Term Test 4• Thursday March 4• in class, 12:00 - 1:50• 30 to 40 multiple choice questions• 10% of course grade• Topics covered

– class material: Jan 27 - Mar 2– assigned readings: see lectures web pag– Language and Nonverbal Communication– Cognitive Development– Social Development– Social Influence

Three Minute ReviewSOCIAL PERCEPTION: PREJUDICE• discrimination vs. prejudice• social categorization

– in-group– out-group– in-group bias

• “We’re better than they are.”– out-group homogeneity bias

• “They’re all the same.”• stereotypes

– evolutionary factors?• dark side of altruism?

• stereotypes– public– private– implicit

• implicit association test• prejudice can become a self-fulfilling

prophecy– job interviews– stereotype threat

• How can we reduce prejudice?– Be mindful of biases– Co-operate with members of other groups

• Robbers Cave Experiment• Jigsaw approach

– Have friends from other groups

Social Influence• How do others affect our behavior?

– How do others change our beliefs?– How do others get us to do what they want?

• follow societal rules and expectations• commit atrocities

ConformityThe adoption of attitudes and behaviors shared by a

particular group of people.

“The only thing a non-conformist hates more than a conformist is another non-conformist who won’t conform to the rules of non-conformity.”

Conformity is not always bad

• there would be anarchy without conformity• social acceptance often depends on conformity

Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment

3 3

3

3

3

???

Solomon Asch, 1955• replicated by others in 1990

“Which comparison line is the same length as the standard?”

Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment• On average, subjects conformed on ~40% of trials • 26% of subjects never conformed• 28% conformed on more than half the trials• Conformity dropped to ¼ of its peak if one other person dissented (even when the dissenter made an inaccurate judgment)• Conformity dropped dramatically when subjects recorded their responses privately (so actually it was compliance -- yielding to public pressure without changing private views)

Group Decisions• How does this tendency to conform affect group

decisions?

Group Polarization

example: risky-shift effect• groups with a tendency to take risks exaggerate risk-taking decisions• groups with a tendency to be conservative exaggerate safe responses

Groupthink

Groupthink• Psychologist Irving Janis coined the term

“Groupthink” to describe the tendency to avoid dissent and reach a consensus during group decisions

• Janis argued that groupthink was responsible for many stupid policy decisions

• e.g., Bay of Pigs invasion (JFK & co., 1962)

• Causes of Groupthink– powerful group of people who think alike– absence of objective and impartial leadership– high levels of stress regarding decision

Déjà vu?

“It seems to me that with that much carnage in the wheel well, something could get screwed up enough to prevent deployment and then you are in a world of hurt.”

Robert Daugherty, engineer, Jan 30, 2003

Milt Heflin, chief flight director at Johnson said the members of the systems team concluded "that there wasn't anything else they needed to do or be concerned about.“ They agreed with the analysis by other engineers that the blow from the insulation probably hadn't done any serious damage, Heflin said.

From www.usatoday.com

“Why are we talking about this on the day before landing, and not the day after launch?“

William Anderson, engineer, Jan 30, 2003

Space Shuttle ChallengerJanuary 28, 1986

Space Shuttle ColumbiaFebruary 1, 2003

• NASA under strong pressure to launch shuttle

• first civilian in space• many delays had occurred

• engineers were opposed to the launch because of concerns that cold temperatures might make rubber seals too brittle• NASA executives made the decision to launch without input from engineers• final NASA decision-maker was never told of engineers’ concerns

Preventing Groupthink• Be impartial and objective• Leader should encourage dissent• Assign at least one “devil’s advocate”• Occasionally break group into subgroups• Seek opinions of external experts• Towards end of decision, have a “second chance”

meeting to review lingering doubts

Social Facilitation• an individual performs better in the presence of others• examples:

– 1898: cyclists who competed against one another performed betterthan those who cycled alone or against the clock

– cockroaches running toward a goal run faster in pairs– home team advantage

• home teams win ~60% of games played

Social Interference• an individual performs worse in the presence of others• examples:

– stage fright

Social Loafing• as the number of people

increases, the effort exerted by each individual declines

• examples that are probably all-too-familiar to you:– group projects– roommates and housework

• less common in collectivist cultures (e.g., China) than individualistic cultures (e.g., USA)– Chinese subjects work harder in

groups than when alone (social compensation)

Preventing Social Loafing• Make each person accountable• Record who did what• Make the task challenging, appealing and involving• Keep the group small• If possible, put people of the same intelligence &

competence together

DeindividuationLoss of individual identity in presence of group• Occurs in large groups

– e.g., looting, rioting

• Physical anonymity– e.g., Would KKK members burn crosses if they weren’t wearing

hoods?

• Diminished self-awareness– e.g., gang rapes

“Jump bitch jump”

Kitty Genovese• New York City, 1964• Kitty Genovese was raped

and murdered while at least 38 neighbors looked on

• nobody phoned the police until after the attacker left the scene

• When asked why they didn’t act, bystanders said things like, “I just don’t know,” or “I just didn’t want to get involved.”

Bystander Apathy• field studies (Harold Takooshian)

– New York City– bicycle theft– wallet pickpocketing– man put unconscious woman in car trunk

• 20 replications, no intervention– why car alarms suck

• 95-99% false alarms• few people stop thieves (1-5%)

– field study (Takooshian)» 8% intervened» 15% helped thief break in

• many people complain (60%) and some damage car out of aggravation

• doesn’t deter real thieves• waste of police resources

Bystander Apathy• Experiment (Latane and Darley, 1970)

– subjects heard student in adjacent room having an epileptic seizure and gasping for help

– likelihood and speed of intervention depended on how many others subject though were present

Why Don’t People Help?• ambiguity• risks to self• anonymity• diffusion of responsibility

Diffusion of Responsibility“I used to ask myself, ‘Why doesn’t somebody do something?!’ Then I realized I am somebody.”

-- Jane Wagner

Practice What You Preach• Experiment (Darley & Batson,

1973)• Princeton Theology Seminary

students were on their way to give a sermon about “The Good Samaritan”– Good Samaritan: New Testament

figure who takes time to help injured man at a roadside

• Subjects were deliberately made to be early, on-time, or late

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

• What do you think they did?

Persuasion• Robert Cialdini, social psychologist who

trained with the best• reciprocity

– Hare Krishnas’ flower power: “Please, it is a gift for you.”

– preys on reciprocal altruism• lowballing

– “Would you be a subject in an experiment at 7:00 a.m.?”

• 24% yes– “Would you be a subject in an experiment?

Yes? By the way, it’s at 7:00 a.m.”• 56% yes, 95% of them showed up

– “I’ll give the car to you for $7,000. I need to discuss this with my manager. The manager says you can have it for only $7,300.”

• door-in-the face technique• foot-in-the-door technique

Social Impact Theory

Convergence of social forces Diffusion of social impact