Social PsychologySocial Psychology

Cognitive Dissonance TheoryCognitive Dissonance Theory�� Consider the following situation: You bring students into the laConsider the following situation: You bring students into the lab and b and

ask them to work on a boring and repetitive task for an hourask them to work on a boring and repetitive task for an hour�� As theyAs they’’re leaving, Ss are asked to tell the next subject coming in re leaving, Ss are asked to tell the next subject coming in

that the task was very interestingthat the task was very interesting�� Some Ss were paid $1 to do this, others were paid $20 to do thisSome Ss were paid $1 to do this, others were paid $20 to do this�� Afterwards Ss were asked to rate how much they actually enjoyed Afterwards Ss were asked to rate how much they actually enjoyed

the task on a the task on a --5 to +5 scale5 to +5 scale�� Also rated how interested they were in participating againAlso rated how interested they were in participating again�� Three conditions: $1 group, $20 group, & a control group who werThree conditions: $1 group, $20 group, & a control group who were e

not asked to lie to the next subject, but were simply asked how not asked to lie to the next subject, but were simply asked how much they liked the task and how interested they were in much they liked the task and how interested they were in participating againparticipating again

�� Which group do you think said they enjoyed the task more? Would Which group do you think said they enjoyed the task more? Would be more interested in participating again?be more interested in participating again?

�� $1$1�� $20$20�� ControlControl

Mean rating of task enjoymentMean rating of task enjoyment

+1.35+1.35--0.050.05--0.450.45

Same pattern for willingness toSame pattern for willingness toparticipate againparticipate again

Insufficient Justification Effect Insufficient Justification Effect (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)(Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

-0.45

-0.62

1.35

1.2

-0.05

-0.25

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Enjoy? Participate again?

Rat

ing Control

$1 $20

FestingerFestinger’’s Cognitive s Cognitive Dissonance TheoryDissonance Theory

�� This was a classic experiment carried out by This was a classic experiment carried out by Festinger & CarlsmithFestinger & Carlsmith

�� It generated a huge amount of interest and It generated a huge amount of interest and research because Festinger & Carlsmith research because Festinger & Carlsmith correctly predicted the counterintuitive pattern correctly predicted the counterintuitive pattern found on the basis of Festingerfound on the basis of Festinger’’s new theory s new theory called cognitive dissonance theorycalled cognitive dissonance theory

�� Furthermore, it dealt with a very important Furthermore, it dealt with a very important aspect of human social interaction: aspect of human social interaction: attitude attitude changechange

Cognitive Dissonance TheoryCognitive Dissonance Theory

�� Basic idea is that people are always comparing their Basic idea is that people are always comparing their cognitions (attitudes, knowledge, beliefs) to one anothercognitions (attitudes, knowledge, beliefs) to one another

�� Cognitions can be related to one another in one of three Cognitions can be related to one another in one of three waysways�� ConsonantConsonant: When you have two cognitions that fit together or : When you have two cognitions that fit together or

are harmonious, you feel satisfied (consonance), e.g., are harmonious, you feel satisfied (consonance), e.g., ‘‘Smoking Smoking causes lung cancercauses lung cancer’’ & & ‘‘I donI don’’t smoket smoke’’

�� DissonantDissonant: When you have two cognitions that don: When you have two cognitions that don’’t fit together t fit together seem contradictory, you feel uncomfortable (dissonance), e.g., seem contradictory, you feel uncomfortable (dissonance), e.g., ‘‘Smoking causes lung cancerSmoking causes lung cancer’’ & & ‘‘I smoke 2 packs a dayI smoke 2 packs a day’’

�� IrrelevantIrrelevant: Two cognitions may be irrelevant, e.g., : Two cognitions may be irrelevant, e.g., ‘‘ItIt’’s raining s raining outsideoutside’’ & & ‘‘ItIt’’s 3000 miles from Paris to New Yorks 3000 miles from Paris to New York’’

Cognitive DissonanceCognitive Dissonance�� Cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance –– An unpleasant internal state of tension that An unpleasant internal state of tension that

results when people notice inconsistencies in their cognitions (results when people notice inconsistencies in their cognitions (about about attitudes, beliefs and behaviors)attitudes, beliefs and behaviors)�� The most common source: AttitudeThe most common source: Attitude--behavior discrepanciesbehavior discrepancies

�� People are motivated to reduce dissonancePeople are motivated to reduce dissonance

�� Three ways to reduce dissonanceThree ways to reduce dissonance�� Change one of the cognitions (either the attitude or behavior)Change one of the cognitions (either the attitude or behavior)

�� Stop smokingStop smoking

�� Change my belief that smoking causes lung cancerChange my belief that smoking causes lung cancer

�� Add more consonant cognitionsAdd more consonant cognitions�� II’’m addicted so I canm addicted so I can’’t quitt quit

�� I enjoy smokingI enjoy smoking

�� I use filters that trap all the bad stuffI use filters that trap all the bad stuff

�� Reduce the importance of relevant cognitionsReduce the importance of relevant cognitions�� EverybodyEverybody’’s got to die sometimes got to die sometime

How Does Dissonance Theory Explain the How Does Dissonance Theory Explain the Festinger & Carlsmith Results?Festinger & Carlsmith Results?

-0.45

-0.62

1.35

1.2

-0.05

-0.25

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Enjoy? Participate again?

Rat

ing Control

$1 $20

Dissonance Theory Explanation of Dissonance Theory Explanation of the Festinger & Carlsmith Resultsthe Festinger & Carlsmith Results

�� What produced the dissonance?What produced the dissonance?�� AttitudeAttitude--discrepant behavior: The task was boring; I discrepant behavior: The task was boring; I

told someone the task was interestingtold someone the task was interesting�� Which of the 3 conditions had the most Which of the 3 conditions had the most

dissonance to be reduced?dissonance to be reduced?�� The $1 conditionThe $1 condition�� $20 is a cognition that$20 is a cognition that’’s highly consonant with telling s highly consonant with telling

the person the task was interestingthe person the task was interesting�� Ss in the control condition never engaged in attitudeSs in the control condition never engaged in attitude--

discrepant behaviordiscrepant behavior�� Consequently, the most attitude change would Consequently, the most attitude change would

be expected in the $1 conditionbe expected in the $1 condition

Insufficient Justification Effect Insufficient Justification Effect ReplicationReplication

�� In CohenIn Cohen’’s study he went into dorms at Yale after a s study he went into dorms at Yale after a studentstudent--police altercation and had Ss write propolice altercation and had Ss write pro--police police essays for varying amounts of moneyessays for varying amounts of money

�� After writing the essay Ss were asked to rate their true After writing the essay Ss were asked to rate their true attitude toward the police (high numbers = more positive attitude toward the police (high numbers = more positive attitude)attitude)

$.50$.50$1$1$5$5$10$10ControlControl

Attitude toward policeAttitude toward police4.544.543.473.473.083.082.322.322.702.70

When Prophecy FailsWhen Prophecy FailsLeon Festinger, Henry Leon Festinger, Henry RieckenRiecken, & Stanley , & Stanley SchachterSchachter

September 1954, September 1954, Lake City Herald Lake City Herald headline...headline...

PROPHECY FROM PLANET. CLARION CALL TO PROPHECY FROM PLANET. CLARION CALL TO CITY: FLEE THAT FLOOD, ITCITY: FLEE THAT FLOOD, IT’’LL SWAMP US ON DEC. LL SWAMP US ON DEC. 21, OUTER SPACE TELLS SUBURBANITE.21, OUTER SPACE TELLS SUBURBANITE.

The Story of Mrs. The Story of Mrs. KeechKeech

Good example of the technique of Good example of the technique of participant participant observationobservation

Dissonance Theory PredictionsDissonance Theory Predictions

�� Festinger, Festinger, RieckenRiecken, & , & SchacterSchacter predicted predicted that when the catastrophe failed to that when the catastrophe failed to materialize, group members would materialize, group members would experience high dissonanceexperience high dissonance

�� They predicted dissonance reduction by They predicted dissonance reduction by adding consonant cognitions would be the adding consonant cognitions would be the easiest way to reduce dissonanceeasiest way to reduce dissonance

�� Hence, they expected an increase in Hence, they expected an increase in efforts to recruit new membersefforts to recruit new members

Forbidden Toy ParadigmForbidden Toy Paradigm(Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963) (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963)

�� Child shown 5 toys varying in attractivenessChild shown 5 toys varying in attractiveness�� Child asked to rank toys in order of likingChild asked to rank toys in order of liking�� 22ndnd ranked toy placed on tableranked toy placed on table�� 3 experimental conditions; in all 3 experimenter 3 experimental conditions; in all 3 experimenter

says she has to leave for awhilesays she has to leave for awhile�� No threat (control)No threat (control): :

�� Places toy in sight but out of reachPlaces toy in sight but out of reach

�� Mild threatMild threat: : �� ““I donI don’’t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I

would be annoyed.would be annoyed.””

�� Severe threatSevere threat: : �� ““I donI don’’t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I

would be very angry.would be very angry.””

�� When experimenter returns, the child is asked to When experimenter returns, the child is asked to rank the toys againrank the toys again

Results and AnalysisResults and Analysis�� Interest was in changes in attitude toward (i.e., Interest was in changes in attitude toward (i.e.,

attractiveness of) the forbidden toyattractiveness of) the forbidden toy

�� What would dissonance theory predict? What produces What would dissonance theory predict? What produces the dissonance here? Whatthe dissonance here? What’’s the attitude and the attitudes the attitude and the attitude--discrepant behavior?discrepant behavior?

�� In which condition would the dissonance to be reduced be In which condition would the dissonance to be reduced be greatest? How could that dissonance be reduced?greatest? How could that dissonance be reduced?�� Mild threat: Mild threat:

�� attitudeattitude--behavior inconsistency behavior inconsistency �� dissonance dissonance �� effort to reduce effort to reduce ��alter attitudealter attitude

�� Experimenters returned 40 days later and had kids Experimenters returned 40 days later and had kids rerankrerankthe toys: Changes in attractiveness of the forbidden toy the toys: Changes in attractiveness of the forbidden toy persistedpersisted——thus, it was not a temporary attitude changethus, it was not a temporary attitude change

ConditionConditionMild ThreatMild ThreatSevere ThreatSevere ThreatNo ThreatNo Threat

Ranking of Forbidden ToyRanking of Forbidden ToyIncreased Same DecreasedIncreased Same Decreased

4 10 84 10 814 8 014 8 0

7 4 07 4 0

Implications of Dissonance Theory Implications of Dissonance Theory Interpretation of Forbidden Toy ParadigmInterpretation of Forbidden Toy Paradigm

�� To achieve maximum attitude change, the To achieve maximum attitude change, the person needs to engage in attitudeperson needs to engage in attitude--discrepant discrepant behaviorbehavior

�� This should be accomplished with as mild a This should be accomplished with as mild a threat as possible so that dissonance is not threat as possible so that dissonance is not reduced by the threat and must be reduced by reduced by the threat and must be reduced by attitude change insteadattitude change instead

Insufficient Justification Effect Experiments Insufficient Justification Effect Experiments and Alternative Explanationsand Alternative Explanations

�� Many studies were carried out looking at the insufficient Many studies were carried out looking at the insufficient justification effect and the conditions under which it justification effect and the conditions under which it occurredoccurred�� The effect turned out to be easy to replicateThe effect turned out to be easy to replicate�� The conditions under which it occurred were generally consistentThe conditions under which it occurred were generally consistent

with a dissonance theory explanationwith a dissonance theory explanation

�� Dissonance theory, however, wasnDissonance theory, however, wasn’’t the only explanation t the only explanation developed to account for the results from insufficient developed to account for the results from insufficient justification experimentsjustification experiments

�� Dissonance theory premise: Attitude change is driven by Dissonance theory premise: Attitude change is driven by an aversive arousal state (dissonance, an unpleasant an aversive arousal state (dissonance, an unpleasant state of tension)state of tension)

�� Darryl Darryl BemBem, an attribution theorist, suggested an , an attribution theorist, suggested an alternative interpretationalternative interpretation

�� Attribution theorists study how people think about the Attribution theorists study how people think about the causes their own and otherscauses their own and others’’ behavior behavior

BemBem’’s Self Perception Theorys Self Perception Theory�� People observe their OWN behavior and the context in which it People observe their OWN behavior and the context in which it

occursoccurs�� People use their observations of their own behavior to draw People use their observations of their own behavior to draw

inferences about what their attitudes must beinferences about what their attitudes must be�� Example: Do you like whole wheat bread? Well, I guess I must sinExample: Do you like whole wheat bread? Well, I guess I must since I ce I

buy it every time I go to the storebuy it every time I go to the store�� Assuming that people do this provides an alternative explanationAssuming that people do this provides an alternative explanation for for

the insufficient justification effectthe insufficient justification effect——one that doesnone that doesn’’t require t require dissonance (unpleasant state of tension) to drive the attitude cdissonance (unpleasant state of tension) to drive the attitude changehange

�� BemBem’’s explanation of the Festinger & Carlsmith result postulated s explanation of the Festinger & Carlsmith result postulated that when Ss were asked how much they enjoyed the task they that when Ss were asked how much they enjoyed the task they simply looked at their own behavior (coldly, rationallysimply looked at their own behavior (coldly, rationally——no tension)no tension)�� $20: infer behavior due to money$20: infer behavior due to money�� $1: infer behavior due to attitude$1: infer behavior due to attitude

�� Critical features of self perception:Critical features of self perception:�� Made same predictions as dissonance theoryMade same predictions as dissonance theory�� But more parsimonious; therefore, in the absence of better evideBut more parsimonious; therefore, in the absence of better evidence, it nce, it

would be preferredwould be preferred�� Seemed to apply to all experiments to dateSeemed to apply to all experiments to date

BemBem’’s Replication of Cohens Replication of Cohen’’s Studys Study�� To support his argument, To support his argument, BemBem replicated Cohenreplicated Cohen’’s pros pro--police essay police essay

study, but without having his subjects engage in attitudestudy, but without having his subjects engage in attitude--discrepant discrepant behaviorbehavior

�� He asked his subjects simply to read a proHe asked his subjects simply to read a pro--police essay and told police essay and told them how much the writer had been paid to write the essay (usingthem how much the writer had been paid to write the essay (usingthe same monetary conditions Cohen had used)the same monetary conditions Cohen had used)

�� Then he asked them to make a judgment about the essay writerThen he asked them to make a judgment about the essay writer’’s s true attitude toward the policetrue attitude toward the police

�� He found the same pattern that Cohen did and argued that He found the same pattern that Cohen did and argued that dissonance reduction could not be the explanation in his later sdissonance reduction could not be the explanation in his later study tudy because subjects never engaged in any attitudebecause subjects never engaged in any attitude--discrepant discrepant behavior, so no dissonance was ever arousedbehavior, so no dissonance was ever aroused

�� Thus, he argued postulating the need to reduce an unpleasant staThus, he argued postulating the need to reduce an unpleasant state te of psychological tension is unnecessary to account for the of psychological tension is unnecessary to account for the insufficient justification effectinsufficient justification effect

�� This controversy between self perception theory and dissonance This controversy between self perception theory and dissonance theory generated a huge amount of researchtheory generated a huge amount of research

�� It turned out that each theory accounted for some results but noIt turned out that each theory accounted for some results but not all, t all, so both effects appear to be operative in the insufficient justiso both effects appear to be operative in the insufficient justification fication effecteffect

Additional Implications of Self Additional Implications of Self Perception TheoryPerception Theory

�� Self perception theory is a form of attribution theory Self perception theory is a form of attribution theory which commonly makes a distinction between internal which commonly makes a distinction between internal (dispositional) and external (situational) causes of (dispositional) and external (situational) causes of behaviorbehavior

�� Self perception theorists argue that when people see Self perception theorists argue that when people see their own behavior in a task as internally caused they their own behavior in a task as internally caused they attribute their behavior to their own intrinsic interest in attribute their behavior to their own intrinsic interest in the task (intrinsic motivation)the task (intrinsic motivation)

�� When people see their behavior in a task as resulting When people see their behavior in a task as resulting from external inducements they attribute their behavior from external inducements they attribute their behavior to those extrinsic inducements (extrinsic motivation)to those extrinsic inducements (extrinsic motivation)

�� By varying levels of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards By varying levels of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards associated with a task one arrives at differing predicted associated with a task one arrives at differing predicted self perceptions of motivationself perceptions of motivation

Insufficient and Oversufficient Insufficient and Oversufficient Justification EffectsJustification Effects

Oversufficient Oversufficient JustificationJustification

(Unstable perception)(Unstable perception)

Stable perception of Stable perception of intrinsic motivationintrinsic motivationHighHigh

Stable perception of Stable perception of extrinsic motivationextrinsic motivation

Insufficient JustificationInsufficient Justification

(Unstable perception)(Unstable perception)LowLow

Level of Level of Intrinsic Intrinsic RewardReward

HighHighLowLow

Level of Extrinsic RewardLevel of Extrinsic Reward

Oversufficient Justification EffectOversufficient Justification Effect

�� Both dissonance theory and self perception Both dissonance theory and self perception theory predict the insufficient justification effect, theory predict the insufficient justification effect, namely, that individuals in an insufficient namely, that individuals in an insufficient justification situation will be motivated to change justification situation will be motivated to change their attitude toward the task and see it as more their attitude toward the task and see it as more intrinsically interestingintrinsically interesting

�� Only self perception theory predicts an Only self perception theory predicts an oversufficient justification effect, namely, that if oversufficient justification effect, namely, that if high extrinsic reward is added to an already high extrinsic reward is added to an already intrinsically interesting task, interest in the task intrinsically interesting task, interest in the task will be underminedwill be undermined

Evidence for an Oversufficient Evidence for an Oversufficient Justification EffectJustification Effect

�� ‘‘Magic MarkerMagic Marker’’ study (study (LepperLepper, Greene, & , Greene, & NisbettNisbett, 1973), 1973)�� Observed that 3Observed that 3--5 year old kids love playing with magic markers5 year old kids love playing with magic markers�� All kids were told they could play with magic markers for awhileAll kids were told they could play with magic markers for awhile, but , but

kids were randomly assigned to one of 3 groupskids were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups�� Expected Reward (received the Expected Reward (received the ‘‘Good Player AwardGood Player Award’’))�� Unexpected Reward (unexpectedly received Unexpected Reward (unexpectedly received ‘‘Good Player AwardGood Player Award’’ at at

end of time)end of time)�� No RewardNo Reward

�� Several weeks later, kidsSeveral weeks later, kids’’ regular teacher brought out magic regular teacher brought out magic markers along with other play materialsmarkers along with other play materials

�� Experimenters observed how much time kids spent playing with Experimenters observed how much time kids spent playing with magic markers when they could play with any of the materialsmagic markers when they could play with any of the materials

�� Also had judges (blind to condition) rate the quality of drawingAlso had judges (blind to condition) rate the quality of drawings s mademade

�� Intrinsic interest in drawing with magic markers AFTER award Intrinsic interest in drawing with magic markers AFTER award received (or not received) was operationally defined as the percreceived (or not received) was operationally defined as the percent ent of freeof free--choice time spent drawing with the markerschoice time spent drawing with the markers

Magic Marker StudyMagic Marker StudyLepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1975)Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1975)

8.6

16.718.1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

ExpectedExpected

RewardRewardUnexpectedUnexpected

RewardRewardNo No

RewardReward

% T

ime

Pla

yed

with

Mag

ic M

arke

rs%

Tim

e P

laye

d w

ith M

agic

Mar

kers

NoteNote. Judges also rated the drawings to be of poorer quality in the . Judges also rated the drawings to be of poorer quality in the Expected RewardExpected Rewardcondition than in the other conditionscondition than in the other conditions

�� Should we never reward children?Should we never reward children?�� Extrinsic rewards probably donExtrinsic rewards probably don’’t undermine t undermine

interest for behaviors that interest for behaviors that arenaren’’t intrinsically t intrinsically rewarding rewarding

�� Tangible awards should be Tangible awards should be just large enoughjust large enoughto encourage activity to encourage activity –– decrease in intrinsic decrease in intrinsic motivation is inversely related to extrinsic motivation is inversely related to extrinsic rewardreward

�� Intangible rewards (verbal praise) probably Intangible rewards (verbal praise) probably helpful all the timehelpful all the time

ImplicationsImplications

Attribution TheoryAttribution Theory�� Attribution theory has been a major area of study Attribution theory has been a major area of study

in social psychologyin social psychology�� Attribution theorists study how people think about Attribution theorists study how people think about

the causes their own and othersthe causes their own and others’’ behavior and behavior and commonly make a distinction between internal commonly make a distinction between internal (dispositional) and external (situational) causes (dispositional) and external (situational) causes of behaviorof behavior

�� Attribution theory tries to delineate the conditions Attribution theory tries to delineate the conditions that distinguish when people will attribute that distinguish when people will attribute behavior to internal causes vs external causesbehavior to internal causes vs external causes

�� One bias that people seem to exhibit in their One bias that people seem to exhibit in their attributions is so consistent that it has been attributions is so consistent that it has been called the called the Fundamental Attribution Error Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution ErrorFundamental Attribution Error

�� The tendency to overestimate the importance of The tendency to overestimate the importance of personal dispositions (internal attributions) in personal dispositions (internal attributions) in determining behavior and underestimate the determining behavior and underestimate the importance of situations (external attributions)importance of situations (external attributions)

�� We have a preference for internal attributionsWe have a preference for internal attributions�� ActorActor--Observer EffectObserver Effect

�� The Fundamental Attribution Error is stronger when The Fundamental Attribution Error is stronger when perceiving others than when perceiving the self perceiving others than when perceiving the self

�� We make more internal/dispositional attributions of We make more internal/dispositional attributions of others and more situational attributions of self others and more situational attributions of self

�� The Fundamental Attribution Error probably The Fundamental Attribution Error probably accounts for the accounts for the ‘‘surprisingnesssurprisingness’’ of many of the of many of the classic findings in social psychologyclassic findings in social psychology

Stanley MilgramStanley Milgram ’’s (1963) Obedience Studiess (1963) Obedience Studies

�� Purpose of studies: Find out the conditions under which Purpose of studies: Find out the conditions under which people would be willing to harm others simply in people would be willing to harm others simply in obedience to an authority figureobedience to an authority figure

�� Impetus was the observation that in WWII many in Impetus was the observation that in WWII many in Germany used obedience to authority as a justification for Germany used obedience to authority as a justification for inhumane behaviorinhumane behavior

�� Milgram brought 2 subjects into lab, however, only 1 was Milgram brought 2 subjects into lab, however, only 1 was a real subject; the other was a confederatea real subject; the other was a confederate

�� A rigged coin flip always assigned the real subject to be A rigged coin flip always assigned the real subject to be the the ‘‘Teacher,Teacher,’’ the confederate the the confederate the ‘‘LearnerLearner’’

�� Subject (teacher) was instructed to administer electric Subject (teacher) was instructed to administer electric shocks for wrong answersshocks for wrong answers

�� Shocks would intensify with successive wrong answers Shocks would intensify with successive wrong answers (15 (15 -- 450 volts) 450 volts)

MilgramMilgram’’s Obedience Experimentss Obedience Experiments

�� Both teacher and learner Both teacher and learner were initially hooked up were initially hooked up to shock generator to feel to shock generator to feel the shockthe shock

�� In the main study, In the main study, teachers then went to teachers then went to another room with the another room with the experimenter and experimenter and communicated with the communicated with the learner via intercomlearner via intercom

�� Some studies varied the Some studies varied the proximity between proximity between teacher and learnerteacher and learner

One condition was One condition was the Touchthe Touch--Proximity Proximity condition seen herecondition seen here

MilgramMilgram’’s Shock Generators Shock Generator

LearnerLearner’’s Schedule of Protests 1s Schedule of Protests 1

�� 120: 120: ““ugh! Hey, ugh! Hey, thisthis really hurts.really hurts.””

�� 150: 150: ““ugh!!! Experimenter! Thatugh!!! Experimenter! That’’s all. Get me out of here. s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heartI told you I had heart trouble. My heart’’s starting to s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heartbother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’’s s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.””

�� 195: similar to 150195: similar to 150

�� 210: 210: ““Ugh!! Experimenter! Ugh!! Experimenter! GetGet me out of here. Ime out of here. I’’ve had ve had enough. I enough. I wonwon’’tt be in the experiment any more.be in the experiment any more.””

�� 270: (agonized scream) 270: (agonized scream) ““Let me out of here (x6)Let me out of here (x6)””

�� 285: (agonized scream)285: (agonized scream)

LearnerLearner’’s Schedule of Protests 2s Schedule of Protests 2

�� 300: (agonized scream) 300: (agonized scream) ““I absolutely refuse to answer I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You canany more. Get me out of here. You can’’t hold me heret hold me here…”…”

�� 315: (intensely agonized scream) 315: (intensely agonized scream) ““I told you I refuse to I told you I refuse to answeranswer. I. I’’m no longer part of this experiment.m no longer part of this experiment.””

�� 330: (intense and prolonged agonized scream) 330: (intense and prolonged agonized scream) ““Let me Let me out of here (x2). My heartout of here (x2). My heart’’s bothering me s bothering me ……. . (hysterically) Let me out of here (x2). You have no right (hysterically) Let me out of here (x2). You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! (x6).to hold me here. Let me out! (x6).””

�� After 330: silence, refuses to answer wordAfter 330: silence, refuses to answer word--pair questionspair questions

ExperimenterExperimenter’’s s Schedule of ProdsSchedule of Prods

�� Prod 1: Prod 1: ““Please continuePlease continue”” oror ““Please go Please go onon””

�� Prod 2: Prod 2: ““The experiment requires that The experiment requires that you continueyou continue””

�� Prod 3: Prod 3: ““It is absolutely essential that It is absolutely essential that you continueyou continue””

�� Prod 4: Prod 4: ““You have no other choice, you You have no other choice, you mustmust go ongo on””

Results of MilgramResults of Milgram’’s Studies of Obediences Studies of Obedience

Copyright © Allyn and Bacon

Surprising ResultsSurprising Results

�� Why do MilgramWhy do Milgram’’s results seem so s results seem so surprising?surprising?

�� Probably in part because we tend to make Probably in part because we tend to make the Fundamental Attribution Errorthe Fundamental Attribution Error

�� The situation was extremely powerful in The situation was extremely powerful in MilgramMilgram’’s studiess studies

The Milgram ControversyThe Milgram Controversy�� MilgramMilgram’’s study was widely criticized and led to a s study was widely criticized and led to a

great deal of concern for the naive subject. Soon great deal of concern for the naive subject. Soon after, after, human subjects committeeshuman subjects committees were were developed to review all social science research developed to review all social science research proposals.proposals.

�� The human subject committee requiresThe human subject committee requires::

1) Informed consent1) Informed consent

2) Careful (and infrequent) use of deception2) Careful (and infrequent) use of deception

3) Thorough debriefing3) Thorough debriefing

AschAsch’’s Conformity Studiess Conformity StudiesLineLine--Judgment TaskJudgment Task

Participants were asked to indicate which of three Participants were asked to indicate which of three lines best matched a standard line after a unanimous lines best matched a standard line after a unanimous group gives wrong answer group gives wrong answer (see Figure)(see Figure)

AschAsch’’s Conformity Resultss Conformity Results

�� Subjects conformed to false majority on 37% of critical Subjects conformed to false majority on 37% of critical trials trials

�� 76% of subjects conformed at least once (much 76% of subjects conformed at least once (much variability)variability)

�� As group size increased (up to about 5 or 6) conformity As group size increased (up to about 5 or 6) conformity increased, after that group size had little effectincreased, after that group size had little effect

�� When given an ally (even if they disagreed with subject), When given an ally (even if they disagreed with subject), conformity decreased to 8%conformity decreased to 8%

�� When responses made privately, almost no one When responses made privately, almost no one conformedconformed

�� Again, Again, surprisingnesssurprisingness of results probably due in part to of results probably due in part to Fundamental Attribution ErrorFundamental Attribution Error

Altruism or Helping BehaviorAltruism or Helping Behavior

�� In 1964 Kitty Genovese (New York City ) was sexually assaulted In 1964 Kitty Genovese (New York City ) was sexually assaulted and stabbed eight times. and stabbed eight times.

�� Overall the attack lasted for over 35 minutes Overall the attack lasted for over 35 minutes �� The killer was scared off twice by Kitty's screams and strugglesThe killer was scared off twice by Kitty's screams and struggles

("Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"), ("Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"), and by the voices and lights of the 38 people who watched from and by the voices and lights of the 38 people who watched from their windows. their windows.

�� As no one intervened, however, he returned each time to attack As no one intervened, however, he returned each time to attack again. No one even called the police during the attack. Only 1 again. No one even called the police during the attack. Only 1 person belatedly called the police after the attack was overperson belatedly called the police after the attack was over

�� When apartment tenants were interviewed later they said they When apartment tenants were interviewed later they said they saw the attack but were afraid to saw the attack but were afraid to ‘‘get involvedget involved’’

�� Work on altruism is purported to have started with the breakingWork on altruism is purported to have started with the breaking of of this story. Two social psychologists (Latane and Darley) read ththis story. Two social psychologists (Latane and Darley) read the e reports of this horrific attack and started to consider why, desreports of this horrific attack and started to consider why, despite pite the length and severity of the attack, no one even called the pothe length and severity of the attack, no one even called the policelice

�� Darley & Darley & LataneLatane’’ss work suggested that problem here was work suggested that problem here was probably one they called probably one they called diffusion of responsibilitydiffusion of responsibility

6 [subject, victim, 4 others]6 [subject, victim, 4 others]

3 [subject, victim, 1 other]3 [subject, victim, 1 other]

2 [subject, victim]2 [subject, victim]

% in 6 % in 6 minutesminutes

% by end of % by end of seizureseizureGroup sizeGroup size

Bystander Intervention Research:Bystander Intervention Research:Diffusion of ResponsibilityDiffusion of Responsibility

DarleyDarley & & LataneLatane (1968) (1968) –– epileptic seizure studyepileptic seizure study

85

62

31

100

85

62

�� DarleyDarley & Batson (1973) & Batson (1973) ““Good SamaritanGood Samaritan”” studystudy

�� Princeton Theology Seminary students were on Princeton Theology Seminary students were on their way to give a sermon about their way to give a sermon about ““The Good The Good SamaritanSamaritan””

�� Subjects were deliberately made to be early, onSubjects were deliberately made to be early, on--time, or latetime, or late

�� On their way through an alley, the seminary On their way through an alley, the seminary students found a man slumped in a doorway, students found a man slumped in a doorway, coughing and groaningcoughing and groaning

�� What do you think they did?What do you think they did?

Bystander Intervention Research:Bystander Intervention Research:Noticing the SituationNoticing the Situation

2. On Time2. On Time

1. Late1. Late

% helping% helping

DarleyDarley & Batson (1973) & Batson (1973) –– Good SamaritanGood Samaritan

10

65

Bystander Intervention Research:Bystander Intervention Research:Noticing the SituationNoticing the Situation

QuestionQuestion: Did being late simply make the : Did being late simply make the students less caring about the wellstudents less caring about the well--being of being of the person needing help? the person needing help?

�� Probably not the entire explanationProbably not the entire explanation�� students in a rush were preoccupiedstudents in a rush were preoccupied

�� didndidn’’t pick up on all the relevant social cuest pick up on all the relevant social cues

�� didndidn’’t interpret the man on the ground as t interpret the man on the ground as someone potentially in need of helpsomeone potentially in need of help

2. Two others2. Two others

1. Alone1. Alone

% help (6 min).% help (6 min).% help (2 min.) % help (2 min.)

LataneLatane & & DarleyDarley (1968) (1968) –– smoke filled roomsmoke filled room

5012

Bystander Intervention Research:Bystander Intervention Research:Situational AmbiguitySituational Ambiguity

7338

Question:Question: Why does having other people Why does having other people around make such a differencearound make such a difference??

�� Answer:Answer: Pluralistic IgnorancePluralistic Ignorance�� If there is any ambiguity, people look to others to If there is any ambiguity, people look to others to

see if they are reactingsee if they are reacting�� Unfortunately, everyone else does the same thing, Unfortunately, everyone else does the same thing,

so no one reactsso no one reacts

Steps Leading to InterventionSteps Leading to Intervention

�� AwarenessAwareness

�� Definition of emergencyDefinition of emergency

�� Personal responsibilityPersonal responsibility

�� Decide how to interveneDecide how to intervene

�� Carry out interventionCarry out intervention