guards took count of prisoners 3x daily

• First day: took less than 10 minutes
• Second day: prisoners harassed
• Fifth day: counts lasted several hours as guards berated prisoners for minor infractions of the ‘rules’ < set by guards themselves

➔ Uniforms = new identity as part of a group

DEINDIVIDUATION (depersonalization) – the process of becoming less like an individual and more of an impersonal component of a group. The result is that situational influences tend to override our internal dispositional influences

Factors leading to deindividuation

1

2

3

4

THE DARLEY-LATANÉ STUDIES

• Paid people $2 to fill out a survey form given to them by an attractive young woman
• While they were in the office filling out forms, the woman went into the next room
• Subjects heard a loud crash from the next room, and heard woman moaning that she had fallen and was badly hurt and needed help
• 70% of subjects who witnessed accident while alone offered help, but only 8 out of 40 pairs offered help

ALTRUISM – unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Leads to helpful, prosocial behaviour

Reasons for altruistic behaviour

• Empathetic observers are more likely to help

• Feel the distress of others
• Feel concern for them
• Understand a person
• Empathy arousal hypothesis – empathy has the power to motivate altruism

• Bystanders may not help unless they believe an emergency exists and they know what to do

• Rewards-cost hypothesis: before a bystander is likely to help, the perceived awards of helping must outweigh the costs

• Diffusion of responsibility 

• Darley and Latané’s studies showed that a lone person is more likely to try and help

1. People feel the responsibility for helping is shared or diffused among those who are present
2. The more people present in an emergency, the less personally responsible each person feels
3. People think someone else will help, and when no one is helping, possibly the person does not need help

• Similarity can promote helping behaviour

• Well dressed people are more likely to help the well dressed
• Poorly dressed people are more likely to help the poorly dressed

STANLEY MILGRAM’S EXPERIMENT – Yale, 1963-1964

• Advertised for ‘teachers’ and ‘learners’ for an experiment at Yale University
• The ‘learner’ had to remember a list of paired words
• ‘Teacher’ had to administer shocks to ‘learners’ when they made errors. ‘Teachers’ watched the ‘learners’ being strapped into wired wrist bands in a chair next door
• Each time the ‘learner’ made a mistake the ‘teacher’ had to increase the voltage of the punishment
• 65% of Milgram’s subjects obeyed the scientist’s orders and continued increasing voltage
• No difference between educated and less educated participants
• Reactions shown by subjects during experiment

• Complained
• Showed tension
• Said they wanted to stop again and again

Factors inducing obedience in subsequent experiments

• INCREASED OBEDIENCE

• Authority nearby
• Confederate out of sight and hearing

• REDUCED OBEDIENCE

• Distant authority
• Seeing the supposed pain from each shock
• Having to press the confederate’s hand onto a shock plate

• Group pressure and obedience
• Attribution theory and obedience

 

Martin Safer’s 1980 experiment

Martin Safer and David Keuler asked 101 clients who were ending psychotherapy to rate their pre-therapy distress. Two-thirds remembered and rated their distress before undergoing therapy as worse than what they rated it before going into therapy. By exaggerating their pre-therapy distress, clients apparently perceived even greater positive change than what actually occurred with therapy,” said Safer.

Why do people obey?

• SOCIALIZATION – people are socialized from early childhood to obey authority figures such as parents and teachers
• LACK OF SOCIAL COMPARISON – being on their own, subjects did not have the opportunity to compare their feelings with those of other people in the same situation
• PERCEPTION OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY – Milgram’s research took place at Yale University. Subjects may have been influenced by the reputation and authority of the setting
• FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR TECHNIQUE – once they began delivering shocks to learners, subjects may have found it progressively more difficult to pull out of the situation
• INACCESSIBILITY OF VALUES – people act in accordance with their attitudes when attitudes are readily accessible. Strong emotions interfere with clear thinking. As subjects became more upset, attitudes become less accessible
• BUFFERS – decrease the effect of the learner’s pain on the subject (eg. Learners being in another room)

~ JONES TOWN, GUIANA, NOV 28th 1978 from the American ‘People’s Temple’ ➔ following the murder of a US congressman investigating the cult

• POWER OF SITUATION

• Far from home
• Completely dependent on leader
• Cut off from everyone they knew
• Paranoid about everyone outside the group

~ SITUATIONAL INFLUENCE

POWER OF COGNITIVE CONTROL

• What is their situation?
• How is their perception of the situation different from yours?

NATIONAL VIEW = CONFLICT

• “We” (USA) are reasonable/right < peace loving >
• “They” (Russia) are wrong < aggressive / hostile >

= False assumptions

• Small differences lead to prejudice
• Fundamental attribution error

~ EXPERIMENT: RICEVILLE SCHOOL, IOWA

• 1968 – Jane Elliott (3rd grade teacher) shows arbitrary discrimination

• Brown eyed people = “inferior”
• Blue eyed people = “superior”

< alter objective reality >

• Blue eyed children began to discriminate against brown eyed children within 15 minutes
• STEREOTYPING – collars put on brown eyed kids (in and out groups → exclusive)
• SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY

~ EXPERIMENT: POSITIVE EXPECTATIONS

• ROBERT ROSENTHAL + principal LENORE JACOBSEN: Pygmalion Effect
• Showing teacher expectations affects student’s intellectual performance and IQ
• Harvard test of inflected acquisition – 4 factors

• Climate factor: create warmer climate for favoured students
• Input factor: teach more material to favoured students
• Response opportunity factor: more chance to respond for favoured students
• Feedback: praised more for good answer and more differentiated feedback for wrong answer