13Social Psychology© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

13
Social Psychology
© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.
1
module 13.1
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior
After studying this module, you should be able to:
Evaluate Kohlberg’s approach to moral reasoning.
Describe the prisoner’s dilemma task.
Explain how logical considerations can lead to cooperation.
Describe bystander apathy and social loafing.
List factors that correlate with aggressive behavior.
2
Morality: Logical or Emotional?
Lawrence Kohlberg argued that we should evaluate moral
reasoning on the basis of the reasons people give for a decision
rather than the decision itself.
Limitations of Kohlberg’s approach:
Ordinarily, people make quick moral decisions intuitively and
emotionally, rather than reasoning them out logically.
Kohlberg assumed that all moral decisions are based on seeking
justice and avoiding harm to others; however, most of the
world’s people also consider such matters as group loyalty,

respect for authority, and spiritual purity.
Psychologists once regarded morality as a set of arbitrary rules,
like learning to stop at a red light and go at a green light.
Lawrence Kohlberg proposed instead that moral reasoning is a
process that matures through a series of stages, similar to
Piaget’s stages of cognitive development.
According to Kohlberg, to evaluate people’s moral reasoning,
we should ask about the reasons for their decisions, not just
about the decisions themselves.
Kohlberg focused psychologists’ attention on the reasoning
processes behind moral decisions, but people usually don’t
deliberate about right and wrong before they act. More often,
they make a quick decision and then look for reasons afterward.
In addition to the fact that most moral decisions are more
emotional rather than logical, Kohlberg’s analysis falls short in
another way.
Also, many people, especially in non-Western cultures, base
their moral decisions on factors Kohlberg ignored, including
loyalty, authority, and purity.
3
Altruistic Behavior
Altruistic behavior – helping others without a benefit to
ourselves
Explanations for altruistic behavior:
People want a reputation for being fair and helpful.
People who do cooperate punish those who don’t.

While humans sometimes engage in prosocial or altruistic
behavior—helping others without a benefit to ourselves—
altruism is uncommon in other animal species. In almost every
species, animals devote great energies and risk their lives to
help their babies or other relatives. But they seldom do much to
help unrelated individuals.
One explanation for altruistic behavior is that cooperating
builds a reputation, and a reputation requires individuals to
recognize one another. The other explanation is that people who
cooperate will punish those who do not. Again, to retaliate, they
need to recognize who has failed to cooperate.
4
Figure 13.1
▲ Figure 13.1 In the prisoner’s dilemma, each person has an
incentive to confess. But if both people confess, they suffer
worse than if both had refused to confess.
To investigate cooperation and competition, many researchers
have used the prisoner’s dilemma, a situation where people
choose between a cooperative act and a competitive act that
benefits themselves but hurts others. Imagine that you and a
partner are arrested and charged with armed robbery. The police
take you into separate rooms and urge each of you to confess. If
neither of you confesses, the police do not have enough
evidence to convict you of robbery, but they can convict you of
a lesser offense with a sentence of a year in prison. If either
confesses and testifies against the other, the confessor goes free
and the other gets 20 years in prison. If both confess, you each
get 5 years in prison. Each of you knows that the other person
has the same options. Figure 13.1 illustrates the choices.

If your partner does not confess, you can confess and go free.
(Let’s assume you care only about yourself and not about your
partner.) If your partner confesses, you still gain by confessing
because you will get only 5 years in prison instead of 20. So
you confess. Your partner, reasoning the same way, also
confesses, so you both get 5 years in prison. If you had both
kept quiet, you would have served only 1 year in prison. The
situation trapped both people into uncooperative behavior.
5
Accepting or Denying Responsibility toward Others
Bystander Helpfulness and Apathy
Diffusion of responsibility – the tendency to feel less
responsibility to act when other people are equally able to act
Pluralistic ignorance – a situation in which people say nothing,
and each person falsely assumes that others have a better -
informed opinion
Social Loafing
Social loafing – the tendency to work less hard (“loaf”) when
sharing work with other people
Most people work less hard when they are part of a group than
when they work alone, except when they think they can make a
unique contribution or if they think others are evaluating their
contribution.
People are less likely to help someone if other people are in an
equally good position to help.
Social loafing is the tendency to “loaf” (or work less hard)
when sharing work with other people.
People work hard in groups if they expect other people to notice

their effort or if they think they can contribute something that
other group members cannot.
6
Causes of Anger and Aggression
Frustration-aggression hypothesis – theory in which the main
cause of anger and aggression is an obstacle that stands in the
way of doing something or obtaining something
Frustration or discomfort of any kind increases the probability
of anger and aggression, especially if one perceives that others
have caused their frustration intentio nally.
According to the frustration-aggression hypothesis, the main
cause of anger and aggression is frustration—an obstacle that
stands in the way of doing something or obtaining something.
However, frustration makes you angry only when you believe
the other person acted intentionally. You might feel angry if
someone ran down the hall and bumped into you, but probably
not if someone slipped on a wet spot and bumped into you.
7
Individual Differences in Aggression
Studies show little to no relationship between aggressiveness
and low self-esteem, playing video games, and mental illness.
Only mentally ill people who are also alcohol or substance
abusers are more prone to violence.
Factors associated with a tendency toward violent behavior:
Growing up in a violent neighborhood
Having parents with a history of antisocial behavior
Having a mother who smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol during
pregnancy
Poor nutrition or exposure to lead or other toxic chemicals early
in life
A history of head injury

Not feeling guilty after hurting someone
Weaker than normal sympathetic nervous system responses
High levels of testosterone coupled with low levels of cortisol
A history of suicide attempts
Some studies find a small relationship between aggressive
behaviors and low self-esteem, but others find virtually no
relationship between the two. No evidence indicates that low
self-esteem causes aggressiveness. More likely, whatever life
events led to low self-esteem also led to aggressiveness.
Research on the correlation between mental illness and
aggressiveness shows that only those mental patients who are
also alcohol or substance abusers pose an increased danger of
committing a violent crime. Mentally ill people without drug or
alcohol abuse are no more dangerous than anyone else.
Many people have worried that playing video games may
increase aggressive behavior or decrease cooperative behavior.
However, the best-designed studies show little or no effect.
Factors associated with a tendency toward violent behavior
include:
Growing up in a violent neighborhood
Having parents with a history of antisocial behavior
Having a mother who smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol during
pregnancy
Poor nutrition or exposure to lead or other toxic chemicals early
in life
A history of head injury
Not feeling guilty after hurting someone
Weaker than normal sympathetic nervous system responses
(which correlates with not feeling bad after hurting someone)
High levels of testosterone coupled with low levels of cortisol

A history of suicide attempts
8
Cognitive Influences on Violence
People sometimes justify cruel or uncooperative behavior by
lowering their opinion of the victims.
Deindividualization – perceiving others as anonymous, without
any real personality
Dehumanization – perceiving others as less than human
People also decrease their own sense of personal responsibility.
People often justify their acts by thinking of themselves as
better than the people they are hurting. Psychologists describe
this process as deindividualization (perceiving others as
anonymous, without any real personality) and dehumanization
(perceiving others as less than human). The result is greater
acceptance of violence and injustice.
People also justify their violent behavior by decreasing their
own sense of identity. For example, a solider on duty is no
longer acting as an individual making his or her own decisions.
A Ku Klux Klansman wearing a hood suppresses a sense of
personal identity.
9
Sexual Aggression
Rape – sexual activity without the consent of the partner
Characteristics of rapists:
Hostile
Distrustful
History of other acts of violence and criminality
High users of pornography, especially violent pornography
Extreme self-centeredness

Rape is sexual activity without the consent of the partner. In
one survey, about 10 percent of adult women reported that they
had been forcibly raped, and another 10 percent sai d they had
sex while incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs. However, the
statistics vary considerably from one study to another.
Of all sexual assaults that legally qualify as rape, only half the
victims think of the experience as rape, and far fewer report it
to the police. Most women who have involuntary sex with a
boyfriend or other acquaintance do not call the event rape,
especially if alcohol was involved.
Rapists are not all alike. Many are hostile, distrustful men with
a history of other acts of violence and criminality. Sexually
aggressive men tend to be high users of pornography, and
rapists are much more likely than other men to enjoy violent
pornography. Another element in rape is extreme self-
centeredness, or lack of concern for others.
10
module 13.2
Social Perception and Cognition
Define the primacy effect in social psychology and give an
example.
Describe how the implicit association test measures prejudices.
Discuss methods of overcoming prejudice.
Distinguish among three main influences on attributions.
Describe the actor-observer effect and the fundamental
attribution error.
Discuss cultural differences in attributions.

11
First Impressions
Primacy effect – the tendency for the first information we learn
about someone to influence us more than later information does
We form first impressions quickly and more accurately than we
might guess.
Self-fulfilling prophecies – expectations that increase the
probability of the predicted event
Other things being equal, we pay more attention to the first
information we learn about someone than to later information.
This tendency is known as the primacy effect.
First impressions form rapidly, and some are more accurate than
we might guess. However, first impressions are not always
accurate.
First impressions can become self-fulfilling prophecies,
expectations that increase the probability of the predicted event.
Suppose a psychologist hands you a cell phone and asks you to
talk with someone, while showing you a photo supposedly of
that person. Unknown to the person you are talking to, the
psychologist might hand you a photo of a very attractive person
or a much less attractive photo. Not surprisingly, you act
friendlier to someone you regard as attractive. Besides that, if
you think you are talking to someone attractive, that person
reacts by becoming more cheerful and talkative. In short, your
first impression changes how you act and influences the other
person to live up to (or down to) your expectations.
12
Stereotypes and Prejudices

Stereotype – a belief or expectation about a group of people
Prejudice – an unfavorable attitude toward a group of people
Discrimination – unequal treatment of different groups of
people
Stereotypes are generalized beliefs about groups of people. A
prejudice is an unfavorable stereotype. It is usually associated
with discrimination, which is unequal treatment of different
groups, such as minority groups, the physically disabled, people
who are obese, or gays and lesbians.
13
Implicit Measures of Prejudice
Implicit association test (IAT) – procedure that measures
reactions to combinations of categories, such as “flowers” and
“pleasant”
The implicit association test finds evidence of subtle prejudice,
even among many people who deny having such prejudices.
However, most people are aware of their prejudices, even if
they don’t like to admit them.
The implicit association test (IAT) measures reactions to
combinations of categories.
The IAT may reveal prejudices that people don’t want to admit,
even to themselves.
However, contrary to what some theorists have assumed, it is
wrong to say that the prejudices are unconscious. When people
are asked about their prejudices but urged to answer honestly,
their answers correlate more strongly with their IAT results.
Also, if people are asked to predict their results on the IAT,

they do so fairly accurately. In short, most people do know their
prejudices, even if they hesitate to admit them.
14
Overcoming Prejudice
People who work together for a common goal can overcome
prejudices that initially divide them.
Working together for a common goal weakens prejudices
between groups.
15
Decreasing Prejudice by Increasing Acceptance
A goal of treating everyone the same sometimes backfires by
implying that everyone should act the same.
A goal of multiculturalism is generally a better goal.
Multiculturalism – accepting, recognizing, and enjoying the
differences among people and groups and the unique
contributions that each person can offer
Most people today publicly endorse the goal of treating all
people fairly, without prejudice. However, the way of
expressing this goal has major effects on the result. Consider
the expression, “we treat all people the same.” Although that
goal sounds good, it seems to imply, “We expect all people to
act the same.” What if you are not the same as everyone else?
You might differ from the others in racial or ethnic background,
sexual orientation, or other regards. You might be older or
younger than most, or the only man or only woman in the
organization. Under a policy of treating everyone the same,
people are supposed to ignore the fact that you are different.

When people try not to notice skin color, sexual orientation, or
anything else, or try to avoid seeming prejudiced, they find the
effort unpleasant and tiring. The result is often an increase in
prejudice.
An alternative is multiculturalism—accepting, recognizing, and
enjoying the differences among people and groups and the
unique contributions that each person can offer. Research shows
advantages of the multiculturalism approach. When a company
or other organization endorses a multiculturalist position,
members of both majority and minority groups feel more
comfortable.
16
Attributions (slide 1 of 3)
Attribution – the set of thought processes we use to assign
causes to our own behavior and that of others
Internal versus External Causes
Internal attributions – explanations based on someone’s
attitudes, personality traits, abilities, or other characteristics
External attributions – explanations based on the situation,
including events that would influence almost anyone
We make an internal or external attribution based on the
following:
1. Consensus information – how a person’s behavior
compares with other people’s behavior
2. Consistency information – how a person’s behavior varies
from one time to the next
3. Distinctiveness – how a person’s behavior varies from one
situation to another
Attribution is the set of thought processes by which we assign
internal or external causes to behavior.

Fritz Heider, the founder of attribution theory, emphasized the
distinction between internal and external causes of behavior.
Internal attributions are explanations based on someone’s
attitudes, personality traits, abilities, or other characteristics.
External attributions are explanations based on the situation,
including events that would influence almost anyone. An
example of an internal attribution is saying that your brother
walked to work this morning “because he likes the exercise.”
An external attribution would be that he walked “because his
car wouldn’t start.” Internal attributions are also known as
dispositional (i.e., relating to the person’s disposition). External
attributions are also known as situational (i.e., relating to the
situation).
Harold Kelley proposed that three types of information
influence us to make an internal or external attribution:
Consensus information (how the person’s behavior compares
with other people’s behavior). If someone behaves the same way
you believe other people would in the same situation, you make
an external attribution, recognizing that the situation led to the
behavior. When a behavior seems unusual, you look for an
internal attribution.
Consistency information (how the person’s behavior varies from
one time to the next). If someone almost always seems friendly,
you make an internal attribution (“friendly person”). If
someone’s friendliness varies, you make an external attribution,
such as an event that elicited a good or bad mood.
Distinctiveness (how the person’s behavior varies from one
situation to another). If your friend is pleasant to all but one
individual, you assume that person has done something to
irritate your friend (an external attribution).
17
The Actor-Observer Effect

Actor-observer effect – the tendency to be more likely to make
internal attributions for other people’s behavior and to be more
likely to make external attributions for one’s own behavior
The Fundamental Attribution Error
Fundamental attribution error – the tendency to make internal
attributions for people’s behavior even when we see evidence
for an external influence on behavior
We are more likely to attribute internal causes to other people’s
behavior than to our own. This tendency is called the actor -
observer effect. You are an “actor” when you try to explain the
causes of your own behavior and an “observer” when you try to
explain someone else’s behavior.
People frequently attribute people’s behavior to internal causes,
even when they see evidence of external influences. This
tendency is known as the fundamental attribution error. It is
also known as the correspondence bias, meaning a tendency to
assume a strong similarity between someone’s current actions
and his or her dispositions.
18
Cultural Differences in Attribution and Related Matters
People in Asian cultures are less likely than those in Western
cultures to attribute behavior to consistent personality traits and
more likely to attribute it to the situation.
Using Attributions to Manage Perceptions of Ourselves
Self-serving biases – attributions that people adopt to maximize
credit for success and minimize blame for failure
Self-handicapping strategies – techniques for intentionally
putting oneself at a disadvantage to provide an excuse for

failure
The fundamental attribution error varies by culture. People in
Western cultures tend to make more internal (personality)
attributions, whereas people in China and other Asian countries
tend to make more external (situational) attributions. As a
result, Asians expect more change and less consistency in
people’s behavior from one situation to another. They are less
guided by first impressions than Americans are. They are also
more likely to accept contradictions and look for compromises
instead of viewing one position as correct and another as
incorrect.
People often try to protect their self-esteem by attributing their
successes to skill and their failures to outside influences. For
example, you might credit your good grades to your intelligence
and hard work (an internal attribution) but blame your worst
grades on unfair tests (an external attributio n).
People sometimes place themselves at a disadvantage to provide
an excuse for failure. Suppose you fear you will do poorly on a
test. You stay out late at a party the night before. Now you can
blame your low score on your lack of sleep without admitting
that you might have done poorly anyway.
19
module 13.3
Attitudes and Persuasion
Explain how psychologists measure attitudes.
Define cognitive dissonance and describe an experiment that
demonstrates it.
Distinguish between the peripheral and central routes to
persuasion.

List some important techniques of persuasion.
Discuss the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of fear messages.
Describe why coercive persuasion leads to unreliable
information.
20
Attitudes and Behavior
Attitude – a like or dislike that influences behavior
Attitude Measurement
People’s reported attitudes do not always match their behaviors.
Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Change
Cognitive dissonance – a state of unpleasant tension that people
experience when they hold contradictory attitudes or when their
behavior contradicts their stated attitudes, especially if the
inconsistency distresses them
An attitude is a like or dislike that influences behavior. Your
attitudes include an evaluative or emotional component (how
you feel about something), a cognitive component (what you
know or believe), and a behavioral component (what you are
likely to do).
People’s reported attitudes do not always match their behaviors.
Many people say one thing and do another with regard to
alcohol, safe sex, conserving natural resources, or studying hard
for tests. Your attitudes are most likely to match your behavior
if you have personal experience with the topic.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of unpleasant tension that arises
when a behavior conflicts with an attitude. People try to reduce
the inconsistency, often by changing their attitudes.
21
Mechanisms of Attitude Change and Persuasion
Peripheral route to persuasion – use of superficial factors to
persuade people, such as repetition of a message or prestige of
the speaker
Central route to persuasion – process in which people who take
a decision seriously invest enough time and effort to evaluate
the evidence and reason logically
When a decision seems unimportant, or when you have so many
more serious concerns that you cannot devote much effort to a
decision, you form or change an attitude by the peripheral route
to persuasion that is based mostly on emotions: If for any
reason you associate something with feeling happy, you form a
favorable attitude toward it. For example, when you buy food
items at a supermarket, such as drinks, potato chips, and pasta
sauce, you probably didn’t form your attitudes toward various
brands by carefully evaluating the ingredients. You might like
the colorful packaging, or you saw an entertaining commercial
on television, or you saw one of your friends using one of these
products.
The central route of persuasion requires investing enough time
and effort to evaluate the evidence and reason logically about a
decision. Your emotions can still enter into the decision, but
only if they are relevant. For example, if you are buying a new
home, you carefully examine the quality of the house, the price,
the neighborhood, and a great deal more. You might be in a
better mood when you see one house than another just because
of nicer weather or some other irrelevant factor, but you don’t

let that kind of emotion influence your decision.
22
Special Techniques of Persuasion (slide 1 of 2)
Liking and Similarity
Someone you like or consider similar to yourself is more
persuasive than other people are.
Social Norms
Being told that most people favor some idea or action makes it
appealing.
Reciprocation
You may feel obligated to perform a favor for someone who did
a favor for you or gave you something.
Contrast Effects
An item may appear more desirable because of its contrast to
something else.
People are more successful at persuading you if you like them
or see them as similar to yourself.
A powerful influence technique is to show that many other
people are doing what you want them to do.
Civilization is based on the concept of reciprocation: If you do
me a favor, then I owe you one.
An offer can seem good or bad, depending on how it compares
to something else.
23
Special Techniques of Persuasion (slide 2 of 2)

Foot in the Door
Foot-in-the-door technique – method of eliciting compliance
whereby someone starts with a modest request, which you
accept, and follows with a larger request
Bait and Switch
Bait-and-switch technique – method of eliciting compliance
whereby a person first offers an extremely favorable deal, gets
the other person to commit to the deal, and then makes
additional demands
That’s Not All!
That’s-not-all technique – method of eliciting compliance
whereby someone makes an offer and then improves the offer
before you have a chance to reply
Fear Messages
Messages that appeal to fear are sometimes effective, unless the
message is too extreme or if it suggests that the problem is
hopeless.
In the foot-in-the-door, bait-and-switch, and that’s-not-all
techniques, a first request makes you more likely to accept a
second request.
Some attempts at persuasion use threats. Fear messages are
sometimes effective, but not always. If a message is too
frightening, many people simply don’t want to listen to it, or if
they do listen to it, they don’t believe it. An extreme message
may suggest that the problem is hopeless.
24
Delayed Influence
The Sleeper Effect

When people reject a message because of their low regard for
the person who proposed it, they sometimes forget where they
heard the idea and later come to accept it.
Sleeper effect – delayed persuasion by an initially rejected
message
Minority Influence
Although a minority may have little influence at first, it can,
through persistent repetition of its message, eventually persuade
the majority to adopt its position or consider other ideas.
Suppose you hear an idea from someone with poor
qualifications. Because of what you think of the speaker, you
reject the idea. Weeks later, you forget where you heard the
idea (source amnesia) and remember only the idea itself. At that
point, its persuasive impact may increase. Psychologists use the
term sleeper effect to describe delayed persuasion by an
initially rejected message.
25
Differences in Resistance to Persuasion
Forewarning effect – phenomenon that informing people that
they are about to hear a persuasive speech activates their
resistance and weakens the persuasion
Inoculation effect – tendency for people to be less persuaded by
an argument because of first hearing a weaker argument
If people have been warned that someone will try to persuade
them of something or if they have previously heard a weak
version of the persuasive argument, they tend to resist the
argument.
26

Coercive Persuasion
Coercive techniques increase confessions by both guilty and
innocent people, and therefore make the confessions unreliable
evidence.
Techniques designed to pressure a suspect into confessing
decrease the reliability of the confession because, under these
circumstances, many innocent people confess also.
27
module 13.4
Interpersonal Attraction
Explain theoretically why people and other animals care about
physical attractiveness when choosing a mate.
List some factors that increase the probability of forming a
friendship or romantic relationship.
Distinguish between passionate and companionate love.
28
Establishing Relationships (slide 1 of 2)
Proximity and Familiarity
Proximity – the tendency to choose as friends people with whom
we come in frequent contact
Mere exposure effect – principle that the more often we come in
contact with someone or something, the more we tend to like
that person or object
Physical Attractiveness

Theoretically, physical attractiveness should be a cue to
someone’s health and therefore desirability as a mate.
Someone with approximately average features is attractive,
presumably because average features have been associated with
successful breeding in the past.
Proximity means closeness. We are most likely to become
friends with people who live or work in proximity to us. One
reason proximity is important is that people who live nearby
discover what they have in common. Another reason is the mere
exposure effect, the principle that the more often we come in
contact with someone or something, the more we tend to like
that person or object.
However, familiarity does not always increase liking. Becoming
familiar with someone gives you a chance to find out what you
have in common, but it also lets you see the other person’s
flaws.
In several bird species, females prefer colorful males that sing
loudly and have long tails. Only a healthy male can afford the
traits of growing bright feathers and long tails. Throughout her
evolutionary history, most females who chose such partners
produced healthier offspring than those who chose dull-colored,
quiet, inactive males.
In humans, good-looking generally means normal. An attractive
person has nearly average features and few irregularities—no
crooked teeth, skim blemishes, or asymmetries, and no facial
hair on women. Normal implies healthy. Thus, good appearance
is evidently a reasonable cue to someone’s health.
29
Establishing Relationships (slide 2 of 2)

Similarity
In the early stage of romantic attraction, physical appearance is
the key factor, but similarity of interests and goals becomes
more serious later.
The Equity Principle
Exchange (or equity) theories – the idea that social relationships
are transactions in which partners exchange goods and services
Relationships are most likely to thrive if each person believes
that he or she is getting about as good a deal as the other person
is.
Dating and Modern Technology
The Internet has added a new dimension to dating.
Most romantic partners and close friends resemble each other in
age, physical attractiveness, political and religious beliefs,
intelligence, education, and attitudes. As a relationship matures,
people’s interests become more and more alike.
According to exchange or equity theories, social relationships
are transactions in which partners exchange goods and services.
As in business, a relationship is most stable if both partners
believe the deal is fair. It is easiest to establish a fair deal if the
partners are about equally attractive and intelligent, contribute
about equally to the finances and the chores, and so forth.
The Internet has added a new dimension to dating. Internet
dating services introduce couples who never would have met
otherwise. They bring couples together who have at least a few
important aspects in common.
30
Marriage and Long-Term Commitments

Marriage and similar relationships often break up because of
problems that were present from the start, such as displays of
anger.
The best predictor of long-term satisfaction is much display of
genuine affection between newlyweds.
Psychologists have maintained that a romantic relationship
begins with passionate love and gradually develops over many
years into companionate love.
Passionate love – stage in a relationship when sexual desire,
romance, and friendship increase in parallel
Companionate love – stage in a relationship marked by sharing,
care, and protection
For many people, love fades over a lifetime, but for a
substantial number of people, it remains strong and passionate
even after decades of marriage.
Studies show that couples whose arguments escalate to greater
and greater anger are likely to consider divorce later.
The best predictor of long-term satisfaction is much display of
genuine affection between newlyweds.
Psychologists distinguish between passionate love and
companionate love. Passionate love is marked by sexual desire
and excitement, whereas companionate love is marked by
sharing, care, and protection.
Love fades for many couples, but for some it remains strong for
a lifetime.
31
module 13.5
Interpersonal Influence

Describe Asch’s classic experiment demonstrating conformity.
Discuss cultural differences in conformity.
Evaluate Zimbardo’s prison experiment.
Describe Milgram’s study on obedience.
Give examples of group polarization and groupthink.
32
Social Influence
People influence our behavior by setting norms and by offering
information.
We also follow others’ examples just because they suggested a
possible action.
People influence us constantly. First, people set norms that
define the expectations of a situation. You watch how others
dress and act in any situation, and you tend to do the same.
Second, they provide us with information. For example, if you
approach a building and find crowds quickly fleeing from it and
screaming, they probably know something you don’t. Third,
people influence us just by suggesting a possible action. Seeing
people yawn makes you feel like yawning, too. Why? They
haven’t given you any new information, and you don’t
necessarily wish to resemble them. You copy just because
seeing a yawn suggested the possibility.
33
Conformity
Conformity – altering one’s behavior to match other people’s
behavior or expectations

Conformity to an Obviously Wrong Majority
Many people conform to the majority view even when they are
confident that the majority is wrong.
An individual is as likely to conform to a group of three as to a
larger group, but an individual with an ally is less likely to
conform.
Variations in Conformity
Although some cultures tend to be more collectivist or
conforming than others, it is an overgeneralization to regard all
Asian cultures as collectivist or to assume that all members of a
society are equally collectivist.
Conformity means altering one’s behavior to match other
people’s behavior or expectations.
To find out if we conform our opinions even if we know that
everyone else is wrong, Solomon Asch conducted a now -famous
series of experiments. In Asch’s conformity studies, a
participant was asked which of three lines matched another line.
Before answering, the participant heard other people (known as
confederates) answer incorrectly. To Asch’s surprise, 37 of the
50 participants conformed to the majority at least once, and 14
conformed on most of the trials. When Asch varied the number
of confederates who gave incorrect answers, he found that
people conformed to a group of three or four just as readily as
to a larger group. However, a participant with an ally giving
correct answers conformed much less.
Are people in certain cultures more prone to conformity as a
general rule? In most Asian countries, the percentage of
conforming answers tends to be higher than in the United
States. The cultures of southern Asia, including China and
Japan, are often described as “collectivist” in contrast to the

“individualist” cultures of the United States, Canada, Australia,
and most of Europe. According to this view, Western culture
encourages originality, individualism, and uniqueness, whereas
Eastern culture favors subordination of the individual to the
welfare of the family or society.
Some researchers suggest that the “collectivist” notion is
wrong. Others point out each country has multiple subcultures.
34
Obedience to Authority
Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues performed a study in which
they paid and randomly assigned college students to play the
roles of guards and prisoners.
Within six days, the researchers had to cancel the study because
many of the guards were physically and emotionally bullying
the prisoners.
Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to find out if normal
people would follow orders that might hurt someone.
In the experiment, a “teacher” was asked to deliver shocks to a
“learner” who made mistakes.
The result was that a majority of the people delivered shocks all
the way to the maximum voltage.
In the early 1970s, psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his
colleagues performed one of the best known studies in social
psychology. They paid college students to play the roles of
guards and prisoners for two weeks during a vacation period.
The researchers set up the basement of a Stanford University
building as a prison and randomly assigned participants to the
roles of guard or prisoner. Within six days, the researchers had
to cancel the study because many of the guards were physically
and emotionally bullying the prisoners. Zimbardo concluded
that the situation had elicited cruel behavior. Normal, well -

educated, middle-class young men, when given power over
others, had quickly abused that power. The implication is that
we shouldn’t blame people who abuse their power, because most
of us would do the same thing in that situation.
Stanley Milgram hypothesized that when an authority figure
gives normal people instructions to do something that might
hurt another person, some of them will obey. To test his
hypothesis, he conducted a landmark experiment, known as the
Milgram Experiment.
Two adult men at a time arrived at the experiment—a real
participant and a confederate of the experimenter pretending to
be a participant. The experimenter told them that in this study
of learning, one participant would be the “teacher” and the other
would be the “learner.” The teacher would read lists of words
through a microphone to the learner, sitting in another room.
The teacher would then test the learner’s memory for the words.
Whenever the learner made a mistake, the teacher was to deliver
an electric shock as punishment. However, the learner never
received shocks, but the teacher was led to believe that he did.
Throughout the experiment, the learner made many mistakes.
The experimenter instructed the teacher to begin by punishing
the learner with the 15-volt switch for his first mistake and
increase by 15 volts for each successive mistake, up to the
maximum of 450 volts.
As the voltage went up, the learner in the next room cried out in
pain. If the teacher asked who would take responsibility for any
harm to the learner, the experimenter replied that he, the
experimenter, would take responsibility but insisted, “while the
shocks may be painful, they are not dangerous.” When the
shocks reached 150 volts, the learner begged to be let out of the
experiment, complaining that his heart was bothering him.
Beginning at 270 volts, he screamed in agony. At 300 volts, he

shouted that he would no longer answer any questions. After
330 volts, he made no response at all. Still, the experimenter
ordered the teacher to continue asking questions and delivering
shocks. Remember, the learner was not really being shocked.
The screams came from a recording.
Of 40 participants, 25 delivered shocks all the way to 450 volts.
Why did so many people obey orders? One reason was that the
experimenter agreed to take responsibility. Another reason is
that the teachers identified with the experimenter and saw
themselves as his assistant. Also, the experimenter started with
a small request, a 15-volt shock, and gradually progressed to
stronger shocks. It is easy to agree to the small request, and
agreeing to that one makes it easier to agree to the next one. If
you have already delivered many shocks you are unlikely to
quit, because if you quit, you take responsibility for your
actions.
35
Group Decision Making
Group decisions are generally better than individual decisions,
but the outcome depends on circumstances.
Groups sometimes interact in unfavorable ways that stifle
dissent or rush to a judgment.
Group polarization – the tendency for people who lean in the
same direction on a particular issue to become more extreme in
that position after discussing it with one another
Groupthink – the tendency for people to suppress their doubts
about a group’s decision for fear of making a bad impression or
disrupting group harmony
Groups decisions are generally better than individual decisions,
but the outcome depends on circumstances. If you and someone

else are equally well informed, you probably will make a better
decision together than either of you would separately. However,
some groups work together better than others do. One study
compared many groups that were asked to make decisions about
moral judgments, visual problems, ways of dividing limited
resources, and so forth. In this study, decisions were best in
groups that cooperated, letting everyone participate about
equally rather than letting one person dominate. Groups with a
high percentage of women usually outperformed groups with
mostly men, who tended to argue and compete.
Groups of people who lean mostly in the same direction on a
given issue often make more extreme decisions than most
people would have made on their own. This phenomenon is
known as group polarization.
Groupthink occurs when members of a cohesive group fail to
express their opposition to a decision for fear of making a bad
impression or harming the cohesive spirit of the group. The
main elements leading to groupthink are overconfidence by the
leadership, underestimation of the problems, and pressure to
conform.
36

13Social Psychology© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 13Social Psychology© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

Similar to 13Social Psychology© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved. (14)

More from ChantellPantoja184

More from ChantellPantoja184 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

13Social Psychology© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.