3. Section 1: Attributing Behavior
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
How do we tend to explain others’ behavior and our own?
3
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, how we tend to
explain others’ behavior In addition to 3.0 , I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how we tend to explain others’
behavior, and compare/contrast multiple aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms with the goal: how we tend to
explain others’ behavior, but need to review this
concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
4. Fact or Falsehood
1. Compared with people in Western countries, those in East Asian cultures
are more sensitive to situational influences on behavior.
2. To change people’s racial behaviors, we first need to change their racial
attitudes.
3. Chimps are more likely to yawn after observing another chimp yawn.
4. Most people would refuse to obey an authority figure who told them to
hurt an innocent person.
5. Studies of college and professional athletic events indicate that home
teams win about 6 in 10 games.
6. Individuals pull harder in a team tug-of-war than when they pull in a
one-on-one tug-of-war.
7. The higher the morale and harmony of a social group, the more likely are
its members to make a good decision.
8. Suicide bombers and those who support them tend to be uneducated
and desperately poor.
9. From research on liking and loving, it is clear that opposites do attract.
10. We are less likely to offer help to a stranger if other bystanders are
present.
5. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Attribution Theory
• ATTRIBUTION THEORY (FRITZ HEIDER)
– How we explain someone's behaviors in terms of
dispositional (personality) or situational effects
• FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
– Think it is more personality and less the situation
that contributes to someone’s behavior
• Example: Why did that person not say hi to
me?
• ACTOR-OBSERVER BIAS (Self-
Serving Bias)
• We attribute other’s behavior to dispositional
attribution and our own behavior to
situational
• Happens more in individualistic cultures than
collectivistic cultures
5
11. 1. How do we tend to explain others’ behavior and our own?
11
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, how we tend to
explain others’ behavior In addition to 3.0 , I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how we tend to explain others’
behavior, and compare/contrast multiple aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms with the goal: how we tend to
explain others’ behavior, but need to review this
concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
12. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Formative AP Question
Jessie and a friend are driving in rush-hour traffic
when a car suddenly cuts in front of them in order
to reach an unmarked exit ramp. Jessie’s
passenger points out that the circumstances may
have required the other drive to do so, while Jessie
loudly criticizes the personal qualities of the other
driver. Jessie’s response is best explained by
A)Cognitive dissonance
B)The fundamental attribution error
C)A self-fulfilling prophecy
D)The mere exposure effect
E)Social inhibition theory
12
13. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Formative Summary
The fundamental attribution error occurs when individuals do which of
the following?
A.mold their interpretations of the past to fit how events actually turned
out
B.Incorrectly assume that virtually all behavior is determined by genetic
factors.
C.Underestimate the influence of unconscious motivation when trying
to explain their own behavior
D.Overestimate the influence of personal qualities relative to situational
factors when trying to explain the behavior of others
E.Assume that very attractive people tend to be more intelligent and
more competent than people who are somewhat less attractive
13
15. Section 2: Attitudes and Actions
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
Does what we think affect what we do, or does what we do affect what we think?
15
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, the interplay of
thinking and actions. In addition to 3.0 , I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze the interplay of thinking and actions,
and compare/contrast multiple aspects of the
learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with the interplay of
thinking and actions, but need to review this concept
more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
18. Cognitive Dissonance (Leon Festinger)
• The discomfort we feel when two thoughts are inconsistent
Rationalize why we do something
• ($2 vs. $200 to write an essay you disagree with)
• Inconsistent behavior could can someone’s attitude
21. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Cognitive Dissonance
• People deal with dissonance either by changing
one of the cognitions or adding a new cognition
to explain the conflict.
• Festinger believed that the need to reduce
dissonance is as basic as need for safety or to
avoid hunger. It is a drive that compels us to be
consistent, and the more important the issue
and the greater the discrepancy between
attitude and behaviour, the greater the feelings
of dissonance experienced.
• This theory recognizes that people do not
always think rationally. People do try to
rationalize their behavior, sometimes in a
irrational way.
32. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Attitude and Behavior
• Persuasive messages can be
processed through the central
route or the peripheral route.
• The central route to persuasion
involves deeply processing the
content of the message
(logistics or statistics); what
about this potato chip is so
much better than all the
others?
• The peripheral route-involves
other aspects of the message
including the characteristics of
the person imparting the
message (the communicator).
•
You have a belief
that cheating on
tests is bad.
But you cheat on
a test!!!
The teacher was
really bad so in
that class it is OK.
33. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
FYI: When are we most persuaded?
• Two-sided Arguments
– Present both sides and discredit the opponent’s
message
• Emotional Appeals (Peripheral Route)
– loyalty, desire, fear (works best)
• The Messenger
– Experts, Trustworthy, Physically Attractive, Similar to
the audience
• The Situation
– People in a good mood are more likely to be persuaded
(less likely to evaluate things carefully)
• The Audience
– Emotional appeals work better with children where
logic works better on adults
33
34. Does what we think affect what we do, or does what we do
affect what we think?
34
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, the interplay of
thinking and actions. In addition to 3.0 , I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze the interplay of thinking and actions,
and compare/contrast multiple aspects of the
learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with the interplay of
thinking and actions, but need to review this concept
more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
38. Section 3: Conformity and Obedience
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
What do experiments on conformity and compliance reveal about the power of
social influence?
38
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about compliance and
conformity and what they reveal about social
influence. In addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate
applications and inferences beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze compliance and conformity and what
they reveal about social influence,, and
compare/contrast the aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with compliance and
conformity and what they reveal about social
influence, but need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
48. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Formative Assessment Summary
Gary has signed up to attend a college orientation. He shows up to the college
campus, which he has never been to before, and sees a group of young people
entering a large building. He follows them in, thinking they are going to the
orientation, only to find out they are there for a lecture on earth sciences. He
gets up, travels down the sidewalk, and finally meets up with other pre –
freshman. While talking to the other pre-freshmen, he unconsciously starts to
mimic their gestures. After a brief orientation presentation, a college advisor
goes around the room and asks people to say their name and prospective
major. Gary, wants to major in Romantic British Literature, but says “pre-
med” (even though he has no desire to be a doctor) because several other
people before him said “pre-med” and received smiles from others. What
psychological terms can you spot from this scenario?
48
52. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Milgram’s Variations: Generate a Hypothesis
19 different experiments in all, here are a few:
– What if the ‘Learner’ says he has a heart
condition?
– What if he conducted the study at a
location other than Yale University?
– What if the experimenter doesn’t wear a
lab coat, but regular clothes?
– What if women are used as the “teachers?”
– What if they see another ‘teacher’ refusing
to go on?
– What if the ‘teacher’ can see the ‘learner’
being ‘shocked’ is in pain?
– What if the teacher, did not directly shock,
but instructed someone else to do it?
52
More obedient, rate of
shocking increases
Less obedient, rate of
shocking decreases
Rate of obedience stays
the same as the original
study
55. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Compare and Contrast
Compare Milgram’s Obedience Study and the Real-life McDonalds
incident in terms of similarities and differences.
55
Milgram’s Study McDonald’s Incident
• Occurs in
laboratory
• Authority figure is
in the room
• Victim is in other
room (unseen)
• The victim was
male and older
• Happens in real life
• Authority figure is
not present in the
room
• Victim is in the
same room
• Victim was female
and young
• An authority figure
is male and seems
legit
• Foot-in-the-door
demands are
present
• People willing
comply against
better judgment
• Leads to
psychological
trauma
57. What do experiments on conformity and compliance reveal about the power of
social influence?
57
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about compliance and
conformity and what they reveal about social
influence. In addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate
applications and inferences beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze compliance and conformity and what
they reveal about social influence,, and
compare/contrast the aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with compliance and
conformity and what they reveal about social
influence, but need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
60. Section 4: Group Influence• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
• How is out behavior affected by the presences of others or by being part of a group?
• What are group polarization and groupthink?
• How do cultural norms affect our behavior?
• How much power do we have as individuals? Can a minority sway a majority?
60
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, how groups
influence our thinking patterns and behavior In
addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate applications and
inferences beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how groups influence our thinking
patterns and behavior), and compare/contrast the
Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with how groups
influence our thinking patterns and behavior, but
need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
62. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
How can behavior be influenced by simply being part of a group?
• SOCIAL FACILITATION
– People good at a task will perform better when
other people are watching
– Example: Boys will reel a fishing rod faster
when around others
– Example: going faster at the traffic light
– Increases with the presence of others because of
arousal
– Even animals perform behaviors faster in
groups (animal response?)
• SOCIAL INHIBITION
– People bad at a task will perform worse when
other people are watching
– Nervousness gets the better of them
62
74. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Formative AP Question
Which of the following is the best example of social
inhibition?
A)A child refuses to imitate the modeled behavior of
an adult.
B)An intelligent, charming person acts uncaring
and sullen at a party.
C)A person who is very good at “ring toss”
performs even better as a crowd gathers.
D)A person declines to contribute to a church group
even though a gift is offered to them.
E)A person who is a poor bowler begins to bowl
even worse than usual when several friends are
watching. 74
75. • How is out behavior affected by the presences of others or by being part of a group?
• What are group polarization and groupthink?
• How do cultural norms affect our behavior?
• How much power do we have as individuals? Can a minority sway a majority?
75
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, how groups
influence our thinking patterns and behavior In
addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate applications and
inferences beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how groups influence our thinking
patterns and behavior), and compare/contrast the
Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with how groups
influence our thinking patterns and behavior, but
need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
76. Section 5: Prejudice• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
• What is prejudice?
• What are the social and emotional roots of prejudice?
• What are the cognitive roots of prejudice?
76
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about prejudice and how it
influences thinking and group behavior, I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze with prejudice and how it influences
thinking and group behavior, and compare/contrast
the Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with prejudice and
how it influences thinking and group behavior, but
need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
89. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Cognition and Prejudice
– One way we simplify our world is to categorize
(schemas). We categorize people into groups
by stereotyping them.
– The key is to overcome our stereotypes!
– In vivid cases such as the 9/11 attacks,
terrorists can feed stereotypes or prejudices.
• Although 9/11 made us believe that most
terrorists are Muslim, in fact, most
terrorists are non-Muslims.
– Just World Phenomenon:
• The tendency of people to believe the
world is just, and people get what they
deserve and deserve what they get.
• Example: Unemployed people are lazy
89
92. • What is prejudice?
• What are the social and emotional roots of prejudice?
• What are the cognitive roots of prejudice?
92
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about prejudice and how it
influences thinking and group behavior, I can
demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze with prejudice and how it influences
thinking and group behavior, and compare/contrast
the Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with prejudice and
how it influences thinking and group behavior, but
need to review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
93. Section 6: Aggression
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
• What biological factors make us more prone to hurt one another?
• What psychological factors may trigger aggressive behavior?
93
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about aggression and how
it affects thinking and behavior, In addition to 3.0 , I
can demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze aggression and how it affects thinking
and behavior and compare/contrast the Aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with aggression and
how it affects thinking and behavior, but need to
review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
95. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
The Biology of Aggression
• Genetics
– Identical twins are likely to report the same temperament
– The Y (male) chromosome increases aggression
– Monoamine oxidase A
• Neural Influences
– Amygdala plays a role (deep brain stimulation)
– Lack of activity in the Orbital Cortex
– Many death row inmates show brain damage
– Frontal lobe may inhibit aggression through decision
making
• Biochemical Influences
– Testosterone increases aggression
• Teen Boys (w/ high testosterone) have increased
bullying
• As testosterone diminishes with ages, so does
aggression
– Drinking alcohol is correlated with aggression
102. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Social Causes of Aggression
• OBSERVED AGGRESSION
– Desensitized to violence by watching television
– Sexually coercive men are promiscuous and hostile in their
relationships with women. This coerciveness has increased due to
television viewing of R- and X-rated movies.
– Absent fathers may increase aggression
• SOCIAL SCRIPTS
– The media portrays social scripts and generates mental tapes in the
minds of the viewers.
– When confronted with new situations individuals may rely on such
social scripts. If social scripts are violent in nature, people may act
them out.
• VIDEO GAMING & AGRESSIVENESS
– Virtual reality gaming increases aggressive behavior compared to
average video games
– Various studies show that aggressive video games lead to more angry
behavior 102
103. • What biological factors make us more prone to hurt one another?
• What psychological factors may trigger aggressive behavior?
103
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about aggression and how
it affects thinking and behavior, In addition to 3.0 , I
can demonstrate applications and inferences beyond
what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze aggression and how it affects thinking
and behavior and compare/contrast the Aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with aggression and
how it affects thinking and behavior, but need to
review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
106. Section 7: Attraction and Love
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
• Why do we befriend or fall in love with some people and not others?
• How does romantic love typically change as time passes?
106
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about how attraction and
love affect thinking and behavior) In addition to 3.0 ,
I can demonstrate applications and inferences
beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how attraction and love affect thinking
and behavior, and compare/contrast the Aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with how attraction
and love affect thinking and behavior, but need to
review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
118. • Why do we befriend or fall in love with some people and not others?
• How does romantic love typically change as time passes?
118
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about how attraction and
love affect thinking and behavior) In addition to 3.0 ,
I can demonstrate applications and inferences
beyond what was taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze how attraction and love affect thinking
and behavior, and compare/contrast the Aspects of
the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with how attraction
and love affect thinking and behavior, but need to
review this concept more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete 2.0
tasks
119. Section 8: Altruism and Peace-Making
• Learning Goals:
– Students should be able to answer the following:
• When are we most and least likely to help others?
• How do social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict?
• How can we transform feelings of prejudice, aggression and conflict into attitudes that promote
peace?
119
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, altruism and
peacemaking In addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate
applications and inferences beyond what was
taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze altruism and peacemaking, and
compare/contrast the Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with altruism and
peacemaking, but need to review this concept
more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete
2.0 tasks
120. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Altruism
• ALTRUISM - unselfish regard for the
welfare of others.
• DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
– When more people are around to help,
people are less likely to give aid
• BYSTANDER EFFECT
– The tendency for any given bystander to be
less likely to give aid if other people are
present
– EXAMPLE:
• The Genovese rape and murder case
• The Office Cubical Experiment
• Who will NOT help?
– Not sure if the person really needs help
– Some people think there is nothing they can
do
– Fear of injury or embarrassment
– Someone else appears is better qualified
120
123. PrejudiceAttribution
CategorizingDissonance
CultsBystanderAggressionLoveAttraction
AttitudeObedienceComplianceGroupthinkConformity
Why do we help?
• SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
– Weighting the rewards and costs of
helping (think cost-benefit analysis) We
maintain relationships with physically
attractive and people who like us people
because of this
• RECIPROCITY NORM
– We have been socialized (taught) to give
as much as we receive
– Example: Secret Santa, St. Jude
donations
• SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY NORM
– We have been socialized to help those
who don't have the ability to help
themselves
123
127. • When are we most and least likely to help others?
• How do social traps and mirror-image perceptions fuel social conflict?
• How can we transform feelings of prejudice, aggression and conflict into attitudes that
promote peace?
127
Rating Student Evidence
4.0
Expert
I can teach someone else about, altruism and
peacemaking In addition to 3.0 , I can demonstrate
applications and inferences beyond what was
taught
3.0
Proficient
I can analyze altruism and peacemaking, and
compare/contrast the Aspects of the learning goal.
2.0
Developing
I can identify terms associated with altruism and
peacemaking, but need to review this concept
more.
1.0
Beginning
I need prompting and more support to complete
2.0 tasks
Hinweis der Redaktion
Social psychology is the scientific study of how a person’s behavior, thoughts, feelings are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others. there are several sections in this chapter, there are really only three main areas discussion: social influence, the ways in which a person’s behavior can be affected people; social cognition, the ways in which people think about other people; interaction, the positive and negative aspects of people relating to others.
1. T (p. 644) 2. F (p. 647) 3. T (p. 650) 4. F (p. 654) 5. T (p. 658) 6. F (p. 658) 7. F (p. 660) 8. F (p. 673) 9. F (p. 682)
10. T (p. 685
Attribution theory states that we tend to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior. We may explain people’s behavior in terms of internal dispositions or in terms of the external situation. For example, a teacher may explain a child’s hostility in terms of an aggressive personality or as a reaction to stress or abuse.
The fundamental attribution error—our tendency to overestimate personality influences and to underestimate situational influences—can lead us to unwarranted conclusions about others’ personality traits. For example, we may blame the poor and the unemployed for their own misfortune.
Attribution theory is another area of study within the field of social cognition. Attribution theory tries to explain how people determine the cause of what they observe.
For instance, if your friend Charley told you he got a perfect score on his math test, you might find yourself thinking that Charley is very good at math. In that case, you have made a dispositional or person attribution.
Alternatively, you might attribute Charley’s success to a situational factor, such as an easy test; in that case you make a situation attribution. Attributions can also be stable or unstable.
If you infer that Charley has always been a math whiz, you have made both a person attribution and a stable attribution, also called a person-stable attribution.
On the other hand, if you think that Charley studied a lot for this one test you have made a person-unstable attribution. Similarly, if you believe that Ms. Gawel, Charley’s math teacher, is an easy teacher, you have made a situation-stable attribution.
If you think that Ms. Mahoney is a tough teacher who happened to give one easy test, you have made a situation-unstable attribution.
When looking at the behavior of others, people tend to overestimate the importance of dispositional factors and underestimate the role of situational factors. This tendency is known as the fundamental
attribution error.
Say that you go to a party where you are introduced to Claude, a young man you have never met before. Although you attempt to engage Claude in conversation, he is unresponsive. He looks past you and, soon after, seizes upon an excuse to leave. Most people would conclude that Claude is an unfriendly person. Few consider that something in the situation may have contributed to Claude’s behavior. Perhaps Claude just had a terrible fight with his girlfriend, Isabelle. Maybe on the way to the party he had a minor car accident. The point is that people systematically seem to overestimate the role of dispositional factors in influencing another person’s actions.
Many cross-cultural psychologists have argued that the fundamental attribution error is far less likely to occur in collectivist cultures than in individualistic cultures. In an individualistic culture, like the American culture, the importance and uniqueness of the individual is stressed. In more collectivist cultures, like Japanese culture, a person’s link to various groups such as family or company is stressed. Cross-cultural research suggests that people in collectivist cultures are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error, perhaps because they are more attuned to the ways that different situations influence their own behavior.
The tendency for people to overestimate the number of people who agree with them is called the false-consensus effect. For instance, if Jamal dislikes horror movies, he is likely to think that most other people share his aversion. Conversely, Sabrina, who loves a good horror flick, overestimates the number of people who share her passion.
Self-serving bias is the tendency to take more credit for good outcomes than for bad ones. For instance, a basketball coach would be more likely to emphasize her or his role in the team’s championship win than in their heartbreaking first-round tournament loss.
Answer B
D
Produced by Adam Davidson, this program won the 1990 Oscar for the best short film. It provides a wonderful introduction to social perception, errors in social thinking (including the fundamental attribution error), and the power of first impressions. The film is a simple account of a middle-aged White woman’s walk through a large urban railroad station. As she navigates through the station to her departing train, she comes face-to-face with her own prejudices regarding Black males and homeless people. The program powerfully illustrates principles of perception illustrated earlier in the course, including top-down processing and the effect of expectations. You could use this to either open or conclude your discussion of social psychology. Begin the class discussion by asking your students what went through their minds as they followed the story. For example, what judgments were they making about the primary characters who appear in the story?
Attitudes are feelings, often influenced by our beliefs, that predispose us to respond in a particular way to objects, people, and events. For example, we may feel dislike for a person because we believe he or she is mean, and, as a result, act unfriendly toward that person.
The mere exposure effect states that the more one is exposed to something, the more one will come to like it. Therefore, in the world of advertising, more is better. When you walk into the supermarket, you will be more likely to buy the brand of potato chips you have seen advertised thousands of times rather than one that you have never heard of before.
Attitudes often predict our behavior. Public opinion about the reality and dangers of global climate change can change with effects on both personal behaviors and public policies.
Sometimes if you can change people’s behavior, you can change their attitudes. Cognitive dissonance theory is based on the idea that people are motivated to have consistent attitudes and behaviors. When they do not, they experience unpleasant mental tension or dissonance.
For example, suppose (Student name) thinks that studying is only for geeks. If she then studies for 10 hours for her chemistry test, she will experience cognitive dissonance. Since she cannot, at this point, alter her behavior (she has already studied for 10 hours), the only way to reduce this dissonance is to change her attitude and decide that studying does not necessarily make someone a geek. Note that this change in attitude happens without conscious awareness.
Festinger and Carlsmith.
Their participants performed a boring task and were then asked to lie and tell the next subject (actually a confederate1 of the experimenter) that they had enjoyed the task. In one condition, subjects were paid $1 to lie, and in the other condition they were paid $20.
Afterward, the participants’ attitudes toward the task were measured. Contrary to what reinforcement theory would predict, those subjects who had been paid $1 were found to have significantly more positive attitudes toward the experiment than those who were paid $20.
People tend to think that when someone does something nice for them, they ought to do something nice in return. Norms of reciprocity is at work when you feel compelled to send money to the charity that sent you free return address labels or when you cast your vote in the student election for the candidate that handed out those delicious chocolate chip cookies.
Central route persuasion occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts. Peripheral route persuasion occurs when people are influenced by incidental cues, such as a speaker’s attractiveness. Attitudes affect actions when external influences on what we say and do are minimal, and when the attitude is sta- ble, specific to the behavior, and easily recalled.
B
B
B
A major area of research in social psychology is how an individual’s behavior can be affected by another’s actions or even merely by another person’s presence. A number of studies have illustrated that people perform tasks better in front of an audience than they do when they are alone. They yell louder, run faster, and reel in a fishing rod more quickly. This phenomenon, that the presence of others improves task performance, is known as social facilitation. Later studies, however, found that when the task being observed was a difficult one rather than a simple, well-practiced skill, being watched by others actually hurt performance, a finding known as social impairment.
Solomon Asch (1951) conducted one of the most interesting conformity experiments. He brought participants into a room of confederates and asked them to make a series of simple perceptual judgments. Asch showed the participants three vertical lines of varying sizes and asked them to indicate which one was the same length as a different target line. All members of the group gave their answers aloud, and the participant was always the last person to speak. All of the trials had a clear, correct answer. However, on some of them, all of the confederates gave the same, obviously incorrect judgment. Asch was interested in what the participants would do. Would they conform to a judgment they knew to be wrong or would they differ from the group?
Asch found that in approximately one-third of the cases when the confederates gave an incorrect answer, the participants conformed. Furthermore, approximately 70 percent of the participants conformed on at least one of the trials. In general, studies have suggested that conformity is most likely to occur when a group’s opinion is unanimous. Although it would seem that the larger the group, the greater conformity that would be expressed, studies have shown that groups larger than three (in addition to the participant) do not significantly increase the tendency to conform.
We are sensitive to social norms and so we sometimes conform to gain social approval (normative social influence). At other times, we accept information about reality provided by the group (informational social influence).
We are sensitive to social norms and so we sometimes conform to gain social approval (normative social influence). At other times, we accept information about reality provided by the group (informational social influence).
The chameleon effect refers to our natural tendency to mimic others. Unconsciously mimicking others’ expressions, postures, and voice tones helps us feel what they are feeling. This helps explain why we feel happier around happy people and why research has revealed a mood linkage, a sharing of ups and downs. Research participants in an experiment tend to rub their own face when confederates rub their face; similarly, the participants shake their own foot when they are with a foot-shaking person. The most empathic people mimic and are liked the most.
Chameleon effect, conformity, mood-linkage
n the Milgram studies, the experimenter ordered “teachers” to deliver shocks to a “learner” for wrong answers. Torn between obeying the experimenter and responding to the learner’s pleas, the people usually chose to obey orders, even though it supposedly meant harming the learner. Obedience was highest when the person giving the orders was close at hand and was perceived to be a legitimate authority, when the authority figure was supported by a prestigious institution, when the victim was depersonalized or at a distance, and when there were no role models for
def iance.
The experiments demonstrate that social influences can be strong enough to make people conform to falsehoods or capitulate to cruelty. The studies, because of their design, also illustrate how great evil sometimes grows out of people’s compliance with lesser evils. Evil does not require monstrous characters but ordinary people corrupted by an evil situation. By understanding the process- es that shape our behavior, we may be less susceptible to external social pressures in real-life situations that lead us to violate our own internal standards.
Heart Condition: No difference; Yale vs Bridgeport- Drops to 47%; Lab coat, drops slightly; Women- no change; seeing someone refuse- drops to 10%, Seeing the person shocked decreases it to about 30%, Instructed someone else to do it- 93%. Experimenter is on the phone – 20%
Over 70 such occurrences were reported in 30 U.S. states until an incident in 2004 in Mount Washington, Kentucky (population 9,117), finally led to the arrest of David R. Stewart, a 37‑year-old employee of Corrections Corporation of America, a firm contracted by several states (including Louisiana[1] and Texas[2]) to provide corrections officers at private detention facilities.
Answer C
Answer E
Experiments on social facilitation reveal that the presence of observers can arouse individuals, strengthening the most likely response and so boosting their performance on easy or well-learned tasks but hindering it on difficult or newly learned ones. When people pool their efforts toward a group goal
Sometimes people take advantage of being part of a group by social loafing. Social loafing is the phenomenon when individuals do not put in as much effort when acting as part of a group as they do when acting alone. One explanation for this effect is that when alone, an individual’s efforts are more easily discernible than when in a group. Thus, as part of a group, a person may be less motivated to put in an impressive performance. In addition, being part of a group may encourage members to take advantage of the opportunity to reap the rewards of the group effort without taxing themselves unnecessarily.
social loafing may occur as individuals exert less effort.
Sometimes people take advantage of being part of a group by social loafing. Social loafing is the phenomenon when individuals do not put in as much effort when acting as part of a group as they do when acting alone. One explanation for this effect is that when alone, an individual’s efforts are more easily discernible than when in a group. Thus, as part of a group, a person may be less motivated to put in an impressive performance. In addition, being part of a group may encourage members to take advantage of the opportunity to reap the rewards of the group effort without taxing themselves unnecessarily.
ocial loafing may occur as individuals exert less effort. When a group experience arouses people and makes them anonymous, they become less self-aware and self-restrained, a psychological state known as deindividuation.
Sometimes people get swept up by a group and do things they never would have done if on their own such as looting or rioting. This loss of self-restraint occurs when group members feel anonymous and aroused, and this phenomenon is known as deindividuation.
Sometimes people get swept up by a group and do things they never would have done if on their own such as looting or rioting. This loss of self-restraint occurs when group members feel anonymous and aroused, and this phenomenon is known as deindividuation.
Group polarization is the tendency of a group to make more extreme decisions than the group members would make individually. Studies about group polarization usually have participants give their opinions individually, then group them to discuss their decisions, and then have the group make a decision.
Within groups, discussions among like-minded members often produce group polarization, an enhancement of the group’s prevailing tendencies. Group polarization can have beneficial results, as when it reinforces the resolve of those in a self-help group. But it can also have dire conse- quences, as it can strengthen a terrorist mentality. Sometimes, group interaction distorts important decisions.
Explanations for group polarization include the idea that in a group, individuals may be exposed to new, persuasive arguments they had not thought of themselves and that the responsibility for an extreme decision in a group is diffused across the group’s many members.
Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis, describes the tendency for some groups to make bad decisions. Groupthink occurs when group members suppress their reservations about the ideas supported by the group. As a result, a kind of false unanimity is encouraged, and flaws in the group’s decisions may be overlooked. Highly cohesive groups involved in making risky decisions seem to be at particular risk for groupthink.
In groupthink, the desire for harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.
Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis, describes the tendency for some groups to make bad decisions. Groupthink occurs when group members suppress their reservations about the ideas supported by the group. As a result, a kind of false unanimity is encouraged, and flaws in the group’s decisions may be overlooked. Highly cohesive groups involved in making risky decisions seem to be at particular risk for groupthink.
In groupthink, the desire for harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.
Groupthink, a term coined by Irving Janis, describes the tendency for some groups to make bad decisions. Groupthink occurs when group members suppress their reservations about the ideas supported by the group. As a result, a kind of false unanimity is encouraged, and flaws in the group’s decisions may be overlooked. Highly cohesive groups involved in making risky decisions seem to be at particular risk for groupthink.
In groupthink, the desire for harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives.
Culture is the behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values, and traditions shared by a group of people and transmitted from one generation to the next. Culture enables the preservation of innovation and the efficient division of labor.
All cultural groups evolve their own norms—rules that govern their members’ behaviors. Although these rules sometimes seem oppressive, they also grease the social machinery. Cultures vary in their requirements for personal space, their expressiveness, and their pace of life. When cultures collide, their differing norms may make us uncomfortable.
Over time, cultures change. For example, with greater economic independence, today’s women are less likely to endure abusive relationships out of economic need. Many minority groups enjoy expanded human rights. Not all culture change is positive. For example, within the last 40 years or so, the United States has seen sharply increased rates of divorce, delinquency, and depression. Changes in the human gene pool evolve far too slowly to account for these rapid cultural changes.
Answer E
Answer E (Social inhibition is the opposite of social facilitation)
We all have ideas about what members of different groups are like, and these expectations may influence the way we interact with members of these groups. We call these ideas stereotypes. Stereotypes may be either negative or positive and can be applied to virtually any group of people (for example, racial, ethnic, geographic). For instance, people often stereotype New Yorkers as pushy, unfriendly, and rude and Californians as easygoing and attractive. Some cognitive psychologists have suggested that stereotypes are basically schemata about groups. People who distinguish between stereotypes and group schemata argue that the former are more rigid and more difficult to change than the latter.
Prejudice is an undeserved, usually negative, attitude toward a group of people. Stereotyping can lead to prejudice when negative stereotypes (those rude New Yorkers) are applied uncritically to all members of a group (she is from New York, therefore she must be rude) and a negative attitude results.
Ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s culture (for example, ethnic, racial) is superior to others, is a specific kind of prejudice. People become so used to their own cultures that they see them as the norm and use them as the standard by which to judge other cultures. Many people look down upon others who don’t dress the same, eat the same foods, or worship the same God in the same way that they do.
While prejudice is an attitude, discrimination involves an action. When one discriminates, one acts on one’s prejudices. If I dislike New Yorkers, I am prejudiced, but if I refuse to hire New Yorkers to work in my company, I am engaging in discrimination.
Prejudice
A unjustifiable negative attitude toward a group or person
Example: thinking negative thoughts about women
Stereotypes
False or exaggerated beliefs about a group
Example: All women are bad drivers
Discrimination
Taking action against a person or group based on a prejudice
Example: Denying women a job that requires driving
We all have ideas about what members of different groups are like, and these expectations may influence the way we interact with members of these groups. We call these ideas stereotypes. Stereotypes may be either negative or positive and can be applied to virtually any group of people (for example, racial, ethnic, geographic). For instance, people often stereotype New Yorkers as pushy, unfriendly, and rude and Californians as easygoing and attractive. Some cognitive psychologists have suggested that stereotypes are basically schemata about groups. People who distinguish between stereotypes and group schemata argue that the former are more rigid and more difficult to change than the latter.
Prejudice is an undeserved, usually negative, attitude toward a group of people. Stereotyping can lead to prejudice when negative stereotypes (those rude New Yorkers) are applied uncritically to all members of a group (she is from New York, therefore she must be rude) and a negative attitude results.
Ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s culture (for example, ethnic, racial) is superior to others, is a specific kind of prejudice. People become so used to their own cultures that they see them as the norm and use them as the standard by which to judge other cultures. Many people look down upon others who don’t dress the same, eat the same foods, or worship the same God in the same way that they do.
While prejudice is an attitude, discrimination involves an action. When one discriminates, one acts on one’s prejudices. If I dislike New Yorkers, I am prejudiced, but if I refuse to hire New Yorkers to work in my company, I am engaging in discrimination.
Prejudice
A unjustifiable negative attitude toward a group or person
Example: thinking negative thoughts about women
Stereotypes
False or exaggerated beliefs about a group
Example: All women are bad drivers
Discrimination
Taking action against a person or group based on a prejudice
Example: Denying women a job that requires driving
Ladies..
B is the one with the feminized features
People tend to see members of their own group, the in-group, as more diverse than members of other groups, out-groups. This phenomenon is often referred to as out-group homogeneity.
researchers have documented a preference for members of one’s own group, a kind of in-group bias. In-group bias is thought to stem from people’s belief that they themselves are good people. Therefore, the people with whom they share group membership are thought to be good as well.
Many different theories attempt to explain how people become prejudiced. Some psychologists have suggested that people naturally and inevitably magnify differences between their own group and others as a function of the cognitive process of categorization. By taking into account the in-group bias discussed above, this idea suggests that people cannot avoid forming stereotypes.
Scapegoat Theory
Blame an outside group for your problems
Example: Saying negative things about Muslims when you lose your job for showing up late
One theory about how to reduce prejudice is known as the contact theory. The contact theory, as its name suggests, states that contact between hostile groups will reduce animosity, but only if the groups are made to work toward a goal that benefits all and necessitates the participation of all. Such a goal is called a superordinate goal.
Muzafer Sherif’s (1966) camp study (also known as the Robbers Cave study) illustrates both how easily out-group bias can be created and how superordinate goals can be used to unite formerly antagonistic groups. He conducted a series of studies at a summer camp. He first divided the campers into two groups and arranged for them to compete in a series of activities. This competition was sufficient to create negative feelings between the groups. Once such prejudices had been established, Sherif staged several camp emergencies that required the groups to cooperate. The superordinate goal of solving the crises effectively improved relations between the groups.
A number of educational researchers have attempted to use the contact theory to reduce prejudices between members of different groups in school. One goal of most cooperative learning activities is to bring members of different social groups into contact with one another as they work toward a superordinate goal, the assigned task.
In psychology, aggression is any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy. This definition of aggression has a more precise meaning than it does in everyday usage where an assertive, persistent salesperson or a dentist who make us wince with pain may be described as “aggressive.” On the other hand, psychology’s definition recognizes a verbally assaultive person or one who spreads a vicious rumor as aggressive.
Biological influences on aggression operate at the genetic, neural, and biochemical levels. Animals have been bred for aggressiveness, and twin studies suggest that genes also influence human aggression. Animal and human brains have neural systems that, when stimulated, either inhibit or produce aggression. For example, studies of violent criminals have revealed diminished activity in the frontal lobes, which play an important role in controlling impulses. Finally, studies of the effect of hormones (e.g., testosterone), alcohol, and other substances in the blood show that biochemical influences contribute to aggression.
Biological influences on aggression operate at the genetic, neural, and biochemical levels. Animals have been bred for aggressiveness, and twin studies suggest that genes also influence human aggression. Animal and human brains have neural systems that, when stimulated, either inhibit or produce aggression. For example, studies of violent criminals have revealed diminished activity in the frontal lobes, which play an important role in controlling impulses. Finally, studies of the effect of hormones (e.g., testosterone), alcohol, and other substances in the blood show that biochemical influences contribute to aggression.
instrumental aggression and hostile aggression. Instrumental aggression is when the aggressive act is intended to secure a particular end. For example, if Bobby wants to hold the doll that Carol is holding and he kicks her and grabs the doll, Bobby has engaged in instrumental aggression. Hostile aggression, on the other hand, has no such clear purpose. If Bobby is simply angry or upset and therefore kicks Carol, his aggression is hostile aggression.
The frustration-aggression principle states that the blocking of an attempt to reach some goal creates anger, which can generate aggression, especially in the presence of an aggressive cue such as a gun. Frustration (and aggression) arise less from deprivation than from the gap between reality and expectations. Like frustration, other aversive stimuli, such as physical pain, personal insults, foul odors, cigarette smoke, and hot temperatures, can also evoke hostility.
Our reactions are more likely to be aggressive in situations where experience has taught us that aggression pays. Ostracism or social rejection can also intensify aggression. Different cultures reinforce and evoke different tendencies toward violence. For example, crime rates are higher in countries marked by a great disparity between rich and poor. Social influence also appears in high violence rates among cultures and families that experience minimal father care.
Once established, aggressive behavior patterns are difficult to change. Parent-training programs that encourage parents to reinforce desirable behaviors and to frame statements positively have been fairly successful. One aggression-replacement program has brought down re-arrest rates of juvenile offenders and gang members by teaching the youths and their parents communication skills, training them to control anger, and encouraging more thoughtful moral reasoning
People can learn aggression by observing models who act aggressively, for example, in the family or in the media (watching violence on TV or in film). When interviewed, Canadian and U.S. sex offenders report a greater-than-usual appetite for sexually explicit and sexually violent materials typically labeled as pornography. Laboratory experiments reveal that repeatedly watching X-rated films makes sexual aggression seem less serious. Media depictions of violence also trigger aggres- sion by providing social scripts (mental tapes for how to act provided by our culture).
Playing violent video games can heighten aggressive behavior by providing social scripts and opportunities to observe modeled aggression. Studies have found that playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. The studies also disconfirm the catharsis hypothesis—the idea that we feel better if we vent our emotions. To sum up, research reveals bio- logical, psychological, and social-cultural influences on aggressive behavior. Like so much else, aggression is a biopsychosocial phenomenon.
Answer: D (It is usually a reaction to a situation)
Answer: D (Ethnocentrism is another way to say ingroup bias)
Three factors are known to influence our liking for one another. Geographical proximity is con- ducive to attraction, partly because of the mere exposure effect: Repeated exposure to novel stim- uli enhances liking of them. Physical attractiveness influences social opportunities and the way one is perceived. We view attractive people as healthier, happier, more sensitive, and more suc- cessful. As acquaintanceship moves toward friendship, similarity of attitudes and interests greatly increases liking. The factors that foster attraction are explained by a reward theory of attraction: We like those whose behavior is rewarding to us, and we will continue relationships that offer more rewards than costs.
We can view passionate love as an aroused state that we cognitively label as love. The strong affection of companionate love,
Two-Factor
Physical arousal plus cognitive appraisal
Arousal from any source can enhance one emotion depending upon what we interpret or label the arousal
companionate love, which often emerges as a relationship matures, is enhanced by equity, a condition in which both parties receive in proportion to what they give. Another vital ingredient of loving relationships is mutual self-disclosure, in which partners reveal to each other intimate details about themselves.
Altruism is unselfish regard for the welfare of others. Risking one’s life to save victims of geno- cide with no expectation of personal reward is an example of altruism.
The bystander effect is the tendency for any given bystander to an emergency to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present. Research on the bystander effects indicates that to decide to help, one must (1) notice the event, (2) interpret it as an emergency, or (3) assume responsibility for helping.
The vicious murder of Kitty Genovese in Kew Gardens, New York, committed within view of at least 38 witnesses, none of whom intervened, led John Darley and Bibb Latane to explore how people decided whether or not to help others in distress. Counterintuitively, the larger the number of people who witness an emergency situation, the less likely any one is to intervene. This finding is known as the bystander effect. One explanation for this phenomenon is called diffusion of responsibility. The larger the group of people who witness a problem, the less responsible any one individual feels to help. People tend to assume that someone else will take action so they need not do so. Another factor contributing to the bystander effect is known as pluralistic ignorance. People seem to decide what constitutes appropriate behavior in a situation by looking to others. Thus, if no one in a classroom seems worried by the black smoke coming through the vent, each individual concludes that taking no action is the proper thing to do.
Social exchange theory proposes that underlying all behavior, including helping, is the desire to maximize our benefits (which may include our own good feelings) and minimize our costs. For example, we will donate blood if we anticipate that the rewards (e.g., social approval, good feel- ings) for doing so exceed the costs (e.g., time, discomfort). Social norms may also prescribe altru- istic behavior. The reciprocity norm is the expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them. The social-responsibility norm is the expectation that people will help those who are dependent on them.
OBJECTIVE 28| Discuss effective ways of encouraging peaceful cooperation and reducing social conflict.
GRIT-This is a strategy designed to decrease international tensions. One side recognizes mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act that opens the door for reciprocation by the other party
OBJECTIVE 28| Discuss effective ways of encouraging peaceful cooperation and reducing social conflict.
GRIT-This is a strategy designed to decrease international tensions. One side recognizes mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act that opens the door for reciprocation by the other party