Social Exam 3
crowds- 2 phenomena
1. Tanganyika laughter epidemic- 3 girls in a missionary school heard a joke and started laughingg, 95-159 pupils became affected, lasting a few hours to 16 days, school disbanded, spread to home--> 14 schools/ ~1000 people thought to be affected 2. dancing plague of 1518- Frau begins to dance, can't stop, it's unpleasant, within a week- 35 dancing, 1 month- 400, several die of exhaustion
emergent knowledge- wisdom of crowds
787 looked at ox and guessed how much it weighed for a prize, took all tickets and averaged together, average guess was almost exactly right, not one person was close to the real weight--> when you put ppl together, they become smarter = emergent knowledge USS Scorpion lost at sea- several experts made guess ab where it was, combined--> found it close to guess, average guesses- closer to real-world answer Vul and Pashler- guess pop of Turkey- guess and 2nd guess, average--> you can be own pool of knowledge, error bar goes down with your average guess who wants to be a millionaire? part. like phoning friends but not asking audience- audience right 91% of time
when are crowds smart? 4
1. diverse information- have lots of it, different perspectives 2. independent opinions- give everybody same info, let them think, separate how they are going to solve, bring back to group 3. no systematic bias- arrive at right, not preferred, answer 4. many people- bigger sample, smaller error emergent properties- groups know things individuals don't
Secrets to happiness (5)- last 4 are Dunn
1. one day you'll die, what do you want your life to look like 2. buy experiences rather than material goods 3. use money to benefit others rather than self 4. buy many small pleasures rather than fewer large ones 5. delay consumption
why do others cause arousal? 3
1. other people cause us to be more alert- people can be unpredictable, studies with cockroaches show social facilitation effects--> complete simple maze quickly when other cockroaches around, take longer to complete complex maze 2. when others around, we are distracted- people have information, same effects with some nonsocial sources of distraction 3. when others are around, we feel like we're being evaluated- evaluative apprehension- when others can see you perform, you feel like they're evaluating you--> cause people to try harder and worry more, when audience present but can't see performance, social facilitation effects weaken/go away
Why the in-group bias? 3
1. political/ideological- motivations to maintain social order 2. rational inference- differences do exist, even if they need not, vicious cycles- cog dissonance and confirmation bias 3. coalitional psych- we're social creatures, like me/not like me- accents, features, etc.
summary of prejudice/stereotypes
1. prejudice pervasive 2. prejudice/stereotyping not just 1 thing 3. automatic and controlled 4. coalitional psych 5. we can make progress
when will people conform to informational social influence?
1. when sit ambiguous- you don't know what's going on 2. when other people are experts 3. when sit. is of high importance- a lot of motivation to get it right
when people are making an important decision and are unsure of right answer, will...
1. worry ab being wrong (while wanting to be right 2. feel it's safer to go w group 3. can't justify going against group
Milgram non-standard exp.
2 additional teachers, 2 confederates, 1 part. as soon as you have another person to break the spell, goes down to 10%, w/out experimenter (authority figure)- goes to 20%, part. choose volts- <5% choose 450 volts 2 dissenters cond- one person doesn't conform = spell broken
Death penalty
20 years of death-eligible cases from Philly 44 black men killed white victim (death sentencing--> 41%) 308 black men killed black victim (death sentencing--> 27%) part. rate how stereotypically black each face is results: stereotypes influencing bias in black defendant/white victim case- more stereotypically black features, higher chance of death sentence
implicit and explicit attitudes in children
6 y/o strongly prefer friends of same race 10 y/o less sig but still there adults have learned that it's not acceptable to say this implicit- doesn't change as they get older dominant social group--> stronger in-group bias (not shown in non-dominant)
Social Facilitation and Social Loafing summary
If individual performance is measured- presence of others leads to social facilitation, arousal enhances performance on simple tasks but impairs performance on complex tasks. If individual performance not measured- presence of others leads to social loafing, becoming relaxed impairs performance on simple task but improves performance on complex tasks
Dan Gilbert- TED talk- synthetic happiness
PFC as experience simulator, lottery winners and paraplegics have same happiness 1 year in future, psychological immune system- change views of world to feel better ab world, synthetic happiness- what we get when we don't get what we want, natural happiness- what we get when we do get what we want, synthetic just as good exp- rank Monet paintings, get a print of one you ranked in the middle, re-rank--> rank one you got much higher exp- above w/ anterograde amnesiac part., when re-ranking, don't know one they own but still rank it higher synthetic works best when you're stuck (marriage vs. dating) exp- take pictures, pick 2 best, keep one and give one away, cond 1- can change mind w/in 4 days, cond 2- can't change mind, 1/2 of part. asked to predict how much they'll like their pic, results- prediction group think they'll like their own a bit more, cond. doesn't matter, stuck w pic- like theirs a lot (synthetic happiness), option to swap- not happy, even after 4 days is up exp- same as above but can choose if they want to change their mind or not--> 66% want to (leads to unhappiness)
Happiness influenced by morality?
Red Cross Richard and Nazi Richard Red Cross seen as more truly happy idea of happiness bound up in our idea of morality true happiness--> what is a good life?--> meaningful things (scientist vs. stoner)
automatic conformity- Bargh- chameleon effect
do we like people who act like us? do we automatically imitate other people? study 1: confed rubs face, doctor shackles foot while interacting w part.--> part does mimic confed (didn't know they were, mimic more the more you like someone) study 2: confed mimics part's posture, movements, mannerisms, part likes confed more when they mimic (works with email and text, too) works w/ talking, gesturing, and writing
conformity
a change in your behavior in order to be similar to other people--> behavior change with a particular motivation behind it why do we conform? 1. we want to know what's right 2. we want to be accepted, we want other ppl to like us
IAT
ab 2/3 of whites show pro-white, anti-black bias (ab 1/2 of blacks) reasonably good test/retest reliability small-to-moderate correlation with explicit attitudes and Bx (contested) affected by exposure to + exemplars
discrimination
acts of preference/exclusion/harm based on group membership (Bx)
ostracism
can be extreme banishment from tribe=death sentence most types more subtle- giving friend/spouse silent Tx, ignoring student at school, kicking person off team, not interacting w group member
Dunn- can we use money to make ourselves happier?
cond 1- get $5, cond 2- get $20, personal cond- spend on self, prosocial cond- spend on others measured change in happiness (before vs. after spending money) results- amount of money didn't matter, spend on self- more unhappy, spend on others- increased happiness (equally as spending on self made unhappy)--> feel good about the act and get to see someone else enjoy it
private acceptance
conforming to others out of a genuine belief that what they believe is right, happens when you really don't know what's going on, actually changes your belief
public compliance
conforming to others without believing they are right, after giving estimate in group, people went back alone--> estimate still consistent with group, 1 year later--> estimate still conformed to group average
changing prejudice
contest w researchers- reduce implicit bias w IAT benefits- replicability, comparability, no file-drawer effect 1. worked- counterstereotypical example, evaluative conditioning (pairing black w + and white w -), implementation intentions (if--> then plans)- higher personal involvement, implicit change, black-white attitudes 2. failed- perspective taking/empathy, egalitarian values- explicit change, + black only, low personal involvement, Asian and Hispanic attitudes
the effect of others- LeBon- "the crowd"
crowds make us mad, less moral, destructive, brings out the worst in us, groups are bad and putting ppl in groups makes us worse off (ex. heckling) Jump- Mann--> heckling a jumper, most likely to happen when people in group, in the middle of building (harder to pick out), at night, on summer nights (harder to see), larger crowds not individually responsible for our Bx- more ominous groups worse
social facilitation
do better on simple tasks and worse on difficult tasks when others around physical arousal- presence of others increases this, promotes dominant response, success at things we're good at, failure at things we're bad at
social roles
expectations about how specific group members should behave (ex. expectation that students are attentive to their professor)
the problem with groups- Milgram
how conforming can be used in - ways 2 people, one teacher (part) one learner (confederate) you want to get it right, important person in room punishment- 15 volts-->450 volts, give teacher a little shock to let them know it's real move up by 15 volts every time get ? wrong would the teachers refuse to go to 450 volts? or could the important person get them to essentially kill a person? experimenter distances learner by not referring to them by their name panel of psychiatrists only believed <1% would get to 450 volts (and those are sadists) results: 2/3 of people went to 450 volts part. said they really wanted to be helpful to science, game of high importance, expert present/sit. ambiguous (learner in other room and didn't really know what 450 volts would do)
ostracism summary
initial feeling is pain--> regardless of who is doing it, regardless of intro/extrovert if it can't be rationalized, recover by 1. becoming "good" group member (get back in) or 2. behaving aggressively (get recognition) path choice influenced by control- none=act out/aggress
employment discrimination
job ads, manipulated name of applicant (white names, black names) and quality of resume results: 4% difference in chance of callback with name change on exact same resume, employers paid attention to the quality of white applicants but not of black applicants
Robbers cave exp.
kids divided into 2 camps- 22 distinct groups, had them compete and raised stakes can he fix it? force them to cooperate, work towards common goal results: eliminated conflict, kept group identities have to get people interacting and working towards a common goal to break down group barriers
automatic vs. controlled
knowledge of the black stereotype is the same for high-prejudices and low-prejudiced white subjects all subjects--> more likely to identify ambiguous Bx as hostile if have been primed w words related to black stereotypes (no matter if high or low reported prejudice--> system 1), low- report no - attitudes towards blacks at all, low must inhibit stereotyping when they report their impressions of black people (system 2)
why do we torture others?
low in warmth/competency- feel disgust towards them mPFC- suppressed activation when considering above- dehumanize them
prejudice
negative attitudes towards a group (stereotypes and negative affect)
motivated use of stereotypes
okay to kill 1 to save 100? consequentialism- sacrifice one for the greater good Chip vs. 100 members of Harlem Jazz Orchestra Tyrone vs. 100 members of NY Philharmonic part.'s political orientation influence stereotypes? results: liberals- biased as okay to kill Chip but not Tyrone (smaller effect) conservatives- okay to kill Tyrone, less likely to sacrifice Chip
task difficulty and loafing/facilitation
part. completed mazes on computer as fast as possible hard or easy, part. either worked alone, worked alone w audience, or worked w a group (scores averaged) results: when individuals evaluated, better on easy task, worse on hard; when not evaluated, better on hard, worse on easy (compared to control)
Can money buy happiness?
part. had varying incomes, fringe benefits, married or not, etc. asked "how much time do you spend in a bad mood?" (actual) vs. "how much time do you think you'll spend in a bad mood in the next (week, month, year)?" (prediction) actual diffs- descriptive diff w income but no stat sig diffs in happiness predicted diffs- more money--> think you'll be happier in future regardless of income, % of time being averagely happy was the same lots of money- very happy little money- not very happy so does money affect happiness? yes (w highs and lows of happiness) and no (w average happiness) reflective responses- life sat, amount of day in good mood--> higher income happier duration-weighted happiness- "in-the-moment" happiness--> income doesn't matter we think that more money will make us happier, but actual happiness shows weak/no effect of income (duration-weighted happiness, actual diffs in bad mood
roles and deindividuation- Stanford prison study
part. in specific roles prisoners in uniforms, referred to by #, male volunteer RAs to role of guard or prisoner- actually arrested by Stanford police experiment designed to last 2 weeks, ended after 5 days part quickly assumed "assigned" roles- guards became abusive, prisoners passive/helpless/withdrawn no bad apples, only bad barrels--> can take any normal college student and make them act this way--> put in particular social role, begin to act out that role part. fell into role b/c ambiguity of sit (some rules, most improvised, no one had proper training), stress of sit- wan to do a good job, loss of identity- become guard or prisoner- not individuals anymore, no accountability (no consequence of Bx)
social loafing vs. facilitation- mere presence of others
part. learn word pair, test- exp. said first word, part. had to recall 2nd word 1/2 recalled along, 1/2 recalled w small group watching results- people recalled more when audience present another cond.... same setup but difficult words results- easy task=better performance with audience, hard task=better performance alone
ostracism and control
played face-to-face ball-toss game and were included or excluded, listened to 10 blasts of loud noise (some could control when blasts started, others had no control) part. packaged hot sauce for another part. (measured aggression--> know the other person doesn't like it), how much hot sauce would they give other part.? results: included- both control and no control gave a little; ostracized- no control cond gave a lot, control cond no more aggressive than if included--> ostracized were aggressive if they had no control
stereotypes
positive or negative sets of beliefs about a group which is generalized to an individual
political conformity- Cohen
presented people w 2 welfare policies (one stringent and one generous) liberal participants 1 cond. see lists side-by-side, no additional information 2 cond. said republicans are for generous policy and liberals are proposing the stringent one flips preference--> change to the exact opposite, our political tribes are producing inconsistencies
could the Stanford prison study happen in the real world?
prison abuse at Abu Ghraib- in a really ambiguous sit/under a lot of stress, assume prisoners are your enemy Zimbardo testified- said ppl put in sit that called for this type of Bx
Asch conformity studies
put in sit. where correct answer is obvious, choose answer all confeds except 1 part at end of table all choose incorrect answer, does part. conform?--> depends <5% w/ 2, 30% w/ 3 3-5 is sweet spot, as soon as you have three other people in group, 1/3 will conform as soon as you have at least one other person to support you, spell of conformity broken, makes it much easier for you to defect from the group
informational social influence- Sherif
rigged game, room pitch-dark, no frame of reference to compare to, believe light is moving, come out and talk to other part. initially, see people very different--> data show that estimates of how the light is moving start to converge on one particular estimate private acceptance- people didn't really know, genuinely changing attitudes and beliefs
social norms
rules a group has for acceptable Bx, values, beliefs of its members, varies demographically, religiously, culturally
Carnahan and McFarland
said that Zimbardo's parts. weren't representative of pop recruited for psych study vs. sign up for prison study part for prison study high in aggression/authoritarianism, low in empathy/altruism Zimbardo accidentally recruited part that had predisposition for aggression and put in sit that calls for aggression which ramped up sit person x situation interaction
shooter bias among police
same reaction time bias as laypeople, slower with white and armed (shoot) and black and unarmed (hold) laypeople- shoot unarmed black targets more police- no stat sig difference- either no bias or bias towards not shooting at all, don't show overall bias in shooting Bx officer bias predicted by violent crime rate and % blacks in community, not by education, political orientation, warmth towards blacks, stereotypes
difficulty, importance, and conformity
show part. line-up and tell them they have to pick person later manipulations: easy (see perp for 10s- sure of decision) or hard (see perp for 1/2s- unsure of decision), low importance (doesn't matter if you're wrong) or high importance (data is going to be used in the world, if you do the best, get $20) results: easy + important (motivates you to get it right) = decreases probability of conformity, hard + important = higher conformity
facilitation vs. loafing
social facilitation only occurs when individual performance is evaluated when it's not evaluated, we see social loafing when in a group and individuals are not being evaluated--> poorer memory for concepts, fewer uses for novel objects, decreased effort in group projects
social influence
social norms and roles
norms and conservation
trying to get people to reuse their towels in hotels--> tell people it really helps, do it more (doesn't work with moral people, already reuse their towels) study 1 measured conservation reasons (intentions), study 2 measured actual energy use (Bx) most important was environmental protection, norms are least important for conservation study 2- put messages about conservation, real meter, control was no messages at all, result--> messages did nothing, social norms is the only cond that worked people believe norms have no impact, but they have the largest impact, are powerful motivators for our Bx
groups- replicating Milgram
up to 150 volts , found that if part went past 150 volts, 8/10 went all the way to 450 volts- that was the breaking point results: 70% went to 150 volts, same as Milgram, same for men and women, obediance not affected by another person defecting, not related to any demographic variables, not related to empathetic concern or desire for control , but- correlation between empathy and needing prods (for the experiment to go on)- only individual diffs, robust finding that we conform to authority figures
objectification of women
upside-down and right-side-up pics of people (scantily dressed) and objects, respond as fast as possible if image is person or object, should be harder to ID people in upside-down cond. results: upright images- M and W identical w % correct upside-down images- M--> more errors, harder to ID, W--> equally easy w wither orientation women perceived more as object
Does rejection hurt? cyber ball
virtual catch with someone else, stop throwing to you, ignore you for the rest of the game. higher activity in anterior cingulate activity (associated with literal, physical experience of pain) we are so strongly desirous of being included into groups, we feel pain when excluded
category accentuation
we enhance differences between categories, even when category boundaries are arbitrary morningness/eveningness questionnaire--> categorized as morning or evening person randomly assigned to take study at 9 AM, 3 PM, or 8 PM stereotypic offender (athlete--> cheater, black person--> thug, etc.) or not likelihood of guilt results: morning people- not falling prey to stereotypes in morning, falling prey in afternoon/evening opposite for evening people stereotypes operate like heuristics- system 1 if not awake/not full cog. resources--> more bias, system 2 if that's not the case
synthetic happiness- 2 claims
we think that future events are going to be more different than they really are--> actual impact/difference never as extreme as we think 1. we're bad at predicting our future emotions (good and bad) 2. we have the ability to adapt to our circumstances (good and bad)
knowing what's right
we use other people to determine the right course of action (in ambiguous sit) informational social influence- we conform b/c we believe other people have info we don't
What happens in groups? 2
when you put us together, we are extraordinarily attuned to one another 1. emergent properties- groups are more than the sum of their parts 2. social influence- groups have roles they subscribe to
shooter bias
white or black male targets holding gun or some other tool, non-black part. have to decide to shoot or not results: correctly decide to shoot (person armed)- slower with armed and white, slower to hold when person black and unarmed, higher errors with black and unarmed/white and armed predicted by the degree people agree with stereotype that blacks are dangerous, not by more overt measures of racism/discrimination
fMRI
white's IAT scores correlate with amygdala act. for subliminally presented black faces, discrepancy between automatic and controlled attitudes predicting activity in a network of brain regions associated with cog. control/willpower (dl/vlPFC, anterior cingulate)
ostracism in lab- cyberball
you get excluded after a while goes against our need to belong, need for control, need to feel good about ourselves, need to be recognized (meaningful existence), other people value our existence (ex. when someone reads your text but doesn't respond) immediate consequence- pain- doesn't matter who- in group, out group, unimportant group, important group, despised group, doesn't matter who is being ostracized later consequences- 1.rationalize ostracism (if you can, effects mild, rare) 2.path towards social inclusion- become good group member, likely to conform, cooperate, express more liking, work hard for group 3.path toward reclaiming control/recognition- become less helpful/cooperative, become more aggressive to those who ostracized them and to neutral others (ex. school shooters) can lead to ppl being more compliant and cooperative or less helpful and more aggressive when will it lead to one or the other? all about CONTROL