Social Psychology Lectures.docx

52 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Otago
Jackie Hunter

Social Psychology Week One: The Reality of Groups Readings – Chapter 1 Brown – Group Processes th Lecture 1 – 12 July 2012 The Reality of Groups 1. Definitions of Groups 2. The individual group relationship 3. The interpersonal-group continuum Two main reasons why we should study groups (1) Scientific: People grow, play, make decisions, and fight in groups - If you ignore groups, scientifically you cannot understand why people act the way the do - Basic human motive – achieve self-esteem. But recently it is not self-esteem but now acceptance, because this allows you to belong - When you are accepted your self-esteem is high etc. when you are not accepted your self-esteem plummets, drop in IQ, more prone to lose control of yourself, also there are links between physical pain and rejection - Therefore psychological pain and physical pain is linked and research shows that pain killers have helped to dull the pain - Therefore belonging is very important to us as human beings, this is shown through evolution (2) Political: many social problems involve groups, control of environmental pollution, protection of children, racism, international conflict and the alleviation of poverty Two assumptions of the course 1. That there is some sort of broad agreement about what we mean when we talk about a group 2. That groups are real However, debates not only surround what groups are but whether in fact they did exist at all Definitions of groups 1. Lewin (1948) “a collection of individuals who are interdependent in forming a dynamic system”. Emphasis – common fate 2. Sherif and Sherif (1969) “an interaction among…individuals whose function it is to stabilize the role of status relations and norms” – this will encompass a family, respecting status and encouraging people to do the right and wrong thing Emphasis: social structure 3. Paulus (1989) “a collection of individuals who frequent Emphasis: face to face interactions 4. Myers (1996) “two or more individuals who for more than a few IDEA – must interact with the other people in the group, most definitions only seem to refer to smaller groups However, you may not interact with everyone in the group. In larger groups you will not interact with each other on a face-to-face level but simply belonging to a group has massive consequences. Example – Northern Ireland Protestant v Catholic determines how you are treated, Rwanda – what group you belonged to determined whether you would be slaughtered. The groups that we belong to is very important to us, but not based on face-to-face interaction For these reasons some people tended to look for subjective definitions of groups (Social Identity Theory). (1) Hogg & Vaughn (2) Turner (3) Brown Shortcoming of (1) and (2)  Other people can treat you as a group member even if you decided that you are not  Example: Nazi Germany – many people did not identify as Jewish; if your grandfather was Jewish the Nazi’s would have said you were Jewish  Therefore it is also important that other people identify you as a group member and this also has tremendous consequences Individual Group Relationships (Master problem in social sciences) What is the link between individual and the group? Do Groups exist in their own right? Is there more to groups than the sum of individuals who comprise them? Allport (1926):  There is no psychology of groups it is all about individuals  All you have when you have 5 people is 5 different personalities and 5 individuals  Is this the case? Allport’s remarks were aimed at Le Bon (1896) and MCDougall and the idea of a GROUP MIND  At the time there was another group who talked about the idea of the group mind. This idea was that when you get a group together, something comes out of their souls and this was capable of making people capable of doing certain things  The reason this happened was because groups got together, a group mind occurred and this group mind was distinct from the people In a sense Allport was more correct because there was no metaphysical being that influenced groups. When they got rid of the group mind they ignored groups and said that we need to be scientific and focus on individuals. This idea permeated in social psychologists in decades Berkowitz (1962)””  Adamant again that the bottom line was that it was all about individuals  When you think about war it is individuals that are going to war, peace is established by individuals Challenges Mead, Lewin, Asch, Sherif  Suggested get rid of the group mind fallacy, but this does not mean that you should avoid the study of groups  Argued that group processes are real and have distinctive properties from individual properties– when people get in groups they mutually influence each other and they influence each other to act in norms that are different to how they would normally act - They don’t tend to do it on their own - It is a group based phenomenon and influenced by the group - Example: student drinking – only happens in groups NOT on their own The group processes are not about a group mind but the norms and values in the group, you do not want to be left out and want to do the things your friends do because you want to feel like you belong  Add the third one Asch offers a chemical analogy  Water made up of the elements hydrogen and oxygen yet has different properties from each  Futhermore, when organized or structured differently diverse characteristics emerge (i.e. water, steam, ice)  As H2O is not the simple aggregate of its elements so to with human social behaviour – group behaviour is qualitatively different from individual behaviour This is the same with individuals – when you are in a group your behaviour changes because you see things and act rather differently. For both Asch and Sherif The reality of groups emerge out of people’s common perception of themselves as a members of the same social unit and in the various relationships they have to one another within that unit  People who are given the chance to show prejudice publicly show a lot of it – the new comers in the group want to be accepted because the existing members of the group will like them for it and allow them in  The structure of the group = show lots of prejudice to be accepted  But if you do not get to show your prejudice publicly - Privately you do not show anything - Public: idea that their behaviour is influenced by their behaviour with the group. When people go into new places – will people like me? Will people accept me? Therefore we get rid of group mind fallacy but groups in themselves should be studied differently. We are still studying individuals, but what people do on their own as individuals when they are separate from their groups is separate from what they do in the groups. Personality characteristics dictate what you do as an individual but not what you do in a group The interpersonal – group continuum What does it mean to act as a group member? Tajfel: claimed that all social behaviour lies on a continuum Interpersonal ------------------------------------------------------- Interpersonal Group based behaviour is on a continuum, at times you can see yourself as an individual and others as a member of a group Three Criteria to help us distinguish between interpersonal and group behaviour 1. Presence or absence of 2 categories 2. High or low variability between persons within each category Interpersonal type behaviour 1. Presence of one category 2. High variability in attitudes and behaviour of collective 3. High variation in one person’s attitudes towards collection of other individuals Week Two – Elementary Processes in Groups Chapter 2 – Brown (2000) Group Processes (2 Edition) Additional Readings – Read these for exam topics th Lecture 2 – 17 July 2012 Focus on 3 main issues 1. How people change when they become group members 2. The processes by which people become group members 3. How group norms affect behaviour Today (1) and (2) Important consequences of group membership relates to our sense of self  The groups which we belong to become who we are  Rupert Brown quote  He went and looked at people who belonged to factories; found that those in particular groups in the factories demonstrated prejudice against other groups within the factory (i.e. managers against workers) Army: - Initially he did not care where he was. However, once he became a member of the group, it became part of who he was. This often happens when people join groups - What happens when you go into a group there is a shift in your self-conception. There are two different parts of the self (1) the personal self – what you like as a person (2) Group level like other people or other people in that group – here you take on all the attributes of taking on membership of that group. You see yourself as a group member and other people as a group member. Brown’s example is benign but when you take on other groups it is a little scary – see Staub’s quote. In this quote, membership of this group they claimed give them strength to do things that other people couldn’t do. He is saying that being a Nazi gave him the strength to slaughter jews. Therefore identities have an important ramification. Whitely: Woman said that she couldn’t leave the KKK, the group was within her and apart of her. It is almost the same as saying do not become a man or a woman. It is extremely hard to leave some groups and this is the point being made here. How do we measure identities? Kuhn & McPartland – 20 Statement test Who am I? (1) Everyone belongs to at least one group (2) 50% belong to at least 10 groups Another way – Jackson & Smith (1999) review I am glad I am a man/woman Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Disagree Research shows that the higher you score here, the more likely you are to show prejudice against the other group. Also – William Swan has undergone new research to explain how people can become terroists. He has developed this measure of identity fusion  He gives people a series of circles – whether they fuse with the ground  Those who are fused are bound up in the group and the relations in the group is relations or love for the group. They cannot see them as separate  Swan has been able to show that the whole self is bound up in the group. These people are more likely to intervene in a knife fight when your group has been attacked. These same people will throw themselves under trolleys to save members of their own groups  This is a very important phenomena – and they are trying to link these things to terrorism; those who will literally go and kill other people for it Social Context can affect group members self-definitions If you were brought up in a context where there is a conflict between two groups in society.  In Northern Ireland there was this conflict but the two groups were visually similar  They distinguished by talking – i.e. what school did you go to Is a particular person always seen as a member of that group?  Mitchell et al. (2003) people though of a black woman as black– when she was with a group of white men; but when she was with a group of black men she was seen as a woman  Macrae et al (1995) - There is similar research showing the stereotype as Asian if she is eating with chopsticks - The context affects how people are defined The Numerical size of the ingroup also affects self-definitions If you are a minority then you are more likely to be aware of who you are as a group member. McGuire’s showed this by interviewing children at various ages. They found that if you speak to white kids, very few will say that they are white. But when you ask black kids they are 17 times more likely to refer to themselves as a member of “blacks”. They also found that the exact same effect was present in families. If you have a family with 4 women and 1 man, the man is more likely to see himself as a man. The identity is salient and made salient by context. If everyone around you is a different group then you become much more aware of who you are as a group member. This happens with different ethnic and gender groups. Note: these would be influenced by the race of the interviewer Joining Groups Initially people are quite anxious to join a group, they will often not speak to other group members. Moreland showed that newcomers are often quiet because they do not want to stand out, but this tends to dissipate. The research shows that when members of minority groups (i.e. African Americans) go to university, the research shows that these studies are exceptionally able. But when they get to university their academic outcomes become negative in the sense that they do worse. An idea behind this is that minority group members experience anxiety, it is a new context and they do not feel as though they belong. Part of this is the fear of fulfilling negative stereotypes, judged and put into groups by other people. The groups that we belong to have consequences for how we define and evaluate ourselves. Research shows that when people commit to a group, that groups success is their success and that groups failure is their failure – Zander et al (1960) had two groups (1) Cohesive - Sat close to each other - Encouraged to think of name of group - Attention drawn to similarities with others (2) Non-Cohesive groups - Allowed to sit anywhere - Assigned number, not allowed name - Never referred to openly as a group Groups were set a task where they had to develop a fashion accessory, they found that when a cohesive group was judge to do well the self-esteem of that group was good. When poorly judged their self-esteem dropped. In the other group people didn’t care. FOUND: Therefore you must be committed to the group to be affected by the group People also buy into groups that are good, people tend to gravitate with high-status groups but not low-status groups even in the minimal group paradigm – if they know one group has high status they will want to be in it (even if they do not know any of the other groups) Cialdini et al (1976) Basking in reflected glory  Observed college football supporters immediately following games  If team won college scarfs, insignia were much more in evidence around campus than if the team had lost Hogg & Turner  When men become aware that they are men their self-esteem goes up (Jackie’s example), whereas women self-esteem goes down when they are aware they are women  Women – perhaps women just do not have much status as men People that do not belong to high status or individual groups they may identify with groups later Vaughn  Maori were later to identify Matsumoto & Juang  Asian Americans have lower self-esteem than European Americans Gopaul-McNicol (1995)  The children do not identify with their own group – they denigrate their own group  They are not positively thinking about their group  This is a politically sensitive issue with many dialogues are debates about what these things really show. But we should not sweep this under the carpet and this thing needs to be studied a lot more th Lecture 3 – 19 July 2012 Initiation into Groups  Newcomers entry into groups is usually marked by some form of ritual or ceremony  Ceremonies, take different forms, may be pleasant or noxious Often there are rituals involved when you join a group, these rituals can be positive or negative Pleasant: 1. Jewish Bahmitzva 2. Irish Catholic Confirmation Unpleasant: 1. Mafia hitman 2. Mongrel Mob Member Often initiations are negative - O’Malley (1994) study of girls initiation into LA street gangs:  In these initiations girls were trained in  A dice was thrown, the number on the dice decide the number of boys who they had to sleep in This is harsh but not surprising, 80% of college students are joined in these things (hazed)  Students whipped, pummeled, forced to live without showers and toilets  Masonic initiate shot  Policemen abused sexually  Soldiers physically abused Sometimes people die in these – American soldiers who had just been a specific type of training and given a badge with a pin in it. The idea was that it would go into you jacket, parallel to your chest. What the initiation ceremony was that the pin would go straight into their chest and the other members of the group would slam these guys as hard as they could. Why do groups do these kinds of things to people? Why do people undergo such rituals? Why should groups go to such lengths? 1. Ceremonies serve a symbolic function, for both group and individual (a) Transition allows newcomer to say, I am not what I was Example – handing in your PHD you expect it to be a momentous occasion, therefore it did not have much of an impact. But when you went through your oral exam it is an arduous task and when you do this you feel like you are in the group i.e. you have worked hard to achieve this. (a) When the initiation allows new group member to wear new clothes or acquire new markings, the ceremony helps to underlie the groups distinctiveness The initiation functions to differentiate you from non-group members. 2. Initiation can serve as a kind of apprenticeship introducing new member to normative standards Example: if you have to kill someone to be a gangster, you are being introduced to the norms and values that you must possess to be a member i.e. to be a mongrel mob member you must be tough. Therefore you could say that undergoing the initiation introduces people to the norms and values of the groups 3. Initiation can elicit some form of sympathy or loyalty Generally, these kinds of initiations seem to be more positive – you are trying to buy loyalty. A fourth function would suggest that making the initate undergo a difficult experience would make them come to value the group more If things are difficult to join a group then people will value that group more, therefore the more you have to undergo to join a group the more you will value a group. If something is hard to get into you will like it more. This idea is based on Festingers Cognitive Dissonance.  If you join a group that is hard to get into but the group is not that great you will bring your attitudes back into line with your behaviour and say “I must like it” Experimental research for this – Aronsun & Mills (1959) provide evidence for this view They got women to believe that they were to take part in group discussions on sex. As part of a screening test, women were asked to read passages aloud. Conditions:  Severe: obscene passage read  Mild: words with sexual connotations read  Control: nothing read All respondents then informed that discussion had begun, they were asked to rate pre-recorded tape of discussion. All respondents heard same type – on the sex life of ants FOUND: As predicted, it was those who had to undergo the severe trial that rated their group more positively. This is very consistent with Festingers idea – that the more difficult it is the more you would like it. You undergo this behaviour, you cannot undo the behaviour. But when you question whether you like the group or not (cognitive dissonance) therefore you change your attitudes and you will like the group more For a long time it was generally assumed that severe initiations lead people to like groups more was gospel. But this is not necessarily the case Severe initiations are not always productive Lodewijkx & Syriot (1997) examined initiations into real gropus Severe initiation 1. Novices placed into unstructured camps for 1 week 2. Given new names, forced to wear a uniform of baglike clothes 3. Live in tents, where occupants are changed each day, all clocks taken away 4. Forced to work hard (e.g. pulling trees and diffing ditches) 5. Evening gatherings where novices are embarrassed and humiliated Therefore you have been isolated, uncertain, disorientated, emotionally exhausted Non-severe Initiation 1. Novices placed into unstructured camps for 1 week 2. Allowed to retain names and wear own clothes 3. Free laissez-faire atmosphere 4. Novices allowed to smoke cannabis and get drunk FOUND:  People in the severe initiation became depressed and felt lonely; and this remained with the people and lasted throughout initiation and lowered liking for the gropu  Results also indicated that the more companionship people had the more attractive the group was perceived to be This is contrary to the idea above So what is going on? Harsh initiations are not so good for the individuals but do the groups benefit? Moreland & Levine (1989) Harsh Socialization Procedures 1. Provide information about the newcomer (e.g. that they are willing to show some sacrifice) 2. Will discourage newcomers who are not very eager to join 3. Will weaken and confuse newcomers and show them that in order to become full members they are dependent on full members How group norms affect behaviour When you have been accepted into the group, how the values of the group affect people. When we talk about norms it is one of those awkward and hard to define concepts. What is a norm? QUOTES 1. Norms tell us what is acceptable 2. Appropriate behaviour 3. Being normal Example: norms of what should happen when you come into a lecture; the unspoken norm that exists is that the student sits and the lecturer stands up. Often people will go along with norms for social sanction, if you violate a norm that would make it inappropriate. While we may agree with norms, when we act with the norms then we are doing something appropriate, and it builds up our self-esteem. If you are not fulfilling the norms of society it can crush you Forsyth (1996) Matsummoto & Juang (2008)  In the Western Culture the amount of images in the magazines that the women are supposed to adhere to. When people are subject to these norms, you find an increase amongst women in bulmia or eating disorders or their self-esteem can drop because they feel they do not fulfill a societal idea on what it is like to be the “norm”  Otago Study: images of models - Control: Doctored the images FOUND: when we showed normal women, their self-esteem and attitude towards eating was fine. But when they showed the model images they found self-esteem drop and their attitudes towards eating and behaviours. Therefore there is a big society influence Cohen & Nisbett (1996) “Culture of honour: The Psychology of Violence in the South” refer ot a culture of honour, in which threats to ones reputation for toughness are especially likely to start a fight You do not get this effect in the Northern states – they do not care about their “honour” being threatened as much, however in the Southern States white men are more likely to wind up in prison for killing other white men. Experimental Evidence: 3 types of study using the same basic design 1. Student lured to laboratory on pretext of taking part in an experiment 2. Student asked to take questionnaire and drop it on table at the end of a narrow corridor 3. On the way the student had to pass a confederate working at a file drawer 4. The confederate slammed the drawer shut, bumped into the student and called him a scatological name and then the student has to work on Participants were then given a variety of tests 1. Southerners showed a 12% increase in levels of testosterone 2. Levels of cortisol (a hormone that indicates stress) Participants who kept on walking after experiment encountered a 6 ft 3 250 lb confederate FOUND: White men from southern states slides Idea: this culture of honour, that people in that part of the world took on this culture and generally what they found was that this culture could be used to explain why white men in the Southern States of America were more likely to end up in prison Week 3 – Social Influence in groups Lecture 4 – 24 July 2012 Readings Chapter 4 Brown (2004) – Group Processes Brown (20120) Prejudice It Social Psychology (Chapter 2) Additional Readings – Fowler: If your friend puts on weight, you have a 15% of putting it on yourself. But if they have friends that influence them that they do not know, if they put on weight you have a 10% chance to put on weight. Hogg & Jetten have done a relook and reexamination of the social influence studies, and raise really important questions regarding how we look at these fields. TODAY 1. The influence of the majority What is social influence? It is almost as broad as social psychology, it is how social structures influence peoples attitudes and behaviours. Turner, 1996 p562: “Social influence is…concerned with processes whereby people’s beliefs, opinions, attitudes, values and behaviour are changed or controlled through social interaction as a function of social relationships between the recipient(s) and source(s) of influence” There is a lot of research that shows that people change when they come through university, and they find that they become more liberal. Example, the people who do psychology become less authoritarian throughout university but those who do law are more authoritarian, and tend to stereotype more. The study of social influence is renown for its demonstration and explication of dramatic psychological phenomena that occur in direct response to social forces  Milgram studies: people would obey an experimenter to give a person shocks, even if they heard them screaming (2/3 would go on, to the dangerous shock level) Generally people thought these were unethical, but recently they found that if you get people to go above/beyond 150V they will go on right until the end. So now they stop the shocks at 150V because they know if they go that far they will go to the end.  Zimbardo: found that young men who became guards became brutal and nasty in torturing and humiliating prisoners. This shows that people can be profoundly influenced  Patti Hearst: she was an heiress and she was kidnapped by the Liberation Army when she was at university (19 years old) and then she joined the SLA, and she was filmed robbing a bank - She changed dramatically, this is what the study of social influence is about There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that people are influenced by others – Baron & Kerr (2003)  People more prone to give to charity if they think others do  Women rate men as more attractive if other women endorse their views  People are more likely to endorse false eye-witness testimony if others also endorse testimony Naïve participants will often go along with the majority, this is not only at face value, people are incredibly more prone Asch 1) Brought people into lab 2) Showed pair of cards 3) Respondents to guess which were equal 4) Preferences were given out loud 5) …. Which of the lines are the same size as A? 2. Factors affecting majority influence The size of the majority If the person at the end is just on their own, and there is only one other person the effect is not observed. However, if there are at least 3 other people (optimum) this is when you get the maximum amount of influence. Consensus When Asch broke up the consensus produced by the majority, so that 2 naïve subjects faced the majority, conformity dropped to 10% When naïve participant was joined by a single… If somebody just gives a response that breaks up the conformity, this seemed to be able to impact to the extent that it drops the level of conformity by the person on the end. Culture Smith & Bond (1993): examined conformity in collectivist and individualist cultures. People in collectivist cultures tend to make around 50% more errors in Asch type studies.  NZ is a very strong individualist culture  Kenya, China, Africa are collectivist cultures. It is where people tend to see themselves not as individuals but as part of a group.  When you take on these ‘group’ views you are less likely to stand up against the majority who is trying to influence you in a particular way  Aeroplane crashes – people in collectivist cultures did not feel able to challenge the captain, they just went along. And there was some suggestion that this was a contributing factor to aeroplane crashes. The Influence Source Brofenbrenner (1970) looked at conformity to moral values cross culturally  Children asked to resolve moral dilemmas  Choose between (a) Standards endorsed by adults (b) Anti-social standard endorsed by Peers  Responses to be seen by either Peers or Adults  Israeli children were especially influenced by peer group - Gave a more anti-social response  Germans gave a more socially appropriate response when the parents will see the results Therefore we are influenced by who we know will see our responses The population  People with lower status will tend to be more conforming  McKnight & Sutton (1994) women tend to be more conforming (cf. Baron and Kerr, 2003)  Perrin & Spencer (1981) those on probation tended to show high levels of conformity  Smith & Bond (1993) students less conforming than non-students Japanese students made 27% errors using Asch procedure This could be because people of lower status had to rely more on each other to get by. It is not the people themselves, it is their place in the world. Further another possibility is that women are more collectivist than men. Men are encouraged to be more individualistic, but women are more concerned about how other people are reacting and how they feel. In one Asch study, they asked the people why they went along with everyone when they were obviously wrong. A common answer is that they though they were visually impaired and they did not want to hurt their feelings. Therefore people have their own theories on what is going on they are not passive recipients.  The source Priming Recent research shows that people can be influenced by the types of words images and stories that they have recently encountered Pendry and Carrick (2001) found that people were more likely to show conformity in the Asch type paradigm when they were presented with certain types of photos  Accountants vs Punk Rockers  Showing a picture of an old man – people will be slower to leave the class. They are somehow being influenced by these primes. What is more interesting is that they are unaware of this influence  Social cognition research shows that you can influence people easily to make decisions.  Task Importance People tend to conform more on difficult tasks… Baron et al (1996) found that… 3. The reasons why people are subject to majority influence Why do people conform to influence (a) Helps validate beliefs Most knowledge is shared, thus to know of something as right we look to other people and they confirm for us to confirm that our opinions and our ideas are good. Therefore our social beliefs are up in the air, thus to prove that they are correct is good,  Important that they are correct  To verify our beliefs we turn to others This type of influence… (b) achieve Appro (c) Achieve Approval and avoid ridicule  Deutsch & Gerard in a modification of the Asch paradigm found that conformity dropped by 50% when participants gave their responses anonymously  Pool et al  Zadro and Williams, 2004 People are desperate to belong and desperate to feel accepted, and this is one of the most important needs we have. If people are not accepted then chronic rejection can lead to genetic changes in people. Further there is a lot of research that shows The Achievement of Group Goals The power of the group goals in influencing social behaviour has been illustrated by Lewin  Compared (a) Effectiveness of lecture given by nutritional expert (b) Group discussion In the discussion condition (b) participants developed a goal to try new recipes This is like Sherif’s group studies in the School Camp. When the goal was to win the prizes, the boys adhered strongly to the rules and values of the group and they are influenced by the group through a specific goal that can be achieved. Self-categorization and Social Identity Turner (1987, 1991) claimed that people identify themselves with members of a group. They will go along with in-group members not outgroup members.  In Asch, a man would be less likely to go along if only women said it  This is the same with ethnic groups, people are more conforming with other group members rather than people who are not part of their group. Lecture 5 – 26 July 2012 4. The influence of the minority Minority influence Minorities sometimes stand up to majorities  Freud  Jesus  Scientists  Recycling - Thought greenies were weird, but now it is perfectly acceptable and if you are not considerate fo the environment you are considered selfish Sometimes the minorities can influence the majority and change what the other people (majority) believe. Moscovici et al. (1969) Conducted an experiment similar to the Asch studies, they were asked to make perceptual judgments on colour of blue tinted slides  Groups of 6 - 4 were naïve (majority) - 2 confederates (minority). They called out ‘green’ in predetermined manner  Condition 1: consistently  Condition 2: not consistently Wolf (1979) Mock jury study  Compensation case  Minority can cause less money to be given in compensation Meta-analysis – concluded that minority influence does occur and minority can effect the majority  Wood et al (1994) BUT the influence of the minority is different to the influence of the majority, people will publicly agree with the majority. There is a lot of evidence to show that where a minority exerts their influence makes people to stop and think, but the majority is easier to go along with. People focus more on the minority.  Peterson & Nemeth (1996): minorities more creative in problem solving Also, people may not be aware that they are being influenced by the minority Moscovici: when the minority pushed the difference, the people who had been influenced by the minority were more prone to report the correct answer. This shows that they really did see what they were supposed to see, but this did not happen with the majority. Responses are more subtle with minority influence, it may take a longer period for the effects to emerge with the minority but they appear genuine, and people are not aware that they have been influence. Further, minority influence can be targeted at one issue, but it may spill into other issues it may not influence you regarding the specific issue Study – Craynol: minority influence messages about gays in US Military. When people were subject to a minority not a majority message, they would not pay attention to the particular issue. Although that particular issue was not effect, the people who were specifically influenced showed more negative attitudes towards free-access to weapons and they supported gun control. Therefore the influence effect can spill over to other sources. US – Attempted to do this against Modern Technology Not all minorities are successful (1) Amish (2) Esperanto movement - Tried to bring about one language - Speak the same words, know each other better and less conflict. This is a great idea but it has not been taken on (3) Peace movements (4) Jehovah’s witness - Men with suits and ties trying to convert people - Not successful Why are some successful and some not? Factors affecting minority influence 1. Consistency The message of the minority must be consistent. (a) Diachronic consistency (consistency over time) (b) Synchronic consistency (consistency within the majority) If the minority consistenty defends its position, because it appears confident, certain and committed tehn the members of the majority will begin to think that the position has merits 2. Investment of minority Must invest in their cause, i.e. someone is trying to convert someone to Christianity but appears very rich. People would not really believe that he has invested completely in Christianity. 3. Autonomy If the minority is seen to be acting out of principle rather than for ulterior motives then it is more likely to be influential i.e. Sarah Ulmer add for McDonalds; did you really believe that McDonalds was healthy or the person behind it really believed in McDonalds. 4. Rigidity If the minority are seen as dogmatic rather than flexible then they will not be taken seriously, they will be dismissed as cranks or extremists. If things fit in their worldviews or decent/humanistic you may be more prone to believe them and go along with them Experimental Evidence 5. Censorship Evidence for the role of this variable has been provided by Clark (1994) In a mock jury study Clark found that when a message was either 2/3 or completey censored the influence of the minority was found to increase Therefore the more attention you draw to it when you are censoring it, they believe it is more important when it is being censored. 6. Single minorities versus double minorities  A single minority is a group that differs from the majority in terms of opinion  Double minorities is a group that differs from the majority not only… Mass and Clark: Gay minorities were less likely to change their attitudes than the heterosexual minorities. They were less successful in changing the heterosexual attitudes of the minority. You are more likely to be able to change from within the group that outside the group Summary Week 4 – Prejudice and Discontent Reading: Chapters 1&2 of Brown – Prejudice: Its Social Psychology Additional Readings … Read Bob Altemeyer = very funny Lecture 6 – 31 July 2012 Focus on 4 main issues – 1. Prejudice: definitions What is prejudice? “Prejudice is an attitude…about someone based solely on our stereotypic beliefs”  Problem: we need to look at more than attitudes we must look at emotions as well “Irrational…  Problem: if prejudice is irrational then we are all a bit crazy. Everyone has some prejudices and they are not typically crazy or irrational “Unjustifiable negative attitude…”  Problem: it may not be unjustified, people are easily able to justify their prejudices i.e. In Northern Ireland they shot unarmed civilians because the IRA do not wear uniforms, they cannot be identified so they merely go and shoot at Catholic areas. Therefore people can justify the most horrendous behaviours  Trublanca – death camp - Slaughtered men, women and children - After the war they justified it by saying that it was for their own good. Therefore it is very easy to justify anything – usually people blame the victims Because of these kinds of problems we will use an inclusive definition as used by Brown – “prejudice will be regarded as any attitude, emotion or behaviour towards members of a group, which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy towards that group” (Brown, 2010, p7) 2. Examples Most shown – Anti-Jews Middle-eastern newspapers:  Jews are the plague of the generation…  The Jews spilling blood to prepare pastry for their holidays… This is not just a middle-eastern phenomenon:  “I got kicked from two Prod…” (made by Catholics)  “I would love to burn those bastards” (made by Protestants) From these you can see how a person justifies a hatred. Further people believed that people fit into the stereotypes. This is also apparent in NZ society:  “It’s a problem of their racial integration…”  “The,…Maori, only 150 years ago he was a cannibal, he was eating his enemies. HE hasn’t had the advantages…” NZ has an incredible reputation of fairness, but people being human there is prejudice here as well (i.e. with the politians) At times prejudice is very blatant –  Philip Sheridan:  Glick & Fiske (1996): A good woman should be put on a pedestal by her man - It is the idea that women and children go first (i.e. titanic) - Idea that assesses benevolent sexism, that women need to be worshipped and they cannot stand on their own two feet, the idea that they should always be protected, and kept away from politics and army, they are not up to doing difficult things - Men have to put them on a pedestal to ensure they are out of harms way In some respects you can see how this can have benefits (i.e. guys paying for meals, opening up doors) functionally this keeps women down. In NZ there is much more egalitarian view. Therefore you can show prejudice in a subtle way to keep people down that makes it look like there is fairness. However, you can let them do things, and say that they are good in some situations but it does not necessarily mean you are not being prejudiced. For example women are not good in politics but they are good in the kitchen. Therefore prejudice is not always blatantly obvious, sometimes what gives the fairness of prejudice can help keep members of the groups down. Prejudice is not a simple function of intelligence:  Theodore Roosevelt  Benjamin Franklin  Thomas Edison  Plato  Aristotle These people who are revered in society also show prejudice. Therefore it is not a function of intelligence (i.e. very intelligent people are still prejudiced)  Bob Jones ODT – examples of sexism (hypocrite – made a judgment)  ODT Editorial – mixed race people are the ones causing the problems  Hitler – International Papers (Guardian) We live in an incredibly civilized society BUT the message displayed between these two is not really that different. Guardian: how minority groups were portrayed. 7 Asian men abused young girls and children, it was portrayed that they were Asian and attacking little white girls and raping them and abusing them across the British Media. But at the same time there were white men doing the exact same things but it was completely ignored by the media. This shows how easy it is to create racial diversity and hatred. There are many factors that lead people to be prejudiced: The media plays a huge role as with status, difficult life conditions, social institutions, law. Theories that locate the cause of prejudice within the person (individualistic type theories) (1) Authoritarian Personality According to Manstead & Hewstone (1996) (p77) authoritarianism is:  An orientation which is overly deferential to those in authority whilst simultaneously adopting an overbearing and hostile attitude towards those perceived as inferior - They will be horrible to those who do not have power, but lovely to people who do have power  Either right or wrong and nothing in between - Tend to show prejudice against minority groups - But they will not condemn war criminals or police that abuse their powers only those with less power Authoritarian Personality first advocated by Adorno et al. (1950) Tried to understand how so many people in Nazi Germany could persecute so many Jews etc. They said that you have two types of people (a) Democratic type: tolerant, unprejudiced democratic and egalitarian (b) The Potential fascist: anti-Semitic, rigid, intolerant and hostile to those different from oneself The Authoritarian personality has many other traits or personality dispositions associated with the personality. 1. Conventional - Clear cut, middle class values 2. Authoritarian Aggression 3. Anti-Intraception - Self help books 4. Superstition and Stereotypy - Do what other authority figures told them to do 5. Authoritarian Submission 6. Power and toughness - Boxing - Martial Arts 7. Destructiveness and Cynicism - Negative view on what it is to be a person 8. Projectivity - They projected all of their negative feelings about themselves onto other people 9. Puritanical Prurience - Sexual issues - Typically complain about too much sex in society and they shouldn’t wear revealing clothes etc. - Concerned with sexual going ons Working from a Freudian perspective (Adorno et al.) claimed that the Authoritarian personality was derived from childhood:  People had an aggressive instinct and people wanted to hurt and maim other people and the job of the parent was to stifle that instinct  Harsh demanding parents stifled child’s basic instincts  Child’s aggression then displaced onto others such as ethnic minorities  End Result: people who were over deferential and submissive to authority figures and hostile to minorities We all have anger and aggression but if we show it our parents will smack then. Therefore you learn to suppress this anger, because every time you show it an authority figure beats the aggression out of you. It does not go away, it is always there. Therefore parents can stop you being angry, but you have this anger and it has to come out. This comes out later adulthood and expressed towards lower minority members – this is something learnt as a child = displace it onto people who do not have power. But they will not condemn people with more power, and this is why we get prejudice according to Adorno Criticism: 1. Wording of items – people tend to show response acquiescence to F-scale (i.e. obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues that children learn) 2. Factors too vague (e.g. “Superstition and Stereotypy” are not the same) 3. Focused on right-wing - Ignored people on the left such as communists - Known that people on the left (i.e. Stalin) was responsible for more deaths than Hitler 4. Freudian Theory - In social psychology no one accepts Freudian theory - Shows that aggression is learned (Bandura studies) nd Lecture 7 – 2 August 2012 Essay: read the annual reviews – Personality and Social Psychology review Major Criticism – the scale used  Problems with response bias and they had a tendency to check for particular responses  Not getting honest responses  Because of the problem with the scales no one investigated it until… RWA Scale Altemeyer (1988,1996)  “Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brace enough to defy “traditional family values” FOUND: that is reverse score item. Would authoritarians agree or disagree with that kind of statement? Authoritarians would say that this was wrong Another way authoritarianism has been assessed – Behavioural indices of authoritarian dimensions: 1. Power and toughness (type of dogs owned, attendance at boxing events) 2. Supestition (number of astrology books bought, articles written) 3. Authoritarian Aggression (the length of jail sentences) 4. Anti-Intraception (number of psychology and psychotherapy books and articles bought and written) The idea is that people tend to behave in ways that reflect tendermindedness; thus they would be less authoritarian. Therefore it does not have to be through questionnaires New Theories Social Learning of Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988, 1996): People learn to be authoritarian through observation, i.e. if your parents condemn certain behaviours. Duckitt (2001)  Punitive child rearing practices lead to a conforming personality, which causes the child to see the world as a threatening and dangerous place  Perceived threats motivate the child to seek control over the environment  Because authoritarian ideologies advocate controlling the environment the person embraces these ideologies and then prejudice that accompanies them. Therefore Authoritarianism can be learned Doty, Peterson & Winter  Actually a reaction to threat  Looked at behavioural indicators of authoritarianism FOUND: compare the level of authoritarianism – increases with difficult social situations. Therefore it may not be a personality situation it may be an ideology and a belief system when there is trauma in society. For example with the batman shootings – there was an increase in buying guns. Therefore it is a control mechanism and they become more authoritarian as societal turmoil. There is also substantial support for the idea that authoritarianism affects prejudice Rubenstein (1995):  Israeli’s high RWA opposed to autonomy for Arabs, opposed handing back of occupied territories, wanted Israeli Arabs deported  I’s low in RWA called for withdrawal of occupied territories, wanted Arab-I compromise  RWA related to prejudice against – gay men, lesbians, native americans… Altemeyer (1998):  Authoritarians are more likely to give harsh sentences – more shocks  Less likely to condemn governments; those who commit war crimes or beat prisoners  Give peers higher levels of shock and admit they enjoy punishing  Most people would say NO when asked if they would locate and arrest radicals, torture them and tehn execute them, Authoritarians say POSSIBLY (2) Social dominance Orientation Altemeyer (1998) Looked at social dominance and right winged authoritarianism  Do not want other groups to be equal to your group  Want to get to the top and do not care what you have to trample  Believe in hierarchies  Dangerous place that they believe – dog eat dog (adopted by lots of Nazi’s) Find that SD and Authoritarian are independent, because they are not related. The relationship between the two constructs is .2. Thus Altemeyer has suggested that if you put all the things that may predict prejudice and you use all these things to try and explain prejudice the only thing that will predict anything is social dominance and authoritarianism. Between these two constructs you explain all forms of prejudice - .8 correlation. NOTE: RWA (Right wing authoritarian) CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE There are studies that show that SD and RWA do not always explain prejudice. Heaven (1998)  Found inconsistent  Amoung South Africans men  But amoung AA women in the US, these personality distribution did not explain the prejudice. They found that collective identity, the extent that they identified with the African American group predicted prejudice. Hunter et al (2012 study 3.6) NZ’s to evaluate NZ’s and Americans  Shows a massive effect between in-group and out-group  Those who were less authoritarian showed more prejudice and those who were more RWA showed less prejudice.  Why? - USA is a high status and powerful group - Authoritarians are only mean to people with less power – they will not condemn a more powerful group But the extent to which you identified as a NZ was the best predictor of prejudice against USA Hunter et al (2012 study 2f) NZ versus Asians Gave NZ’s the opportunity to divide 100s of white noise FOUND: NZ’s tended to give more of this to the out-group. Only collective identity predicted it Therefore the findings are very much at odds with the studies with Altemeyer – Hunter (2012b) – the more you identified with NZ the nastier you were to Australians, personality did not come into it. 1. Allocate to Australian or NZ 2. Take the white noise or to someone else - SD did not take the white noise - Suggests that perhaps SD and RWA (personality type predictors) may be more predictive of how people react and interpersonal rather than intergroup Duckitt (2005): Dual Process Model RWA and SDO linked to prejudice against different groups.  RWA is related to prejudice against threatening groups (i.e. morals or values)  SDO related to prejudice against competing groups (i.e. threatening resources) Suggests it is a function of the different kind of threats that people can face Overall –  There is evidence to show that people high in SDO/RWA are often more prejudiced but as a theory (personality) cannot account for the widespread nature of conflict Problems with personality approaches 1. Ignores contextual factors, which have repeatedly been shown to affect patterns of prejudice Pettigrew (1958) US: The people in South Africa and the Southern States of America were incredibly prejudiced against black people. But if you compare the levels of RWA, even though the people in South US and SA had very high levels of prejudice, with those in less prejudicial communities you find that the levels of authoritarianism was not high Suggests: if the prejudice is not a function of threats it is a function of norms If you tell them that they did not show prejudice then the effect disappears. This is not about personality but it is about the norms Minard (1952) General Problems Personality cannot account for 1. Widespread and uniform nature of prejudice 2. Historical specificity of prejudice 3. People can like individual group members - e.g. Billig et al., (1988), Bell (1990) 4. RWA and SDO affected by context, Guimond et al (2003); O’Brien et al (2007); Hunter and Ruffman (2012) (those who are rejected/ostracized levels of SDO and RWA go up – cyberball) It must be the situation that changed NOT the personality that changed, personality cannot change that fast. Personality cannot explain large prejudice. Also, people can like individual members of particular groups but hate the entire group as a whole. Example – Northern Ireland 1960-1969 1 murder, by 1972 there were 500 murders. Week Five Lecture 8 – 7 August 2012 Essay – read 2010 book The Development of Prejudice Awareness of Social Categories 1. Category identification and preference 2. Intergroup attitudes and discrimination in children 3. Understanding the development of prejudice in children Last week we looked at Authoritariansm – the idea that harsh parenting would cause children to redirect their hate away from more powerful onto weaker targets. Therefore children would be more frightened to authority figures and mean and nasty to those who did not have any power. Problems with this thinking – 1. That it was essentially a theory of deviant personality - It is not the case that we have people who are prejudiced and those that are not - Everyone is prejudiced to some extent and there is no doubt that some people are nastier than others 2. They did not study children but asked adults about their childhood experiences, but the obvious problem is that memory bias may appear, but these may be completely incorrect Today’s lecture we are going to focus on the research that has been conducted on prejudice. What do we know about prejudice, what does this tell us about prejudice in adults, are children merely an empty vessel that society pours their prejudice into. If the parent is prejudiced are the children bound to reproduce prejudices? Or mig
More Less

Related notes for PSYC315

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.