Chapter 11: Social Psychology

Milgram’s Experiment by Stanley Milgram, 1963 @ Yale University: Teacher & Learner

Social Psych: study of effects of social variables and cognitions on individual behaviour and social interactions. Where thoughts, feelings, perceptions, motives and behaviour – influenced by interactions with others.

Understanding of behaviour within its social context (combi. of people, activities & interactions among people, setting, expectations (E(X)) and social norms.

Power of social situations to control human behaviour. Minor features of social settings that create impact on feel/thought/actions1. Our response: not only objective reality but subjective interpretation (personal perception

i.e. what it means to us) Hence: same physical settings differ significantly from person to person.

2. The personal construction of a subjective social realitya. Grasp e(x) and perceptions to understand attractive forces at work (friendship and

romantic relationships) & repulsive forces (cause violence, prejudice, discrimination)3. Who/What creates various situation and maintains them

Gangs, cults, other settings that affect human behaviour

See: Social Psych has experimented by altering the situation to change subjective social reality -> promote the human condition

11.1HOW DOES THE SOCIAL SITUATION AFFECT OUR BEHAVIOUR?

Situations can dominate personalities and override past history of learning, values, and beliefs – the influence is greatest when we’re enmeshed in new settings. It has a great psychological effect and maye cause us to do unordinary stuff that is immoral/unethical/illegal

We usually adapt our behaviour to the demands of the social situation, and in new or ambiguous situations, we take cues from the behaviours of others in the setting.

Situationism vs. Dispositonism

o S: (external) the view that environmental conditions may influence people’s behaviour as much more than their personal dispositions do, under some circumstances

o D: (internal) A psychological orientation that focuses 1⁰ on the inner characteristics of individuals eg. Personality dispositions, values, characters, genetic makeup

SOCIAL STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR

o Social Roles & Social Norms – (A socially defined pattern of behaviour that is expected of persons in a given setting/group)

Roles are out of interests/abilities/goals/imposed by cultural/economic/biological conditions and Situations in which you live and function determines the roles that are available to you and the behaviours others expect of you.e.g. R- College student: attend class, studying, & some privilege i.e. no need to work. N- diminish chances of being homeless.

“unwritten rules” by groups for members Eg. Male exec. in technology business do not wear ties and suits which

differs from business settings → Social Normso Social Norms: A group’s E(X) regarding what is appropriate and acceptable for its

members’ attitudes and behaviours. Consisting of broad and specific guidelines (ideas which religion/politics is right

and conduct in library) It guides conversation( taboo topics), define dress code and unwritten

(teach, others listen) Is it a social norm? Violate and check reactions. Distress seen? Social

Norm broke. Joining a group: adjustment period i.e. how to fit in = discovering SN

Notice uniformities and regularities →Negative consequence when SN is violated (e.g. type of clothes worn that is not in trend is laughed at)

Schemas & ScriptsSchemas: a cluster of related concepts that provides a general framework for thinking about a topic/event/object/...Scripts: Knowledge about the sequence of events and actions that is expected in a particular setting

o Schema formed → prediction about what to expect in various settingsUpsetting when violated and failed to predict e(x) e.g. restaurant – served dessert first before appetizer

“shoulds” i.e. how one ought to behave and violation leads to negative reaction as they’re expected to share our schema

Social Norms Influence Students’ Political Views

Theodore Newcomb: Can the faculty influence political views of students? (Vermont’s Bennington College, 1930s)Culture: Political and Economic Liberalism → School norms outweigh Family norms

o Conservatism transformed through college senior year→ converted to liberal thinking and causes. Change still evident 20 years later ( marry their own kind)

Not just campus culture: Workplace, neighbourhood, religious group, family – any places where standards of behaviour is communicated.

o Schools, College, University create impact on young people especially those w narrow experiences/ no attitudes radically different. (young and impressionable)

CONFORMITYPowerfulness? Observe effects of social pressure on moods, clothing styles and leisure activities.Chameleon effect: tendency to mimic other people e.g. Bennington College students.

Q: Can social influence to be strong enough to make people follow a group norm that is clearly objectively wrong?

The Asch Effect: Solomon Asch (1940, 1956)influence of a group majority on judgements of an individual

o Aim: Challenge perception of an individualSubjects told: participating in visual perception studyFirst 3 Trials, everyone agreed on the correct answer. 4th Trial, incorrect judgement passed, until all except the real subject unanimously agree on an erroneous judgement.Result: nearly everyone showed disbelief and discomfort when faced with majority of opposing views.

Group pressure prevailed - ¾ conformed, ¼ remained completely independent50-80% conformed with majority false estimate at least once1/3 yielded to majority wrong on ≥ ½ of trials

Most, not all, caved in to conformity pressures – Some bothered/dismayed to find themselves at disagreement but stand firm on ground to point of disagreeing even when it’s right.

More often than not, majority conforms, complies, and gives up personal standards for group standards.

Group Characteristics That Produce Conformityo 3 factors of Influence:

1. Size of Majority2. Presence of partner who dissented the majority3. Size of discrepancy btw correct answer and majority’s position

o (1) Individuals conform to unanimous when ≥3 but not if it’s 1 or 2.(2) Conformity reduced if had ally dissenting the majorityhowever, some still yield to group

o Those who yielded:1. underestimate influence of social pressure & frequency of conformity2. Claimed to see the lines as claimed by the majority

o Other studies: A person more likely to conform...1. When judgement task is difficult/ambiguous (Saltzstein & Sandberg, 1979)2. When group members are perceived as especially competent3. When responses are given publicly vs. Privately

4. When the group majority is unanimous- but once broken, rate of conformity drops dramatically (Allen & Levine, 1969; Morris & Miller, 1975)

o E.g. Vote openly, likely to conform when...1. Issue is complex/confusing2. Others in the group seem to know what they’re talking about3. Vote by raising your hand (vs. Anonymous ballot)4. Entire group cast votes first before actual thing5. Leader votes first

Hence, being informed of such pressures, one must be wiser.Resisting requires critical thinking and being mindful of the power of social forces.

o In Asch Effect, people conform because of normative influences Wanting to be accepted, approved, liked, and not rejected.

(Vs. informational influences i.e. wanting to be correct and to understand the correct way to act in any given situation)

The Autokinetic Effect: Muzafer Sherif (1935) The perceived motion of a stationary dot of light in a totally dark room.Purpose: demonstrated how informational influence can lead to norm formation and internalization of a new norm.

o Judge movement of spot of light, actually stationary but appeared to move. a perceptual illusion

o Originally, judgements varied. Brought together, estimates converged. see that light moved in same direction, similar amounts

o Final part: when alone in the room after group viewing, participants followed group norm.

o Once norms established it tends to perpetuate: a year later, autokinetic group norms persisted, even when tested alone.

o Transmitted from one generation to another: cont’d even after original group dies transgenerational influence:

How? Replaced one group member with a new one until all members are new. Norms persisted.

≈ Real-life norms passed down across generation.

Conformity and Independence Light Up the Brain DifferentlyConforming- rationally going along with group out of normative needs or are they changing perceptions and accepting validity of new (but erroneous) information provided by group?

o old Asch effect on new students: YES it works.o using fMRI : Understand what mental functions those brain regions control -> tells what

it means when they are activated by any given experimental task

o How : 32 Volunteers, mentally rotate images of 3D objects→ Bonding 4 other volunteers (actors). Later, in agreement with each other. Similar to Asch’s, unanimously give wrong answers w occasional mixed up ones. On average, 41% gave (wrong) group’s answers.Yielding: Conformity is observed in regions for vision and spatial awareness, none in areas of forebrain that deals with monitoring conflicts, planning, and other higher-order mental activities.Non-yielding/Independent: Brain lit in areas assoc. with emotional salience (right amygdale and right caudate nucleus regions)

resistance = emotional burden; autonomy comes at psychic costo Neuroscientist, Gregory Berns, 2005: Seeing is believing what the group tells you to

believe. only by becoming aware of vulnerability to social pressure, we can begin to

build resistance to conformity

**Importance of Social Neuroscience: An area of research that uses methodologies from brain sciences to investigate various types of behaviour, such as stereotyping in prejudice, attitudes, self-control, and emotional regulation.

GroupthinkPoor judgements and bad decisions made by members of groups that are overly influenced by perceived group consensus or the leader’s POV.

o conformity bias; our judgements and decisions are often affected by personal biaseso Conditions leading to groupthink:

directive leadership/dominant leader high group cohesiveness w absence of dissenting views: solidarity, loyalty, and a

sense of group membership lack of norms requiring methodical procedures for evidence

collection/evaluation homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology high stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than that of

the group leadero Why the concept? B’cos of bad decisions by US govt (bombing of Pearl Harbour, 1941;

Vietnam War; invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs) smart members of P. Kennedy’s cabinet + faulty reports by anti- Castro Cuban

refugees = foolish decision In addition, space shuttle disasters, bankruptcy of Enron Corp and 2003 decision

to wage pre-emptive war against Iraq. Solution – “Red Teams”

it challenges all decisions with more reliable evidence and is a convergence of multiple sources of independent evidence to support all action-based decisions by govt agencies.

Obedience to AuthorityIndividuals (charismatic leaders) can command obedience of groups e.g. Hitler, Mussolini…Modern Social Pscyh: Origins in WWII -> fear + prejudice. Hence, social psychologists focus on people drawn to fascist groups esp. authoritarian personality behind fascist group mentalities. ↘ Failed to recognise social, historical, economic and political realities. e.g. (pg. 489) 1978 “People’s Temple”, 900 members administered cyanide to family and themselves. 1993, 100 members in religious sect in Waco, set fire rather than surrender. 1997 College-educated “Heaven’s Gate” mass suicide. 2001 Suicide bombers Milgram Experiment = Obedience issue.

Milgram’s Research Revisitedo required peers to estimate % who reach the highest levels = ≤1%

WRONG estimate – (dual tendency to overestimate person power & underestimate situation power → fundamental attribution error)

ignored all situational determinant significance of authority power, roles of teacher & learner, the rules, diffusion of

responsibility, defn of what is appropriate and expected by teacher, social pressure

Training in traditional psychiatry-> rely heavily on dispositional perspective to understand unusual behaviour

looking for explanations within and not external behavioural context. Held it in an old office building, to prove it’s not the Authority of Yale University

and used a fictitious private company’s name and used people of all walks of life65% went all the way to 450V, shocking them over and over despite pleas. Applied to all walks/ages/gender.

Variations on an Obedience Themeo 16 variations made: results range from total obedience to being able to resist authority

pressures depending on how social situation was constructed and experienced. from 90% who administer 450V to ≤10%: impose 1 social variable.

observes someone else administer the 450V -> max. obedience learner insist on being shocked leads to reduced obedience -> learner is

masochists and teacher is not sadist. likely to shock if learner is remote, not nearby

o mindlessly obeyed → line between good and evil is not fixed and permanent but permeable and depends on power of new/unfamiliar situation faced

Heroic Defianceo Heroes: People whose actions help others in emergencies or challenge unjust or corrupt

systems, doing so without concern for reward or likely negative consequences for them by acting in deviant ways

e.g. Army Reservist Joe Darby on Iraq’s Abu Ghaib Prison in 2004.

Often despised and pays high price for not being a silent “team player” Joe Darby had to go into hiding

Cross-Cultural Tests of Milgram’s Research

encouraged replication by other independent investigators. high compliance everywhere

61% in U.S. with 66% international range of obedience low (31%) to high (91%) in US range of obedience low (28%; Aust) to high (88%; South Africa) stability over decades of time as well In Utrecht Uni., Holland & Palermo University, Sicily: obedience rates

comparable. (Use if a coach and a player and degree of hostile comments) ≥90% went all the way to give the worst comment

Why Do We Obey Authority? Conditions:o When peer modelled obedience by complying with auth. fig.o When victim was remote from the Teacher, could not be seen/heard -> anonymityo When teacher was under direct surveillance of auth. Hence, awareness of authorityo When auth. figure had higher relative status to the teacher

Obedience effect results from situational variables and not personality variables.

Real World Extensions of Milgram Obedience to Authority Paradigm (pg. 493)

Nurses receive call from unknown staff doctor to double dosage of medication, o theory: 10/12 said they would refuse to obeyo actual: 21/22 was ready to administer

Real World: Authority Hoax i.e. telephone hoax to 68 fast-food restaurants across 32 stateso store manages blindly followed orders to strip female worker…o dozens violated, went against own moral and ethicso rxn: focus on dispositions of victims as naïve, ignorant, gullible and weird

BUT: scam was carried out successfully across all many states, settings RECOGNISE: Power of situational forces involved.

The Bystander Problem: The Evil of InactionInaction when someone needs help. March 13, 1964 NYT: Kitty Genovese’s Murder – supposedly 38 people saw but later reports said not true. Focus: Power of Situation.Question: Under what circumstances will people help- or not?

Contrived Emergencieso Psychologists: Bibb Latane and John Darley

o bystander intervention problem: Lab and field study analogues of the difficulties faced by bystanders in real emergency situations.

eg. In a room with intercom, led to believe of a person having seizures. in a 2-person conversation, response within 160s. ≥3, only 60% informed.

Speed of response depends on no. of bystanders : likelihood ↓, people ↑ No r-ship between particular personality characteristics and likelihood of

intervening Diffusion of Responsibility/ “surely someone else”

Dilution/weakening of each group member’s obligation to act when responsibility is perceived to be shared with all group members/ accepted by the leader → conformity, taking cues from others

Does Training Encourage Helping?Helpers more often had some medical/police/first-aid/CPR training or awareness of effect.

Need Help? Ask For It!

Tom Moriarity, 1975, Social Psychologist: thief snatching an unattended radio/suitcase under a table with everyone else watching. Avert apathy to action and callousness into kindness by asking. Asking leads to special human bond, felling of responsibility to another in a shared world.

1. Ask for help: inform of your need2. Reduce Ambiguity of situation: state clearly form of help needed3. Identify specific individuals: responsibility not diffused

Good Samaritan Study: A group was supposed to preach on GS, exposed to a person in need of help. Help required depends on the time they had → POWER OF SITUATION. Not “Big Five Personality Traits”: Trait perspective suggesting that personality is composed of five fundamental personality perceptions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.

EXTRAS: Being shoe at Yale. In-Group: group with which an individual identifies; Out-group: Those outside the group with which an individual identifies.

11.2 WHAT INFLUENCES OUR JUDGEMENTS OF OTHERS?

- Situation doesn’t account for everything we do e.g. choice of friends and romantic partners/ prejudice.- Patterns in social interaction: look at cognitive processes i.e. understand how we construct social reality (an individual’s subjective interpretation of other people and of one’s relationships with them).

The judgements we make about others depend not only on their behaviour but also on our interpretation of their actions within a social context.

Interpersonal AttractionAttracted to people who have something to offer (gifts, share interests, entertain, helps unless if they are self-serving/hypocritical…).

Shrink from relationships that merely take from us and offer nothing in return.In best relationships, both parties receive rewards.

Reward Theory (Elliot Aronson, Social Psychologists (2004))o Good relationships = exchange of benefits (money &material/intangible)o REWARD THEORY OF ATTRACTION by Social Psychologists Elliot Aronson (2004)

A social learning view that predicts we like best those who give us maximum rewards at minimum costs

explains (almost) everything about interpersonal attraction (IA) 4 sources predicting IA: proximity, similarity, self-disclosure and physical

attractiveness → combine some → relationships at low social cost. Proximity (Nearness)

o Principle of Proximity: The notion that people at work will make more friends among those who are nearby- with whom they have most contact.

o Studies- frequent sightings best predict closest relationshipso i.e. btw 2 equally attractive, the nearest more likely closest -> equal rewards, lower costo ↑contact ↑liking

Similarityo more rewarding if there’s shared attitudes/interests/values/ experienceso similar tastes →hit off : exchanged compliments that reward each other for their tastes

and attitudeso SIMILARITY PRINCIPLE*

The notion that people are attracted to those who are most similar to themselves on significant dimensions.

Why teenagers click with those who share same views. Why most people marry partners of same age, race, social status, attitudes and

values

*Gestalt Prinicipal of Similarity: grouping stimulus objects that shared common perceptual features.

Self-Disclosureo The sharing of personal information and feelings to another person as part of the

process of developing trust. Presence of trust results in attraction. Physical Attractiveness

o more rewarding to associate with people they consider physically attractiveo affect judgment

attractive kids = happier and more competent babies gaze longer at normal pictures instead of distorted faces

o best predictor for how a person is liked after first meetingo Priniciple attractiveness applies to same-sex/opp-sex relationshipso Gender diff.: MEN more influenced by lookso a composite of “average” – most attractive (size & shape)

o Attractive people perceived more vain and materialistic “double standard”: public favours attractive male politicians but disparages their

attractive female counterparts if shy – perceived cold/indifferent/superior

Exceptions to Reward Theoryo Why a woman is attracted to abusive partner?o Why a person joins an organization that requires degrading rituals?

E(X) and the Influence of Self-Esteemo matching hypothesis: prediction that most people will find friends and mates that are

perceived to be of about their same level of attractivenesso expectancy-value theory: a soc. psy. theory- people decide whether to pursue a

relationship by weighing the potential value of the relationship against their expectation of success in establishing the relationship

a refinement of reward theory initiate relationships with the most attractive people we think will like us in

return People of low opinions: prefer people who devalue them -> stronger

commitment to such people extremely competent people fail here: others fear they’ll reject our approaches

but minor blunders can normalize Attraction and Dissonance

o e.g. Marine Corps: recruits develop so much loyaltyo Cognitive dissonance: LEON FESTINGER; a highly motivating state in which people have

conflicting cognitions, especially when their voluntary actions conflict with their attitudes or values.

explains the mental adjustment that occurs e.g. gambler who continually lose but keep playing

motivation: to avoid uncomfortable state of dissonance attempt to reduce it ways that are predictable, not always logical i.e. : behaviour or cognition e.g. recruit experiencing dissonance, motivated to change thinking ->

loyalty for org. when cognitions and actions conflict (state of dissonance): want to

reduce by changing thinking to fit behaviouro SELF ESTEEM: don’t want to be seen as incompetent

operates differently in collectivist/individualist culture America vs. Asia: people have lesser need to maintain self-exttem unlike North

America. Hence CD not powerful enough to change the Japanese. The Explanatory Power of Dissonance

o people justify behaviour to avoid dissonance e.g. smokers rationalizing

putting efforts into project, buying a car, only attend to new information that supports, ignore dissonance-

producing info Why a woman is attracted to abusive husband?

focus on his good points, minimize abuse if low self-esteem: justification- she deserves it

o CDT predicts that people are predicted to those for whom they have agreed to suffer.o Justification and disowning personal responsibility for dissonance-generating decisions

Reward Theory-> understand why people are attracted to each other but not all the subtleties of social interaction. Greater understanding of attraction incl. cognitive factors – E(X), self-esteem, cognitive dissonance

Making Cognitive AttributionsTendency to attribute actions & misfortunes to personal traits and not situational forces.

- attributions to laziness/low intelligence and not lack of opportunity- people use same process to explain each other’s success

The Fundamental Attribution ErrorThe dual tendency to overemphasize personal traits (internal, dispositional causes) and minimize situational influences (external, situational pressures)

o pervasive in individualist cult than collectivistic, not that fundamental afterall?o seen in Milgram Experimento A bias rather than a mistake - overlooking of legitimate situational explanations for

another’s actions e.g. driver stops car to prevent hitting a dog. Cars behind blame incompetency

o How not to FAE? Remind self that circumstances may account for actions, attributional charity.

Biased Thinking About Yourselfo 2 different standards with success and failure

success attribute to internal factors failures attribute to ext. factors beyond control

o S-SB: needed for self-esteem i.e. preference for interpretations that save face and cast us in best light

o Social pressures: common in individualistic cultureso Understanding others? use dispositional explanations o Understanding self? use situational explanations

Warmth & Competence: universal dimension of social cognitiono 2 universal dimensions of human social cognition: individual and group

self-serving bias: an attributional pattern in which one takes credit for success but denies responsibility for failure

biases

HW

LW

HCLC

o People differentiate by Liking (warmth and trustworthiness) & Respect (competence, efficiency)

o W: friendliness, trustworthiness, helpfulness, sincerity, moralityC: perceived ability, intelligence, skill, creativity, efficacy

Group prejudices/stereotypes appear high on one on these two dimensions and low on the other -> ambivalent affect and volatile behaviour-> may endanger constructive intergroup relationships

Loving Relationships

Attraction and love appear to be part of the very circuitry and chemistry of brains When is Attraction = Love? Culture dictates.

o E.g. sexual arousal, attachment, concern for welfare etc. Many kinds of LOVE: parent-child to long-time friends Americans’ Romantic Love: A temporary and highly emotional condition based

on infatuation and sexual desire. not universal

Other cultures, marriage = economic bond/relationship between families Psy. Robert Sternberg: Triangular Theory of love

o describes various kinds of love in 3 components: passion (erotic attraction), intimacy (sharing feelings and confidences), and commitment (dedication to putting ths relationship first in one’s life).

o What strengthens? What weakens?

I.Attitude: Pity, Sympathy

Motivation: Help & Support(elderly, disabled)

II.Attitude: Liking, Admiration

Motivation: Desire for Association(pastors, movie stars…)

III.Attitude: Contempt, Disgust

Motivation: Ignore or Neglect(minority group, welfare recipients)

IV.Attitude: Hostility, Envy

Motivation: Harm, Attack, or Eliminate Perceived Unfair Advantage

(politicians, the very rich, lawyers)

o Divorces: if maintained, ½ of all 1st marriages and 60% of 2nd marriages effects on children? Less (-) if its amicable and coparent.

Healthy Relationship is when both see it as rewarding and equitable and must feel that they’re getting something out of relationship and not just giving

o communication: open, ongoing, and mutually validatingo in R-ship (+) : (-) must be 5:1 → (+): exchange of smile, touches…

Cross-Cultural Research on the Need for Positive Self-RegardNorth America and Japan.

N.A.: excessive focus on self as an individual entity as well as encouraging, motivation to regard oneself positively.

o J: development of self-critical focus, personal evaluation begins with critique of performance/lifestyle - critical orientation is self-effacing + humbling -> minimize tendency towards arrogance

Hence, it is all very cultural specific.

Prejudice and DiscriminationAttributions: positive/negative about others.Prejudice: a negative attitude toward an individual based solely on his or her membership in a particular group or category, often without any direct evidence.Discrimination: A negative action taken against an individual as a result of his/her group or categorical membership. It is the behaviour that prejudice generates. It doesn’t always arise from prejudice.e.g. teacher expecting poor work from minority student, women not discriminated against management job.Category :( real) gender/ethinicity or (created in the mind) “poor white thrash”/”left-wing liberals”

Causes of Prejudice - acquired at an early age, defensive reactions, social customs, distinguish strangers from friends.

o Dissimilarity and Social Distance Similarity = Liking, Dissimilarity=Disdain + Prejudice

e.g. different way of clothing mentally place that person at greater social distance than friends

i.e. The perceived difference or similarity between oneself and another person inequality translates into inferiority -> treat with contempt

E.g. witholding privileges, low-wage jobs, jail } violate personal dignity.o Economic Competition

highly competitive situations: one group wins economic benefits at the other group’s expense -> intensify

e.g. Pacific Northwest competiton of old forests -> jobs and wildlife at stake -> prejudice sets timber workers and enviro-list against each other

Whites at an economic level just above the Blacks-> threatened

even in Minorities: new immigrants threaten established minorities e.g. South Bronx- post ww2, Puerto Rico Minorities migrate voer

threatening the Blacks.o struggle economically and top-down prejudice

o Scapegoating Blaming an innocent person/group for one’s own troubles and then

discriminating against or abusing them e.g. Jews for Nazis, or when a country is in a bad economy-> blame

someone for that change Works readily when object of scorn is easily identifiable (skin/features)

o Conformity to Social Norms unthinking tendency to maintain situations the way they are

women’s “glass ceiling”→ assumption, that’s how it works breeds

women avoid computer science opp. true for psych. : more women enter, men likely to avoid

social norms → accepted standard of what is perceived to be right cause/ reinforce prejudice HENCE, discriminatory behaviour -> cause or strengthen prejudice

o ‘cos we are rationalizing creatureso justify decisions and behaviour →make reasonable by

generating “good reasons” for our bad behaviourso Media Stereotypes

stereotyped images in print/film e.g. Blacks- simple, slow, comic characters (“Sambo”); Prime time:

(Male:Female)=(3:1)- Male having managerial and professional positions; Proportion of nonwhites and older much smaller than gen. population

o DehumanizationPsychological process of thinking about certain other people/groups as less than human, as like feared/hated animals. Basic process in much prejudice and mass violence.

like “cortical cataract” blinds the mind to any perceived similarity between US and THEM

thinking others as less → suspend moral reasoning, empathy, compassion and other processes that constrain hate and violence

e.g. 1994 Rwanda: Hutu Govt spreading propaganda that Tutsis are enemy, cockroaches, insects -> GENOCIDE, 800,000 in 100 days.

Albert Bandura et al. ’s Experiment 1975 to improve decision-making skill punishment via emitting of electric shocks w 3 conditions

i.e. hearing the labels “Animals”, “Nice Guys”, No labels (neutral)o hearing animals -> more shock than Neutral

o Hence, humanizing: significantly less punishment Combating Prejudice

1950s/60s through gradual exposure: Doesn’t work → Selective exposure, avoiding of information that conflicts their view. Removal is difficult with cognitively based info messages esp. those who are boosted by perceiving others as less worthy

o New Role Models Tiger Woods, Barack Obama… encourage people in these groups change of the mine of those already prejudiced likely seen as exceptions but as exceptions↑, rule bends/changes

o Equal Status Contact mere contact not enough e.g. black slave and white owner but, public housing -> conditions of equal status, neither wields power Tom Pettigrew(1998) found support- equal status => prevent and reduce

prejudice o Legislation

In housing project. One, racially segregated, another mixed racially. Second -> prejudicial attitudes decreased.

rules requiring equal status contact can diminish prejudice US’ laws abolishing racial discrimination – racial discrimination diminished.

1940s-today → 30% -> 90% favouring of desegregation Cognitive Dissonance Theory? Yes. People have to justify new behaviour

by softening prejudiced attitudes. Stereotype Threat

The negative effect on performance that arises when an individual becomes aware that members of his/her group are expected to perform poorly in that domain.

o Started by Claude Steele, colleagues and students e.g. College women in math course : having to check a gender box, performed

poorer than usual Similar to African Americans when told it’s an intellectual test, they performed

poorly on their verbal test. (Stereotype of blacks having lower IQ than whites -> anxiety)

Asian Women when focused on ‘Asian’, performed better on math test but when told ‘Women’, did poorer.

EXTRAS: Sweet Smells of AttractionPleasant body scents enhance human attractiveness, as animal pheromones are known to be vital in sexual attraction. Some scents regulate mood, cognition and mate selection. Social preferences? Scent was emitted subliminally. Where pleasants scents were emitted, the neutral-average persons were rated positively unlike with the emission of unpleasant scents, the neutral faces were least liked. Hence, olfactory system influences social judgements.

11.3 HOW DO SYSTEMS CREATE SITUATIONS THAT INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR?- Institutions (family, schools, hospitals…): systems of managementexplicit & implicit rules on conduct; reward & punishment; comes with history, culture and legal status- Existence of system power: influences on behaviour that come from top-down sources in the form of creating and maintaining various situations that in turn have an impact on actions of individuals in those behavioural contexts i.e. create a powerful social situation -> affect behaviour

Core Concept: Understanding how systems function increases both our understanding of why situations work as they do to influence human behaviour and is also the most effective way to plan behaviour change from top down; systems change situations, which in turn change behaviour.

The Stanford Prison ExperimentClassis study of institutional power in directing normal, healthy college student volunteers playing randomly assigned roles or prisoners and guards to behave contrary to their dispositional tendencies, as cruel guards or pathological prisoners.

Beginning: no systematic differences (“ordinary” males in two different setting)End: no similarities

Guards (usually Nice Guys) behaved aggressively sometimes sadistically.Prisoners, pathologically and resigned to fate of helplessness.New Social Reality created.

2 week study terminated after 6 days } drastic effectso Tommy Whitlow, Prisoner 8612, had to be released after extreme stress reaction.

no lasting negative effects replicated in Aus but not the same since everyone had the norm teatime

Similar to Milgram’s obedience research Participants merely refined and intensified their prior patterns of behaviour

o had already experienced such power differences in previous social interactions(parent-child, teacher-student…)

Milgram + Stanford Exp } illustrate power of situations over behaviourM: individual authority powerS: power of an institution, a system of domination

Chains of System CommandSystem must be taken into account + dispositions + situations to understand complex behaviour patterns.Good apples and bad apples: deflect attention and blame away from those at top.>bad-apple-dispositional ignores the bad apple barrel-situational view

Abu Ghaib PrisonPrison in Iraq made famous by revelation of photos taken by Army Reserve MP guardsin the acts of humiliating and torturing prisoners.

o mil. chain of command -> a few rogue soldiers, quick to assert it is not systemic, not in other prisons.

o Report points to failures of military leadership and surveillance dispositional, situational, and systemic processes all interacting in an instance

The Systems Lessono situations are created by systemso systems provide institutional support, authority, and resources →allow op. of systemo system power: authorization & institutionalized permission to behave as such

validation to play new roleso Most systems are not transparent – concealing operation from outsiderso To change undesirable behaviour and promote more socially desirable behaviour

not sufficient to rely on individualistic medical model to treat peopleo improvement plans: require understanding and modifying sys. that create and maintain

themo to recognise that individual affliction and illness: consequence of a vector disease in soc.o Prevention is needed, not treatment

prejudice, violence, bullying, etc. Using Psychology to Understand the Abuses at Abu Ghaib (pg. 519)

o Tier 1-A: interrogation centre by Military Intelligence, CIAo unexpected insurgency-> need “actionable intelligence” from detainees -> “soften up”

“permission”o James Schlesinger (former Sec. for Defense) Report, “landmark Standford study provides

a cautionary tale for all military detention ops.” concepts on why abusive behaviour occur: deindividuation, dehumanization,

enemy image, groupthink, moral disengagement, social facilitation, and other env. factors

Preventing Bullying by Systemic Changesbullying in school, ignored or passively acceptedtraditional: identify culprits & punish → moving the abusers but not change them

Bullying: the act of tormenting others, in classrooms/work settings, by one or more others, for personal, sadistic pleasure. It qualifies as a form of ordinary/everyday evil.

Male Bullies: direct physical abuseFemale Bullies: indirect verbal abuse, exclusion, group rejection, and rumors

Prevention: switch from usual punishment to zero-tolerance ; top-down changeo Researcher Dan Olweus (1993) has used such in Sweden and Scandinavian countries

with success

o USA, “different” and disabled are bullied -> core of new programs: develop curricula and practices from elementary school throughout all grades that promote respect fro dignity of individuals, acceptance and tolerance of human diversity.

Using Psych to Learn Psych:

Subtle persuasive pressures:

Social Validation: Problem: go with the crowdLösungen: questioning even the most widely held concepts / challenging ideas

Authority:Problem: most persuade you that argument offered is credibleSolution: ideas are not always true because someone says so- get more objective evidence by scientific method.

The Poison Parasite Argument:be wary of credibility