Class Notes (839,191)
Canada (511,223)
Psychology (2,093)
PSYC 102 (416)
Lecture

Chapter 14 Social Psych.docx

7 Pages
142 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 102
Professor
David Klonsky

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 7 pages of the document.
Description
Chapter 14 Social Psychology- The scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another  Social Thinking: Attitudes & Action. How typical people are in our everyday lives.  At first glance, what is researched seems obvious. Findings may turn out otherwise.  Social influence: Context matters. We take our cues from other people. Conformity? Peer pressure?  Social Relations Social Thinking: How do we think about others, especially when they do something unexpected? Attributing Behaviour to Persons vs. Situations Attribution theory:  We have a tendency to give causal explanations for someone’s behaviour,  Often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition, personal/dispositional-oriented or situational- oriented explanation  Sometimes we gravitate towards certain explanations.  Examples: Child misbehaving in class.; Someone giving us a curt greeting.; person tripping on sidewalk  Self-serving bias  People take credit for success, deny responsibility for failure Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to overestimate the impact of personal disposition and underestimate the impact of the situations in explaining the behaviours of others. When we try to attribute our own behaviour, we are much more likely to blame the situation rather than ourselves. When we tried to account for the behaviour of other people, we are biased towards dispositional- oriented explanations. Effects of Attribution: How we explain someone’s behaviour affects how we read it. Attitude- a belief and feeling that predisposes a person to respond in a particular way to objects, other people & events How do attitudes influence behaviour?  Our attitudes predict our behaviours  Imperfect predictors because other factors, including the external situation, also influence behaviour  Not a one-to-one relationship  Not only do people stand for what they believe in (attitude), they start believe in what they stand for  Ex. Cooperative actions can lead to mutual liking (beliefs). Attitude of mutual liking promotes positive behaviour.  Foot in the Door phenomenon: the tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request -> used in sales, marketing Cognitive Dissonance Theory- to relieve ourselves of this tension, we bring out attitudes closer to our actions (Festinger, 1957)  Happens the other way around too. We often adjust our actions to our attitudes  A=attitude, B=behaviour, C=cognition  We strive to reduce dissonance, making the ABCs consistent  Dissonance: discomfort we feel when the ABCs are not consistent  Example: I like to smoke (A); I do smoke (B); I know it’s bad for me (C)  Study: Have subjects do a really dull task, then pay them to tell the next subject that the study is interesting (either $1 or $25), then ask the subjects how much they enjoyed the task, if paid less, the subject report liking the task more  No cognitive dissonance when being paid more because you have an explanation for your dishonesty to the other subjects Social Influence- how social factors influence attitudes, beliefs, decisions, & actions Conformity- Adjusting one’s behaviour or thinking to comply with a group standard. Confederate—actor acting in a certain way scripted by the researcher Reasons: 1) Normative social influence- conform to fit in, don’t want to be the odd one out 2) Informative social influence- conform to other people’s behaviour b/c they might give you useful information , want to do what’s right for the situation Group pressure and conformity An influence resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality Substitute other people’s attitudes as our own, people in general are more susceptible to group behaviour than we might think. We like to see ourselves as our own person, not so easily influenced by others’ opinions. Solomon Asch’s Experiments Informative Social Influence Eyewitness identification task- given 2 slides, one has one person, other has 4 people on it, identify which person in slide 2 is the person in slide 1, not given slides simultaneously 2 manipulations: easy vs. difficult condition Easy- slide 1 presented for 5 secs, then slide 2 pick person Difficult- slide 1 presented for just 0.5 secs, then pick person in slide 2 low importance (petty offense) vs. high importance (severe crime) manipulated the importance of getting right these 2 manipulations had a lot to do with how much conformity influenced your opinion conformity highest when decision is the most difficult, when they have the least information & when the decision is of highest importance, when they have to get it right Extreme Conformity: Stanford Prison Experiment Clip Past studies, before ethics board, can’t do it anymore Role playing affects attitudes- what we do, we gradually become Philip Zimbardo- randomly assigned college student volunteers as guards or prisoners Simulation became too real-toxic Those assigned to the guard role soon degraded the prisoners Allow yourself to do things that you wouldn’t do in ordinary situation Obedience Direct command vs. social pressure Conformity is more response to social pressure, roles Stanley Milgram- well-known studies on the effects of authority on obedience He was genuinely interested in understanding Nazi Germany, World War 2. WW2 had more systematic killing, ordinary people did the killing, not just one or 2 evil people, it was a large operation/undertaking. Study on obedience under the conditions where people will do it anyway. What are the conditions that normal people will do bad? Wanted to understand the part of human nature from doing really bad things. He designed an experiment that had a teacher and a learner. 2 people came into the study, 1 is a confederate, real participant was always a teacher. Think it’s a memory test. Learner is strapped to a chair and teacher had to give an electric shock every time they get a question wrong from what they were supposed to memorize. Teacher experience the shock themselves. Teacher, ordered by authority, would have to keep pressing, learner keep getting it wrong- > rigged but Teacher doesn’t know that the learner isn’t actually getting shocked Would ordinary, law-abiding citizens give a lethal electric shock to somebody in the name of science? Would they stop or keep going? Most people kept on going despite showing signs of discomfort at inflicting pain. Data Obedience was highest when: 1. authority figure was salient, present right there with teacher 2. authority figure had prestige 3. victim was depersonalized, less exposure to victim, can’t see or hear them suffering 4. no models for defiance, less likely to stop if you don’t see someone else stopping Group Influence How do groups affect our behaviour? 1. One person affecting another
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit