Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Chapter 5: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Confirmation Biases The effect of stereotypes on perceptions is a type of confirmation bias, which

h 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 perceivers 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 others behaviors and how these attributions can sometimes be flawed, perpetuating stereotypes When 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 dont personally agree with them Stereotypes can be activated without our awareness People 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 activated Patricia 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 them Internally 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 biases When 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 Diallo Focus 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 building All 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 members Perceivers are less likely to see members of stereotyped groups as more similar to the stereotype than they really are When a target of a stereotype behaves in an ambiguous way, we interpret the behavior as consistent with the stereotype Often times we remember stereotype-consistent info about others better than stereotypeinconsistent info Contrast Effect: when a stimulus varies from expectations, the perceived difference is magnified; affect social perceptions Muzafer Sherifs 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 selfesteem 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 (groups 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 ones self-esteem heighten the need for ingroup favoritism o Expressions of ingroup favoritism enhances self-esteem Fein and Spencer Study o Gave participants positive and negative feedback o 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 ones self-image evokes prejudice, and expression of prejudice helps restore self-image Branscombe and Wann Study o 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 ingroups 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 persons 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 traits Prejudice is negative feelings towards others because of their connection to a social group Discrimination is negative behavior towards people based on their membership to a group Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination can operate independently, but they often influence and reinforce each other A group is more than two people with direct interaction or common attributes or goals Groups we identify with are ingroups and groups other than our own are outgroups Racial prejudice and discrimination have decreased over the last few decades Modern 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) Peoples 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 Allports 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 groups o 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 accurate o 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 thought o Tendency to categorize stimuli as positive vs. negative o Appears to be the first step in information processing Attitudes strongly affect behavior o Can be used to predict behavior o 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 behavior Attitudes 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 behavior

Situational 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 behavior The stronger the attitude, the greater the impact Attitude importance is the extent to which people care about an attitude Attitude 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 individuals 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 whats 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 speakers 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 Persuasion 1. Reactance: negative reaction to threats to ones 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 apartment 2. 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 views Attitude 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. behaviors The more time/money/effort you choose to invest in something, the more anxious you will feel if the outcome proves disappointing Reducing dissonance: Change attitude or perception of the behavior Add consonant cognitions Minimize the importance of the conflict Reduce perceived choice

Rationalizing that others in ones ingroup are hypocrites Denying personal responsibility for the behavior Festingers 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 attitudediscrepant 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 suffering According 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 alternative People feel discomfort and change their attitudes when disagreeing with others in a group Vicarious 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 behavior Attitude-discrepant actions dont always produce dissonance: Not everyone cares about being cognitively consistent A change in attitude often seems to require the production of negative consequences However, 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 dont 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 selfpresentation 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 attitudediscrepant 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 dont want to Resistance to conformity is particularly characteristic of individuals who have high status and seniority within a group People 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 conformity Social pressure is more powerful than individual differences Conformity is also, at times, inconsequential (ex. Having to wear a uniform for a job) Conformity can be good AND bad, mostly negative in Western cultures In Japan, conformity is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of self-control, tolerance, and maturity Muzafer 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 conformity Soloman Aschs 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 others Normative influence produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviant Private 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 CONVERSION Public 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 (politicians 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 issues o Males conform more on feminine issues o Gender differences are weak and unreliable o 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 rejected Bassili study: asked people about attitudes on social policy issues, found those who held minority opinions were slower to answer than those with majority opinions Twelve Angry men: jury went from a 11-1 vote guilty to a 12-0 vote not guilty because of the one dissenter Moscovicis 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 influence Hollander 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 tolerated Dual-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 measured Because of social pressures, we may not openly admit to influence, but sometimes the changes is unmistakable; minorities spark innovation in others To have influence over a group, lone individuals must exhibit authentic dissent, not merely play devils advocate, a tactic that actually bolsters a majoritys 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 requests The norm of reciprocity states that we treat others as they have treated us People feel compelled to reciprocate, but that feeling at least for small acts of kindness is relatively short-lived Sequential 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

Lowballing o 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 Face o A two step-compliance technique in which the influencer prefaces the real request with one that is so large that it is rejected o Involves the principle of perceptual contrast, smaller request feels small o Also involves reciprocal concessions, or pressure to respond to changes in a bargaining position o Ex. Lawyers will ask for way more money than they expect to actually get Thats 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 programming Feeling 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 Milgrams 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 themselves The physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the authority figure played major roles in drawing obedience Destructive obedience requires the physical presence of a prestigious authority figure Evidence shows that Milgra ms 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 study When 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 people There 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 goals Collectives 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 individuals tendency to perform the dominant response, the reaction elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus o The quality of an individuals 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 maze o 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 doesnt) Critical attention to Zajoncs 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 Is it uniquely social? Is mere presence sufficient?

Mere Presence (Robert Zajonc) Yes Yes

Evaluation Apprehension Yes No

Distraction Conflict 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, peoples 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 Latanes 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 competent o Compliance: make targets feel obligated to reciprocate a small favor o Obedience: authority figures gain strength by wearing uniforms Immediacy: sources 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 present o 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 groups 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 groups 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 groups 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 impartial o Encourage critical evaluation; assign a devils advocate (oppos ite of mindguards) o Occasionally subdivide group, then reunite to discover differences o Welcome critiques from outside experts (avoid bias) o Before implementation, call a second-chance meeting to air lingering doubts o 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 attitudes o Schools: studying in groups o Communities: events, concerts, sports games o 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 group Osborns brainstorming theory: Express all ideas, even if they sound crazy; more the merrier Dont worry whether the ideas are good or bad All ideas belong to the group, build off each others work Brainstorming can indeed be eective, 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 others ideas, people brainstorming in a group underperform Social 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 have Garold Stassers 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 disaster

NASA Columbia disaster was due to glitches in the communication network, defining who can speak with whom based on a groups structure, making it difficult for info to be distributed to all of the decision makers Biased sampling is a frequent and significant problem in groups Groups that do a better job of sharing info tend to perform much better and are more cohesive Leaders who establish trust are more effective in promoting info sharing Ginkel 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 are Transactive 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 others specialized knowledge Group members need to coordinate their efforts so that they can work together on a task smoothly and efficiently