Social Psychology
In the Schacter (2017) text social psychology is defined as the study of the causes and consequences of
sociality. I would like to add a statistical definition:
Psychology Sample Size 20 to 100
Social Psychology Sample Size 100 to 1000
Sociology Sample Size 1000 plus
Also, social psychology focuses on correlations, not causation. Once you venture out past the
neurosciences, the causes of human behavior are difficult to define and predict.
Schacter's text focuses on strategies of survival, and so will this course. What often seems as vastly
different behaviors can have the same biological/evolutionary root. An example of this is aggression
behavior with the purpose of harming another. This 'intent to harm' may have many causes, such as a
way to get the resources they need: food, water, shelter, a mate. This is the frustrationaggression
hypothesis, that animal act aggressively when their desires (needs) are frustrated. (Dollard et al., 1939)
It is important to differentiate between proactive and reactive agression. In the former case, it is a
premeditated, calculated means to an end. It is planned and purposeful (Wrangham, 2017). The latter is
a spontaneous response to a negative affective (emotional) state. When experimental participants are
made to experience physical pain by immersing their hands in ice water, they will hurt others who had
nothing to do with their pain. (Anderson, 1989; Anderson, Bushman and Groom, 1997).
Another example is the correlation between mean temperature and agression. See Figure 13.1
Other scientists conclude that frustrated desires produce negative affect (bad feelings). (Berkowitz,
1990). Evidence suggests this is true. Laboratory rats that are given painful electric shocks will then
attack anything in their cage, including other animals, stuffed dolls, or tennis balls. (Kruk et al., 2004).
It is worth noting that not every kind of negative affect gives rise to aggression, for example, when
people feel disgusted they are less likely to aggress (Pond et al, 2012).
Biology and Aggression
Although most human societies encourage males to be more aggressiven than females male
aggressiveness is not merely the product of socialization. Aggression is strongly correlated to the
presence of testosterone, which is typically higher in men than in women, younger men than in older
men, and in violent criminals than in nonviolent criminals. (Dabbs et al., 1995) For example, subjects
who were given testosterone needed to see a more threatening expression before they were able to
recognize it as such, as in Figure 13.2 (van Honk & Schumer, 2007).
One of the most reliable ways to elicit aggression is to challenge status or dominance. Threequarters of
all murders can be classified as 'status competition'. (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Contrary to popular
wisdom, men with unrealistically 'high' selfesteem are more likely to act aggressively than men with'low' selfesteem. (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996). Men seem especially sensitive to these
challenges when they are competing for the attention of women. (Ainsworth & Maner, 2012).
Although women can be just as aggressive as men, it tends to be more premeditated than impulsive, and
more likely to be focused on attaining or protecting a resource than their status. Women are more likely
to aggress with psychological weapons, such as ostracism (Benenson et al., 2011) or rumourmongering
(Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).
Culture & Aggression
When it comes to violence, culture matters. Interestingly, one factor that distinguishes between more
and less violent nations is gender equality. (Melander, 2005). The better a nation's women are treated,
the lower that nation's likelihood of going to war.
Violent crime is more prevalent in the southern United States, where men are taught to react
aggressively when they fell their status has been challenged. (Brown, Osterman, & Barnes, 2009).
However, that is not the whole story. In another condition of the same study, Southern were more polite
when not insulted.
People learn by example (remember mirror neurons) which is why some researchers believe that
watching violent television shows (eg: GOT) and playing violent video games (eg: GTA4) can make
people more aggressive. (Anderson et al., 2010) and less cooperative (Ferguson, 2010).
Biological agents can also change behavior. In the mid1980s, an unusual disease killed the most
aggressive males in a particular troop of wild baboons in Kenya, leaving only the least aggressive
males. (Question: what hormones could implicated in deaths of more aggressive males?). A decade
later, the new group of 'pacifist' males were less aggressive, more likely to affiliate with females, and
more tolerant of lowranking males. (Sapolsky & Share, 2004).
Cooperation
Cooperation is behavior by two or more individuals that leads to mutual benefit. It is one of our species'
greatest achievements, equal to language, fire, and electricity. (Nowak, 2006). Then why do we not
cooperate with each other all the time? Behold the Prisoner's Dilemma:
CooperationB does not confessB confesses
A does not confessA gets 1 year; B gets 1 yearA gets 30 years, B gets 0 years
A confessesA gets 0 years, B gets 30 yearsA gets 10 years, B gets 10 years
All of this sounds quite theoretical, until one realizes that this is common practice in criminal law. This
is why interrogations of a suspect are always done oneatatime, with no possibility of collusion during
the interrogation.
Life is a strategic game, and there is always risk. That is why the one single trait humans look for in
each other is trustworthiness (Cottrell, Neuberg & Li., 2007). People will punish someone who hastreated them unfairly. And this applies to other primates, as well. In one study, monkeys were willing
to work for a slice of cucumber until they saw the experimenter give another monkey a more delicious
food for doing less work. At that point, the first set of monkeys went on strike. (Brosnan & de Waal,
2003).Groups and Favoritism
A group is a collection of people who have something in common that distinguishes them from others.
Prejudice is a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on his or her group membership.
Discrimination is a positive or negative behavior toward another person based on his or her group
membership. One of the defining characteristics of groups is that members are positively prejudiced
toward fellow members and tend to discriminate in their favor. (DiDonato, Ullrich & Krueger, 2011). It
appears that simpley knowing that “I am one of us and not one of them” is sufficient to produce
prejudice and discrimination. (Tajfel et al., 1971).
Group have benefits, but they also have costs. For example, when groups try to make decisions, they
rarely do better than the best member would have done alone, and often quite worse. (Minson &
Mueller, 2012). Groups are susceptible to the common knowledge effect, the tendency for group
discussions to focus on information that all members share.
Group polarization is the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than any
member would have made alone.
Groupthink is the tendency for groups to reach consensus in order to facilitate interpersonal harmony.
The most glaring example is the Challenger disaster of January 1986. Violation of mission rules
occurred because NASA needed a 'win' to continue funding, and they couldn't wait a few more months
for warmer weather. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster
Groups also go beyond bad decisions because people in groups experience deindividuation, when
immersion in a group causes people to become less concerned with their personal values. A fine
example of this is the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Vancouver_Stanley_Cup_riot
Why does this happen? Diffusion of responsibility is the tendency for individuals to feel diminished
responsibility for their actions when they are surrounded by others who are acting the same way.
Another examplecommon among studentsis social loafing, the tendency for people to expend less
effort when in a group then when alone. This tendency can be seen: in less effort exerted in a team
sport (Williams et al., 1989); lower tips at restaurants (Freeman et al., 1975); charitable donations
(Wiesenthal, Austrom, & Silverman, 1983); greeting passerby (Jones & Foshay, 1984).
At its worse, this tendency produces the freezing out of bystander intervention (the act of helping
strangers in emergency situations). The more bystanders present, the less likely the help. In many ways,
this tendency created the subdiscipline of social psychology, because of the Kitty Genovese murder
in 1964. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese. One of the important factors was
that the police thought it was a domestic dispute. How willing are you to break up a domestic?What are the benefits of group membership? People excluded from a group are typically anxious,
lonely, depressed, and at increased risk for illness and premature death (Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008).
Belonging to a group is also a source of identity (Ellemers, 2012). What group do you belong to?
Altruism
Altruism is behavior that benefits another withouth benefitting oneself. Behaviors that appear altruistic
often have a hidden agenda. For example: ants and bees spend their lives caring for the offspring of the
queen rather than bearing offspring of their own. This occurs because the workers are genetically
related to the primary reproductive (queen is an anthropocentric term, and not at all accurate). Any
animal whose behavior promotes the survival of its relatives is actually promoting the survival of its
own genes. (Hamilton, 1964). Kin selection is this process by which evolution selects for individuals
who cooperate with their relatives. And don't forget, ants and bees (even the 'queen') have no separate
self apart from the hive.
Reciprocal altruism is the behavior that benefits another with the expectation that those benefits will
be returned. Like other animals, we tend to help our kin more than strangers (Komter, 2010). and we
tend those who we help to help us in return. (Burger et al., 2009). We are polite to complete strangers,
because of social facilitation; it is easier to be polite (and generally better for your health) than to be
rude. Human beings can be truly altruistic, and some studies suggest that we are actually more
altruistic than we realize. (Miller & Ratner, 1998).Reproduction: The Quest for Immortality.
For once, common sense counts in psychology. When choosing a mate, females are more selective than
men, because before the age of modern birth control, a pregnancy was a lifechanging event, which
could result in death in childbirth. However, if basic biology pushes women to be choosier than men,
culture and experience can push just as hard. Women have to be choosier because they are approached
more often (Conley et al.,2011).or because the reputational costs of promiscuity are higher (Kasser &
Sharma , 1999). If a male is choosing a longterm female partner, then he can be just as picky (Kenrick
et al., 1990).
Attraction has three major aspects: situational; physical; psychological. People work especially hard to
like those with whom they expect to have interaction (Darley & Berscheid, 1967). This leads to the
mere exposure effect, the tendency for liking to increase with the frequency of exposure. (Bornstein,
1989). The secondphysicalityis less conscious than we suppose. One study found that a man's height
and a woman's weight were among the best predictors of how many responses a personal advertisement
received. (Lynn & Shurgot, 1984). Physical attractiveness was the only factor that predicted the online
dating choices of both women and men. (Green, Buchanan & Heuer, 1984).
Why is physical beauty so important? Beautiful people have more sex, more friends, and more fun than
the rest of us. (Curran & Lippold, 1975), and they earn about 10% more money over the course of their
lives. (Hammermesh & Biddle, 1994). Beautiful people have more social skills than less beautiful
people because they are approached socially more often (an application of the 'mere exposure effect'?
Feingold, 1992).
What constitutes physical beauty? Are the same features valued everywhere in the world, and at every
point in history.
Body shape: Male bodies are considered more attractive when they have broad shoulders with narrow
waist and hips. Even more likely to be noticed is the 'sixpack'.
https://melmagazine.com/whendidsixpacksbecomebeautiful20a1921dbb4a
The most attractive female body shape across many cultures seems to be the perfect 'hourglass' in which
the waist is precisely 70% of the size of the hips. (Singh, 1993). For North Americans, this shape
became dominant in the 1950s, as exemplified by Marilyn Monroe
.
Next is symmetry. People in all cultures seem to prefer faces and bodies that are
bilaterally symmetric. (Perillous, Webster, & Gaulin, 2010).
Age: Large eyes, high eyebrows, and small chin create the classic 'anime face '
These features are more common in females than in males, because of estrogen.
(Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992). Everywhere in the world, men prefer young
women, and women prefer older, more accomplished men. (Buss, 1989).Why? Body shape is largely a result of hormone balance: more testosterone for males; more estrogen
for females. Women who have the perfect hourglass figure do tend to bear healthier children than do
women with other hiptowaist ratios. (Singh, 1993). Women prefer symmetrical men when they are
ovulating (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999).
Psychological Factors: Straight women find men sexiest when their faces are displaying pride and least
sexy when they are displaying happiness; straight men find women least sexy when their faces display
pride, sexiest when they are displaying happiness. (Tracy & Beall, 2011).
Once the decision has been made to sustain the relationship, intelligence, sense of humor, sensitivity,
and ambition seem to be high on everyone's list, whereas experienced serial killer does not. (Daniel et
al., 1985). We mary people with similar levels of education, religious backgrounds, ethnicities,
socioeconomic statuses, and personalities. (Botwin, Buss & Shackelford, 1997).
Why is similarity so attractive? When someone shares our attitudes and beliefs, we feel more confident
that those are correct. (Byrne & Clore, 1970). When a person's attitudes or beliefs are challenged, they
become even more attracted to similar others (Hirschberger, Florian & Mikulincer, 2002). Being liked
in return is a powerful source of attraction. (Condon & Crano, 1988). Although we like people who like
us, we especially like people who like us and do not like anyone else. (Eastwick et al., 2007).
What about ability? It seems that people who are perfect are perfectly annoying. Having a flaw or two
humanizes people and makes them seem more accessible, and more similar to us. (Aronson, Willerman
& Floyd, 1966).
Relationships What is romantic love, and has it always existed? Some forms of permanent
committment between man and woman appear to have existed since the beginning of the agrarian
revolution, but mostly to unite warring clans and maintain control over property. Romantic love is a
creation handed down from 12th century European aristocracy; marriage among serfs at that time was
unknown, because they did not own land.
With respect to modern psychology, romantic love is defined in two quite different ways: passionate
love, an experience involving feelings of euphoria, intimacy, and intense sexual attraction, and
companionate love, an experience involving affection, trust, and concern for a partner's wellbeing.
(Acevedo & Aron, 2009). Passionate love brings people together, with a rapid onset, reaches its peak
quickly, and begins to diminish in a few months (Aron et al., 2005); Companionate love keeps people
together, takes time to get started, grows slowly, and never needs to stop growing.
Why is divorce so common? Marital satisfaction is only weakly correlated with marital stability
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995). This leads to the social exchange hypothesis: people remain in
relationships only as long as they perceive a favorable ratio of costs to benefits. (Homans, 1961).A
person's comparison level refers to the outcome people feel they should receive, as contrasted to the
comparison level for alternatives, which is the availability and the costbenefit ratio of an alternative
outcome. If there are more benefits to being single, or of an available alternative, partners will be less
committed. If you are interested in this topic, just google “men on strike”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yzUECFwU3UPeople want costbenefit ratios to be high (low cost & high benefit) but they also want them to be
roughly the same as their partner's. People expect equity, a state of affairs in which the costbenefit
ratios of two partners are roughly equal. Indeed, people who give too much are sometimes disliked just
as much as those who give too little. (Parks & Stone, 2010). Social Influence: Controlling People
Social influence is the ability to control another person's behavior. (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Social
influence often involves creating situations in which others can acheive more pleasure by doing what
we want them to do than by doing something else. Other people are the source of most rewardsand it
appears, most punishments. In a 2010 survey that asked Americans to identify the things that annoyed
them most, 19 of the top 20 annoyances were caused by other people The remaining annoyance was
caused by other people's dogs. (Schacter, 2017). Appealing to the hedonic motive is not alway
straighforward; it can also be avoiding pain.
Approval: Acceptance is better than Rejection
We depend on others for safety, sustenance, and solidarity, and so we are powerfully motivated to have
others like us, accept us, and approve of us. (Leary, 2010). To understand this process, we need to
define a few terms:
Norms: customary standards for behavior that are widely shared by members of a culture. When norms
change, a culture has changed For example tattoos on young women.
Norm of reciprocity: the unwritten rule sthe people should benefit those who have benefited them.
Normative influence: a phenomenon that occurs when another person's behavior provides information
about what is appropriate. For example, when should you pee on your foot in the shower? (Answer:
Yes, if you have stepped on jellyfish, while walking on the beach).
Doorintheface technique: an influence strategy that involves getting someone to deny an initial
request. For example, when researchers asked university students to volunteer to supervise adolescents
who were going on a field trip, only 17% of student agreed. But when the researchers first asked
students to commit to spending 2 hours per week for 2 years working at a youth detention center (to
which everyone of the students said no), and then asked them to supervise a field trip, 50% of the
students agreed. (Cialdini et al., 1975). Why? The norm of reciprocity.
Conformity: the tendency to do what others do simply because others are doing it. The most famous
study is Asch, 1955. An experimenter explains that the participants would be shown cards with three
printed lines and that his or job was simply to say which of the three lines matched a 'standard line' that
was printed on another card. The experimenter held up a card and then asked each person to answer in
turn. The real participant was the last to be called, the other two were 'confederates', who are in on the
experiment. Everything went well on the first two trials, but then on the third trial something really
strange happened, the confederates all began giving the same wrong answer. 75% of the real
participants conformed and announced the wrong answer on at least one trial. Subsequent research has
show that these participants did not actually misperceive the length of the lines, but instead were
succumbing to normative influence.Obedience
Obedience is the tendency to do what people with the power of authority tell us to do. Stanley Milgram
(1963) demonstrated that we obey because of normative influence.
Participants in this experiment met a middleaged man, who was introduced as another participant, but
who was actually a trained actor. An experimenter in a lab coat explained that the participant would
play the role of teacher, and the 'actor' would play the role of learner. The teacher and the learner would
sit in different rooms, the teacher would read words to the learner over a microphone, and the learner
would then repeat the words back to the teacher. If the learner made a mistake, the teacher would press
a button that delivered an electric shock to the learner. The shockgenerating machine (which was
totally fake) offered 30 levels of shock, ranging from 15V (labelled slight shock) to 450 V (labelled
'Danger Severe Shock').
When the learner made his first mistake, the participant duly delivered a 15V shock. As the learner
made more mistakes, he received more shocks. when the participant delivered the 75V shock, the
learner cried out in pain. At 150V, the learner screamed 'Get me out of here, I told you I have heart
trouble..I refuse to go on. Let me out!' With every shock, the learner's screams became more agonized
as he pleaded pitifully for his freedom. Then after receiving the 330V shock, the learner stopped
responding altogether. Participants were naturally upset by this and typically asked the experimenter to
stop, but the experimenter simply replied. “You have no choice; you must go on.” Note: the
experimenter never threatened the participant with punishment of any kind. Rather, he just stood there
with his clipboard in hand and calmly instructed the participant to continue. 80% of the participants
continued to shock the learner. 62% went all the way to 450V. Finally, although Milgram's study was
conducted nearly a half century ago, a recent replication revealed about the same rate of obedience
(Burger, 2009).
Why? The participants demonstrated that they were sensitive to social norms. There are many situations
in which it is permissible, and even desirable, to cause someone to suffer in the service of a higher
goal.The experimenter's calm demeanor and persistent instruction suggested that he, and not the
participant, knew what was appropriate in this particular situation. As long as the experiment
maintained his authority, obedience continued. Other factors influencing obedience were if the
experimenter was not physically present; if the participant was in the same room as the learner 40%; if
the teacher had to force the learner's hand onto the shockplate 30%Attitudes & Beliefs.
An attitude is an enduring positive or negative evaluation of an object or event. This is contrasted to a
belief, an enduring piece of knowledge (knowledge system is a better phrase) about an object or event.
If someone says: “I believe that life on Earth was put here by aliens”, that simple statement has an
entire belief system underlying it. We are motivated to have the right attitudes and beliefs, because of
high survival value, and that motivation leaves us vulnerable to social influences.
Informational influence is a phenomenon that occurs when another person's behavior provides
information about what is true. If you suddenly stop and stare at something, other people will too.
(Milgram, Bickman & Berkowitz, 1969). Situation comedies provide 'laugh tracks' because the
producers know that when you hear other people laughing, you will mindlessly assume that something
must be funny. (Fein, Goethals, & Kugler, 2007).
Persuasion is a phenomenon that occurs when a person's attitudes or beliefs are influenced by a
communication from another person. Systematic persuasion is the process by which attitudes or
beliefs are changed by appeals to reason. This is less effective than heuristic persuasion, the process
by which attitudes or beliefs are changed by appeals to habit or emotion. This is an application of both
the availability and representativeness heuristics. (Petry & Cacioppo, 1986).
An example: when students were motivated to analyze arguments because they would be personally
affected by them, their attitudes were influenced by the strength of the arguments (systematic).(a)
Strong arguments were more persuasive than weak arguments, but not by the status of the
communicator. (the professor was not more persuasive than the high school student). (b) heuristic , or
when students were not motivated to analyze arguments because they would not be personally affected
by them, the attitudes were influenced by the status of the communicator (the professor was more
persuasive than the high school student), but not by the strength of the arguments (strong arguments
were no more persuasive than weak arguments). (Petry, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981).
Consistency.
People evaluate the accuracy of new beliefs by assessing their consistency with old beliefs. We are
motivated to be accurate, consistency is a 'rough' measure of accuracy, we are motivated to be
consistent. (Cialdini, Trost & Newsom, 1995).
Footinthedoortechnique involves making a small request, then following it with a larger request.
One of the most famous cases, is Stockholm Syndrome. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine22447726
There have been many others; the chief feature is that the captive slowly begins to accede to the
demands of their captor, and later to 'take sides' with them. Why does this happen?
Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state that arises when a person recognizes the inconsistency of
their actions with their stated attitudes or beliefs. (Festinger, 1957).Restoring consistency usually means
rationalizing behavior, or changing one's attitudes. This also can mean changing the value of the thing
your are suffering for. People value those things they have suffered for, and this is why 'hazing' works.But best is the #MeToo movement. https://medium.com/@bigleykids/cognitivedissonanceor
spiritualstruggle86525a329fe6
Social Cognition: Understanding People
Social cognition is the sum of the processes by which people come to understand each other. Thinking
about Lady Gaga activates the medial prefrontal cortex. Schultz & Dunbar (2010) have advocated the
social brain hypothesis, that our brains have enlarged to deal with the everyday complexities of living in
large social groups.
Stereotyping is the process by which people draw inferences about others based on their knowledge of
the categories to which others belong. Stereotypes can be considered to derive from prototypes.
Let us try the Hamilton & Gifford, (1976) experiment ourselves, and see what the outcomes are: start
with some simple statistical questions: (a) which is more common, natural blue eyes or natural brown
eyes? (b) which is more common, moderate intelligence or high intelligence?
Natural Blue EyesModerate IntelligenceHigh Intelligence
Natural Brown EyesModerate IntelligenceHigh intelligence
Since natural blue eyes and high intelligence are both less common, we remember their co
occurrence an example of the availability heuristicwhich leads us to perceive a correlation
between group membership (blue eyes or brown eyes) and their behavior (moderate intelligence or high
intelligence) which is not really there. This is an example of an illusory correlation in social cognition.
When do we need to be aware of stereotyping? When we experience a stereotype threat, or the fear of
confirming the negative beliefs that others may hold. (Walton & Spencer, 2009). If girls are
stereotypically considered to be inferior to boys in math and science, young girls (10 to 15) may actually
perpetuate the stereotype by underperforming.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/mathisntjustboys
We will use this example for the rest of the stereotype discussion, so be sure to read the first five
paragraphs:
Perceptual confirmation is the tendency for people to see what they expect to see. Stereotypes
perpetuate themselves in part by biasing our perception of individuals (we categorize them), leading us
to believe that those individuals have confirmed our stereotypes even when they are not. (Fiske, 1998).
Subtyping is the tendency for people who receive discomfiting evidence to modify their stereotypes
rather than abandoning them. (Weber & Crocker, 19830. If 14yearold boys met a very mathematically
gifted but unsociable 14yearold girl in their math class, they would see her as an 'exception to the
rule' and keep their stereotypes of 'girls are dumb at math'.Attribution
To understand people, we need to know not only what they do but why they do it. When we answer
these questions, we are making attributions, inferences about the causes of other people's behaviors.
(Epley & Waytz, 2010). According to the covariant model (Kelley, 1967), we must consider the
consistency, consensuality and distinctiveness of the action. When someone does something strange,
such as wear a watermelon helmet, does he have a goofy personality (dispositional attribution) or is
he going to a Roughriders game? (situational attribution). The covariant model suggests asking these
questions using the three variables.
People do not alway use this approach. Instead, there is correspondence bias, the tendency dto make a
dispositional attribution even when we should instead make a situational attribution. This bias is so
common that it is often called the fundamental attribution error. This is because we attribute stable
personalities, even to complete strangers. Even when we know that a successful entrepeneur had family
connections, we tend to attribute their success to talent and tenacity. This is because the situational
causes of behavior are often invisible (Ichheiser, 1949). Situations are not as tangible or as visible as
behaviors, so it is all too easy to ignore them. (Taylor & Fiske, 1978).
Finally, the actor-observer effect is the tendency to make situational attributions for our own behavior
while making dispositional attribution for the identical behavior of others. (Jones & Nisbett, 1972).