Psychology 102: Social processes, society, and culture Dr James Neill Centre for Applied Psychology University of Canberra 2009

Reading Gerrig et al. (Chapter 17): Social processes, society, and culture

NOTE: A related previous Psy101 chapter reading (not covered here) Gerrig et al. (Chapter 16): Social cognition & relationships Constructing social reality Social cognition Attitudes Persuasion / Social influence Prejudice & Stereotypes Relationships & Attraction

Constructing social reality

Social cognition

Attitudes

Persuasion / Social influence

Prejudice & Stereotypes

Relationships & Attraction

Overview About social psychology Power of the situation (social influence) Conformity Obedience Group influence Group polarisation Aggression Prosocial behaviour & altruism Conflict & peace

About social psychology

Power of the situation (social influence)

Conformity

Obedience

Group influence

Group polarisation

Aggression

Prosocial behaviour & altruism

Conflict & peace

What is social psychology? Influence of social processes on the way people: Think (cognition) Feel (emotions) Behave (actions)

Think (cognition)

Feel (emotions)

Behave (actions)

Person to Person

Group to Person Person to Group

Group to Group

Why is Social Psychology Important? Why does social psychology matter? … we need to get along – or we'll conflict

Topic matching activity Prejudice Aggression Group dynamics Crowd behaviour Social exclusion Allocate one of these topics to each of the following sets of slides... Environmental Relationships Prosocial behaviour Conformity Leadership

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Power of the situation (Social influence)

Social influence questions How do we influence each other? How are we affected by pressures to conform and obey? How are we affected by group interaction? How do groups affect our behaviour?

How do we influence each other?

How are we affected by pressures to conform and obey?

How are we affected by group interaction?

How do groups affect our behaviour?

Social influence The most significant contribution of social psychology is its study of how our attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions are moulded by social influence .

Video: The Power of the Situation Annenberg (1989). The Power of the Situation (Program 19) . [27 min video] Annenberg: Santa Barbara, CA.

The power of the situation Social role Social-defined pattern of behaviour Rules Behavioural guidelines Can be explicit or implicit Social norms Expectation a group has for its members

Social role

Social-defined pattern of behaviour

Rules

Behavioural guidelines

Can be explicit or implicit

Social norms

Expectation a group has for its members

Conformity When a person adopts a social role , follows a rule , or bends to a social norm , then s/he is, to some extent, conforming to social expectations.

Conformity Tendency for people to adopt behaviours, attitudes, and values of other members of a group. Adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard.

Tendency for people to adopt behaviours, attitudes, and values of other members of a group.

Adjusting one’s behavior or thinking to coincide with a group standard.

Conformity: Informational influence Wanting to be “correct” and to behave in the “right way” in a given situation Why? Group may provide valuable information. When the task is difficult or you are unsure, it makes sense to listen to others. e.g., Sherif’s autokinetic effect

Wanting to be “correct” and to behave in the “right way” in a given situation

Why?

Group may provide valuable information.

When the task is difficult or you are unsure, it makes sense to listen to others.

e.g., Sherif’s autokinetic effect

Conformity: Normative influence Desire to be liked, accepted, and approved of / not rejected by others Why? Price may be severe if not normative behaviour is not followed. Also known as the “Asch effect”

Desire to be liked, accepted, and approved of / not rejected by others

Why? Price may be severe if not normative behaviour is not followed.

Also known as the “Asch effect”

Asch’s conformity studies (1950's)

Asch’s conformity studies (1950’s) Subjects asked to judge line lengths while working in a group. 7 subjects; the 6th was real, rest were confederates. Confederates consistently gave obviously wrong answers. The subject often conformed and gave the same wrong answer. On average, 37% of participants conformed . Some never caved .

Subjects asked to judge line lengths while working in a group.

7 subjects; the 6th was real, rest were confederates.

Confederates consistently gave obviously wrong answers.

The subject often conformed and gave the same wrong answer.

On average, 37% of participants conformed .

Some never caved .

Conformity Conformity in everyday life Minority influence and nonconformity Serge Moscovici

Conformity in everyday life

Minority influence and nonconformity

Serge Moscovici

Conditions that  conformity Feelings of incompetence, insecurity, low self-esteem. Group size > 2 Group is unanimous (lack of dissension). Group status desirable & attractiveness.

Feelings of incompetence, insecurity, low self-esteem.

Group size > 2

Group is unanimous (lack of dissension).

Group status desirable & attractiveness.

Conditions that  conformity Group observes one’s behaviour. No prior commitment to response. Culture strongly encourages respect for social standard.

Group observes one’s behaviour.

No prior commitment to response.

Culture strongly encourages respect for social standard.

Obedience People comply with social pressures. But what about outright command? Milgram designed a study that investigated the effects of authority on obedience. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)

People comply with social pressures. But what about outright command?

Milgram designed a study that investigated the effects of authority on obedience.

Milgram’s obedience studies

Milgram’s Study

Milgram’s obedience studies 63% complied with administration of shocks Depending on subtle changes in conditions, however, compliance varied between 0 & 93% Degree of obedience influenced by: Physical proximity of authority figure Status of authority figure Depersonalisation of victim Lack of defiant role models

63% complied with administration of shocks

Depending on subtle changes in conditions, however, compliance varied between 0 & 93%

Degree of obedience influenced by:

Physical proximity of authority figure

Status of authority figure

Depersonalisation of victim

Lack of defiant role models

Zimbardo’s prison study (1970’s) Subjects played either prisoners or guards. Prisoners were arrested, fingerprinted, dressed, and referred to by number. Guards were dressed and given control over prisoners. Subjects became their roles in action, thought and feeling.

Subjects played either prisoners or guards.

Prisoners were arrested, fingerprinted, dressed, and referred to by number.

Guards were dressed and given control over prisoners.

Subjects became their roles in action, thought and feeling.

Resistance ~  a third of individuals resisted social coercion (Milgram). One dissenter can have a disproportionate effect on reducing the compliance of others. (e.g., Asch)

~  a third of individuals resisted social coercion (Milgram).

One dissenter can have a disproportionate effect on reducing the compliance of others. (e.g., Asch)

The tendency of groups to make decisions that are more extreme then the decisions that would be make by the members acting alone Two underlying process Information-influence Social comparison Group decision-making: Group polarisation

The tendency of groups to make decisions that are more extreme then the decisions that would be make by the members acting alone

Two underlying process

Information-influence

Social comparison

Group decision-making: Groupthink (Irving Janis) Tendency of group to filter out the undesirable input so that a consensus may be reached Factors leading Groupthink High level of group cohesiveness Isolation of group from outside information or influences Dynamic, influential leader High stress from external threats

Tendency of group to filter out the undesirable input so that a consensus may be reached

Factors leading Groupthink

High level of group cohesiveness

Isolation of group from outside information or influences

Dynamic, influential leader

High stress from external threats

Aggression, prosocial behaviour, altruism, conflict, and peace Aggression Prosocial behaviour Altruism Conflict & cooperation Peace

Aggression

Prosocial behaviour

Altruism

Conflict & cooperation

Peace

Physical or verbal behaviour that causes (or is intended to cause) harm. Emerges from the interaction of: Biology Genetic Neural Biochemical Experience Aversive events e.g., misery, temp, frustrate Operant conditioning Social learning Scripts Aggression

Physical or verbal behaviour that causes (or is intended to cause) harm.

Emerges from the interaction of:

Biology

Genetic

Neural

Biochemical

Experience

Aversive events e.g., misery, temp, frustrate

Operant conditioning

Social learning

Scripts

Aggression

Aggression Individual differences Impulsive aggression Instrumental aggression Situational influences Frustration-aggression hypothesis Temperature and aggression Direct provocation and escalation

Individual differences

Impulsive aggression

Instrumental aggression

Situational influences

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Temperature and aggression

Direct provocation and escalation

Cultural constraints Construals of the self and aggressive behaviour Richard Nisbett Norms of aggressive behaviour Aggression

Cultural constraints

Construals of the self and aggressive behaviour

Richard Nisbett

Norms of aggressive behaviour

Unselfish, intentional behavior that is intended to benefit welfare of others. Behaviours which have no obvious gain for the provider Behaviours which have obvious costs for the provider (e.g. time, resources) Altruism

Unselfish, intentional behavior that is intended to benefit welfare of others.

Behaviours which have no obvious gain for the provider

Behaviours which have obvious costs for the provider (e.g. time, resources)

Is there really altruism? Altruism is often for self-benefit e.g., power, status, reward, psychological gain. What matters in judging the act is the actor's intended outcomes. Altruism

Is there really altruism?

Altruism is often for self-benefit e.g., power, status, reward, psychological gain.

What matters in judging the act is the actor's intended outcomes.

Equity / Reciprocity Give to relationships in proportion to what we receive (Social Exchange Theory) Social responsibility norm Reciprocal altruism Natural selection favors animals that are altruistic if the benefit to each is greater than the cost of altruism Altruism

Equity / Reciprocity

Give to relationships in proportion to what we receive (Social Exchange Theory)

Social responsibility norm

Reciprocal altruism

Natural selection favors animals that are altruistic if the benefit to each is greater than the cost of altruism

Bystander intervention Bystander intervention Bib Latané and John Darley Willingness to assist a person in need 75% help when alone vs. 53% in presence of others

Bystander intervention

Bib Latané and John Darley

Willingness to assist a person in need

75% help when alone vs. 53% in presence of others

Diminished sense of personal responsibility to act because others are seen as equally responsible. Bystanders are less likely to help in presence of more people (e.g. part of a large crowd) "Diffusion of responsibility": The larger the number of bystanders, the less responsibility any one bystander feels to help Bystander effect

Diminished sense of personal responsibility to act because others are seen as equally responsible.

Bystanders are less likely to help in presence of more people (e.g. part of a large crowd)

"Diffusion of responsibility": The larger the number of bystanders, the less responsibility any one bystander feels to help

Bystander intervention Bystander must notice the emergency Bystander must label events as an emergency Bystander must feel responsibility

Bystander must notice the emergency

Bystander must label events as an emergency

Bystander must feel responsibility

Prosocial behaviour Carried out with the goal of helping people Altruism Pro-social behaviours without consideration for self safety or interests Reciprocal altruism Altruism & prosocial behaviour

Prosocial behaviour

Carried out with the goal of helping people

Altruism

Pro-social behaviours without consideration for self safety or interests

Reciprocal altruism

Motives for prosocial behaviour C. Daniel Batson’s forces that prompt people to act for the public good: Altruism Egoism Collectivism Principlism

C. Daniel Batson’s forces that prompt people to act for the public good:

Altruism

Egoism

Collectivism

Principlism

Superordinate goals Communication Graduated & Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction (GRIT) Peacemaking

Superordinate goals

Communication

Graduated & Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction (GRIT)

Genocide: Systematic destruction of other groups - Ervin Straub Concepts and images of the “enemy” Peace psychology: Interdisciplinary approach to conflict prevention & peace maintenance Psychology of genocide, war & peace

Genocide: Systematic destruction of other groups - Ervin Straub

Concepts and images of the “enemy”

Peace psychology: Interdisciplinary approach to conflict prevention & peace maintenance

The 8 stages of genocide (Stanton, 1998) Classification Symbolisation Dehumanisation Organisation Polarisation Preparation Extermination Denial

Classification

Symbolisation

Dehumanisation

Organisation

Polarisation

Preparation

Extermination

Denial

Peace psychology Analysing forms of leadership and Government Kurt Lewin Group dynamics Fostering contact to facilitate conflict resolution Reconciliation Mabo ‘Sorry’ Herbert Kelman

Analysing forms of leadership and Government

Kurt Lewin

Group dynamics

Fostering contact to facilitate conflict resolution

Reconciliation

Mabo

‘Sorry’

Herbert Kelman

Perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas. Conflicting parties, each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior  “ Social Trap ”: Win-Lose Lose-Win, or Lose-lose. Game theory

Perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas.

Conflicting parties, each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior  “ Social Trap ”:

Win-Lose

Lose-Win, or

Lose-lose.

Game theory

Gerrig, R. J., Zimbardo, P. G., Campbell, A. J., Cumming, S. R., & Wilkes, F. J. (2008). Psychology and life (Australian edition). Sydney: Pearson Education Australia. Myers, D. G. (2001). Social Psychology (Ch. 18). In D. G. Myers (2001). Psychology (6th ed.) (pp. 643-688). New York: Worth. Myers, D. G. (2007). Social Psychology (Ch. 18). In D. G. Myers (2007). Psychology (8th ed.) (pp. 723-771). New York: Worth. References

Gerrig, R. J., Zimbardo, P. G., Campbell, A. J., Cumming, S. R., & Wilkes, F. J. (2008). Psychology and life (Australian edition). Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.

Myers, D. G. (2001). Social Psychology (Ch. 18). In D. G. Myers (2001). Psychology (6th ed.) (pp. 643-688). New York: Worth.

Myers, D. G. (2007). Social Psychology (Ch. 18). In D. G. Myers (2007). Psychology (8th ed.) (pp. 723-771). New York: Worth.