Chapter 16

Social Behavior

Table of Contents

a.

a stereotypical error

b.

the self-serving error

c.

the self-effacing error

d.

the fundamental attribution error

When an observer is biased in favor of making internal attributions in explaining others' behavior, the observer is making

Table of Contents

a.

the fundamental attribution bias

b.

the self-effacing bias

c.

the self-serving bias

d.

defensive attribution

When an individual has a tendency to attribute his/her success to personal factors and his/her failure to situational factors, the individual is demonstrating

Table of Contents

ANSWERS:

D C

Table of Contents

Social Psychology

Person perception Attribution processes Interpersonal attraction Attitudes Conformity and obedience Behavior in groups

Table of Contents

Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others

Effects of physical appearance Cognitive schemas – age, profession, ethnicity Stereotypes – learned Prejudice and discrimination-attitude vs. action Subjectivity in person perception Evolutionary perspectives

– stereotypes separate friend from foe– spotlight effect– illusion of asymmetric insight

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Attribution Processes: Explaining Behavior

Attributions– Internal vs. External

Biases in attributions– Fundamental attribution error– Defensive attribution – blaming the vicitim– Self-serving bias

Cultural influences– individualistic - self-serving and fundamental att. err.– collectivistic

Table of ContentsFigure 16.1 Causes of Success and Failure: Attribution

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

a.

opposites attract

b.

he who hesitates is lost

c.

to know me is to love me

d.

birds of a feather flock together

In regards to interpersonal attraction, which of the following sayings is most accurate?

Table of Contents

a.

cognitive

b.

perceptual

c.

affective

d.

behavioral

Which of the following is not one of the major components of an attitude?

Table of Contents

a.

the persuasion model

b.

the elaboration likelihood model

c.

cognitive dissonance theory

d.

observational learning

A person experiences an unpleasant state of tension when related attitudes or beliefs are inconsistent or contradict each other according to

Table of Contents

ANSWERS:

D B C

Table of Contents

Learning To Love Eating Grasshoppers Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone, and Levy (1965) demonstrated that “nice guys”

as sources for persuasive messages can be less persuasive than “nasty guys.” The study involved ROTC students, military reservists, and college students. They were told that the study was about survival skills needed for the "new mobile military." A key survival skill needed was to experience and develop a taste for novel foods (specifically, grasshoppers.) There were two major conditions in the study: A ‘Nice Guy’ condition and a ‘Nasty Guy’ condition. The ‘Nice Guy’ entered the room with a warm greeting, pleasantly interacted with the other people in the room, and expressed sensitivity for the participant’s discomfort. The ‘Nasty Guy’ startled the people in the room with an abrupt and demanding entrance. He was gruff and rude in demeanor and he went out of his way to berate the ‘assistants’ in the room.

In the end, the people in the ‘Nasty Guy’ condition professed much greater liking for grasshoppers as food than the people in the ‘Nice Guy’ condition. Some even took extra grasshoppers home to share with their friends and family.

WHY?

Table of Contents

With the ‘Nice Guy’ the dissonance produced between disliking grasshoppers and eating them could be reduced by thinking that they ate the grasshoppers because the speaker was such a nice guy. Therefore, there was no need to change their feelings about the grasshoppers.

With the ‘Nasty Guy’ the dissonance produced between disliking grasshoppers and eating them could NOT be reduced by thinking that they ate the grasshoppers because of the speaker: he was a jerk. The only way to reduce the dissonance was to change their attitudes about eating grasshoppers to be consistent with their grasshopper eating behavior.

Zimbardo, P. G., Weisenberg, M., Firestone, I., & Levy, B. (1965). Communicator effectiveness in producing public conformity and private attitude change. Journal of Personality, 33, 233-255.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Close Relationships: Liking and Loving

Key factors in attraction– Physical attractiveness– Matching hypothesis– Similarity– Reciprocity - self-enhancement– Romantic Ideals– Proximity

Perspectives on love– Hatfield & Berscheid – Passionate vs. Companionate love– Sternberg - Intimacy and commitment fig. 16.4– Hazen & Shaver – love as attachment fig. 16.5

Evolutionary perspectives– Mating priorities – reproductive fitness

Table of Contents

Social Relations- Attractiveness

ProximityGeographic nearness– perhaps the most powerful indicator of friendship. Proximity provides opportunities for aggression, but much more often it breeds liking. People are most likely to like, and even to marry, those who live in the same neighborhood, who sit nearby in class, who work in the same office, who share the same parking lot.

Table of Contents

Social Relations- Attractiveness

Mere Exposure Effect repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them

Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture

Table of Contents

Social Relations- Attractiveness

Similarity

We are likely to become friends with other who are similar to us in attitudes, intelligence, age, and economic status. Similarity breeds content.

Table of Contents

Social Relations

Passionate Love an aroused state of intense

positive absorption in another usually present at the beginning of a love

relationship Companionate Love

deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined

Table of Contents

Figure 16.4 – Sternberg’s view of love over time

Figure 16.5

Table of Contents

Attitudes and Attitude Change

3 components– cognitive, affective, and behavioral

Factors in changing attitudes– source, message, and receiver

– two sided arguments and fear arousal are effective Theories of attitude change

– Learning theory - classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning.

– Cognitive Dissonance theory

– Self-perception theory - people infer their attitudes from their behavior

– Elaboration likelihood model – central route to persuasion

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Yielding to Others: Conformity Conformity – Solomon Asch (1950s)

– Classic experiment

• Group size – larger groups increase conformity

• Group unanimity – one dissenter makes subject less likely to conform

Table of Contents

Social Influence

Participants judged which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1

Difficult judgments

Easy judgments

Conformity higheston important

judgments

Low HighImportance

50%

40

30

20

10

0

Percentage ofconformity toconfederates’

wrong answers

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Yielding to Others: Obedience

Obedience – Stanley Milgram (1960s)– Controversial landmark experiment– “I was just following orders”

• Milgram found that 65% of the men administered all 30 levels of the shock, even though they displayed considerable distress at shocking the learner.

Table of Contents

Obedience

Obedience– compliance of person is

due to perceived authority of asker

– request is perceived as a command

Milgram interested in unquestioning obedience to orders

Stanley Milgram

Table of Contents

Stanley Milgram’s Studies

Basic study procedure– teacher and learner

(learner always confederate)

– watch learner being strapped into chair

– learner expresses concern over his “heart condition”

Table of Contents

Stanley Milgram’s Studies

Teacher goes to another room with experimenter

Shock generator panel – 15 to 450 volts, labels “slight shock” to “XXX”

Asked to give higher shocks for every mistake learner makes

Table of Contents

Stanley Milgram’s Studies Learner protests more

and more as shock increases

Experimenter continues to request obedience even if teacher balks

120

150

300

330

“Ugh! Hey this really hurts.”

“Ugh! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now.”

(agonized scream) “I absolutelyrefuse to answer any more.Get me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out.”

(intense & prolonged agonized scream) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out, I tell you…”

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Obedience

XXX(435-450)

Percentageof subjects

who obeyedexperimenter

100908070605040302010

0

Slight(15-60)

Moderate(75-120) Strong

(135-180)

Verystrong

(195-240)Intense

(255-300)

Extremeintensity(315-360)

Dangersevere

(375-420)Shock levels in volts

The majority ofsubjects continued to obey to the end

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Explanations for Milgram’s Results

Abnormal group of subjects?– numerous replications with variety of groups

shows no support

People in general are sadistic?– videotapes of Milgram’s subjects show

extreme distress

Table of Contents

Follow-Up Studies to Milgram

Table of Contents

Critiques of Milgram

Although 84% later said they were glad to have participated and fewer than 2% said they were sorry, there are still ethical issues

Do these experiments really help us understand real-world atrocities?

Table of Contents

Social Relations

Ingroup Bias tendency to favor one’s own group

Scapegoat Theory theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing

someone to blame

Just-World Phenomenon tendency of people to believe the world is just people get what they deserve and deserve what they get\ explains ‘blaming the victim’

Table of Contents

Social Thinking

Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon tendency for people who have first agreed to a small

request to comply later with a larger request

Role set of expectations about a social position defines how those in the position ought to behave

Table of Contents

Behavior in Groups: The Influence of Other People

The bystander effect - Darley and Latane (1968)– Kitty Genovese– Diffusion of responsibility

Group productivity and social loafing Decision making in groups Polarization Groupthink Deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and self-restraint in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity

Table of Contents

Social Influence Some individual resist social coercion

Table of Contents

Social Facilitation

Table of Contents

Groupthink

Eight warning signs of groupthink: The illusion of invulnerability Belief in the inherent group morality Rationalization of group views Stereotyping of out-groups Self-censorship Direct pressure on dissenters Self-appointed mindguards The illusion of unanimity

Four key preventative strategies: Establish an open climate Avoid the isolation of the group Assign the role of critical evaluator Avoid being too directive

Table of Contents

Social Influence

Superordinate Goals shared goals that override differences among people and

require their cooperation Social Facilitation

improved performance of tasks in the presence of others occurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with tasks that

are difficult or not yet mastered Social Loafing

tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

Table of Contents

Social Relations

Bystander Effect tendency for any given

bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present

Table of Contents

Social Influence

If a group is like-minded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Social Relations

Ingroup “Us”- people with whom

one shares a common identity

Outgroup “Them”- those perceived

as different or apart from one’s ingroup

Table of Contents

Social Identity and Cooperation

Social identity theory– states that when you’re assigned to a group, you automatically

think of that group as an in-group for you– Sherif’s Robbers Cave study

• 11–12 year old boys at camp

• boys were divided into 2 groups and kept separate from one another

• each group took on characteristics of distinct social group, with leaders, rules, norms of behavior, and names

Table of Contents

Robbers Cave (Sherif)

Leaders proposed series of competitive interactions which led to 3 changes between groups and within groups

– within-group solidarity – negative stereotyping of other group – hostile between-group interactions