Chapter 5: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Confirmation Biases The effect of stereotypes on perceptions is a type of confirmation bias, which

involves the tendency to interpret, seek, and create info that seems to confirm expectations

Stereotypes are not held by individuals but by many people within a culture, and they are often perpetuated through repeated communication

Stereotypes can create self-fulfilling prophecies, when a perceiver’s false expectations about a person cause the person to behave in ways that confirm those expectations

Stereotypes and prejudices of a parent can affect stereotypes and prejudices of a child, often in implicit ways

Stereotypes endure through illusory correlation, the tendency to overestimate the association between variables that are only slightly or not at all correlated (ex. Women are bad drivers)

People tend to overestimate the association between variables that are distinctive (variables that capture attention simply because they are novel or deviant)

People tend to overestimate the association between variables they already expect to go together

People make attributions about the causes of other’s behaviors and how these attributions can sometimes be flawed, perpetuating stereotypesWhen people see others contradicting a stereotype, they rely on situational factors to explain the surprising behavior (ex. Female beat male in athletic match, so it must be luck/ulterior motive)Subtyping: those who contradict a stereotype are placed in a “subtype”, keeping the existing stereotype intact (ex. Female who is not warm and nurturing is simply a career woman)

Stereotypes can bias our perceptions even if we don’t personally agree with them

Stereotypes can be activated without our awarenessPeople automatically activate stereotypes whenever they are exposed to members of groups for which popular stereotypes exist; we are often unaware that a stereotype has been activatedPatricia Devine showed subliminal presentations, a method of presenting stimuli so faintly or rapidly that people do not have any conscious awareness of having been exposed to themInternally motivated individuals, those not wanting to be prejudiced, are likely to be more successful at controlling stereotypes and prejudice, but they are vulnerable to automatic stereotyping and implicit biasesWhen self-esteem is threatened, people may become motivated to stereotype others so that they will feel better about themselves, making them more likely to stereotype automatically

“41 Shots”: Tragic Shooting of Amadou DialloFocus was on the issue of automatic activation of stereotypes Amadou Diallo was a West African immigrant from NYC, matched the description of a suspected rapist, was shot by four white police officers in his apartment buildingAll four officers were found not guilty, leading to protests and rallies

Keith Payne did a study following the incident showing participants more likely to mistake a harmless object for a weapon if it was preceded by a black face than a white face

Ma and Correll found that racial bias in decision to shoot were significantly stronger if the targets looked more stereotypic of their respective races than if they did not

Subsequent studies have shown that exposing them to repeated trials in which race was unrelated to criminality eliminated racial biases

Magnitude of racial bias found to not be related to level of racial prejudice (African Americans participants produced same results as white participants)

Trayvon Martin Likely that many factors (social categorization, distrust of outgroups,

stereotypes in culture, confirmation biases, illusory correlations…) could have played a role

Likely to ignite new social psych research to examine related questions

Social Categorization: classification of persons into groups on the basis of common attributes

Leads us to overestimate differences between groups and underestimate differences within groups

People tend to learn features about majorities earlier than features about minorities

Allows us to form impressions very quickly and use past experiences to guide new intentions; stereotyping groups of people

We exaggerate the differences between our ingroup and other outgroups Outgroup homogeneity effect: tendency to assume that there is greater

similarity among members of different outgroups than among members of ingroups

We do not notice subtle differences among outgroups because we have little personal contact with them

People often do not encounter a representative sample of outgroup membersPerceivers are less likely to see members of stereotyped groups as more similar to the stereotype than they really areWhen a target of a stereotype behaves in an ambiguous way, we interpret the behavior as consistent with the stereotypeOften times we remember stereotype-consistent info about others better than stereotype-inconsistent infoContrast Effect: when a stimulus varies from expectations, the perceived difference is magnified; affect social perceptions

Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study: reflection on how situational factors breed prejudices

Study of competition and cooperation 2 separate groups of 11 year old, middle class, white boys with no behavioral

problems, each formed an alliance, were told there was another group Began competitions with them, escalated into attacking and viciousness Noncompetitive circumstances did not de-escalate the two “teams” Addition of subordinate goals, mutual goals that could be achieved only

through cooperating of the two groups, finally resolved the conflicts

Realistic Conflict Theory: view that direct competition for valuable but limited resources breeds hostility between groups

Losers feel frustrated and resentful Winners feel threatened and protective Often times, competition is perceived and not real People become resentful because of their sense of relative deprivation, the

belief that they fare poorly compared to others (ex. Jealous of a higher salary)

o Egoistic Deprivation: concerns for self interests o Fraternal Deprivation: concerns for group interests (ex. Helping out the

community even if you are rich)

Social Identity Theory: people favor ingroups over outgroups in order to enhance their self-esteem

Boys shown dotted slides, tried to estimate number of dots Boys separated into two groups, over-estimators and under-estimators,

actually random Study showed ingroup favoritism, or tendency to discriminate in favor of

ingroups over outgroups Theory has two components: personal identity (personal achievements) AND

social identity based on ingroup status (group’s achievements) We feel like we belong to a group and derive pride, boost self-esteem, but we

feel the need to belittle the other groups Two predictions:

o Threats to one’s self-esteem heighten the need for ingroup favoritismo Expressions of ingroup favoritism enhances self-esteem

Fein and Spencer Studyo Gave participants positive and negative feedbacko Had participants evaluate a job applicant, half said she was Jewish and

half said she was non-Jewish; participant population negatively stereotyped Jewish people

o Those who got negative feedback rated woman more negatively if told she was Jewish, and when given the option to belittle her, showed increased self-esteem

o A blow to one’s self-image evokes prejudice, and expression of prejudice helps restore self-image

Branscombe and Wann Studyo Ingroup members who identified strongly with their group were

especially likely to insult outgroups in response to threats of their own ingroup status

o Greater ingroup identification has been associated with stronger social identity effects

Brewer and Pickett: ingroup loyalty and outgroup prejudice is more intense for groups/members in the minority than groups/members in the majority

Noel et al: people are motivated to derogate others when their ingroup status is marginal (ex. Pledging, temporary, upcoming) rather than active/permanent; people are also more motivated to derogate others in the presence of other ingroup members

Lehman: Collectivists are less likely than individualists to show bias favoring ingroups in order to boost their self-esteem; Collectivists are more likely than individualists to value their connectedness and interdependence with groups around them;Personal identities ~ social identities

To preserve the integrity of the ingroup, people may be excessively harsh in their treatment of less able fellow members, especially when the ingroup’s identity is important to their social identity

Development of pride/self-esteem is higher in low-status groups (ex. Overcoming in a minority produces more self-confidence than trying to succeed in a majority)

If an ingroup is low status in a particular domain, then the group will de-emphasize that domain and invest their self-esteem in domains for which the group has high status (ex. Cheerleaders academics vs. popularity)

Racism (prejudice and discrimination based on racial background or cultural practices that promote the domination of one racial group over another)Sexism (prejudice and discrimination based on a person’s gender or cultural practices that promote the domination of one gender over another)Stereotypes are beliefs or associations that link groups of people to certain traitsPrejudice is negative feelings towards others because of their connection to a social groupDiscrimination is negative behavior towards people based on their membership to a groupStereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination can operate independently, but they often influence and reinforce each otherA group is more than two people with direct interaction or common attributes or goalsGroups we identify with are ingroups and groups other than our own are outgroupsRacial prejudice and discrimination have decreased over the last few decadesModern Racism

Racial biases seen in umpires when there is the least public outcry/accountability

Example of modern racism, a subtle form of prejudice that surfaces when it is safe, socially acceptable, or easy to rationalize (ex. Jokes, interracial marriage, justice system)

People are racially ambivalent (mixed feelings); see themselves as being fair but have feelings of discomfort about other racial groups

Aversive racism (ambivalence between sincerely fair-minded beliefs vs. largely unconscious negative beliefs about those of the opposite race)

Implicit racism (racism that operates unconsciously and unintentionally; skews judgments and beliefs without the person feeling guilty) (being accidentally racist)

Tested with IAT (Implicit Association Test), which measures the extent to which two concepts are associated

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) was developed as a covert measure of unconscious attitudes derived from the speed at which people respond to pairings of concepts (ex. Black or white, good or bad)

People’s implicit attitudes are generally less predictive of behavior than their explicit attitudes

IAT measures are more accurate with socially sensitive topics such as race where people often distort their self-reports

Gordon Allport’s contact hypothesis states under certain conditions, direct contact between members of rival groups will reduce stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination

Result of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 Racially separate schools were inherently unequal and violated the

Constitution Contact hypothesis is supported by empirical data Did not work right away in reality, but hypothesis is not wrong Four conditions for success:

o Equal status between the two groupso Personal interaction (one-to-one)o Cooperative activities (achieve subordinate goals)o Social norms (should favor intergroup contact)

Once these four conditions were met, the hypothesis worked Pettigrew and Tropp proposed that contact reduces prejudice by enhancing

knowledge of the outgroup, reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and increasing empathy

Elliot Aronson developed a cooperative learning method called jigsaw classroom used to reduce racial prejudice through interaction of group efforts

Implemented in newly desegregated schools in CA and TX Assigned 5th graders to small racially and academically mixed groups Material to be learned in each group was divided into subtopics and they had

to teach it to the other group members Everyone needs everyone else if the group as a whole is to succeed Very successful, resulted in greater interaction and better grades for

minorities Provided a model of how to use interpersonal contact to promote greater

tolerance of diversity Individuals more likely to classify outgroup members as part of their own

ingroup This is possible through Common Ingroup Identity Model developed by

Gaertner and Dovidio, consisting of de-categorization and re-categorization

Chapter 6: Attitudes

Attitudes (positive, negative, or mixed reaction to a person, object or idea) are evaluations of various aspects of the social world (central topic in social psychology)General:

Attitudes operate as schemas, cognitive frameworks, thus, they strongly color our perceptions and thoughts about the issues, persons, objects, or groups to which they refer

o We view info that supports our attitudes as convincing and accurateo We view info that is contrary to our attitudes as unreliable, biased, and

highly suspect Once attitudes are formed, they tend to persist, especially if they are strongly

accepted and closely related to interests or outcomes of persons who hold them

Attitudes strongly affect our social thought (ways in which we think about and process many kinds of social info)

Attitudes may represent a very basic aspect of all forms of thoughto Tendency to categorize stimuli as positive vs. negativeo Appears to be the first step in information processing

Attitudes strongly affect behavioro Can be used to predict behavioro Essential to relations with other people

Attitude Formation:Tesser believed strong likes and dislikes are rooted in our genetic makeup; however, genetics actually only contribute minimally to attitude formation; not much supportive empirical data

Studies completed on twins raised apart, identical twins have genetic predispositions

Relatively weak findings Attitudes involving gut level preferences (ex. Favorite type of music) are

usually more strongly influence by genetic factors Attitudes highly heritable may be more difficult to change, and may exert

stronger effects on behaviorAttitudes are formed through social learning (process of acquiring new info, behavior, attitude)

People form strong positive and negative attitudes toward neutral objects that somehow are linked to emotionally charged stimuli

Many of our views are acquired in situations when we interact with and observe others

Social comparison is the process through which we compare ourselves to others in order to determine whether our view of social reality is or is not correct

We often change our attitudes to hold views closer to those of others Our ideas must be accurate if others have the same view May contribute to the formation of new attitudes (Ex. Why celebrities do

advertisements, socializing/gossiping with your friends, friends talking about a product)

LaPiere was the first to notice that attitude and behavior did not always go hand in hand

Widespread prejudice in Asia; traveled with a Chinese couple to hotels and restaurants; only one place did not serve them

Wrote to those same places later asking if they would serve Asians, 91% said no

Study was flawed; attitudes could changed from the appearance of the couple (they spoke English well and were friendly)

Businesses could have ignored their own prejudices, or could have been the presence of LaPiere himself

Moderators are factors that influence the extent to which attitudes affect behaviorSituational constraints moderate relationship between attitudes and behavior and prevent attitudes from being expressed in overt behavior (ex. Sports game, wearing different jersey)We want to be in situations where what we say and what we do coincide

We avoid cognitive dissonance We want to engage in behavior consistent in our attitudes

Attitudes can be formed on the bases of direct experience, having a stronger effect on behaviorThe stronger the attitude, the greater the impactAttitude importance is the extent to which people care about an attitudeAttitude specificity is the extent to which attitudes are focused on specific objects or situations vs. generalities

Theory of Planned Behavior: theory of how attitudes guide behavior suggesting that individuals consider the implications of their actions before deciding to perform various behaviors (aka. Theory of reasoned action)

Time-consuming and slow Ex. Getting a piercing Attitude towards behavior in question (ex. How painful is it?) Belief of how others will evaluate behavior in question (ex. Will I get a job with

this?) Influence of perceived behavioral control; extent to which person sees the

behavior as being difficult or easy (ex. Is it easy to get done/where to go?)Attitude-to-Behavior Process Model: model of how attitudes guide behavior that emphasizes the influence of both attitudes and stored knowledge of what is appropriate in a given situation on an individual’s definition of the present situation; this in turn influences overt behavior

Act quickly An event activates an attitude, the attitude influences our perceptions of the

attitude object; our knowledge about what’s appropriate is activated and this with the attitude shape our definition of the event

Ex. Pan-handler approaches you, your attitude + your knowledge of how people are supposed to behave on the streets together influence the definition or perception of the event (ex. Feel bad for them vs. go get a job), and this definition or perception shapes your behavior

Persuasion: efforts to change others’ attitudes through the use of various kinds of messages

A source directs a message (communication) to a person or group of people (audience)

A comprehensive account of how persuasion occurs was needed Current research focuses on the HOW

Central issue to understanding the process of persuasion is a cognitive question: How do we process (absorb, interpret, evaluate) info contained in persuasive messages?We process messages in two distinct ways:

1. Systematic processing (central route): processing info in a persuasive message that involves careful consideration of message content and ideas Involves careful consideration of message content and ideas

Quite effortful and absorbs much of our information-processing capacity (work)

Engage in this when:o Our capacity to process info relating to the persuasive message is

high (ex. When we have a lot of knowledge, time to engage with them)

o We are motivated to do so (ex. When the issue is important to us)o We believe that it is important to form an accurate view

2. Heuristic processing (peripheral route): processing info in a persuasive message that involves the use of simple rules of thumb or mental shortcuts Can often lead to error (ex. When people believe all expert opinions are

true) Much less effortful and allows us to react to persuasive messages

automatically Occurs in response to cues in the message or situation that evoke various

mental shortcuts (ex. Model speaking, advertising, marketing, salesmen, politicians)

Engage in this when:o We lack the ability or capacity to process carefully (ex. When we

need to make a quick decision or have little knowledge about the issue)

o Our motivation to perform such cognitive work is low (ex. When the issue is unimportant to us or has little effect on us)

When the relevance of a message is low, people process messages through the heuristic mode, thus argument strength is low and the persuasion produces is not influenced by the strength of the arguments it contains

When the relevance of a message is high, persuasion is much more likely if arguments it contains are strong and convincing

When people are distracted, people are more easily persuaded because the capacity to process info in a persuasive message is limited (Heuristic mode) (ex. Subliminal messages)

Attitude Function:Certain attitudes may boost self-esteem by engaging in greater scrutiny of the message content

We are most likely to be influence by a speaker’s style (nonverbal cues) if we find a message unimportant or uninteresting and process it heuristically

We are most likely to be influenced by the arguments the speaker makes if we find the message important or interesting and process it systematically

Resistance to Persuasion1. Reactance: negative reaction to threats to one’s personal freedom; often

increases resistance to persuasion “Negative attitude change”: change in attitude or behavior in the opposite

direction of that being urged or persuaded Ex. Someone is pressuring you – real estate agent; turned off to the

apartment2. Forewarning: advance knowledge that one is about to become the target of

an attempt at persuasion; often increases resistance to the persuasion that follows Provides us with more opportunity to formulate counter-arguments,

thereby lessening the message impact Provides us with more time to recall relevant facts and info to refute a

persuasive message

3. Selective Avoidance: tendency to direct attention away from info that challenges existing attitudes; increases resistance to persuasion

4. Biased Assimilation: tendency to evaluate info that disconfirms our existing views as less convincing or reliable than info that confirms these viewsAttitude polarization: tendency to evaluate mixed evidence or info in such a way that it strengthens our initial views and makes them more extreme Ex. Professors and doctors do this a lot

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational, sometimes maladaptive behavior (Festinger)Cognitive dissonance: differences in attitudes vs. behaviorsThe more time/money/effort you choose to invest in something, the more anxious you will feel if the outcome proves disappointingReducing dissonance:

Change attitude or perception of the behavior Add consonant cognitions Minimize the importance of the conflict Reduce perceived choice Rationalizing that others in one’s ingroup are hypocrites Denying personal responsibility for the behavior

Festinger’s study: participant forced to do mundane tasks for an hour, then paid to convince a confederate to do the same thing

Insufficient justification is a condition in which people freely perform an attitude-discrepant behavior without receiving a large reward

Demonstrated self-persuasion: when people behave in ways that contradict attitudes, they sometimes go on to change those attitudes without any exposure to a persuasive communication

They contradicted the belief that big rewards produce greater change; more money offered = more they felt justified and the less likely they were to change their attitudes

Just as a small reward provides insufficient justification for attitude-discrepant behavior, mild punishment is insufficient deterrence for attitude-discrepant non-behavior

Children prohibited from playing with an attractive toy, threatened with mild or severe punishment; only those threatened mildly showed disdain for the toy

The less severe the threatened punishment, the greater the attitude change produced

We alter our attitudes to justify our sufferingAccording to dissonance theory, when making a difficult decision, people rationalize whatever they decide by exaggerating the positive features of the chosen alternative and the negative features of the unchosen alternativePeople feel discomfort and change their attitudes when disagreeing with others in a groupVicarious dissonance is when you change an attitude after observing inconsistent behavior from others with whom you identify

“New Cognitive Dissonance Theory”: Cooper and Fazio found four steps necessary for arousal and reduction of dissonance:

1. Attitude-discrepant behavior must produce unwanted negative consequences (ex. No harm, no foul)

2. Feeling personal responsibility for the unpleasant outcomes of behavior Freedom of choice Belief that potential negative consequences of actions were foreseeable

3. Physiological arousal

4. Must make an attribution for that arousal to their own behaviorAttitude-discrepant actions don’t always produce dissonance:

Not everyone cares about being cognitively consistent A change in attitude often seems to require the production of negative

consequencesHowever, research has shown that mere inconsistency can trigger cognitive dissonance, even without negative consequences

Three Alternatives to Self-Persuasion:1. Self-Perception Theory: Daryl Bem showed that we don’t always have

firsthand knowledge of our own attitudes, and so we infer how we feel by observing ourselves and the circumstances of our own behavior Observers can have the same behavioral info as the participants but not

experience the same personal conflict Shows that dissonance-like results can be obtained without arousal When people behave in ways at odds with their attitudes, they feel the

effects of dissonance and change their attitudes to rationalize their actions When people behave in non-discrepant ways, they experience little

tension and form their attitudes as a matter of inference (self-perception)2. Impression Management Theory: importance on motive to appear

consistent rather than the motive to actually be consistent; sum our attitudes and behaviors to present ourselves in a particular light Places emphasis on our concern for self-presentation Cognitive dissonance does not produce attitude change, only reported

change Studies show that although self-persuasion can be motivated by

impression management, it can also occur in situations that do not clearly arouse self-presentation concerns

3. Self-Esteem Theories: acts that arouse dissonance do so because they threaten the self-concept, making the person feel guilty, dishonest, or hypocritical, motivating a change in attitude or future behavior Claude Steele suggested that a dissonance-producing situation (engaging

in an attitude-discrepant behavior, exerting wasted effort, or making a tough decision) sets in motion a process of self-affirmation (serves to revalidate the integrity of the self-concept)

Summary: Dissonance theory states that people change their attitudes to justify their

attitude-discrepant behaviors, efforts, and decisions Self-perception theory argues that the change occurs because people infer

how they feel by observing their own behavior Impression-management theory claims that the attitude change is spurred by

concerns about self-presentation Self-affirmation theory says that the change is motivated by threats to the

self-concept

Cultural Influence: In Western cultures, individuals are expected to make decision that are

consistent with their personal attitudes and make those decision free from outside influences

In East Asian cultures, individuals are expected to make decisions that benefit their ingroup and to take the well being of others into account in making those decisions

Cognitive dissonance is both universal and dependent on culture; everyone tries to reduce dissonance, but cultures influence the conditions under which this occurs

Chapter 7: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Conformity (the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms as a result of real or imagined group pressure) ex. Prejudices, the way you socialize with someone you don’t want toResistance to conformity is particularly characteristic of individuals who have high status and seniority within a groupPeople judge others by their overt behavior and tend to judge themselves by focusing inward and introspecting about their thought processes, blinding them to their own conformitySocial pressure is more powerful than individual differencesConformity is also, at times, inconsequential (ex. Having to wear a uniform for a job)Conformity can be good AND bad, mostly negative in Western culturesIn Japan, conformity is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of self-control, tolerance, and maturityMuzafer Sherif visual illusion study, ambiguous autokinetic effect

Participants saw dots of light, had to estimate how far they traveled in the dark

Singularly they had completely different answers, but in groups they converged on common perceptions

Informational influence, private conformitySoloman Asch’s line conformity study

Participant walks into a room with five other confederates Have to show which line is the same length as a given model All confederates say the wrong line, ~50% went along with at least half of the

wrong assumptions, 25% did not conform Normative influence, public conformity

Informational influence produces conformity when a person believes others are correct in their judgments

If others are agreeing, they must be right In a state of uncertainty, it makes sense to follow the collective wisdom of

othersNormative influence produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviantPrivate conformity: change of beliefs that occurs when a person privately accepts the position taken by others; truly persuaded that others in a group are correct; TRUE CONVERSIONPublic conformity: superficial change in overt behavior without a corresponding change of opinion that is produced by real or imagined group pressure; pretend to agree but privately disagreeing (politician’s approach)People tend to conform when the social pressure is high and they are insecure about how to behave in a situation

Conformity Factors: Group size: conformity increases with group size until it reaches 4, where

additional influence is negligible; more important is the number of independent minds

Social norms Presence of an ally: reduces conformity by 80%

o Difficult for people to stand alone for their convictions than to be part of even a tiny minority

o Any dissent can reduce normative pressures to conform Gender

o Females conform more on masculine issueso Males conform more on feminine issues

o Gender differences are weak and unreliableo When participants think they are being watched, women conform more

Minority Influence (the process by which dissenters produce change within a group)Although people who assert their beliefs against the majority are generally seen as competent and honest, they are also disliked and rejectedBassili study: asked people about attitudes on social policy issues, found those who held minority opinions were slower to answer than those with majority opinionsTwelve Angry men: jury went from a 11-1 vote guilty to a 12-0 vote not guilty because of the one dissenterMoscovici’s Theory:

Majorities are powerful because of their sheer numbers, but minorities are powerful in the style of their behavior (must be forceful, persistent, and unwavering in support of their minority position)

Unwavering repetition draws attention from those in the majority, a necessary first step to social influence

Consistency signals that the dissenter is unlikely to yield, which leads those in the majority to feel pressured to seek compromise

Confronted with someone who has the self-confidence to take an unpopular stand without backing down, people assume that they must have a point

Dissenters have more influence when people identify with them and perceive them to be similar in ways that are relevant and desirable

Perception of consistency increases minority influenceHollander proposed that to influence a majority, people should first conform in order to establish their credentials as competent insiders, accumulate idiosyncrasy credits, or brownie points, until a certain amount of their deviance will be toleratedDual-Process Approach: majorities and minorities exert influence in different ways and for different reasons

Majorities because they have power and control, and elicit public conformity by bringing stressful normative pressures on the individual

Minorities because they are seen as committed to their views, produce a deeper and lasting form of private conformity, or conversion, by leading other to rethink their original positions

Relative impact of majorities or minorities depends on whether the judgment being made is objective or subjective, a matter of fact or opinion

Majorities have greater influence on factual questions Minorities have equal impact on opinionated questions

Relative effects of majority and minority points of view depend on how and when conformity is measuredBecause of social pressures, we may not openly admit to influence, but sometimes the changes is unmistakable; minorities spark innovation in othersTo have influence over a group, lone individuals must exhibit “authentic dissent”, not merely play devil’s advocate, a tactic that actually bolsters a majority’s opinon

Compliance (changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests)Langer found that we can be tricked into complying based off the wording of the requestsThe norm of reciprocity states that we treat others as they have treated usPeople feel compelled to reciprocate, but that feeling – at least for small acts of kindness – is relatively short-livedSequential Request Strategies: various compliance techniques based on a sequence of two related requests. The first request sets the trap and the second captures the prey.

Foot in the Door

o Two-stage compliance technique in which the influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request

o Works by altering self-perceptions, leading people who agree without any compensation to see themselves as helpful

o Ex. Having someone help you move the living room, then basement & garage

Lowballingo Two-stage compliance technique in which the influencer secures

agreement with a request but then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs

o Feel a nagging sense of unfulfilled obligation to the person with whom they negotiated

o Ex. Car salesman, get a cheap price for a car, but have to pay extra for add-ons at the end of the sale

Door in the Faceo A two step-compliance technique in which the influencer prefaces the

real request with one that is so large that it is rejectedo Involves the principle of perceptual contrast, smaller request feels

smallo Also involves reciprocal concessions, or pressure to respond to

changes in a bargaining positiono Ex. Lawyers will ask for way more money than they expect to actually

get That’s not all

o A two-step compliance technique in which the influencer begins with an inflated request, then decreases its apparent size by offering a discount or bonus

o Ex. Real estate, telemarketer, paid programmingFeeling manipulated typically leads us to react with anger, psychological reactance, and stubborn noncompliance, unless the request is a command and the requester is a figure of authority

Obedience (acting in accord with a direct order; behavior change produced by the commands of authority)Stanley Milgram’s Study of Destructive Obedience:

Participants were told it was a learning study and paired with a confederate 1 teacher and 1 learner, rigged so confederate was always the learner Teacher had to follow commands given by an authority figure Involved a fake shock generator, and every wrong answer the learner gave

sent a shock that the teacher had to deliver to them Encouraged to continue by the authority figure, but could walk away at any

point 50% went all the way to the deadliest shock level

Although personality characteristics may make someone vulnerable or resistant to destructive obedience, what seems to matter the most is the situation in which people find themselvesThe physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the authority figure played major roles in drawing obedienceDestructive obedience requires the physical presence of a prestigious authority figure

Evidence shows that Milgram’s participants were able to distance themselves emotionally from the learner and from the consequences of their actions

When participants were led to believe that they were the ones responsible for the pain instead of the authority figure, levels of obedience dropped

No differences between men and women in the studyWhen people were asked to come up with explanations for acts of wrongdoing, they tended to be more forgiving of the individuals who committed those acts and were seen as more forgiving by other peopleThere is no correlation between the year a study was conducted and the level of obedience that it produced

Chapter 8: Group Processes

Groups involve direct interactions among group members over time and a shared fate, identity, or set of goalsCollectives are people engaging in a common activity but having little direct interaction with others (ex. Concert, audience of a show, gym)

Social Facilitation (the process whereby the presence of others enhances performance on easy tasks but impairs performance on difficult tasks)

Norman Triplett: cyclists who competed against each other performed better than those cycling alone or against the clock

o Hypothesized the presence of a rider releases the competitive instinct, which increases nervous energy and enhances performance

o Had children wing fishing reel and alternated between having them work alone and in parallel

o Winding time was fasted when the children worked side by side (parallel)

o Subsequent research had inconsistent results, reinstated with Zajonc’s model

Robert Zajonc: the presence of others increases arousal, which can affect performance in different ways depending on the task at hand

o Increased physiological arousal energizes behavior in the presence of others, a surge of nondirectional energy

o This arousal increases the individual’s tendency to perform the dominant response, the reaction elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus

o The quality of an individual’s performance varies according to the type of task:

Easy/well-learned/simple tasks: dominant response usually correct

Difficult/complex/unfamiliar tasks: dominant response usually incorrect

o Believes social facilitation is universal, occurring in humans, animals, and insects

o Tested this with cockroaches in two different mazes Easy maze: pairs raced faster (competition) Difficult maze: singles raced faster With an audience, raced faster in easy maze and slower in hard

mazeo Researchers are beginning to find neurological and physiological

evidence consistent with predictions based on the theory, such as evidence concerning patterns of brain activation and cardiovascular responses

o Emphasizes how expectations about a task can also influence performance

o A person led to expect a successful performance does better in presence of others vs. being alone and a person expecting to do poorly does worse in presence of others (ex. Practicing a musical instrument and being told it sounds great even if it doesn’t)

Critical attention to Zajonc’s theory: His proposition that social facilitation is uniquely social His proposition that the mere presence of others is sufficient to affect

performance (mere presence theory)Alternative explanations of Social Facilitation:

Evaluation apprehension theory: the presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when those others are seen as potential evaluators (there is a crowd of people around me AND they are judging my aptitude)

Distraction-conflict theory: the presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when those others distract from the task and create attentional conflict (confliction about where to pay attention only increases arousal)

Seems as if mere presence, evaluation, AND attention can contribute the impact others have on our own performance

Questions Mere Presence(Robert Zajonc)

EvaluationApprehension

Distraction Conflict

Is it uniquely social? Yes Yes NoIs mere presence sufficient?

Yes No No

Social loafing: Group-produced reductions in individual output on tasks where contributions are pooled, ex. Cheering volume decreases when in a group vs. when cheering alone

Ringelmann found that compared with what individuals produced when they worked on their own, people’s output declined when they worked together on simple tasks

Sharing responsibility with others reduces the amount of effort that people put into more complex motor tasks (ex. Swimming in a relay race)

Ways of reducing social loafing: When people believe that individual performance is being evaluated (ex.

Being watched) When people engage in tasks that they find important or meaningful When people believe that their own efforts are necessary for a successful

outcome When people believe that groups with a good performance will be rewarded When people believe that groups with a bad performance will be punished When the group is small When people believe that group members will have sufficient info to be able

to evaluate the quality of the group Breaking down complex tasks into easier, simple ones; being task-oriented When working with acquaintances When working in a highly-valued, cohesive group Having high “achievement motivation”

Cross-cultural differences in social loafing: Social loafing is less prevalent among women & among East Asian, collectivist

cultures Social loafing is more prevalent among men & among individualistic cultures Collectivist cultures will socially loaf if they are working in a group that has

established a norm of low productivity and effort

If the outcome is important to individual members of the group and if they believe they can help achieve the desired outcome, then they are likely to engage in social compensation by increasing efforts on collective tasks to try to compensate for the anticipated social loafing or poor performance of other group members (picking up the slack)

Two conditions are necessary for an individual to show social compensation: Person must believe that co-workers are performing inadequately (could be

relative) Person must consider the quality of the group product as important

Latane’s Social Impact Theory (social influence, or impact of other people on an individual, depends on the strength, immediacy, and number of the observers)

Strength: the importance of observers, determined by factors such as status, age, ability, relationship to individual; stronger the source, the greater the influence

o Conformity: more likely to conform if the group seems competento Compliance: make targets feel obligated to reciprocate a small favoro Obedience: authority figures gain strength by wearing uniforms

Immediacy: source’s proximity in time and space to the target, closeness to the individual (ex. In front of you vs. through a webcam)

o Milgram: Obedience is higher when the person is physically presento The closer others are geographically, the more impact they have on us

Number: as number of observes increases, so does their impact (good or bad)o Asch: conformity rises with 1-4 live confederates, further increases are

negligible Predicts that people sometimes resist social pressure when social impact is

divided among many strong and distant targets Latane believes that social impact theory can help explain why the presence

of others sometimes lead to social facilitation and sometimes causes social loafing

In social facilitation, the person is the sole target of influence from an audience

In social loafing, each individual is only one of several targets of forces coming from outside the group

Many critics to this theory

Groupthink is a group decision-making style characterized by an excessive tendency among group members to seek concurrence (Janis)

Need for agreement takes priority over the motivation to obtain accurate info and make appropriate decisions

Produces failure to seek and discuss contrary info and alternative possibilities Produces defective decision Three characteristics contribute to the development of groupthink

o Highly cohesive groups o Group structure consisting of people from similar backgrounds directed

by a strong leader, and lacking systematic procedures for making/reviewing decisions

o Stressful situations: urgency overrules accuracy Symptoms:

o Overestimation of the group Illusion of invulnerability; group has excessive optimism which

can be blinding, even to warnings of danger Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality; assume inherent

morality of the group, ignore ethical/moral issues; ex. Nazi doctors

o Close-mindedness Rationalization to collectively justify decisions; initiatives are

solely actions to defend/justify

Stereotyped view of opponent: consider members of other group to be their enemies, too weak, unintelligent to defend themselves against a planned initiative

o Pressures towards uniformity Threaten those who raise doubts about the group’s plans Self-censorship: members withhold their misgivings to avoid

disagreement with the group majority Illusion of unanimity: created by conformity pressure & self-

censorship, appearance/perception of consensus Mindguards: (bodyguards) members who protect group from

info that will call into question the effectiveness of morality of group’s decisions (ex. Dominant personalities, more leadership in group, tenure ship)

Not a great deal of empirical support for groupthink Preventing groupthink: process info more carefully and accurately

o Be impartialo Encourage critical evaluation; assign a “devil’s advocate” (opposite of

mindguards)o Occasionally subdivide group, then reunite to discover differenceso Welcome critiques from outside experts (avoid bias)o Before implementation, call a “second-chance” meeting to air lingering

doubtso Leaders should not take a strong stand early on in the group decision

Challenger article: illusion of invulnerability, conformity pressures from NASA, illusion on unanimity: polled management but not engineers, mindguarding: NASA executive never learned of the engineers concerns

Group polarization is the exaggeration through group discussion of initial tendencies in the thinking of group members, enhanced like-mindedness

Strengthening of the members’ average tendency Can be good or bad, ex. Religion People associate mostly with others whose attitudes are similar to their own,

intensifying shared attitudeso Schools: studying in groupso Communities: events, concerts, sports gameso Internet: chat rooms, blogs, comedy shows

When a group performs worse than its potential, it experiences process loss, or the reduction of group productivity due to problems in the dynamics of a group (Ivan Steiner)Some types of group tasks are more vulnerable to process loss than others

Additive task: the group product is the sum of all the members’ contributions (ex. Donating to a charity, cheering at a sports game)

Conjunctive task: the group product is determined by the performance of the individual with the poorest performance (ex. Weakest link)

Disjunctive task: the group product is determined by the performance of the individual with the best performance (ex. Solving a problem)

Groups can also show process gain, where they outperform even the best members of a groupOsborn’s brainstorming theory:

Express all ideas, even if they sound crazy; more the merrier Don’t worry whether the ideas are good or bad All ideas belong to the group, build off each other’s work

Brainstorming can indeed be effective, but people brainstorming individually produce more and higher-quality ideas than the same number of people brainstorming together Rather than being inspired by each other and building on each other’s ideas, people brainstorming in a group underperformSocial loafing is one factor that contributes to process loss in “group brainstorming”Group brainstorming can be improved by:

Alternating types of brainstorming (alone, then together) Training people in effective brainstorming Giving the group a subset of categories to begin brainstorming Using a trained facilitator Being motivated for the collective success of the group, rather than individual

purpose Being motivated to exert effort to achieve a thorough and accurate

understanding of thr group task or problem at hand Electronic brainstorming

Escalation effect (entrapment; condition in which commitments to a failing course of action are increased to justify investments already made)

Groups whose members are relatively homogenous or feel a strong psychological connection with each other are more prone to escalation effects

Ex. The “Big Dig” in Boston

One of the biggest flaws in how groups perform is that they often fail to use all the info or skills that group members haveGarold Stasser’s biased sampling: the tendency for groups to spend more time discussing shared info (info already known to group members) than unshared info (info known by only a few members of a group)Ex. Challenger explosion, inadequate sharing of info contributed to the disasterNASA Columbia disaster was due to glitches in the communication network, defining who can speak with whom based on a group’s structure, making it difficult for info to be distributed to all of the decision makers Biased sampling is a frequent and significant problem in groupsGroups that do a better job of sharing info tend to perform much better and are more cohesiveLeaders who establish trust are more effective in promoting info sharingGinkel and Knippenberg hypothesized that groups that have leaders who try to instill a shared and productive understanding of the group task will tend to produce much better group performance than groups who do not have such a leader

Found that groups with a leader prompted to promote thorough info exchange were significantly more likely to discuss the unique pieces of info each group member had to arrive at better decision than the groups that had a leader who was prompted to encourage finding common ground

Groups are more susceptible to information-processing biases than individuals areTransactive memory: shared system for remembering info that enables multiple people to remember info together more efficiently than they could do so alone

Can result in process loss and social loafing (ex. Not doing your share of the work)

Groups that develop good transactive memory systems have advantages over other groups

Group must develop a division of knowledge, group members must communicate and remember this info in the group

Group members must be able to trust each other’s specialized knowledge Group members need to coordinate their efforts so that they can work

together on a task smoothly and efficiently