Social Psychology

1. Social Psychology

2. Types of Social Influence • Compliance  tendency to agree to do things requested by others • Conformity • Obedience

3. Conformity • The altering of one’s behavior to match those of others • Normative social influence  people conform to social norms (i.e., expected standards of conduct) • Informational social influence  look to others for information about how to respond in specific situations

4. Normative Social Influence

5. Informational Social Influence

6. In-group & Inter-group Relations • In-group • The group to which we belong • Share similar values, beliefs, and goals • Through interaction, develop group norms that govern behavior • Involves strong sense of commitment to and preference for the group and, by extension, its members • Out-group • Those groups to which we do not belong

7. In-group & Inter-group Relations • Inter-group relations • Functional relationships between two or more groups and their respective members • Inter-group behavior • Actions of individuals belonging to one group when they interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group membership

8. In-group & Inter-group Relations • Stereotypes • Schemas that allow for easy and efficient organization of information about people based on their membership in certain groups • Prejudice • Affective response associated with stereotypes; usually involves negative judgments about people based on their group membership • Discrimination • inappropriate or unjustified treatment of people based solely on their group membership

9. Sherif & Sherif (1969) • Study of… • In-group/ Out-group formation • Inter-group relationships/ conflict • Reduction of inter-group conflict

10. Sherif & Sherif (1969) • Participants • Relatively homogenous sample of 11-12 year old boys at two isolated summer camps • Summer camps completely at the disposal of the research team

11. In-group Formation • Spontaneous Interpersonal Choices • All boys arrived at the same time and were housed together in one large bunkhouse • Sociometric choices – asked to indicate who was their best friend • Arbitrary division into two groups • Split into two equal groups housed in separate cabins • About 2/3rd of best friends were separated

12. Results Before Arbitrary Split After Arbitrary Split

13. In-group Formation • Matched groups on specified criteria • Boys divided into two, roughly equal, groups based on size and skills • Exp. III  two groups of boys arrived on separate buses and were unaware of one another until the next study stage

14. Conclusions • Cooperative activities aimed toward desirable goals is sufficient for in-group formation • Hierarchy is established • Norms develop • In-groups form even when there is no awareness of an out-group

15. Inter-Group Conflict • Win-Lose competition • Tournament involving a series of team competitions • Winning team received a trophy and each individual member won a highly desirable prizes • Planned frustration of In-groups • Frustrating situation for one group that was planned by staff so that it appeared to be cause by the other group

16. Results • Sustained competition toward goals that each group desired, but only one could achieve resulted in … • An increase in in-group solidarity and pride (especially among the winning group) • Hostility and aggression toward the out-group, which continued to escalate over time • Social distance between groups that was justified by negative images (stereotypes) of and prejudice toward the out-groups

17. Inter-group Cooperation • Phase I  Series of situations involving contact between groups but no interdependence • E.g., going to the movies; eating in the same dining room • Result  served as opportunities to express hostility and aggression

18. Inter-group Cooperation • Phase II Have both groups work together toward superordinate goals • Superordinate goals  goals that have high appeal for both groups but that neither group can accomplish alone • Result  Cooperation on a series of superordinate goals resulted in a decrease in hostility and sociometric choices that transcended group status

19. Why do people conform to group norms?Why do people violate larger societal norms and personal standards? DISPOSITION OR SITUATION?

20. Why do People Conform? • Self mental representation of one’s personal experience; conscious recognition that one is separate and unique from others • Self-awareness A state when the sense of self is the object of awareness • Social comparison when the self is evaluated in contrast to others • Impression management how we exhibit our personal characteristics before an audience

21. Why do People Violate Norms? • Anonymity when one’s identity will not be known • i.e., individual cannot be held accountable for his/her actions • Deindividuation  when people are not self-aware and therefore do not attend to their own personal standards or those of the larger society

22. Bystander Apathy • Bystander apathy failure to offer help by those who observe someone in need • Diffusion of responsibility – expectation that others will offer assistance • E.g., Kitty Genovese

23. Stanford Prisoner and Guard Experiment Phillip Zimbardo

24. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • 22 male students from Stanford University • Extensively screened – selected those who were most mature and least involved in antisocial behavior • Randomly assigned to be either a prisoner or a prison guard

25. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • Uniforms • Guards Plain khaki shirts and trousers, a whistle, police night stick, and reflecting sunglasses • Prisoners  loose fitting smock with ID number, no underwear, light chain and lock on one ankle, rubber sandals and a nylon stocking cap

26. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • Guards • Became more deprecating as time progressed • Did not inflict physical harm but did engage in verbal abuse • Planned privileges were never allowed • Often withheld bathroom visits and meals; instead used these as rewards for good behavior • Punishment became more extreme over time

27. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • Prisoners • Increasingly expressed intentions to do harm to others or self • 5 out of 9 were released because of extreme emotional reactions (Depression, crying, rage, and acute anxiety) • Of the remaining prisoners, only two were unwilling to forfeit their compensation in order to be “paroled”

28. Key Points • Prison Guards • Deindividuated • wearing uniform; • perception of being unobserved lead to worse treatment of prisoners • Complete power over another individual • Power is rewarding; those with power had high status and respect • All demands were followed unquestioningly or could be met with sanctions • Sense of power intensified in situations of threat

29. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • Pathology of Power • “Being a guard carried with it social status… and above all, the freedom to exercise an unprecedented degree of control over the lives of other human beings.” (pp. 13-14)

30. Key Points • Prisoners • Deindividuated -- Loss of personal identity • Loss of control leading to learned helplessness • Learned helplessness – when in a situation where punishment is uncontrollable, exhibit depression and passivity; i.e., they learned to be helpless • Dependent on guards for most basic needs • Emasculation • Dressed in smocks with no undergarments • Independence or rebellion quickly & severely punished

31. Prisoner & Guard Experiment • Pathological Prisoner Syndrome “At first they exhibited disbelief at the total invasion of privacy… Their next response was rebellion… They then tried to work within the system by setting up an elected grievance committee… When that… failed, individual self-interests emerged [leading to] social disintegration which gave rise to feelings of isolation… half the prisoners coped… by becoming ‘sick’’… as a passive way of demanding attention and help. As the days wore on, the model prisoner reaction was one of passivity, dependence, and flattened affect.”

32. Obedience • The tendency to follow orders given by a legitimate authority

33. Obedience • Showed obvious signs of tension (nervous laughter) • Psychiatrists predicted that fewer than 1% would deliver all of the shocks • However, 50% delivered all of the shocks

34. Distance of victim – another room or in the same room; subject had to place hand on shock plate; negative correlation between distance between subject and victim and # of shocks give • Distance of experimenter – obedience dropped sharply as experimenter was distant than when close (psychological distance) • Less obedience in bridgeport than at yale • When with defectors; 90% broke off.