Textbook Notes (368,150)
Canada (161,680)
Psychology (4,889)
Psychology 1000 (1,620)
Dr.Mike (707)
Chapter 13

Chapter 13.docx

40 Pages
102 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
Psychology 1000
Professor
Dr.Mike
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 13 – Behaviour in a Social Context • Social Thinking and Perception o Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behaviour  Attribution – judgement about causes of our and other people’s behaviour • Attribution about defendants behaviour influence guilt vs. innocence o Personal vs. Situational Attributions  Fritz Heider  2 Types of Attributions – Personal (internal) Attributions and Situational (external) Attributions • Internal – behaviour is caused by the person’s internal characteristics o Person behaves rudely because they are rude in character • External – behaviour is caused by situations o Person was provoked, so they insulted the other person.  Determining Type of Attribution • 3 Types of info help with determination o Consistency  Is the behaviour/response consistent, will it be the same in 2 weeks o Distinctiveness  Is the behaviour/response distinctive, is it specific to one thing or does it apply to many other things as well o Consensus  How many other people respond the same way, how do others respond? • When consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus are high  situational attribution o External causes result in the response/behaviour • When consistency is high and others are low  Personal Attribution o Internal causes lead to the response/behaviour • Personal attributions sometimes result when person makes a snap judgement without looking at the consensus and distinctiveness, biasing their judgement o Attributional Biases  Fundamental Attribution Error • Underestimating impact of situation and overestimating role of personal factors when explaining behaviour  People don’t take into account that sometimes people’s behaviour is such because of their situation • Students made to read pro-castro or anti-castro speech o If the speech writer freely chose the role than the behaviour is different from if they were assigned the role  People reading the speeches read by an assigned writer don’t pay enough attention to the fact that they were potentially forced to write a speech that they don’t agree with • Thus they attribute the forced pro-castro writer to holding such beliefs  People believe that movie stars have same character traits as the characters they play • Don’t realize that they are in a situation where they are forced to act like that o Attribute an anti-social, attribution to Leonard Nimoy because he played the emotionless spock.  Sometimes people pay attention to situational factors  columbine • People blamed situational factors like parenting and gun availablilty and only 11% made personal attributions about the shooters’ personality  When you have time to think about some things you are able to reduce the fundamental attribution error o Self-Serving Bias  Looking at ones own behaviour – make more personal attribution for success and more situational attributions for failure • Sports players post game statements – when they win, they attribute it to personal successes • When they lose – bad referees, the other side was lucky, everything the other side shot was going in.  Depressed are opposite – take little credit for successes and too much credit for failures • Enables a cycle of depression o Culture and Attribution  Western culture is individualist  tend to attribute other people’s behaviour to personal factors  Americans and Brits more likely to make personal attributions for criminal behaviour than Koreans or Nigerians who are more collectivist  Value of Modesty in some cultures affects how much crdit people will take for their successes and will accept more personal responsibility for failures  Causality and Holistic Thinking • Some cultures believe that you cannot look at an event in isolation o You need to look at a whole cahin of connected events o Thus some cultures’ attributions reflect holistic thinking  Take much more info into account when making attributions for people’s behaviour  Same underlying Psychological Principle – Link b/w Holistic thinking and Causality  differences between info that people take into account when making attributions • Forming and Maintaining Impressions o Primacy effect  Tendency to attach more importance to initial info learned about a person  Need a lot of info to reverse this opinion  Tend to be most alert to info we receive first  Why do we have this effect? • Adaptive value in making quick snap decisions in evaluating stimuli  Decreases and gives way to recency effects o Recency Effect  Giving more weight to recent information • Usually gets more weight when we have time to make decisions • When reminded to carefuly consider evidence • Mental Sets and Schemas – Seeing What We expect to See o Schemas – mental framework that help organized and interpret information  So when you get an impression of someone, if you have some pre- existing Idea of who they are, you fit your interaction with them into the schema  Mental set – readiness to perceive the world in a specific way o Stereotype  Generalized belief about a group or category of people  Powerful type of schema  Preconceived thoughts which come from generalizations lead to biases in perception of others’ behaviours • Self-Fulfulling Prophecies – Creating What We Expect to See o Occurs without conscious awareness o Erroneous expectations lead one to act towards others such that the expected behaviours are confirmed. o You act in a way such that the other person’s response fits your initial impression/preconception of them o Unfounded expectations influence how we behave  shaping their behaviour so that it confirms our expectations • Attitudes and Attitude Change o Attitude – positive or negative evaluative reaction towards stimulus (person, action, object or concept)  Supported by ones personal belief and value system o Do attitudes Influence our Behaviour  Some studies have shown that peoples attitudes don’t influence behaviour • Went around US with Asian couple, and they were only refused service at a hotel once o Wrote those same places letters asking if they would provide service to chinese patrons, and those same places said no o Clearly attitudes didn’t influence behaviour ultimately o Prejudicial attitudes did not directly relate to discriminatory behaviour  In general though, attitudes do predict behaviour  Attitudes work well when the other counteracting factors in the situation are weak • But money, conformity, obedience pressures often lead us to behave in ways which are different from our convictions o Theory of Planned Bahviour  Intention to engage in behaviour is strongest when we have positive attitude towards a behaviour and when subjective norms support those attitudes • Subjective norms – perceptions of what other people think we should do o Attitudes have great effect when we are consciously thinking about them  Not when we act on impulse autonomically  Attitudes are also stronger when they are formed first hand o General attitudes  predict well general behaviour, Specific attitudes  predict well specific behaviour • Does Behaviour Influence Attitudes o Self – justification  Do experiment which is boring and then you are asked to lie to the next person and tell them that the tasks are interesting • Give you 1$ or 20$ • Those who took 1$ rated it as more enjoyable  Cognitive dissonance • People strive for consistency in cognitions o 2 cognitions contradict one another o I am truthful, and I just told another student that those tasks were interesting • But, who wouldn’t tell a lie for 20$ - enough justification • But 1$, is not enough to justify their behaviour o So they convince themselves that the task was enjoyable so they weren’t actually lying • Change their attitude to bring in line with how they behaved o Counterattitudinal Behaviour  Behaviour that is inconsistent with attitude  Dissonance only happens when did what we did with our own free will o Dissonance doesn’t always happen  Make excuses, find external justification • I may not be perfect but other people are still worse. o Self-Perception  Make inferences about our own attitudes by observing how we behave  Retroactively look at how you behaved so you must have felt a certain way to behave like that • Rejects cognitive dissonance  Agrees with idea of counterattidunal behaviour results in attitude change • Dissonance believes that we are physiologically aroused by tension from dissonance which self-perception theory doesn’t believe  If arousal  attitude change, reducing arousal should lead to reducing change • Told that arousal is due to pill, wont change their views  Dissonance – explains better when people change views because they behaved in a way which challenged their attitudes • Works best when the attiude threatens their self images • When doesn’t challenge self-image  no arousal , so cant explain change • This is where self-perception comes into the picture • Persuasion o Communicator – person who delivers message  Credibility – how believable the communicator is  Many times people pay little attention to the speech, but rather they will just agree with the opinions of a credible source  2 Components to credibility • Expertise and trustworthiness o Need to appear to be both an expert and unbiased o Needs to advocate point of view contrary to their own sometimes  Things that help: attractiveness, likability, similarity • This is why campaigns afvertis o Message –  Two sided refutational approach • Discuss both sides of the issue • Perceives it as less biased  When audience disagrees with you better to be moderately discrepant with their viewpoint • High credible communicators can do this  Arousing fear can sometimes be effective  Too frightening  may deny the message and credibility of communicator o Audience  Logical arguments can work for some audiences but not for others  2 routes to persuasion • Central route to persuasion o People carefully think about message o Convinced by message o Has stronger foundation  Attitude change lasts longer, predicts behaviour better if convinced by arguments of the central route o More likely to follow message when there is personal relevance  If it can affect you in some way o Need for cognintion  People who need to think things through, follow this route  Those who are willing to invest the mental effort • Peripheral route to persuasion o People don’t scrutinize message look at other things like attractiveness of speaker, message’s emotional appeal o Works better for people of less need for cognition  Affected more by attractiveness of person endorsing product or giving speech • Uncertainty oriented  look for info o Central route • Social Influence o Mere presence of others  Energizes performance  People tend to perform better individually when in groups  When people are in each other’s presence they perform better  Coactor • The other person present  Also observable in ants • Carry more dirt in presence of other ants  However, performance on learning tasks worsen when audience is present o Arousal  When other person is present arousal increases  Behaviour becomes dominant response • Dominant response – most typical response  Social Facilitiation • Tendency to perform dominant response in presence of others • With difficult tasks  dominant response  make errors • Simple task  dominant response  perform it well • Occurs in many species • Explains why in presence of audience experienced people perform better and worse than average people perform worse • Most basic of social influence processes • Lesson to learn: when learning complex tasks  minimize other people’s presence • Social Norms – Rules of the Game o Social Norms  Shared expectations • Based on how people should think feel, bejave  Cement social systems  Take them for granted  Regulate our day  Only notice them when they get violated o Social Role  Set of norms  How someone ought to behave in their social position • Teacher, professor, student, spouse are different roles.  Role conflict – • Norms connected to different roles clash • When people have trouble when they have different jobs/positions o Like students who also have jobs  Zimbardo Prison Experiment • Students – half were assigned to be guards and half were assigned to be prisoners • Guards wore uniforms, Prisoners were kept in cells • Led the guards to be be extra brutal in their treatment, and the study had to be called off • What happened was that the students who were guards were generally OK people, but their new role as guard overrode their values  dehumanizing treatment of prisoners o Culture and Norm Formation  Norms become visible when they are violated and also when we look at other cultures  Different norms for personal space  Norms affect gender roles, sexual practices, views of love and marriage, and social behaviour  How norms are formed: • Took advantage of Autokinetic effect – where people stare at dot and think its moving even thought its really stationary • When placed individually- the subjects had very different judgements • When placed in groups of 3 – they discussed the distance the dot moved and it converged on a norm. o Different groups formed different norms o Norms are not necessarily the average of the 3 people’s perceptions • Individuals were retested a year later, and they reflected the groups norm  Thus without explicitly deciding on creating a norm, the norm happens • Conformity and Obedience o Why do people conform?  Motive – desire to understand world and  Informational Social Influence • Follow other peoples behaviour because we think its right  Normative Social Influence • Conform to be accepted by other people • Be rewarded • Avoid rejection o Solomon Asch’s Experiments  Used groups of university students • All but one were confederates • Asked to compare 3 lines to one standard line • All confederates gave the wrong answer • Causes the subject to wonder whether their judgements were incorrect • Participants conformed 37% of the time compared to 1% of the time where the people judge the lines by themselves • Felt group was wrong but didn’t want to get rejected by the group o Factors that affect Conformity  Group size • Increases from 5-35% when group size increased from 1 confed. to 4 o Just as likely conform when 4 people to 15  Presnece of Dissenter • When one confederate disagrees with others • Reduced conformity o Thus that person is a model for the subject  Collectivism • More likely to conform in collectivist culture than individualist culture • People want to be in harmony with the group its more important o Minority Influence  Minority can influence the behaviour of the majority  Occurs best when: • Minority are highly committed • Independent in face of majority pressure • Consistent over time • Appear to have open mind  May cause majority members to privately change their views  If minority is unreasonable, negative or deviant, people hate them even more though. o Obedience to Authority  Sometimes its good sometimes its bad  You expect your co-pilot to follow the pilots orders  Nuremberg Trials – Nazis said they were just following orders • We tend to reject these justifications o Factors that influence Destructive Obedience  Milgram  Remoteness of Victim • When learner was out of sight – obedience was out of sight • When teacher and learner were in same room - obedience went down • When physical contact had to be made to administer shock, obedience went down even more  Closeness and Legitimacy of authority figure • If close and legitimate  high obedience • If just a normal person/over the phone  low obedience  Cog in the Wheel • Someone else flipped the switch, and they just did some other stuff they were more likely to be obedient • But if made to feel responsible for the learners safety  no one fully obeyed.  Personal Characteristics • Different jobs religious affiliation  don’t really lead to major differences in obedience • No significant difference between men and women • Milgram’s Experiment o When conscience confronts malevolent authority o Wanted to test whether people would conform to pressure and give shocks to protesting victims o Every time the learner (confederate) would make a mistake  would get shocked by the teacher (test subject) o Was not actually shocked  They made a tape, so that each person was given the same standardized recording of the sounds o Full obedience – operational definition – will go up to 450 V o Would have to increase voltage from 75V to 450V  Experimenter would tell the teacher (subject) – you must continue, or you have no other choice o Most protested at one time or another and wouldn’t continue. o But 65% obeyed to the end. • Lessons Learned : From Holocaust to Airline Safety o People are not evil  they became very stressed because they cared about the safety of the victim o Most people can be induced to follow orders from a legitimate authority figure o Holocaust  Most people responsible were cogs in a wheel  Victims were remote at time of murder o Airlines –  Sometimes its good that a co-pilot challenges the pilots commands  Sometimes the fact that the co-pilot didn’t challenge has led to plane crashes • Detecting and Resisting Compliance Techniques o Compliance techniques – techniques to manipulate you to say yes  Norm of reciprocity • If someone treats us well, we should respond in kind • Used by Hare Krishna o Give flowers to people as a gift, and then asked for a donation o People feel pressure to reciprocate  Door in the Face Technique – • Person makes large request assuming u will “Slam the door” in their face • Then they make a smaller request o Refusing first request  guilt  complying with second smaller request  Foot in Door Technique • Ask for smaller request (getting their foot in the door) o Then ask for something bigger, most people will comply  Lowballing • Get you to commit to something and then raise the cost of it • Since you are already committed you are more than likely to comply o Might feel obligated to person to whom you made the commitment  Difference between Lowballing and Foot in door • Foot in door – leads to larger request after the smaller request has been completed • Lowballing – stakes are raised for same request, before you consummate the behaviour • Crowd Behaviour and Deindividuation o When person sits on ledge and threatens to jump crowds tend to encourage the person to jump. o Why would people want/encourage other people to end their lives  LeBon • Mobs  anonymity of the individual  weakiening of restraints of a person o People will behave in ways they would not behave as individuals  Deindividuation – loss of individuality  leads to disinhibited behaviour • Explains cheating, stealine, riots, genocide  Key Leading Characteristic • Anonymity to outsiders o Makes person less identifiable therefore less accountable o Increases risk of antisocial behaviour  Stanford Prison Study (Zimbardo) • All guards wore same uniform, didn’t have name tags, and were referred to as Mr. Correctional Officer • Had mirrored lenses – so couldn’t even make eye contact o Disindividuation  reduced anonymity  less accountability  cruelty • Group Influences on Performance and Decision Making o Groups formed  to accomplish tasks that are too complex or demanding for one person alone o Social Loafing – Failing to Pull Your Own Weight  When people don’t coordinate themselves well (timing) then theres loss of efficiency • Or also, each person exerts less effort in a group  People tend to pull 18% less force when they think that they are in a group • This is what social loafing is.  Social loafing – tendency for people to expend less individual effort when working in a group than when working alone.  Even occurs on cognitive tasks, when people need to work together  Collective Effort Model • People put forth effort to extent that they expect it to contribute to obtaining the valued goal • Happens when o People believe that individual performance in group isn’t monitored o Task is less valuable to the person o Group is not important to the person o Task is simple, and the persons input is redundanct  Fatigue increases social loafing  Women tend to care more about groups  Individualist cultures – more likely to engage in social loafing than collectivist (collectivists care more about the group)  Social Compensation – • For highly desired goal, will work harder in group than alone • Especially if they think that colleages lack ability to slack off. • Group Polarization – Going to Extremes o Groups are more likely to be extreme (either conservative or liberal/riskier)  use of juries to handle criminal cases o Group polarization – group of likeminded people discuss something, the average opinion becomes more extreme. o Why? – Normative Social influence  People want to be more extreme to gain others approval o Why – Informational Social Influence  People hear other arguments supporting what they want that they have never heard before. • Groupthink – Suspending Critical Thining o Tendency for group members to suspend critical thinking when trying to seek agreement. o More likely to occur –  High stress to reach decision  Insulated from outside input  Have directive leader with own personal agenda  High cohesion in group o Occurs a lot when there is a collective threat  So they need to maintain positive view of group so they reach agreement without looking carefully at opposing views o Direct pressure  When members who express doubt are pressured not to rock the boat o Mind Guards  People stop negative information from reaching the group o Self-Censorship  Withhold doubts o Illusion of Unanimity  Everyone seems to agree with decision o Can lead to fatal accidents, like the Challenger crash o Could be prevented if leader is impartial, and encourages critical thinking • Social Relations • Affiliation and Interpersonal Attraction o Maslow – belongingness and love – basic psychological needs o Why do we affiliate?  Those who were predisposed to affiliate  more likely to survive • Evolution  More access to mates  More protection from predators  Division of labour  Knowledge gets passed trhough generations  Hill • 4 Basic Reasons: Positive stimulation, emotional support, attention and social comparison • Social Comparison o Comparing beliefs, feelings, behaviours with others o Determines whether we are normal, cognitively and physically  Need for affiliation • A criterion which is tested on a personality test • People with higher need for affiliation  make more friends o More likely to be thinking about friends, wishing they could be with people • Stronger sense of community o Feeling of being part of larger collective o More likely to be in more extracurricular activities  Fear –Induced Need for Affiliation • Emergencies – prefer to be with other people • Many times people bond to strangers during emergencies • Initial Attraction o Proximity and Mere exposure  Proximit
More Less

Related notes for Psychology 1000

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