Lecture 5 - Pluralistic Ignorance and Social Norms
"crash" experiment methodology
Subjects taken to the experiment room, past workmen with ladder/equipment etc. task: sketch a model horse (two participants) Event→ workman, behind a screen, falls with a crash, and cries "oh my leg"
"crash" experiment results
-information conveyed by another's "startle response" defines situation as emergency or not -percentage that investigated the situation→ those alone and facing one another similarly choose to investigate, but with the back-to-back condition, results of people investigating plummet
Explanations for Kitty Genovese Incident
-newspaper explained incident as a result of Moral decay as a consequence of living in a larger urban environment -Psychologists suspicious of this explanation (moral decay) and looked for sociological alternative explanation
Bystander non-intervention can be attributed to...
1. diffusion of responsibility 2. pluralistic ignorance
Three Steps to Pluralistic Ignorace
1. people self censor 2. people incorrectly conclude that others are expressing their true feelings and thoughts, even though they are also self-censoring 3. people include their own thoughts and feelings deviate from the norms and are not shared by others
people incorrectly conclude that others are expressing their true feelings and thoughts, even though they are also self-censoring
Awareness of ourselves, but not others
"crash" experiment study of...
Bystander intervention
Q: Which of the follow is not a key part of pluralistic ignorance? A: social inhibition B: self censorship C: externally constrained behavior D: normative influence
C: externally constrained behavior because externally constrained behavior is not general across multiple different cases, unlike other factors
Examples of descriptive norm questions versus injunctive/prescriptive norm questions
D: How many drinks does the average Penn student consume when they go out? -How many hours does the average Penn student study per week? I/P: How many drinks does the average Penn student think is appropriate to consume when they go out? -How many hours does the average Penn student think is appropriate to study per week?
Reducing pluralistic ignorance study DV
DV: after (4-6 months)--> drinks per week reported (is there a change after focus group)
"crash" experiment variables
IV: conditions - -alone -with another subject (facing each other): important because will see mutual recognition of the event -with another subject (facing away from each other): won't view behavioral reactions of other subject DV: whether subjects investigate
norms influence on behavior
Knowledge of what other people do can have a major effect on behavior (e.g., conformity studies)
power of descriptive norms study (hotel towels)
Q: Can hotel customers be influenced to reuse their towels at a higher rate? (saves energy, limits use of chemicals and saves hotels $$) approach: note on door about the environmental benefits of towel-reuse "Help save the environment" etc.. results: not bad, but could do better
social norms and statistics research question
Question: can conveying statistical information about social norms change people's behavior?
Reducing pluralistic ignorance study
Question: can reducing pluralistic ignorance weaken the effects of social influence Task: Two 20 minute discussion groups - Condition 1 (individual focused - standard): individual decision-making, responsibility, negative consequences Condition 2 (peer focused - novel): exposure to pluralistic ignorance misconceptions of the norm with actual data (don't focus on individual responsibility, but provide social influence data)
social inhibition main study (classroom setting)
Question: what consequences can this have in an educational setting? Task: read incomprehensible article on self-concept in a group of other people
customary behaviors
acceptable and average actions in social situations
smoke-filled room experiment results
alone almost all participants report the smoke, but when in a room with 2 passive confederates, results of reports drops down to 10% BUT also with 3 real subjects results are closer to passive confederate responses Group setting makes people less likely to respond with results dropping down to 40%
pluralistic ignorance in college drinking facts
college health association: excessive drinking is the single biggest risk to the health of college students argue that peer influence plays a role in this context but pluralistic ignorance could be part of the explanation
pluralistic ignorance in college drinking study
college students asked: 1) "How comfortable do you feel with the drinking habits of students at Princeton" 2) "How comfortable does the average student feel with the drinking habits at Princeton" 3) "How comfortable do your friends feel with the drinking habits at Princeton"
main message underlying pluralistic ignorance studies
concealing the emotional reactions of others in an emergency situation reduces the chance of intervention and pluralistic ignorance is thus more likely
social inhibition main study (classroom setting) underlying logic of conditions
constrained condition: there is a sufficient situational explanation for others' not leaving so nothing can be inferred from their behavior and can conclude they are also confused unconstrained condition: there is not a sufficient situation explanation for others not leaving and assume less inhibition; conclude they have a better understanding -People's behavior is more diagnostic and leads to a lower rating of understanding compared to others'
Crash experiment resolves contradictory findings
conveys that pluralistic ignorance is a factor in emergency situations (unlike subway experiment) and that availability of others' reactions matters
power of descriptive norms field experiment (hotel towels)
data from 190 rooms in mid-size hotel in America's Southwest Q: Can hotel customers be influenced to reuse their towels at a higher rate?
two types of norms
descriptive norms and injunctive/prescriptive norms
diffusion of responsibility
in the incident of Kitty Genovese, people thought that others would call the police
social inhibition casual explanation
people assume their own behavior is driven more by social inhibition/fear of embarrassment, than others' behavior; therefore, others really do understand and I do not think we are embarrassed but others are not embarrassed, they just understand
social inhibition initial study (ratings of internal traits)
people rate themselves higher than others on internal traits leading to social inhibition (e.g., self-conscious, inhibited, hesitant etc...) Rated themselves higher on these traits than others because more evidence on yourself than others
social influence process in action in smoke filled room experiment is...
pluralistic ignorance: same outward behavior seen as reflecting different internal states -Assume from others responses an internal states -Same behavior, but interpret our behavior as occurring from a different internal state than others -Suggests one may be safer alone in danger than in a group, making waves in social psychology research
alternative explanation for smoke-filled room experiment
pluralistic ignorance: smoke is ambiguous and others' non-response affects a person's definition of the situation, whether it is an emergency or not
social inhibition phenomenon
professor explains something difficult, asks questions, and nobody responds. Despite not understanding, most people conclude others understand, from their non-responding.
power of descriptive norms field experiment (hotel towels) results
see a jump in 10% from 35% compliance of standard message to 45% compliance of descriptive message -Knowing others behavior in an abstract sense can shift one's own behavior -Communicating descriptive norms can significantly change people's behavior -More abstract conformity pressure than inn Asch studies
Pluralistic Ignorance and Social Norms
slightly more SUBTLE process of conformity
smoke-filled room experiment
task: fill out questionnaires before an interview on urban experiences (taken at NYU) situation: acrid smoke comes into room from vent; no flames but sudden view of smoke question: what people do to confront potentially dangerous situation?
people self-censor
they do it always express their true thoughts and feelings for fear of embarrassment and rejection e.g., Larry David show models what happens when self-censorship does not occur
social inhibition main study (classroom setting) results
when people were in the constrained condition, rated their understanding on par with others, but in the unconstrained condition rated their understanding as significantly lower than others -Independent variable has nothing to do with bystanders or emergencies, but applies pluralistic ignorance to another social situation
Why this smoke-room group situation is NOT an example of diffusion of responsibility?
-not that you think others will do it which would make it diffusion of responsibility, but want to conform to the group similar to Asch line study -direct evidence in this situation that no one else is doing anything, unlike Genovese case -In this situation, you yourself are in danger so do not perceive it as others responsibility to help you, but your own responsibility -Assumption that others will act directly countered by inaction and subject's own lives being as risks make it seem unlikely that people would choose to risk their lives because they hand off responsibility to others
role of information and normative influence in smoke filled room experiment
-Ambiguous stimulus, look to other people to define situation, with other's behavior being a valuable source of information informational→ change in the definition of the situation -normative→ people do not want to appear panicked if it could potentially have a normal explanation, do not want to act first; don't want to stand out from the group
Kitty Genovese Incident
-Kitty Genovese stabbed to death outside her apartment -attack took 30 minutes -cries heard by her neighbors, lights on add windows open but no one called the police until 30 minutes later -evidence that residents of her building witnessed the attack, yet no intervention until too late
pluralistic ignorance
-People gauge how serious the situation is from the reaction of others -Ambiguous stimulus and uncertainty of situation could prompt bystanders to not react -If bystanders seem unconcerned and also confused, believe the situation is not as bad as it seems -Others perceptions can define how you perceive the situation -bystanders fail to recognize others are in the same position and are also looking around to gauge reactions
Post-experiment interview about the smoke
-People who reported smoke all said they thought it was dangerous -People who did not report the smoke said they thought it was "air conditioner gas or smog or truth gas" - range of interpretations
pluralistic ignorance in college drinking study context
-Subjects are freshman students, context at this time is Princeton was a heavy drinking school -One reason for this trend could be freshman subjects, less exposure to drinking culture and subsequent comfort
Reducing pluralistic ignorance study Results
-do not know if the reports are "true" but in peer focused group, the results are a bit lower than in individual focused group -No sense of peer pressure in these groups results in lower scores, yet people are slightly more responsive to peer focused message despite accounting for this influence -works because it does not change beliefs about how much other people's drinking, but reduces perceived importance other students place on drinking -conveys power of small interventions with effects lasting 4-6 months later
pluralistic ignorance in college drinking study results
-students assume other students and friends are significantly more comfortable with drinking habits than themselves -assumption that everybody behaves in roughly the same way but that our own attitudes are deviant from the norm -conveys that people infer that the identical actions of the self and others reflect different internal states
social inhibition main study (classroom setting) variables
IV: instructions Conditions- -constrained: not possible to ask for clarification -unconstrained: could ask questions, but at the risk of embarrassment (nobody does) DV: rate your own understanding, knowledge, anticipated performance regarding material relative to average other person in the study
power of descriptive norms field experiment (hotel towels) variables
IV: nature of reuse message Condition 1: Standard environmental message Condition 2: Descriptive norm message, majority reuse Messages place on a small sign on the door with specific instructions as to HOW to reuse (curtain rod or towel rack) Examined only those guests who stayed more than one night (first night of a multiple night stay)
smoke-filled room experiment variables
IV: presence of others Conditions: -person alone -person surrounded with two passive confederated instructed to keep their head down filling out the survey and not look at others -three real subjects responding as they wish DV: whether the person left the room and reported the smoke
Are descriptive norms always this powerful?
No, If a descriptive norm conveys information that many people are doing something socially undesirable, norm is not powerful -Evidence that describe norms can backfire under these circumstances -To overcome this problem, incorporation injunctive norms can sometimes be effective BUT tendency for behavior to move in the direction of a communicated social norm
pluralistic ignorance formal definition
Pluralistic ignorance occurs when individuals infer that the identical actions of the self and others reflect different internal states -widespread misperception of a group norm arising from other group members acting at variance with their private beliefs -A case where all members of a group reject a particular belief or norm, but believe that virtually every other member accepts it
"crash" experiment pre-experiment
Pre-experiment, heart attack in a subway car experiment -participants can directly look at one another - important factor - and direct communicative elements cause different responses by participants
injunctive/prescriptive norms
what behaviors are approved or disapproved of on average in particular situations
descriptive norms
what behaviors were performed (on average) in particular situations