1

Term Test 4• Thursday March 9• in class, 12:00 - 1:50

• 40 multiple choice questions• 10% of course grade• Topics covered

– class material: Feb 7 - Mar 2– assigned readings: see lectures web page– Language and Nonverbal Communication (Ch. 11, end of

Ch. 10, FQ37-40)– Cognitive Development (Ch. 11)– Social Development (Ch. 12)– Social Perception (Ch. 13)– Social Influence (Ch. 14)

• Perception of self– Self-fulfilling prophecy (Pygmalion effect)

• Perception of others– Attribution

• Situation vs. Personality?– Fundamental Attribution Error (person bias)

• people overemphasize the person over the situation– Actor-observer bias

• the person bias is much stronger for others’ behavior than for your own

– Prior information• priming leads people to confirm their expectations (like

the confirmation bias but for attributions)– Attractiveness bias

Three Minute Review• Attitudes

– “beliefs tinged with emotion”– cognitive dissonance

• behavior ? attitude ð discomfort• change behavior or change attitude so they are

consistent• insufficient justification

– “The reward wasn’t enough; I must’ ve done it because I wanted to.”

• belief in a just world – “What did I do to deserve this?”– blaming the victim

• Prejudice– discrimination vs. prejudice– social categorization

• in-group• out-group• in-group bias -- “We’re better than they are.”• out-group homogeneity bias -- “They’re all the same.”• evolutionary factors?

– stereotypes• public• private• implicit

– implicit association test

– prejudice can become a self -fulfilling prophecy• job interviews• stereotype threat

SOCIAL INFLUENCE: OBEDIENCE• Why do people obey to an extreme degree?• Milgram’s Obedience Experiments

– The majority of people will follow orders to an extreme degree

– Results surprised many people, esp. psychologists– What factors affect obedience?

• Stanford Prison Experiment– Ordinary people get caught up in roles

• Psychology of Genocide

2

• Banality of evil (Hannah Arendt)– Perhaps Adolf Eichmann was no different than the rest

of us

• Psychology of genocide1. difficult living conditions, fierce competition for resources2. strong in- vs. out-groups3. violence, blaming the victim4. violence justifies itself

• can’t stop because of cognitive dissonance

How can we reduce prejudice?• be mindful of your biases

– children who were shown pictures of handicapped individuals and asked to think carefully about them (e.g., to think how they would drive a car) were more willing to play with disabled children than those who did only a superficial task (Langer et al., 1985)

How can we reduce prejudice?Robbers Cave Experiment(Sherif et al., 1961)

– 22 5th grade boys in summer camp in 1954

– grouped into two groups, “Eagles” and “Rattlers”

– boys only interacted with their own group for one week

– groups began to interact in competitive situations (e.g., football, tug-of-war)

– rivalry became violent– group flags burned, cabins

ransacked, food fights

How can we reduce prejudice?• Propaganda: No

– positive propaganda about one group directed to the other by the experimenters did not help

• Contact: No– doing non-competitive activities together

(e.g., watching movies) did not help

• Cooperative action: Yes– experimenters arranged for camp truck

to break down– both groups needed to pull it uphill– intergroup friendships began to develop– cooperative approached is being used in

US classrooms• give assignment where students from

different racial groups can only succeed by working together in a “jigsaw” approach

It’s hard to hate your friends• friendships with outgroup members

(as friends, neighbors, co-workers) leads to reliably lower levels of prejudice

Social Influence• How do others affect our behavior?

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

• follow societal rules and expectations• commit atrocities

3

ConformityThe adoption of attitudes and behaviors shared by a

particular group of people.

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

Conformity is not always bad

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

Asch’s Line Judgment Experiment

3 3

3

3

3

???

Solomon Asch, 1955• replicated by others in 1990

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

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

Group Decisions• How does this tendency to conform affect group

decisions?

http://www.despair.com

Group Polarization

4

Groupthink Groupthink• Psychologist Irving Janis coined

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

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

• e.g., JFK & Bay of Pigs invasion• GWB & co. and Iraq invasion

• Causes of Groupthink– powerful group of people who think

alike– absence of objective and impartial

leadership– high levels of stress regarding

decision

Déjà vu?

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

Robert Daugherty, engineer, Jan 30, 2003

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

From www.usatoday.com

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

William Anderson, engineer, Jan 30, 2003

Space Shuttle ChallengerJanuary 28, 1986

Space Shuttle ColumbiaFebruary 1, 2003

• NASA under strong pressure to launch shuttle

• first civilian in space• many delays had occurred

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

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

meeting to review lingering doubts

Social Loafing• as the number of people

increases, the effort exerted by each individual declines

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

• less common in collectivist cultures (e.g., China) than individualistic cultures (e.g., USA)

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

competence together