Chapter 14 - Social Influences on Behavior
Emotions as Foundations for Social Behavior
Remember - Social Psychology is an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others.
**Most important thing to remember.... The social situation is SO powerful, that our behavior can be affected in ways we would never expect.
Conformity - individuals themselves change attitudes or behaviors to adhere to existing social norms
Compliance - person responds to a direct request made by another to her/him
Obedience - person obeys a direct order from another to perform some action
Conformity.........................Compliance..........................Obedience
(least coercive) (Most coercive)
Emotional expressions serve as social signals. They occur much more often when other people are present than when one is alone. Emotional expressions help people who are together understand each others' desires and needs, and this understanding improves their ability to cooperate. Emotional contagion, which can occur automatically and unconsciously, may help to coordinate the activities of a group by moving its members into the same mood.
The self-conscious emotions - guilt, shame, embarrassment, and pride - appear to serve functions related to social acceptance. Guilt is strongest after we hurt someone whom we care about, and it motivates us to make amends and thereby to preserve the relationship. Shame is strongest when we feel inadequate and powerless, and it motivates us to hide and refrain from drawing attention when others' judgment are likely to be negative. Embarrassment most often follows the inadvertent violation of a social norm; it wards off blame by signaling that the violation was not intentional. Pride, the opposite of shame, occurs in response to successes that are likely to be appreciated by others, and its expression appears designed to attract attention. A long lasting sense of pride is called self-esteem. According to the sociometer theory, self-esteem relates quite directly to the likelihood of being approved of by other people whom we care about.
LINK: Social Influence
Groups Vs. Collectives
Definition of group vs. collectives
How do collectives affect performance?
Triplett; Zajonc; Baron; Cottrell
Social facilitation vs. social interference phenomena
Two explanations for social facilitation and interference:
A. Distraction-conflict
theory
B. Evaluation apprehension (aka self-presentation)
Practice Social Facilitation
vs. Interference
(a) You are a concert-level pianist
(b) You have played piano for only one year
(c) You have played piano for five years
Question:
Social Facilitation: (a)
or (b) or (c)?
Social Interference: (a) or (b) or (c)?
Deindividuation: Another Collective Phenomenon
Think of crowd behavior Definition:
Lost sense of personal identity and anonymous merging with the collective
Factors Producing Deindividuation
Anonymity
High level of arousal
Focus on external events
Close group unity
These factors produce:
Reduced self-awareness
Focus is more on outside stimuli than internal constraints against inappropriate
behavior
Results of Deindividuation
Higher impulsive behavior
Acting on immediate emotions and outside cues
Lower ability to regulate/monitor own behavior
Lower concern for others' evaluation
Decreased rationality
Examples of Deindividuation
USU's Howl on campus (Utah Statesman article):
Howl attendees needed
lesson in self-control
by Jamie Norman*
The Utah Statesman
Monday, Nov. 2, 1998, p. 4
I went to the Howl Saturday night. I went there with full knowledge that it
would a crowded, noisy and a little out of control. But I never expected to
see a bunch of college-age people act the way they did.
My boyfriend and I were waiting to see the hypnotist along with what seemed to be everyone else at the Howl. We were shoulder-to-shoulder for 20-or-so minutes until the first group was released from the TSC Ballroom.
This is where it got out of control. Instead of patiently waiting for the doors to open and the other students to file out, everyone waiting charged the doors.
Then security closed all of the doors but one. I guess no one realized that if all of those students were in there, there was no room for anymore to go in until the room was cleared.
Everyone started screaming. People that were in the back started forcing their way to the front, even though there wasn’t room for those who were already there. The crowd became angered because we were packed like sardines, but no one seemed to be moving.
So while I stood against the wall, there was a mad rush. The table that the gal shouting out instructions was standing on was broken down, she fell, and the table was passed over head out of the way. The doors finally opened and everyone sort of fell into the room. Once the doors were open, people pushed and scurried to grab a seat.
I guess on Halloween and other certain holidays people lose their manners and their self-control. I thought that it was pretty embarrassing that a group of college students had to be released after the show by section because they couldn’t file out in an orderly fashion.
During this incident my roommmate’s costume got ripped apart, a fairy’s wings were thrown to the floor, a gal got trampled and many people lost their self-control and dignity. I have seen more grown-up behavior from the 3-year-old preschool kids I used to teach.
When will everyone act their age?
*
Jamie Norman is a senior features writer for The Statesman. Her column appears on Mondays.
Diener et al.'s Halloween study, compared with "KKK and Nurse" study
Behavior at sporting events
Bystander Intervention: Collectives, Again!
Prologue
Part 1
It is March 13, 1964 in a quiet, relatively crime-free neighborhood of a metropolitan city. At 3:20 a.m., a 28-year-old women drives back to her home in this neighborhood and parks her car in a lot near her apartment building. The young woman starts walking towards her entrance. But, then, she sees a man standing at the edge of the parking lot. So, instead of going straight home, she heads toward a main street, where a police "call box" is located.She's too late. The man grabs her under a streetlight on the corner of the street. She screams "Oh, my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"
IF PEOPLE SAW THIS: HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO TRY TO HELP THE WOMAN? (read out loud alternatives; have students write down their answers)
No one would be willing to try to help?
One or two people would be willing to try to help?
Half the people would be willing to try to help?
More than half the people would be willing to try to help?
Most of the people would be willing to try to help?
Practically all of the people would be willing to try to help?
(choose only ONE of the above alternatives before you continue)
Part 2
Someone from an apartment building floor higher up yells out "Let that girl alone!" Hearing this, the killer starts walking away toward a white car. The neighbors turns out their lights. But, the killer returns and starts stabbing her again. This time she screams "I'm dying! I'm dying!."
IF PEOPLE SAW THIS, HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO TRY TO HELP THE WOMAN?
No one would be willing to try to help?
One or two people would be willing to try to help?
Half the people would be willing to try to help?
More than half the people would be willing to try to help?
Most of the people would be willing to try to help?
Practically all of the people would be willing to try to help?
(choose only ONE of the above alternatives before you continue)
Part 3
Neighbors again open their windows and turn on their lights; a city bus drives by; the killer runs to his car and starts to drive off . The woman is now struggling to make it to her apartment.
IF PEOPLE SAW THIS, HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO TRY TO HELP THE WOMAN?
No one would be willing to try to help?
One or two people would be willing to try to help?
Half the people would be willing to try to help?
More than half the people would be willing to try to help?
Most of the people would be willing to try to help?
Practically all of the people would be willing to try to help?
(choose only ONE of the above alternatives before you continue)
Part 4
Now, it's around 3:45 a.m. The killer returns again, searches for the woman, finds her, and seems to deliver the final, fatal stab wound.
IF PEOPLE SAW THIS, HOW MANY OF THEM WOULD BE WILLING TO TRY TO HELP THE WOMAN?
No one would be willing to try to help?
One or two people would be willing to try to help?
Half the people would be willing to try to help?
More than half the people would be willing to try to help?
Most of the people would be willing to try to help?
Practically all of the people would be willing to try to help?
(choose only ONE of the above alternatives before you continue)
Epilogue
You just heard about the actual murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York. A total of 38 neighbors watched from the safe haven of their homes as the killer stalked and stabbed her to death over a period of 35 minutes. The first phone call to police station took place at 3:50 a.m., after Kitty was already dead. The man who had called the station had even first called a friend further away in Nassau County to ask advice as to what he should do. He didn't even call the police from his own home and went instead to another neighbor's apt. to call the station. He stated that he didn't want to get involved.
Think of the last time you needed help in an emergency
Did you receive it? Why or why not?
Think of the last time you could've offered help in an emergency?
Did you? Why or why not?
Responding to emergencies
Kitty Genovese murder (1964) launched this area of research
Darley & Lantané coined the term bystander effect:
the finding that as the number of bystanders increases,the likelihood of any one bystander helping decreases and the more time passes before anyone helps
Bystander effect is due (in part) to diffusion of responsibility:
the decrease in an individual's sense of responsibility to help in an emergency when other bystanders are present
Responsibility gets diffused out across all people present
Therefore: the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely each is to act.
Darley & Lantané identified five steps, or choice points, that result either in no help being given or moving on to the next choice point
Five Steps to Helping Model (CD-ROM, if time permits)
Groups also affect how risky or cautious our opinions are:
Group Polarization
Definition: discussing opinions in a group will exaggerate initial strength of opinion
Steps in polarization process:
1.Pre-discussion opinion
strength
2.Discussion takes place in group setting
3.Post-discussion opinion strength
(conservative ---> CONSERVATIVE)
(liberal ------------> LIBERAL)
Roger initially is very much in favor of graduation exams. Larry is opposed to graduation exams. They get together in a group to discuss the issue.
Questions:
Which line depicts Harry?
Which line depicts Roger?
Groupthink
Groups can railroad people into making disastrous decisions (Bay of Pigs, etc.)
Definition of groupthink: Group is so bent on achieving consensus that it ignores realistic appraisal of alternative decisions
Examples:
Ruby Ridge
Waco
Challenger disaster
How can we reduce groupthink?
Recognize the symptoms of groupthink (videotape)
Important facts/general
rules to remember about groups:
1.Groups can enhance or decrease performance
2.Groups can lead to faulty decision making
3.Factors are known that reduce these negative consequences
4.We're not as independent as we'd like to believe...
LINK: Social Influence: Conformity and Persuasion
Social Pressure: How Our Concern for Others' Judgments Affects Our Actions
Social pressure - which arises from one's beliefs about what other people expect or want one to do - is the central concept in Lewin's field theory and Latane's social impact theory. According to Latane, the amount of pressure experienced by a target of social pressure increases as the number, strength, and immediacy of the sources of that pressure increase, and it decreases as the number of targets of that pressure increases.
Social pressure to perform well-learned or habitual tasks, induced by the pressure of an audience, typically improves performance on well-learned or habitual tasks (social facilitation) and worsens performance on poorly-learned or novel tasks (social interference). We are not, however, passive victims of social pressure. Through conscious and unconscious means, we strive to manage the impressions that others form of us so as to promote ourselves and achieve our desired goals. Some people, referred to as high self monitors, are more vigilant than other in assessing how they appear and in modifying their words and actions to impress their current audience.
People also influence one another by the examples they set. We conform to others' examples for informational reasons (to take advantage of others knowledge) and for normative reasons (to be accepted by the group). In Asche's classic experiments, subjects who heard others all give a specific wrong answer in a simple task of length judgment often conformed by giving the same wrong answer. The conformity largely disappeared when the subjects were allowed to make their judgments privately, suggesting that it was caused by normative more than informational influences. Other research indicates that the tendency for bystanders to refrain from helping someone in need when other bystanders are present can be explained as conformity stemming from both informational and normative influences.
*Do we conform because we
want to fit in? (Normative influence )
*Or because we do not have enough information to take independent action and
we want to be correct . (Informational influence )
Autokinetic effect - norms
are thought to be formed when 2+ people agree
-example of conformity when information is abstract, unclear
Informational influence
Asch experiment - example
of conformity when information is clear
-example of conformity when information is clear
Normative influence
In original experiment:
76% of subjects conformed with group's wrong answers at least once
Subjects followed incorrect
majority on 37% of trials Conformity dropped if majority was not unanimous (because
they validated the s' position)
Public conformity but not private acceptance
Factors affecting conformity:
-expertise - the greater
the perceived expertise, the greater the conformity
-attraction - the more attraction a person feels toward the group, the greater
the conformity
-group size - conformity increases with unanimous agreement of three people,
but then levels off
-Unanimity
-Low self-esteem
Why do we sometimes chose not to conform ?
Desire for individualism
Desire to maintain control over events in life When like-minded people discuss
a topic, their opinions typically shift toward a more extreme version of their
initial view. Experiments have demonstrated that such groups polarization of
opinion can be explained by a combination of informational and normative influences.
More generally, groups that are overly concerned with unanimity and cohesiveness,
at the expense of frankness, often make poor decisions - a social phenomenon
called groupthink.
LINK: A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect
Influence of Others' Requests
Social pressure derives not just from the presence, expectations, and examples of others but also from their overt requests. Techniques used by expert sales personnel and fund-raisers to gain compliance have been dissected in social psychological laboratories. The four walls and foot in the door techniques both appear to operate by inducing cognitive dissonance that can be relieved by complying with the request. The technique of pregiving appears to work by inducing an urge to reciprocate. Sales pressure that threatens one's sense of freedom may induce a rebellious state of psychological reactance. Salespeople occasionally exploit that tendency by acting as if they would rather not sell a particular item.
Requests from authority figures may be construed as orders, and in that case compliance is called obedience. In a famous series of experiments, Milgram found that subjects would obey the orders of an experimenter to give what appeared to be painful, possibly dangerous electric shocks to an innocent victim. The tendency to obey was increased by (a) the subjects' acceptance of the experimenter as a legitimate authority figure, (b) the immediate presence of the experimenter, (c) the lack of immediate presence of the victim, (d) the lack of an alternative model of how to behave, and (e) (probably) the sequential nature of the task (starting with weak shocks and working gradually upward.)
Click the image above to
try out Milgram's
Shock Generator. It will open in a new window.
65% complied and went all the way to Danger: severe shock
-almost everyone went to 300v
Variations of Milgram's
experiment
shabby environment - still 48%
Distance between subject and learner
Same room - 40%
Face to face - required to force hand on shock plate - 30%
Distance between subject and experimenter - phone orders- 22%
-These findings were the
same for men and women
-Same for college students, professionals, workers from all backgrounds, and
ages
Why does destructive obedience
occur?
Persons in authority may relieve those who obey from responsibility for their
own actions
Persons in authority often have visible signs of authority
Authority gradually escalates the demands
Situations may be fast-paced, giving the person little time to think
Resisting the tendency toward destructive obedience
Remind individuals that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Show persons that beyond some point, unquestioning obedience is inappropriate
Learn to question the expertise and motivation of the authorities
Stanley Milgram
The Shock Generator
To Cooperate or Not: The Dilemma of Social Life
Many of the choices we make every day can be characterized as social dilemmas, which pit out own self-interest against that of the larger group. A social dilemma exists whenever a particular course of action or inaction will (a) benefit the individual who takes that course, (b) harm the others in the group, and (c) cause more harm than good to everyone in the group if everyone takes that course. In the laboratory, social dilemmas are often formulated as games, self-interest favors defection regardless of what one expects the other player to do. In iterative (repeated trial) games, in contrast, self-interest favors cooperation if, by cooperating, one can induce others to cooperate. The Tit-for-Tat strategy is especially effective because it rewards others for cooperating and punishes them for defecting.
Accountability and concern for reputation promote cooperation. People are more likely to help others who have a reputation for cooperation than those who have a reputation for defection. Moreover, certain emotions seem designed to promote cooperation in social dilemmas. Gratitude rewards us for mutual cooperation; guilt motivates us to make amends when we have failed to reciprocate others' help; anger motivates us to avoid people who consistently fail to cooperate with us.
Social identity has a dual effect on cooperation. It promotes cooperation among people who see themselves as part of the same social group, but it reduces cooperation and promotes hostility among people who see themselves as part of different groups. In Sherif's famous Robbers Cave experiment, the hostility that was generated between two groups of boys at a summer camp was reduced only by the procedure of establishing superordinate goals, which, in effect, merged the two groups into a single larger group with interests in common. The recognition of common interests is perhaps the most powerful force for reducing intergroup conflict.
?