Social Thinking Attribution Theory Why do people act
Social Thinking • Attribution Theory – Why do people act the way they do? – Is it the situation or is it their disposition or attitude? • Fundamental Attribution Error – Tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition.
The Stanford Prison Experiment • Philip Zimbardo – Stanford University (1971) • What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? • Shows the impact of role playing and the situation on attitudes and behavior. • You don’t know how you’ll act in a situation until you’ve been there.
Social Thinking • Self serving bias – We attribute our success to internal factors and our failures to external factors They got lucky. We deserve this win!!
Social Thinking • Cognitive Dissonance – psychological discomfort created by inconsistency among a person’s beliefs or attitudes, and their actions. • Induces a “drive state” – need to change behavior or belief so that they are consistent I’m just a social drinker.
Social Thinking • Foot in the door phenomenon – Tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request • Freedman & Fraser (1966) – Small request followed by a big request – When perform small request, 3 times as likely to then agree to big request
Social Thinking • Social facilitation – stronger performance of an easy task when in the presence of others • Social loafing – tend to slack off when other people’s efforts are involved
Group Tendencies • Deindividuation – abandon normal restraint when in the presence of others – Less accountable, less aware, more violent
Asch’s experiment 1 2 3
Asch’s conformity experiment • • 8 confederates, one real subject Real subject goes last Confederates report wrong answers What percentage of subjects gave the same wrong answer? • 76% gave at least 1 incorrect response • Only 1% gave incorrect response in the control group
Factors that influence conformity • Group size – More people = more conformity – Conformity is highest in groups of 3 -5, then levels off • Social support – If Asch added ally who failed to conform, subject conformed less, but. . . – Ally need not give the correct answer – Ally need not be competent (Can be practically blind)
Social Norms and Compliance: Norm of Reciprocity • Reciprocity Principle - Obligated to return favors • Door In The Face Technique – Make very large request (gimme $200) – Then make concession (OK, $20) – Target also feels he has to make concession – “That’s not all” technique – come down from an initially inflated price
Milgram’s obedience experiment • After the Holocaust was exposed following WWII, questions arose concerning how such a tragedy could have happened. • Were these Nazis a different kind of human, with no thresholds of violence? • Would you act as the Nazi’s did and cooperate with the executions in the concentration camps? • Research shows that you probably would.
Milgram’s obedience experiment • • • Yale Univ. Participant is introduced to a tall, sharp and stern looking experimenter (Milgram) wearing a white lab coat. The participant is also introduced to a friendly co-participant, who is actually a confederate (a person pretending to be a participant, like a rigged audience for a magician). Milgram explains that the experiment investigates punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher", and one will be the "learner. " Rigged lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the true participant will be the "teacher. “ Every time the “learner” misses a question the “teacher” must submit a shock of increasing voltage.
Milgram’s obedience experiment The Majority of subjects (68%) continued to the end.
Milgram’s obedience experiment • Milgram's results were alarming. Of the 40 participants he surveyed, 68% of them ended up delivering the full 450 volt treatment. • 15 of the 40 ended up convulsing with epileptic laughter. • Participants went temporarily mad and started tearing their hair out.
Social Influence • Group Think – Mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives • Bay of Pigs, Vietnam • Group Polarization – Enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group
Social Relations • Just-World Phenomenon – Tendency of people to believe the world is just – People get what they deserve and deserve what they get
Social Thinking • In-group Bias – Tendency to favor one’s own group
Social Relations • Scapegoat Theory – Theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame • Prejudice – An unjustifiable (usually negative) attitude toward a group and it’s members – Involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory action. • Prejudice = Attitude • Discrimination = Behavior
Roots of Prejudice • Schemas – a concept or framework that helps us organize and interpret information • Categorization simplifies our world • Availability heuristics are mental shortcuts to decision making that are not always correct – vivid examples dominate our thinking
Diffusion of Responsibility §When people thought they alone heard the calls for help from a person they believed to be having an epileptic seizure, they usually helped. §But when they thought four others were also hearing the calls, fewer than a third responded.
- Slides: 29