Social Psychology Exam 2 Study Guide
Social Psychology Exam 2 Study Guide 031:015
Popular in Introduction to Social Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 19 page Study Guide was uploaded by Allysa Yi on Sunday January 11, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to 031:015 at University of Iowa taught by Meara Hebashi in Fall2014. Since its upload, it has received 792 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Social Psychology in Psychlogy at University of Iowa.
Reviews for Social Psychology Exam 2 Study Guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/11/15
Lecture 9 Social Identity Part 1 Definitions Selfcategorization Seeing oneself as a group member Social identity aspects of our selfconcept that are derived from our knowledge and feeling about our group memberships o 1 becomes quotWequot Ingroup the group with which an individual identifies and feels he she is a member Outgroup the group with which an individual does not identify Depending on the social context our group memberships can be more or less salient noticeable or important Some key factors include 0 Direct reminders 0 Being in the minority 0 Presence of outgroup members 0 Con ict with outgroup members InGroup Effects Can be similar to selffulfilling prophecies Example Carli 1990 had groups of men amp women work on a group task in the lab Results When groups had men women spoke more tentatively than in allfemale groups 0 Male presence perhaps made female identities accessible thereby eliciting gender stereotypic ie avoiding assertive speech 0 When being in mixed gender group stereotype becomes activated and women will become more feminine like being more hesitant in language I Becomes helpful in persuading me but not women BIRG Bask In Re ected Glory Boosting selfesteem by identifying with the accomplishments of fellow group members 0 Example at 7 universities Cialdini and his colleagues 1976 counted ingroupquot clothing worn on class days after football games Students wore more clothing after the football team won rather than lost quotWequot vs Them The concept of quotwequot clearly seems to have positive connotations 0 Example Dovidio et al 1990 found nonsense syllables eg XEH paired with quotwequot were perceived as having more positive meaning than paired with quottheyquot I Subjects responded more quickly to positive words that followed the subliminal prime we than those that followed quottheyquot In another study Dovidio amp Gaertner 1993 had subjects read instructions for a supposed group taskquot 0 Half received a version that said something we all have to do our best onquot 0 Half received a version that said something they all have to do their best onquot 0 Results when asked to imagine how likeable others in the group might be those who received the ingroup pronouns had more positive expectations I The more positive we feel about one group the more negative we feel towards the otheroutgroup OutGroup Effects Outgroup Homogeneity Effect The tendency to perceive outgroup members as more homogenous and less diverse than the ingroup o CrossRace Identification Bias people can recognize faces of members of their own ethnic group more easily than faces of members of other ethnic groups 0 Example Platz amp Hosch 1988 had convenience store clerks try to identify customers confederates who made a purchase earlier in the day I 3 Confederate customers 1 black 1 MexicanAmerican and 1 AngloAmerican I The store clerks were also members of one of these groups I Results when the clerk was the same identity as the customer they identified them more correctly compared to other races White Blacks and Mexicans had easier time recognizing identifying their OWN race I Why Familiarity We typically know more ingroup members than outgroup members thus we are more aware of their diversity Constrained interaction Interaction with outgroup members often takes place where no individual interaction is possible Other factors can also effect the crossrace identification bias 0 Example members of an experimental lab groups who are assigned a group at random and have equal information about their own and others groups still viewed the ingroup as more diverse than the out group So same information but ingroup still seemed more diverse Minimal Group Paradigm Simple categorization into groups even if based on arbitrary random or trivial little value characteristics seems to be sufficient for ingroup bias Participants allocated points representing money to individuals identified by group label only 0 Example is the two artists Klee and Kandinsky Let s say you were a Klee member and the allocation matrices were 115 1310 1515 1720 You d most likely choose 1515 because it s even You won t be worse and you don t want to seem better I Fairness was a common strategy but so was ingroup favoritism which happens b c we want to be better and derogating makes us feel better So for favoritism you may have chosen 115 Klee Kandinsky if you were a Klee member Social Identity Theory A theory that states that people s motivation to derive positive selfesteem from their group memberships is one driving force behind ingroup bias Lecture 10 Social Identity Part 2 Social Identity Theory Motivation to derive positive feelings is perhaps most pronounced when people have suffered a blow to their selfesteem Personal identity and social identity both contribute to selfesteem Personal achievements Personal idan tv Favoritism toward gt Selfesteem ingroups Social identities I Darogation of outgroups SelfEsteem Threat Example Fein amp Spencer 1997 gave subjects a test of verbal skills 0 12 were given negative performance feedback 0 12 were given positive performance feedback 0 Then given a resume and watched a video of a woman interviewing for a job I 12 given information that implied she was Jewish eg Iulie Goldberg I 12 given information that implied she was not Iewish eg Maria D Agostino I Results those who got negative feedback preferred nonIewish more When they derogated the Jews their selfesteem increased Effects on Stigmatized disapproval or discontent of social groups based on social characteristics Groups Example Lutanen and Crocker 1992 measured Black and White students selfesteem feelings about their group depression Results 0 Whites low personal selfesteem was most related to increase risk of depression 0 Blacks collective selfesteem was most strongly related to depression I Collective selfesteem positive or negative feelings about group membership If you are poorly associated with that group then depression is more likely The more strongly you are with your group the more pride and the more you have a buffer to depression Example The Bell Curvequot Herstein amp Murray 1995 differences in academic performance b n groups Says that intelligence is substantially in uenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics like job performance Says both genes and environment also has racial differences in intelligence 0 Small but statistically significant 0 What accounts for these differences Is it dispositional eg genetic or situational I At least one situational amp psychological factor Stereotype threat the fear of confirming negative stereotypes that others have of your group Example Steele amp Aronson 1995 gave White and Black Stanford students verbal GRE test questions 0 12 told that it was a test of intelligencequot 0 12 told it was unrelated to intelligencequot 0 Results I Blacks performed worse when told test of intelligencequot I Performance was equal in unrelated to intelligencequot condition I Whites performed the same regardless of condition I So because they were threatened stereotypically they really did worse confirm their stereotype I So cognitively they worry and are anxious of confirming their negative stereotype this took up a lot of their cognition and you need cognition to do well on intelligence test Effects on other groups How about women in math 0 Example Spencer et al 1999 gave males and females UMich questions from the GRE advanced math test I 12 told there are gender differencesquot in performance on the test I 12 told there are m gender differencesquot I Results Women performed worse than men when told of gender differencesquot Performance was equal in no gender differences conditionquot Men performed the same regardless of condition Group identities and negative stereotypes can be activated in many different ways 0 Example Clark et al 2010 examined stereotype threat in US southerners eg southerners are uneducated unintelligentquot I Southern college students at University of Alabama given 20 GRE questions I 12 exposed to the confederate ag before the test I 12 no confederate ag exposure I Results Showing confederate ag activated the stereotype that southerners are not as intelligent as northerners and thus when the ag was present they did worse when it was absent they did fine on the exam Escaping Negative Group Membership How does one deal with belonging to a negatively viewed group 0 Social mobility the strategy of individual escape either physical or psychological from a stigmatized group 0 CORF Cutting Off Re ected Failure the act of criticizing or distancing oneself from an ingroup or a group member ie opposite of BIRGbasking in re ected glory to maintain selfesteem Social Change Certainly defending or escaping group memberships can be somewhat effective but perhaps the only quotcurequot is social change Is social change a realistic societal goal If so then which strategies approaches would bring this about 0 Commonly mentioned strategies include Recategorization or Mutual Interdependence I Recategorization forming new inclusive ingroups from which esteem and identity can be derived Alleviates crosscategorizationquot eg Blacks and Whites in America can be categorized as just Americans 0 Example we are not a Black America a white America a Hispanic America we are one America Many laboratory experiments have demonstrated that blurring categorical boundaries can reduce bias and discrimination Gaertner et al 1993 Gaertner et al 1989 I Mutual Interdependence a situation where two or more groups must depend on each other to accomplish important goals An extension of the contact Hypothesis You become dependent now for others b c they are now a part of your self esteem Example of mutual interdependence Sherif 1961 The Robbers Cave Studyquot Boys at camp were divided into 2 groups The Eaglesquot and The Rattlersquot Hostility was high b n the groups Researchers staged a number of situations to create superordinate shared goals The two groups had to work together in order to succeed Lecture 11 Attitudes amp Behavior Attitudes Attitude an evaluation or opinion that an individual has toward something We have already dealt extensively with attitudes in this course 0 Impressions attitudes about others 0 Selfesteem attitudes about our selves o Prejudice attitudes toward our own and other groups Allport 1935 attitude is the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social psychologyquot 0 Knowing what people s attitudes are gives us a way to predict behavior 0 Understanding the nature of attitudes gives us ideas on how to change them ABC Tripartite Model ofAttitudes Affective emotional reactions and feelings toward an attitude object Behavioral behavior or actions toward an attitude object Cognitive thoughts and beliefs about an attitude object Affective Formation Basis An attitude is affectively based formed when it relies primarily on feelings about the attitude object o Sensory reactions look hear smell taste feel touch eg aesthetic appeal of a painting or the smell appeal Several affective processes 0 Recall the mere exposure effect 0 Classical conditioning o Operant conditioning Behavioral Formation Basis An attitude is behaviorally based formed when it relies primarily on observations of one s own behavior toward an attitude object 0 Recall selfperception theory 0 I must really like coffee because I drink it frequently Cognitive Formation Basis An attitude is cognitively based when it relies on evaluations of or beliefs about the objective attributes or merits of the attitude object 0 Example when buying a dishwasher Beliefs and evaluations is it energy efficient Cost Does it clean well 4 Functions ofAttitudes Katz 1960 Functional Theory Utilitarian functionmaximize rewards and minimize punishments o Eg Friends approve when I drink beer with them thus drinking beer is goodquot Egodefensive function protect self from painful reality 0 Eg highly positive attitude toward smoking cigarettes or other drugs 0 Valueexpressive function express our important beliefs individuality values etc 0 Knowledgeexpressive function guidelines to simplify decision making organize our beliefs 0 Eg generics are just as good as name brandsquot 0 Makes decisionmaking easy Attitudes determined by genetic makeup Perhaps not all attitudes are formed via experience some may be hardwiredquot Tesser 1993 strong likes amp dislikes toward a variety of things are rooted in our genetic makeup 0 Example Olsen et al 2001 had 672 twins individually rate their attitudes on a range of issues and factors I Results higher correlation in attitude similarity with twins vs non twins Do attitudes really predict behavior Seems like the answer is yes but it really isn t Example LaPiere 1934 Traveled with a Chinese couple stayed at hotels and ate in restaurants 0 They were refused at only 1 establishment o LaPiere later sent letters to the hotels and restaurants they were already at and asked if they would serve Chinese customers I Results 92 said they would not serve Chinese customers even though they just did Example Corey 1937 measured students attitudes toward cheating then let students grade their own exams 0 Results attitudes toward cheating did not predict who cheated Example Wicker 1969 reviewed 42 studies average correlation b n attitudes and behavior was 15 low CONCLUSION It may be desirable to abandon the attitude constructquot Wicker 1971 pg 29 When do attitudes predict behavior Fishbein amp Ajzen 1974 compatibility correspondencequot 0 1 Action the behavior 0 2 Target attitude object or behavioral target 0 3 Context social environment 0 4 Time difference b n measure and behavior Get relation when 0 Specific attitude and specific behavior I Basically although those two previous researches show no relation b n attitude and behavior this person is like no You didn39t ask specific enough questions For example you could be like do you like ice cream And they can say yes but not eat it So be more specific and be like do you like to EAT chocolate ice cream during the summer 0 Global attitude and global behavior Example Predict who will donate money to Obama s reelection campaign 0 Could measure overall attitude toward Barrack Obama eg posneg good bad I Likely poor prediction b c there s some mismatch with the level of specificity o What if you measured attitude toward reelection or about giving money towards Obama you would probably get a better response and correlation I Why Measuring a specific attitude and trying to predict a specific behavior Specificity 0 Davidson amp Iaccard 1979 they measured attitude behavior correlation for attitude toward birth control The more specific they got the more compatibility and the stronger the attitudebehavior correlation got Ex attitude toward birth control was 08 Attitude toward birth control pill was 32 Attitude toward using birth control pills was 53 Global Fishbein amp Ajzen 1974 0 Global attitudes toward religion with 100 religious behaviors The correlation of attitude behavior is low with single religious behavior but high with multiple religious behaviors so basically The more specific and the more you cover the better the attitudebehavior correlation will be 9 BASICLLY THE MORE SPECIFC AND THE MORE CONTENT BETTER PREDICTION Prediction Beyond Measurement There are several properties of attitudes that determine how predictive they are of behavior 0 One factor is Direct Experience I Example Regan amp Fazio 1977 attitudes toward intellectual puzzles Chance to solve direct or told how to solve indirect Later given opportunity to quotplayquot 0 Results I No difference in attitude valence as a function of direct vs indirect experience However higher correlations b n attitudes and time playing when subjects had direct experience 0 Direct experience 53 0 Indirect experience 21 0 Another factor Attitude Accessibility the extent to which attitudes are automatically activated from memory I Example Fazio et al 1989 reaction times to cpu stimuli of consumer products were used as a measure of accessibility Later participants shown all products and told they could take 5 of them home 0 Results greater attitudebehavior consistency was found when attitudes were high rather than low in accessibility I So when attitudes are already in your mind your behavior will match it more because you d be already thinking of it I Direct experience amp attitude accessibility are directly related Lecture 12 Attitude Change Part I Attitude Change Different approaches are necessary to change attitudes Major Theoretical Approaches Learning Theories 1940 s1950 s 0 Classical and operant conditioning and message learning approach Cognitive Consistency Theories 1950 s1960 s 0 Cognitive dissonance theory Message Processing Theories 1970 spresent o Elaboration likelihood model and heuristic systematic model Learning approaches Classical conditioning pair neutral objects with stimuli that already bring about desired response 0 Staats amp Staats 1957 nonsense syllables visually and paired with positive or negative words via audio I Eg see lak and hear the word sweet I Eg see mof and hear the word ugly I Results people formed different attitudes based on pairing with positive or negative words 0 Berkowitz amp Knurek 1969 gave participants a long list of names paired with different words I 12 paired with negative words with George amp neutral words with Ed I 12 paired with negative words with Ed amp neutral words with George I After leaving the room subjects talked with two people 1 person was named Ed Fuller and the other was named George Foster I Results Though unaware of conditions confederate who named paired with negative words said person was less friendly Operant Conditioning 0 Operant conditioning specific responses are followed by positive or negative consequences I Insko 1965 called students at University of Hawaii and asked their opinion about a new university festival ie Springtime aloha week Students heard statements about the festival and indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed 12 were rewarded with the word good when they endorsed a positive statement about the festival 12 were rewarded with the word good when they endorsed a negative statement about the festival Results 1 week later in a survey 0 Students were more favorable about the festival if rewarded for being favorable and less favorable if rewarded for being unfavorable Empirical Verifiable more factlike Focus on Attitude Change During and following WWII propaganda and persuasion were of great interest A research group from Yale were brought in to consult with armed forces on these issues and how to develop soldier morale o How do political leaders persuade people 0 How do soldiers learn and retain what they need to know Message Learning Approach MLA The emphasis was on how people learn persuasive messages Researched who says what to whom 0 Who the source of the communication 0 What the nature of the communication 0 To whom the nature of the audience According to the MLA these are the steps in persuasion o 1 Attention o 2 Comprehension ie understanding 0 3 Yielding ie attitude change 0 4 Retention ie persistence over time Incentives in the setting determine the effectiveness of the persuasive appeal 0 Incentives for the new attitudinal position must out weigh those of the current initial attitude 0 Key factor in this theory A person has to remember the content of a message for it to have a lasting impact I Problems 1 Memory of message content does not always matter in persuasion 2 Incentive based predictions do not always work Cognitive Consistency Theories 1950 s1960 s Cognitive Dissonance con ict Theory Festinger 1957 an unpleasant state caused by people s awareness of inconsistency among various beliefs attitudes or actions 0 We are motivated to achieve and maintain cognitive consistency to avoid dissonance Classic Dissonance Experiment 0 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959 had subjects spend an hour performing really boring and repetitive tasks turning knobs on a board I 13 received 20 to tell the next subject that the study was interesting and enjoyable basically they told them to tell the next participants lies I 1 3 received only 1 to tell the lie I 1 3 were control not asked to lie I After telling the next subject participants were asked how much they honestly enjoyed the experiment Participants were directed to an office where interviewer conducted a survey about the study I Eg How enjoyable were the experimental tasksquot I Results those paid 1 for lying saying that the study was fun rated the task as significantly more enjoyable that those who were paid 20 to lie I 1 was insufficient justification to lie Believe I am a good personquot but I did a bad thingquot for no obvious reason an inconsistency resulting in cognitive dissonance Change attitude toward the task believed it was fun Thus it was no longer a lie and the dissonance is eliminated Attitude changed to match behavior so dissonance would be gone so basically they changed their mind in order for them to not feel dissonance or guilt for lying for 1 Those paid 20 had clear external justification to lie therefore had no dissonance and no reason to change attitude 0 Necessary Steps to get an attitude change to match behavior I 1 Unwanted negative consequence and the individual must perceive the action as inconsistent Eg if a person truly thought that knob turningquot was fun it really wasn t a lie to tell the other person but it was so there s the inconsistency I 2 Must take personal responsibility for the act Le a person must make an internal attribution for his her behavior 9 1amp2 are antecedent conditions that produce discomfort I 3 Must experience physiological arousal Several studies show that an uncomfortable feelingquot must be present I 4 Must attribute the arousal to the action If people are tricked into thinking that discomfort is due to something else eg pills they ingested then no attitude change occurs 9 3amp4 are physiological arousal and its interpretation All 4 are required to have an attitude change Cognitive Dissonance vs The MLA Cognitive dissonance theory presented a huge challenge to the message learning approach MLA o It was a part of the cognitive revolutionquot ie behaviorism cannot account for everything Recall the MLA claims that increased incentive leads to greater likelihood of attitude change 0 Going back to Festinger amp Carlsmith if MLA was true then more attitude change should have occurred when people got 2 0 as in the ones who got 20 would have changed their minds just like the 1 people did But it follows the cognitive dissonance theory more because they felt uncomfortable lying for such small amount of incentive and they did take personal responsibility instead of like saying no it was an external justification Cognitive Dissonance vs SelfPerception Some researchers still generated very compelling behaviorist interpretations Recall Selfperception theory Bem 1967 we make inferences about our attitudes by observing our own behaviors when internal cuesquot are weak or ambiguous So like Oh I volunteer at a homeless shelter and conclude that you are helpful or caring According to selfperception theory 0 People don t need to have unpleasant tension and inconsistency to change attitudes 0 People might simply observe their own behaviors I Eg receiving 1 to a lie is a quotweakquot or ambiguous cue They re like 1 is not enough for me to lie yet I did so maybe I did like that activity Death of Attitudes Research By the mid1970s attitudes research was in decline most research was on attribution Reasons 0 Attitudebehavior consistency problems 0 Persuasion effects were difficult to replicate o Con icting findings and theories Lecture 13 Attitude Change Part 11 Message Processing amp Persuasion These models served to organize many con icting findings Predominant theory 9 The Elaboration Likelihood Model ELM Petty amp Cacioppo 1981 The elaboration continuum persuasion processes fall long a quotcontinuumquot of cognitive processing 0 Consider this as synonymous with superficial vs systematic processing from chapter 3 At the mgh end of this continuum is the Central Route 0 Central Route when people elaborate on a persuasive communication readinglistening carefully and thinking about the arguments central merits given I Synonymous to systematic processing At the Low end of this continuum is the Peripheral Route 0 Peripheral Route when people do not elaborate on the arguments of a communication but are instead swayed by factors that are peripheral to the message ie cues heuristics I Synonymous to superficial processing When are people likely to engage in relatively high central vs low peripheral elaboration o The key is whether people have the motivation and the ability to pay attention and think about the information being conveyed 0 Some wellstudied motivational factors include I Need for cognition I Personal relevanceimportance of the topic Example Need for Cognition 0 Need for Cognition NFC Cacioppo amp Petty 1982 An individual difference re ecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities I Individuals who are HIGH in NFC enjoy cognitive activities and engage in them when given a chance I Individuals who are LOW in NFC are cognitive misersquot who avoid effortful thinking unless situational demands require it Example Cacioppo et al 1983 had UI subjects read a persuasive message in favor of a tuition increase 0 12 received a message that only had strong arguments eg more funds are needed to retain top faculty and maintain the prestige of the university 0 12 received a message of only weak arguments eg more tuition in order to give non student taxpayers a break 0 After reading the message attitudes toward the tuition increase were measured 0 Results for LOW NFC s there was not a big difference in attitudes b n the strong arguments vs the weak arguments Those who are HIGH NFC s there was an evidently large difference in attitudes b n the two arguments Therefore the ones who are HIGH NFC s actually put their brain to work and paid attention to the message whereas LOW NFC s really could care less and paid less attention Example Personal Relevance 0 Peripheral Route If people are unmotivated and or unable to process via the central route what aspects of a communication can in uence their attitudes Peripheral cues ie persuasion heuristics some peripheral aspect of a communication that serves as a shortcut for evaluation of an attitudeobject 0 As the personal relevance of a message increases a person is more motivated to think carefully about the arguments presented ie central route Example you would think more deeply about a message on a tuition increase for U1 vs increase in tuition for another university When ability and or motivation is lacking reliance on peripheral cues increases 0 Similar to how reliance on stereotypes increases when people are not processing information carefully Some common cues include 0 Our own mood states 0 Message length quantity quality 0 Source attractiveness doesn t have to be physical attractiveness it can just be like oh look he s a celebrity that s more appealing than some random guy off the street 0 Source credibility Peripheral vs Central 0 As motivation and ability increase the likelihood of using peripheral cues decreases Example Petty Cacioppo and Goldman 1981 had subjects hear an audio message in favor of Senior Comprehensive Examsquot Content of the message given 0 12 given strong arguments eg students will be more likely to get accepted into good graduate programs 0 12 given weak arguments eg anxiety of students will increase thus they will work harder Personal Relevance manipulation o 12 told university is considering the exams for the next school year highrelevance o 12 told exams were being considered for 10 years in the future low relevance Source Expertise manipulation o 12 told message source was a Princeton Professor high expertise o 12 told message source was a high school student low expertise Measured attitudes toward the exams Results High personal relevance subjects more affected by argument quality Low personal relevance people were more in uenced by source expertise So that means the people who cared less about it used a peripheral cue which was the source expertise instead of paying attention to the actual arguments Conclusion 0 The ELM organizes other existing theories and makes predictions of its own I Low elaboration peripheral route processes Conditioning classical and operant Mereexposure effects Selfperception effects I High elaboration central route processes Message learning approach amp I think it includes cognitive dissonance as well Lecture 14 Groups Norms and Conformity The Power of Others Recall Pervasiveness of social in uence 0 Le other people in uence most of our thoughts feeling and behavior whether those others are physically present or not Everyday examples TV and studio audience reactions crowds at sporting events and tip jars Formation of Social Norms Because others heavily in uence us interaction typically produces more similarity Example Sherif 1936 had subjects sit alone in a dark room and focus on a point of light 0 The light appeared to move erratically and then disappeared Each time the light reappeared the subject was asked how far it had moved Across subjects estimates differed greatly The light never actually moved This is an optical illusion called the Autokinetic Effect I A dark room provides no reference point thus a point of light appears to move 0 Later participants were asked to do more trials in groups of 23 and 4 0 Results As group size increased subjects converged more toward the group s estimate Example Asch 1951 1 actual participant and 6 confederates Compared a standard line to a few different other lines There was one clearly correct answer 0 Confederates gave bogus responses in 12 of 18 traits 0 Results 76 made at least 1 conforming response overall 37 conformity on trials Conformity Conformity The convergence of individuals thoughts feelings or behaviors toward a social norm Increased likelihood of conformity when 0 A group has at least 3 members 0 Culture stresses respect for social norms o Admiration of a group s status 0 Individual feels incompetent or insecure o A group is unanimous Types of Conformity 0 Public conformity overt behavior consistent with social norms that are not privately accepted Example was that Asch 1951 s quotlinequot study 0 Private conformity private acceptance of social norms Example was Sheriff 1936 s autokinetic effectquot study Motives to conform o Normative In uence in uence resulting from a person s desire to gain approval or to avoid disapproval from others Again think Asch 1951 s line studyquot 0 O O O o Informational In uence in uence resulting form a person s willingness to accept other s opinions about reality Again think Sheriff s autokinetic effect study Task Importance and Informational In uence Example Baron et al 1996 told UI subjects to identify a number of animated people out of a lineup Each subject was joined by 2 confederates during the identification task 0 Task Difficulty Manipulation I 12 view the lineup for 5 seconds easy I 12 view the lineup for a 12 a second difficult 0 Task Importance Manipulation I 12 told just a preliminary test of eyewitness procedurequot low importance I 12 told establish norms for an actual police procedurequot with a 20 award to the most accurate high importance 0 Results Low importance no differences in percentage of conformity to confederates wrong answers High importance greater percentage of conformity when the task was difficult So when it was important and the task was difficult they went with the groups answer in hopes that they would still get that prize Formation of p Norms Admissions job interviewers other decisionmaking panels etc o Commonsense tells us that groups like these typically form some middleoftheroad consensus This outcome is often referred to as depolarization Depolarization 0 Example Sherif 1936 Autokinetic Effect study participants converged on a middle estimate of how far the light moved 0 However research suggests that compromise usually only happens when group views are evenly split 0 An even division of opinion may actually be rare in many group decision making contexts I Example In a study of jury proceedings Kalvin amp Zeisel 1966 found that 2 15 out of 225 trials studied a majority initially favored acquittal or conviction So what can happen when group views are not equal and thus compromise isn t likely to occur 0 Polarization 0 Group polarization The process by which a group s initial average position becomes more extreme following interaction 0 Polarization is more of the rule rather than the exception 0 Due in part to how differences in the amount of information processing often yield the same results 0 When people are processing information superficially ie low elaboration they may rely on the readymade consensus alone I Consensus as a heuristic provides a shortcut to the position that people believe to be correct and appropriate without using many cognitive resources I Thus resulting in group polarization 0 When people are processing information systematically ie high elaboration they consider not only the positions of others but supporting arguments and evidence I Since there is often a majority viewpoint compared to the minority majority arguments are more numerous get more discussion and seem more compelling Thus resulting in group polarization DEPOLARIZATION finding common ground with group when the compromised position of a group is more moderate than the initial views POLARIZATION individuals opinions to become more extreme after discussion interaction Conformity Pressure When groups become more concerned with reaching consensus than with making the quotrightquot decision actions based on their norms can be disastrous Example Space shuttle challenger in 1986 0 Shuttle exploded due to faulty Orings 0 Before the launch engineers warned NASA that the cold temperatures that day might cause the Oring failure yet NASA proceeded with the launch anyways o A presidential commission on the Challenger disaster concluded that NASA s decision making was awed by an emphasis on agreement rather than dissent Groupthink Group decisionmaking that is impaired by the drive to reach consensus regardless of how the consensus is formed Ianis 1972 applied the term groupthink after analyzing decisionmaking that preceded Pearl Harbor Bay of Pigs and Watergate According to Ianis 1972 groupthink is most likely to occur when a highly cohesive group is under pressure to make decisions Under these conditions group members are likely to 0 Force conformity o Selectively withhold dissenting disagreeing information o Suppress independent thinking 0 Prematurely justify their position Combating Groupthink Ianis proposed a few general guidelines to combat groupthink 0 Open inquiry and dissent must be actively encouraged 0 Bring in outsiders to validate the decision 0 Reduce pressures that may lead to public conformity eg downplay the role of the leader Many of these strategies have been implemented in government decisionmaking protocols Minority In uence Maj orities within a group can have great in uence But certainly minorities can have significant in uence on attitudes and decisionmaking in some situations Minorities often gain in uence by undermining confidence in the correctness of the consensus Some keys to successful minority in uence Strength in numbers Tindale et al 1990 Alternative viewpoint is compelling Clark 1990 Promote systematic processing Nemeth et al 1990 Behavioral consistency Moscovici et al 1969 Example Moscovici et al 1969 had 4 participants and 2 confederates judge the color of unambiguously blue slides in 36 trials Results 0 When confederates insisted that all slides were green a significant number of subjects agreed 0 When confederates deemed only 24 of 36 slides to be green no in uence was observed This behavioral consistency effect has also been shown in other settings 0 Mock jury deliberations Nemeth amp Wachtler 1974 0 Discussions of social issues Mass amp Clark 1983 Lecture 15 Norms amp Behavior Part I Social Norms All human groups establish and teach social norms ie accepted ways of thinking behaving Social norms re ect a group s view of the world itself and others and have a powerful effect on behavior Norms as Guides for Behavior Lewin 1943 believed that changing norms was key to changing certain behaviors During WWII traditional cuts of meat were scarce 0 But US government wanted to keep the civilian population healthy 0 Advocated eating organ meats eg liver kidneys tripe brain Lewin met with small groups homemakers about how to cook organs and overcome family resistance 0 During these meetings willingness to try organs increased producing a shift in norms A control group only listened to a lecture with the same information but did not know how similar others reacted Results 30 of the discussion members cooked the organs at home in the future 0 Only 3 of the control group did Accessibility of Norms Recall accessibility processing principle information that is impacted most readily available tends to have the most impact on thoughts and behaviorquot Often norms must be directly brought to mind before they can guide behavior Example Cialdini et al 1990 placed handbills on car windshields at Arizona State University 0 12 were about littering April is keep Arizona beautiful month Please do not litterquot o 12 were irrelevant to littering 0 Results 25 of irrelevant handbills became litter but only 10 of handbills about littering were discarded Of course norms can also guide behavior when only subtle cues are present Example Cialdini et al 1990 had subjects in either a clean or littered area see a confederate either litter or walkby wo littering 0 Results I Clean setting littered less when a confederate littered I Littered setting littered more when a confederate littered How do Norms Guide Behaviors Enforcement using rewards and punishments to adhere to group standards 0 Perhaps the least effective 0 May lead to public conformity but less likely to lead to private acceptance Internalization most norms become viewed as the right and proper thing to do norms as a re ection of true reality 0 Expresses group identity but perhaps downplays individuality Consensus and Support 0 Can operate with internalization and enforcement as an initial step Frequent Activation 0 As we have learned the more often concepts come to mind eg attitudes stereotypes they are more likely to impact behavior Action Heuristics o Norms can operate as cognitive shortcuts to make decision making less cognitively taxing Norms Guiding Behavior to the Extreme Deindividuation when individuals see themselves solely in terms of group identity their behavior is likely to be guided by group norms alone Deindividuation can produce both pro and antisocial responses Example Iohnson amp Downing 1979 had participants administer shocks to others 0 Uniform Manipulation I 12 subjects dressed in hoods and robes as KKK I 12 dressed in nurses 0 Deindividuation vs Individuation I 12 subjects faces were concealed I 12 faces not concealed 0 Results I Klanlikequot uniforms deindividuated concealed received higher shock than the individuated non concealed I Nurselike deindividuated got lower shocks than the individuated I So basically levels of shock were higher to the Klanlike uniforms than nurselike uniform and the faces concealed got even more higher shocks and as for nurses the nurse not concealed got way more shocks than those whose face was concealed In a sense Deindividuation leads to greater adherence devotion to social roles The Power of Social Roles Social roles Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave o Roles can be very helpful people know what to expect from each other 0 However people can go so far into a role that their identities and personalities get lost Example The Stanford Prison Experimentquot Haney Banks and Zimbardo 1973 o Built a mock prison at Stanford and paid students to play the roles of guards or prisoners o Guards and prisoners were outfitted with appropriate attire o The study was planned for 2 weeks to see whether students would act consistent with the roles BUT Results the students quickly assumed these roles The experiment had to be stopped after only 6 days I The guards became verbally and physically abusive and the prisoners became passive and withdrawn I Some prisoners became so anxious and depressed they had to be released earlier I Even though everyone knew it was just a psychology experiment the power of social roles took over Discussion Con icting aims hypothesis when groups can achieve their goals only at the expense of another group group 39s members will become hostile to group 239s members Sherif s camp study 0 Created con ict by tournament of games o What resulted from the intergroup con ict I Within the groups Strong morale and cooperation Social stratification Hierarchy became created I Bn groups Con ict Contact hypothesis pleasant social contacts b n member of con icting groups will reduce friction gt this by itself is not true 0 He tried going to the movies and eating together but they still had con ict b n the 2 groups 0 Why didn39t it work Bc it39s just interacting and there39s not enough stereotypic inconsistent information about the other group Reducing Intergroup Con ict o Superordinate goals mutual goal that both groups have to work together to achieve I Ex fix water pipe fix brokendown truck paying and choosing a movie Increased friendship Does competition always promote con ict 0 No because examples like competition to raise money for a charity doesn t Does cooperation always produce harmony o No because you probably had to give something up Or the effect doesn39t last like after you work with them it goes right back to con ict Factors that could lead to quothealthy competitionquot reduce the stakes Independent vs Interdependent Selfconstrual how you view yourself in uences behavior the role of others in the social setting and relationships with others 0 Those with an independent self construal define themselves in terms of internal attributes such as traits abilities values and preferences I Exemplified by American culture I People are unique and separate I They value personal independence I Behavior a function of personal thoughts and feelings I Social setting helps the person learn how they are I Important to express oneself 0 Those with an interdependent selfconstrual define themselves in terms of their relationship with others I Exemplified by Japanese culture I People are connected I Value placed on maintaining harmony with others I Behavior is a function of other s personal thoughts and feelings I The self is situation specific highly changeable I Important to be indirect and intuit other s needs and fit in stay in one s place Self control Independent 0 Control as a means to assert one39s own thoughts views desires directed outward Interdependent 0 Control as a means to adjust oneself effectively to the demands of others and the situation directed inward Self esteem Independent 0 Ability to express oneself and to place a positive value on one39s personal attributes o Expressing pride 0 Avoiding frustration from within which could damage your selfesteem Interdependent 0 Ability to adjust to the context restrain personal needs amp to maintain harmony with others 0 Restraining personal needs in order to fit in o Avoiding shame from others which could damage selfesteem Interdependence What happens to personal needs in the interdependent construal of the self 0 Less important 0 Reciprocal monitoring reciprocal contributions How do you prevent others from taking advantage of you in an interdependent environment 0 Limit ingroup to people you know will reciprocate 0 Only develop relationships with those who share a quotcommon fatequot 0 Differential treatment of out group members 0 Ingroup may be more narrowly defined Cognitive Dissonance inconsistency b n our beliefs attitudes and our behaviors Gives us uncomfortable feeling we are motivated to reduce Can reduce dissonance by changing either our behavior or our attitudes About the study we had to read What do stone et al say about fearbased persuasion tactics with regard to AIDS prevention Results in denial Underestimate changes of contracting AIDS Overestimate how safe they are What did the authors hope to accomplish by applying principles of cognitive dissonance to AIDS prevention Motivate real behavioral change Who were the participants Sexually active 1825 year olds Excluded people who had been tested for HIV Why was this important Bc it39s their target audience What did the tell participants the study was about Creating an AIDS awareness program 0 Find the best communicator to present to HS students 50 0 Relationship b n developing a persuasive message and memory 50 Why did the experimenters develop an elaborate cover story Demand characteristics they didn39t want the participants to say things they thought the researchers wanted to hear Independent variables video Dependent h pocrisy or commitment only Commitment Video No video Mindfulness Questionnaire about self 9 Hypocrisy Mindful only No questionnaire Commitment only Control info only Hypocrisy condition participants were more likely to purchase condoms Who had more future intentions to use condoms Hypocrisy and commitment only video was important Who reported more condom use in the followup interviews 3 months later None of them Thus it didn39t last Applications How do Stone et al suggest that you could modify this as a real intervention technique How to keep it long term needs to be figured out Groupthink bias style of thinking that renders group members incapable of making rational decisions Conditions that encourage groupthink 0 High group cohesion 0 Leader preference for a certain outcome 0 Group isolation from qualified outside in uence Indicators or effects of groupthink o Feelings of invulnerability o Rationalization o Morality o Stereotyped views of others 0 Pressure on those who dissent o Selfcensorship just being quiet o Illusion of unanimity o Mindguarding Deficits in decisionmaking come from groupthink 0 Few alternatives in this case either you launch right now or you don39t instead of waiting or improving or we 0 Little or no reexamination of alternatives 0 Rejection of expert opinions o Rejection of negative information 0 Lack of contingency plans like backup plans basically What sort of research design did the authors use 0 Case study How did time and leadership style in uence the challenger decision 0 Time considerable time pressure which might interact with group characteristics 0 Leadership style leadership varied but authors think that the importance of leadership style was underestimated in the original model What strategies might be used to reduce groupthink 0 Make group aware of effects of time pressure 0 Have an active participatory leaders 0 Bring in outside experts 0 Play the devil39s advocate o Critically appraise all alternatives 0 Have the leader NOT express an initial preference
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'