Social Influence
ways we are affeced by real or imagined pressures from others
- imagined presence → ie. surveillance cameras (imagined presence of police)
- parents’ imagined presence of telling you what to do
Conformity
changing perceptions, opinions and behavior to be consistent with group norms
- group norms form quickly
Classical Studies of Conformity
- Sherif (1936)
- Asch (1951)
Sherif (1936)
observation & formation of group norm
- Cover Story: visual perception experiment
- when you mask what the true intentions of the study are
- Procedure: in a dark room, participants had to estimate movement of a small dot of light
- participants were tested alone, then in groups of 3
- Ambiguous Task: Autokinetic Effect (Optical Illusion)
- light never moved but appeared to move
- Hypothesis: ppl would be impacted by others ONLY by ambiguous task
- (But Asch’s experiment showed that it also happens on nonambiguous tasks)
- Results: once in a group, participants compromised their original estimates to form a group norm
**Asch (1951) **
impacted by Sherif’s studies
- Cover story: ability to make visual discriminations
- Procedure: reported which comparison line was similar to a standard line (same length)
- Nonambiguous Task!
1 subject, 6 confederates
At first, confed. responded correctly
Then ALL confed. picked the WRONG line
- 67% conformed → even on a nonambiguous task
- 25% never conformed
Why do people conform?
Sherif
- Informational Influence: conformity on difficult or ambiguous tasks if others’ judgments are thought to be correct
Asch
- Normative Influence: conforming for fear of looking deviant
- You think group’s wrong but you don’t want to be “rocking the boat”
Private Conformity (true acceptance conversion): accept a group norm or that others are correct
- Ex) Sherif’s study; internalize
Public Conformity: an overt change in behavior, usu. In response to normative influence
- Ex) Asch’s study; externalized; TEMPORARY! You’re NOT conformed
Candid camera clips
Elevator (confed. moving around)
- Normative influence, public conformity
Picketing blank signs
- Normative influence (ppl were skeptical)
Shoe repair – told only to step on black tiles
- Ppl came in individually (informative influence)
- When ppl came in groups (normative influence)
Obedience
a behavioral change produced by the commands of authority
Authorities as Agents in Influence:
- In advertising…
…fashionable clothiers since 1841
…babies are our business, our only business
…four out of give doctors recommend (using the physician as the authority)
Milgram (1974) Experiment
Study on:** Obedience to Authority**
Cover Story: “Memory” experiment at Yale University, study on the effects of punishment on learning
- “Teacher” reads a list of word pairs and tests learner’s memory
- If “Learner is incorrect then teach administers a shock
- After each wrong answer, intensity of shock increases by 15 volts
- 450 (max volt) – 65% of subjects went all the way to max voltage!!
- Very surprising to Milgram
Experimenter Script:
- Please continue (or go on)
- The experiment requires that you continue
- It is absolutely essential that you continue
- You have no other choice; you must go on
Experimenter used these statements to exert his authority
Factors that influence obedience
1. Emotional Distance of the Victim
- People who were close to a participant did NOT listen to the authority figure
- the greater the distance between them, people would increase voltage more
2. Closeness and Legitimacy of the Authority Figure
- How physically close was the authority figure (sat next to teacher)
- How legit did you think he was? (wearing lab coat, in academic environment)
3. Institutional Authority
- Expert vs. Authority
- Authority figures get people to obey more
- Psychiatrist vs. Police
- People listen to police officer more
- This man wanted to jump off a cliff and so people got a psychiatrist to come save the man. It so happened that a police officer saw that the car was parked illegally and yelled at the man and he got in his car and drove away
4. Liberating Effects of a Disobedient Fellow Student
Milgram’s Precautions
- Afterwards, had “teacher” meet with “learner”
- Long debriefing including reassurance that behavior was normal
- After all studies, sent out 5 page report to subjects along w/ survey about how they felt
- 1 year later, had psychiatrist interview 40 ss who seemed most vulnerable
Costs of Milgram’s experiment
The teacher sweated, trembled, stuttered, groaned, broke into uncontrollable nervous laughter
Temporary Stress?
- Nearly 84% were glad to have volunteered
- Only 1% regretted it
- 1 year later, psychiatrist found that stress had subsided in 40 vulnerable subjects
Benefits of Milgram’s experiment
Milgram pointed to lessons learned from diverse sample of 1,000 participants
- Milgram isolated factors that determine obedience
- Milgram said that the benefits outweighed the costs
But how can we know the benefits before we conduct the study?
- We don’t know benefits until **AFTER **the study
- University Ethics Board (decides likelihood that we’ll get a benefit)
Types of Scientific Misconduct
- Plagiarism
- Fabrication
- Falsification
** If you’re caught, you lose the opportunity to apply for federal funding for 10 years
Plagiarism
“appropriating another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit”
- the MOST COMMON form of misconduct
Fabrication
making up data or results and recording or reporting them
Falsification
manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is **NOT **accurately represented in the research record
Fraud vs. Errors
- sometimes, misleading data are published due to honest errors in statistics or record-keeping or differences in opinion about reporting data
- misconduct refers to a significant departure from accepted practices and committing the fraud/misrepresentation intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
Costs of Zimbardo’s Experiment
- Zimbardo’s “guards” had to face their ACTUAL harmful behavior
- Guards felt uncomfortable, embarrassed…
- Zimbardo also took precautions:
- All participants appeared normal on pre-study surveys
- He employed experts ahead of time, to advise, and to visit the prison throughout the study
- Zimbardo also noted stress was temporary as indicated in post-study surveys
Zimbardo’s study was UNETHICAL
- he forgot to be objective & lost himself in his role
- ***However, NO code of ethics can anticipate all problems :(
Benefits of Zimbardo’s Experiment
- Better understanding of the power of the situation to influence people to do the unexpected
- Influenced prison reform
Removing Deception?
It may be IMPOSSIBLE without eliminating the whole phenomenon of interest
When deception is NOT involved you must do what?
- Alert subjects of possible discomfort
- Alert/remind them that they can stop at any time
What do all experiments do?
- Carefully monitor subject for signs of distress
- Interview subject at the end of study (debrief)
- Treat subject with respect, concern and gratitude
- A careful, caring experimenter can make all the difference in how subjects feel
Observational Methods
Advantage
- May be more “objective” than other methods such as self –report
Satisfaction with an Outcome:
- How one’s own circumstances compares relevant to others (how are you doing compared to others)
- How one’s own actual outcome compares to expected outcome
- How one’s own actual outcome pares to imagine outcomes – which might have been – counter factual thinking
Observational Method: Medvec, Madey Gilovich (1995)
Are there situations in which people who are objectively better of nonetheless feel worse than those in an inferior position?
Olympics
- Athlete’s satisfaction fit with objective order… Gold, silver, bronze?
- Person who gets the gold medal should feel the best
- Person who gets the silver would feel second best
- However, in reality, the person with the gold medal would feel the best and the bronze medal winner would feel second best. The silver medal would feel bad because they were so close to winning the gold but the bronze is happy for actually getting a medal!
Hypothesis
- Athletes’’ counterfactual thoughts might cause their levels of satisfaction to not fit with linear, objective order
Counterfactual thoughts…
- Of bronze medalist? You almost didn’t get a medal so you’re pretty satisfied
- Of silver medalist? You’re going to compare up, you were that close to being #1
Procedure: Undergrads saw footage of 1992 silver and bronze medalists immediately after competition and also on medal stand (avg. shot = 14 seconds)
Participants had to rate the expressed emotion of each athlete
Results: bronze medalists were indeed rated as happier than silver medalists both immediately after the competition and on the medal stand
What does the BRICCS contain?
- positive affect
- negative reciprocity
- demand-withdrawl pattern
Habituation
once you’re exposed to something, it no longer has as big of an impact on you
- this is what happens when you conduct a WITHIN-subjects design
Reliability
- has to do with consistency
- standard deviation = how much variation from the mean
- LOW standard deviation = indicates that the data points tend to be close to the mean
- HIGH consistency
- HIGH standard deviation = indicates that the data points are spread out over a range of values
- LITTLE consistency
Social Psychology
the scientific study of everyday social behavior
- how the thoughts, feelings & actions of individuals are influenced by situations, the individuals themselves, and other people, whether real or imagined
Variables
influential, measurable factors that can take on different values
- situational variables
- personal variables
Situational Varibles
outside people, often in the environment, serving as tangible (ie. rules, boundaries), intangible (ie. roles, cultural norms, expectations) and even transient (ie. crowding, temperature, delines) influences
Personal Variables
include people’s physical & dispositional characteristics, their affective states, and whether they are perceivers or being perceived by others
LaPiere’s Study
- pioneer study that led to later research on how, why and when attitudes do or do not predict behavior
- used 2 research methods: observation & questionnaires
- it was NOT an experiment
- it lacked causal clarity
- LaPiere did NOT manipulate & measure any variables, nor did he have a working hypothesis that he tried to test
- his study was flawed
Experiment
a trial or test designed to prove that one explanation for what causes some behavior is superior to others
Hypothesis
indicates how one variable cuases a change in another variable
Social Psychologists
are interested in the experience of people as individuals, how real or imagined others influence them in terms of affect, cognition and behavior
- focus on the common experience of all the individuals who encountered the travelers, as well as the shared qualities of those who returned the surveys
- they believe that situations often matter much more when it comes to causing behavior than do people’s personalities
In contrast, Personality Psychologists
- are interested in the privte psychological functions of individuals and how these functions lead to differences between individuals
Theory
an organized set of principles used to explain observed phenomena
Good theories tend to be:
- simple
- have EXPLANATORY POWER
4 Methods of Research
- Descriptive Research
- Correlational Research
- Experimental Research
- Quasi Experimental Research
Descriptive Research
- describes the behavior, thoughts or feelings of a particular group of individuals
- Ex) Polls
- little effort to relate behavior under study to other variable or examine or explain cuases systematically
- foundation for all types of research
- a good 1st step
- does NOT determine causality
Correlational Research
- investigates the relationships among variables
- Positive Correlation: as one variable increases, so does the other
- Negative Correlation
- Zero Correlation: no relation
- does NOT test causality
Experimental Research
- researcher manipulate one variable to see whether changes in behavior occur as a consequence
- to understand cause & effect
Experimental Realism
the extent to which events in the experimental setting are credible, involving, and taken seriously by participants
Ex) MILGRAM’s experiment
Mundane Realism
the extent to which the experimental events in a controlled setting are similar to events which occur in the “real” world; degree to which an experiment imitates real life
Quasi-Experimental Research
- we CANNOT control all other factors and CANNOT manipulate independent variable
- study event naturally or manipulate varaible but do NOT exert much control
- Ex) Longitudinal studies
The Scientific Method
- Formulating a testable hypothesis
- Selecting a research approach
- Data collection
- Analyzing the data & drawing conclusions
- Sharing the results with the scientific community
Research Approaches in Social Psychology
- Experimental approaches
- Nonexperimental approaches
- Self-report-based approaches
Experimental Approaches
- laboratory-based experiments
- some field-based experiments
- some neuroscience experiments (ie. fMRI)
Nonexperimental Approaches
- observational reserach
- correlational research
- quasi-experiments
- experience sampling methods
- diary research
- internet-based research
- archival research
- meta-analytic research
Self-report-based Approaches
- surveys
- questionnaires
Social Psychology explores behavior by pursuing 3 related lines of inquiry
- Social thought
- Social influence
- Social connections
Social Cognition
how we think about ourselves & other people
The Lab
- 2/3 of all experiments occur in the lab
- refers to a highly controlled space
- can seem artificial, less natural, even somewhat removed from people’s normal experiences
- lacks generalizability!! :(
The Field
- occurs in settings that LACK CONTROL
- have a HIGH degree of naturalism by mimicking everyday life
- displays GENERALIZABILITY
there is NO ideal research where both control & generalizability can be maximized
Naturalistic Research
- settings are “real” and behavior ocurring within them is presumed to be more nature than that associated with the lab
Basic Research vs. Applied Research
Basic Research
- conduced out of pure intellectual interest
- goal is scientific: to expand the available knowledge base concerning human social behavior
- “knowledge for its own sake”
- looking for statistically significant effects
Applied Research
- conducted to understand or address some socially relevant problem
- “knowledge for a purpose”
- aim to answer multiple questions
- statistical significance is sacrificed for finding practical relationships/effects
Normal Triplett
- observed that cyclists who were competing against one another achieved speeds 20% more than solo cyclists
- hypothesis: mere presence of another person arouses competitive instinct within us
- one of the 1st studies on SOCIAL FACILITATION
Social Facilitation
- involves the effects of whether the presence of other people helps or hinders an individual’s performance
For EASY tasks
- having others present improves our performance
For DIFFICULT tasks
- having others present impairs our performance
Social Thought
how we think about other people & ourselves
- self and self-perception
- beliefs about perceptions of others
- attitudes & behavior
- affective forecasting
Social Influence
how we affect & are effected by others
- gender influences (nature)
- gender
- culture (nurture)
- conformity, compliance & obedience
- persuasion & attitude change
- social facilitation
- groups & group processes
Social Connections
how our encounters with others shape the social world & how we navigate within it
- stereoptypes, prejudice & discrimination
- aggression
- close relationship: attraction, liking, love
- helping & cooperating
- conflict & negotiation
Prosocial Behavior
the study of what factors motivate people to help others
Darley & Latané
- failure of witnesses to prevent a young woman’s murder
- even though they sensed each other’s presence, no one went out to help the woman or scare the attacker away
- no one called the police
- the presence of other people can actually **HINDER **an individual’s decision to offer help
Researchers created a model - a bystander must make several decisions before offering help:
- determine that a real need for help exists
- decide that it is his/her responsibility to take action
- conclude that there is some concrete thing he/she can do to help
Pluralistic Ignorance
the apparent absence of concern
- if no other bystander appears worried or upset, then people assume that there must NOT be anything wrong & help is withheld
Affective Forecasting
concerns how people anticipate they will feel in the future
- a form of social THOUGHT (cognition)
- we are NOT very effective affective forecasters
Impact Bias
we tend to assume that bad things will affect us for a much longer time than they actually do
Hindsight Bias
our apparent certainty in the face of possible inconsistency
- the “I-knew-it-all-along effect”
- occurs any time we inflate our ability to have predicted some result in advance, but only AFTER learning the actual result
Dialectic
a careful examination of reasoning process achieved through thorough, critical discussion
Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Source
Primary Source
- original report of research
- esp. journal articles, books, chapters & empirical summaries
Secondary Source
- summaries of or commentaries on the existing literature pertaining to a topic
Tertiary Source
- usu. contains information drawn from secondary sources
- designed to inform a general audience about some topic
- share information but do NOT critique or expand upon what is already known
Nuremberg Code
- after WWII atrocities, this was developed
- created to protect human beings who participate in scientific research
Principles:
- acquiring voluntary consent
- full disclosure of purpose of research, the risks involved & protection against them
- need for qualified researchers
- right for participants to withdraw at any time
- termination of a project whenever people’s welfare is threatened
Deception
the planned witholding of certain information from human participants in some research experience
employing deception regarding the study’s purpose is more likely to obtain a TRUE measure of a participant’s behavior
2 Types:
- Active Deception
- Passive Deception
Active Deception
- occurs when participants are intentionally misinformed about the true state of affaris in the study
Ex) role & behavior of confederates in both ASCH & MILGRAM’s studies are examples of active deception
- they used the HIGHEST level of deception!!!
Passive Deception
the withholding of truth or some relevant info
High Level of Deception
- giving a participant false feedback
- employing confederates
- using hidden measures or cameras
- giving false feedback during debriefing
- using participant’s responses that were “discarded” during the procedure
- reporting a participant’s verbatim response in a publication
False Feedback
an untrue message designed to affect their subsequent behavior in the study
** HIGHEST level of deception
- Ex) you performed worse on the intelligence test than all but 10% of those who have ever taken it
Confederate
- a “stooge”
- an outside helper of the experimenter
- often times are students
- the person performing the actual deception
- should be carefully trained research ethics
- must practice privacy
- must meet/speak with each participant after experiment ends
Institutional Review Boards (IRB)
- approve work before it can be conducted at a college or university
- represent a cross section of a campus’s research community
Aim: to minimize risk
- NO one can predict how every participant will react to a given research
Ethical Mission: unless there are clear problems, no panel ever judges the scientific erit of a project or the worthiness of the ideas contained within it
Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee (IACUC)
- focuses on welfare & treatment of nonhuman organisms
Ethics Panel
- review student research proposals before they send it to institution’s IRB
Rosenthal & Rosnow
- Decision model for doing a cost-benefit analysis of experiments
- there’s also the possibility that the benefits may not be recognized by most cost-benefit analysis
Region D
- low cost, high benefit
- LIKELY to be performed
Region A
- high cost, low benefit
- UNLIKELY to be performed
Informed Consent
- process whereby participants are told what they are taking part in
- you only need to disclose BEHAVIORAL requirements, NOT the reasons for their actions
- includes potential risks or benefits (including deception)
- individual can quit at any time WITHOUT penalty & without question
- CONFIDENTIALITY
- participants 18 years and older can make decisons for themselves
- under 18 years old, require guardian’s consent
True Experiment
employs random assignment to 2 OR MORE treatment conditions, which allows for subsequent behavior in each one to be compared to the other
- each treatment condition represents a distinct level of an independent variable
Random Assignment
goal: to reduce or remove behavioral bias
Subject Variables (Individual Differences)
- any characteristic posessed by a participant that CANNOT be controlled by an experimenter but could influence the participant’s behavior
- immune to randomization :(
- refers to unique characteristics we all have stable (ie. personality, eye color) & transient (ie. fatigue, hunger, flu)
- usu. treated as RANDOM ERROR
- can be treated as non-manipulated independent variables
Advantages of Experiments
- careful control
- measurement
- the identifcation of CAUSE
- developing & testing theory
A Good Hypothesis
- is not a question but rather, a CLEAR statement
- is reasonably concise
- distinguishes relationships among variables
- is based on what is already known and aimed at extending this knowledge
- can be easily understood & appreciated by others
- can be tested
has a decriptive & operational defintion
Operational Definition
specifies how abstract concepts are transformed into concrete operations that are amendable to manipulation & measurement
Descriptive Definition
portrays the relationship among variables in an ABSTRACT way
Independent Variable
- causal variable, behavioral stimulus
- the variable that the experimenter manipulates by creating 2 or more conditions
- must have a minimum of 2 levels
Dependent Variable
- the **outcome variable **
- records people’s responses
- effected by the independent variable
Ex) self-report, paper-and-pencil questionnaires, physical measurements, physiology
Random Error vs. Systematic Error
Random Error
- “noise” or little distractions that occur in any experiment
- affects ALL participants in a study
Systematic Error
- consistent error
- major source of bias in an experiment
- masks or disrupts an investigator’s ability to determine whether any behavioral differences actually attribute to the independent variable
- affects only what SOME people do
Matching Procedure
a variation on randomization that helps to ensure that a given quality that could create change in competition with the independent variable is spread EVENLY throughout an experiment
Random Assignment
establishes the equivalence of groups PRIOR to the introduction of the independent variable
- may use RANDOM NUMBERS TABLE (unbiased way to randomize)
Between-subjects Design
- participants are exposed to only ONE level of an independent variable
Main Effect
- occurs when some independent variable has an effect on a dependent variable, such that there is an apparent difference in magnitude between 2 means representing the levels of the independent variable
Within-subjects Design
(within-groups or repeated-measures)
design where the SAME group of participants experiences ALL LEVELS of an independent variable
- same dependent variable is administered at several points in time
