Textbook Notes (363,381)
Canada (158,358)
Psychology (860)
PSY 105 (152)
Chapter 7


10 Pages
Unlock Document

Ryerson University
PSY 105
Kristin Vickers

CHAPTER 7: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY -Social psychologists devote themselves to the study of human interconnectedness; social psychology is based on the belief that “it is not so much the kind of person a man is, as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act”. -Social psychology defn by Gordon Allport states that it seeks to understand, explain & predict how ppl’s thoughts, feelings & behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others. Social cognition is the way in which ppl perceive & interpret themselves & others in their social world. Social cognition: Attitudes -Attitudes are relatively stable & enduring (w/in individuals) evaluations of things & ppl. According to the ABC model, attitudes have 3 components: affective (emotions & feelings toward object), behavioural (how we behave toward object) & cognitive (beliefs & ideas about object). Before 9/11, NA held the attitude that their everyday world was safe from terrorism: they felt secure (affective), went to work confidently w/o worry that terrorism will affect them (behavioural) & believed they were safe (cognitive). -Attitudes: Socialization is the process by which children acquire beliefs & behaviour deemed to be desirable/appropriate by the family they belong to. Can occur by direct transmission (parents lecturing you) or in subtler ways (getting praised/punished for grades), overtime you’ll generalize these individual experiences into an overall attitude about the value of what you’re doing. Early in life, parents play a role in shaping children’s beliefs & opinions about the world, but as they mature, peers, teachers & media can sig influence their attitudes. -How do attitudes change? : Once we have internalized an attitude, how rigid & long lasting will it be & can ppl experience a change of heart? An experiment by Festinger & Carlsmith demonstrated that when we are subtly manipulated into doing/saying something that is contrary to our private attitudes, we often change our attitudes to match the new action/statement. They had research participants do a # of boring & repetitive tasks, eg. 1 hr slowly turning square pegs on a board, after they were told that the experiment was done & they could go home but in fact they were needed to describe the experiment as fun & intriguing to a new group that was coming in. All the new individuals were confederates, ie. Collaborators w/ the experiment; in almost all cases, the participants agree to help, some were paid $1 ($8 today) & some $20 ($160 today). After presenting the positive spiel about the tedious tasks, the participants were interviewed about how enjoyable they actually believe the tasks to be & they found that those paid $1 for praising the task rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid $20. Why is this so? Cognitive dissonance theory offers a possible answer. -Cognitive dissonance theory=proposed by Festinger, aka state of emotional discomfort ppl experience when they hold 2 contradictory beliefs or hold a belief that contradicts their behaviour. This state is so unpleasant that we are motivated to reduce/ eliminate them. 1 way is to modify our existing beliefs, eg. participants said the task was boring & trivial then were asked to talk about it positively, resulted in cognitive dissonance & motivated them to change their neg attitudes to pos ones about the tasks. But what about the differing results b/w the $1 & $20 group? According to the theory, the $20 group experienced less dissonance b/c they had suff justification for their behaviour, eg. “I said the experiment was fun b/c I got money for saying it” vs. the $1 group experience more dissonance b/c they had insuff justification for their behaviour & to reduce the uncomfortable feelings they modify their beliefs & ended up saying that the tasks really were kind of interesting. Festinger’s theory received tons of support from other literature & has been implicated in real life, eg. parents giving financial rewards to children to encourage them to do homework but this can backfire b/c if they are given sizeable financial reward, they will know exactly why they’re doing homework, experiencing little dissonance & still continue to believe that hw is boring. -Do Attitudes influence behaviour? : Attitudes that ppl express are not necessarily related to how they actually behave, eg. Richard LaPiere’s field study of Chinese couple visiting >250 hotels & restaurants & only 1 of those rejected the couple service even though 90% indicated they wouldn’t serve Chinese guests. There are times though that attitudes do predict behaviour, eg. attitude specificity—the more specific the attitude the more likely it will predict behaviour & attitude strength—stronger attitudes predict behaviour more accurately than weak, vague ones. -Are ppl honest about their attitudes? : a reason attitudes fail to consistently predict behaviours is that ppl often misrepresent their attitudes; analyses of most self-report questionnaires can’t distinguish b/w genuine attitudes from false one & why is it that ppl misrepresent their attitudes: -The Social desirability factor= often ppl state attitudes that are socially desirable vs. accurate; to eliminate this, researchers have often used the bogus pipeline technique. The participant is connected to a fake device that resembles a polygraph & told it can detect deception & found that when ppl are connected to it, they are more likely to report their attitudes truthfully. In one study of this, the experimental group were more likely to be honest about performing socially sensitive behaviours, eg. drinking, smoking, engaging in sex, etc & those in the control group were more likely to answer in socially desirable ways like reporting lower freq in partaking in those activities. After the study, it is important that participants are debriefed about the fact their honesty wasn’t really monitored. -Implicit attitudes= another problem researchers have run into when trying to measure attitudes is that ppl are often unaware of their true attitudes, this is called implicit attitudes. To measure implicit attitudes, researchers have used the IAT (Implicit Assoc’n Test) which uses a person’s rxn times & consists of 3 stages: 1. Person is exposed to 2 broad categories & then ask to categorize certain words that belong into each category. 2. Person is asked to complete a diff task in which they must categorize words as either pleasant/unpleasant. 3. Categories are combined, eg. dog-related/pleasant or cat-related/ unpleasant & then categories are later reversed. The assumption is that if a person implicitly believes dogs are more desirable than cats, they should be quicker to identify pleasant words during the dog/pleasant combo b/c the assoc’n b/w them is stronger. =Implicit attitudes appear to be stable over time & useful predictors ob both subtle indicators of discomfort; researchers have also used IAT to detect bias against elderly, overweight, women, ethnic groups, etc. Bertram Gawronski & colleagues found that diversity training & guided exposure to groups that are prejudiced reduces explicit prejudiced beliefs vs. fear reduction & emotion focused interventions work best to reduce implicit prejudice beliefs. His main pt was that multicomponent efforts would be more effective & result in more positive changes in participants’ prejudicial cognitions & emotions. -Stereotypes & Prejudice: Stereotypes are generalized impressions about a person/group based on the social category they occupy; can be based on age, race, region of origin, political/religious beliefs, etc. Prejudice is negative stereotypical attitudes toward individuals from another group. Research by Reginald Bibby suggests that prejudice in the form of overt racism & sexism has dec overtime in US & Canada but more so in Canada but despite Canada’s greater acceptance of diversity, subtle biases remain, eg. long history of prejudice against Canada’s aboriginal popn w/ neg effects on the overall health of members of that popn. Pyschologists believe that the human tendency to identify w/ a group is the main contribution to stereotypes & prejudice, we categorize ourselves based on similarities & diff. Understanding ourselves as members of the in-group offers us some insight on who we are & perceiving ppl from out-groups gives us info (sometimes invalid) about who they are. Social identity theory emphasizes social cognitive factors in the onset of prejudice, proposes it emerge through 3 processes: social categorization (person affiliates w/ a group to figure out how to act/react in the world), social identity (person forms an identity w/in the group) & social comparison (group member compares group favourably w/ other groups & in turn drives a sense of pos well-being from looking at him/herself as superior in some way). : Tajfel randomly assigned study participants to 2 groups & had them decide how to divide the money b/w 2 ppl Id’d by their group membership & ID # & typically, participants showed an “in-group” bias by giving more money to the person in their group vs. the other group. Even w/o group interaction, social identity theory exists. -Attitudes & the power of Persuasion: advertisers have taken advantage of the processes underlying how attitudes form & change; they use their best efforts to convince you that there product is far superior than anyone else’s & you must have it. For persuasion to occur, there must be a message, a source & a receiver. In attempting to make the msg persuasive, the source can use methods that follow the central/peripheral route: -Central vs. Peripheral: central route emphasizes the content of the msg, using factual info & logical arg to persuade; req fair amt of effort on receiver & more commonly used for matters of significance. Peripheral route relies on superficial info, feelings & impressions to persuade. Decisions based on central routes are more likely to last than decisions based on peripheral routes. -Aids to persuasion: Characteristics of the source is also important in making a msg more/less persuasive, eg. whether source is rated more knowledgeable/likeable, if we think source is similar to us & sometimes its more persuasive if source presents both sides of an issue. Sometimes the key to persuasion rests on interaction b/w audience & source characteristics, # of specific techniques incl: foot-in-the-door (getting someone to agree to a small request & then ff up w/ a larger one so that they will be inclined to grant the 2ndrequest st b/c of having already granting the 1 one, eg. asking to borrow the car for an 1hr then for the weekend), door-in-the-face (making an absurd large request that will be obviously turned down & ff up w/ a more moderate request to persuade them to grant you what you really want, eg. asking for a motorcycle & then asking for $50) & appeals to fear (can be powerful & freq seen in antismoking campaigns; must make receivers truly believe that something bad will happen to them if they don’t comply w/ the source’s request). -Barriers to persuasion: forewarning an audience that you will be persuading them will immediately raise their defenses; beginning w/ a weak arg instead of a strong one can make subsequent arg weaker. Before You Go On 1. What are the 3 components of attitudes, according to the ABC model? 2. Why do ppl sometimes misrepresent their attitudes? 3. How does social identity explain prejudice? 4. What are the central & peripheral routes to persuasion? Social Forces -Social forces exert a powerful influence on our behaviours & beliefs, often ppl conform to the behaviours & opinions of others eps when those reflect a majority posn. -Norms & Social Roles: -Norms: are social rules about how members of a society are expected to act providing order & predictability, some are explicit/stated openly & some are implicit. Norms can also be classified as descriptive (agreed-on expectations about what members of group do) & injuctive (agreed-on expectations about what members of group ought to do). Ppl are more likely to abide by injuctive norms if the norms are called to their attention. -Social Roles: a social role is a set of norms ascribed to a person’s social posn— expectations & duties assoc’d w/ the individual’s posn in the family, at work, community, etc. Roles often have a pos impact on people & society & are critical for its smooth functioning but can however confine ppl & restrict them from stepping out of their social roles, they end up getting neg rxns & evaluations. -Roles & situational demands (Stanford-prison experiment): in 1971, Philip Zimbardo & colleagues at Stanford U performed this experiment even though it didn’t follow an experimental design. The basement of the uni psych department was converted into a mock prison & 24 male students were randomly assigned to play either a prisoner or guards for what was supposed to be 2 wks. To the researchers’ horrors, w/in hrs the guards had begun humiliating & tormented their prisoner peers, eg. imposed physical punishments, denied bathroom privileges & food. W/ Zimbardo realizing he was acting more like a warden than a researcher, the study raised many ethical questions & shut down after just 6 days. The participants experience clear psychological pain—prisoners were abused psychologically & guards were confronted w/ the fact they were capable of cruelty & sadism. Despite the ethical problems the study had, it underscore the power & potential dangers of certain social roles. -Roles, Gender & Social Skills: There is a pop belief in Western society that women are more skilled socially than men, more emotionally sensitive, more expressive & more focused on social relationships & this has been backed up by research. Male participants, on the other hand, tend to focus more narrowly on the tasks at hand in group activities than do females, emerge as leaders in a group & adopt more authoritarian & less participative styles when they take on leadership roles. Why is there gender diff in the social realm? Well, it’s b/c of social roles; traditional western roles ascribe more communal characteristics to women & agenetic characteristics to men. The social role theory states that ppla re inclined to behave in ways consistent w/ expectations tied to their roles & as ppl enact their roles, they become deeply ingrained in their attitudes. Along w/ changes in roles & expectations, social psychologists have been finding fewer & smaller gender diff in their studies of social skill, empathy, leadership, etc –diff still exist as social role theory predicts but there is clearly a shift occurring; also note that ave group diff don’t allow you to make attributions about individuals in either group. -Conformity: the tendency to yield to real/imagined group pressure. Early work on this was done by Theodore Newcomb; in a classic study, he examined the political views of students at Bennington College as they progressed through school & found that as students progressed through college, immersed in the school’s culture, their political views grew more & more liberal & these views endured well into adulthood. Lab studies tell a similar story, esp the classic work done by Solomon Ash: -The Asch studies: Experiment on perceptual studies but in fact an investigation of conformity, you & 6 other participants are seated around a table & you are seated 2 ndto the last & the experimenter presents 2 cards to the group, card A displays a single vertical line & card B displays 3 vertical lines of various lengths. The experimenter asks each participant which of the lines in Card B matches card A & you immediately recognize the right match for 2 rounds & everyone agrees but in the 3 round, you recognize the match but the first 5 persons that answer before you don’t have the same answer. The other participants were confederates, coached to uniformly give a wrong answer at round 3 & up & Asch found that 75% of the real participants conformed to the group norm & gave an incorrect response. There were variations to his procedures to reveal what group features might affect this “tyranny of majority” & one key factor is group unanimity; if there is presence of even 1 dissenting group member, it greatly reduces likelihood that participants will conform to the incorrect group norm. The size of the group also affects its influence, eg. groups < 4 members didn’t seem to bring about a powerful conformity effect. -Conformity & culture: collectivist cultures emphasize the needs of the group & subsume individual desires to those of the family/peer group vs. individualist cultures stress the needs of an individual person over those of the group; conformity is viewed very diff in these cultures. In individualist cultures, conformity is often considered bad b/c ppl want to stand out, be diff & unique, to have their own identity vs. in collectivist, ppl value fitting in w/ other ppl & see a virtue in conforming to the norms & that conforming indicates maturity, respect for others & appropriate self control. -Obedience: in the Asch studies, there were no leaders in the groups, just peers & there were no consequences for wrong answers, no fines were imposed, no harm was done & nobody had to account/defend their decisions but what happens in situations where ppl are working under an authority fig or must pay a price for an incorrect decision? Classic work by Stanley Milgram sheds light on obedience which is the act of ff direct commands, usually given by an authority figures. -Milgram’s experiment: 2 participants are used to study the effects of punishment on learning & are randomly assigned to have the teacher/learner role. 1 participant, Mr. Wallace is a confederate & you are given the role as a teacher which is not actually randomly assigned. Mr. Wallace is prep for his role, investigator attaches an electrode to his wrist & arm is strapped down to prevent excessive movement & electrode paste is applied to prevent blisters & burns; you are informed that the electrode is connected to a shock generator in the other room in which you are responsible of controlling. The shock generator’s control panel is identified by a voltage ranging from 15 -450 volts, slight shockextreme shock & experimenter explains to you that whenever you push down each switch, it gives a corresponding shock to Mr. Wallace. You can communicate w/ him via microphone b/c rooms are partially soundproog & when he responds by pulling 1 of 4 levers, 1 of 4 lights on top of the shock generator will light up & he answers incorrectly, you administer the shock & w/ successive incorrect response, comes inc levels of shock. You hear screams & any time you express reluctance, experimenter urges you to go on, after a while Mr. Wallace stops responding & you are asked to treat it as an incorrect answer & still give shocks. No more responses come. Most ppl who learn about the study will say they would refuse to go on w/ experiment early on but Milgram found that 65% of participants continued w/ the experiment all the way to 450 volts & no participant stopped before 300 volts. -Milgram controversy: most controversial study; suggested that we are inclined to obey authority even if we could be behaving in unpredictable ways. Milgram demonstrated that it’s not just a cruel/sadistic group of the popn that can inflict pain & suffering on innocent victims but 2/3 of the popn might hurt others if ordered to do so by an
More Less

Related notes for PSY 105

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.