Experimental PsychologyPSY 433

Chapter 13

Social Psychology

Midterm Results

Score Grade N

29-34 A 10

26-28 B 8

22-25 C 6

19-21 D 0

0-18 F 1

Top score = 34 (2 people)Top of curve = 32.5

Social Psychology

Social Cognition -- how we perceive others: Stereotypes, prejudice, attraction, liking. Attitudes and beliefs, identity, sense of self,

and how these are changed. Social Influence -- how others influence our

behavior: Conformity, compliance, and obedience.

Aggression, violence, altruism, cooperation.

Conformity

Sherif’s (1935) work on social norms using the autokinetic effect.

Autokinetic effect – a stationary spot of light in a dark room appears to move.

What others say affects an observer’s perceptions –it appears to move in an arc if other people saw it move in an arc.

Conformity

Asch’s (1951, 1956, 1958) work on conformity using line judgments.

Subjects were told the study was on visual discrimination, but it was actually on conformity.

The task – identify which of 3 lines matches a standard.

Asch expected that people would follow the evidence of their own eyes – but they didn’t.

Standard A B C

Asch’s Paradigm

Six confederates & 1 subject Each responded out loud Experimental manipulation:

Confederates respond correctly on 6 trials & incorrectly on 12

Most subjects conformed on 1 or more of the 12 incorrect trials

Control: Confederates always responded correctly (only 5% of subjects erred).

Compliance and Obedience

Milgram (1963, 1964, 1965) obedience task Paid subjects volunteered for a study of the

effects of punishment on learning/memory. Involved 3 people:

Authority – the experimenter Victim – the “learner” (a confederate) Subject -- the “teacher”

Milgram’s Shock Panel

Slight Shock

Moderate Shock

Strong Shock

Very Strong Shock

IntenseShock

15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300

Extreme-Intensity Shock

Danger: Severe Shock

315 330 345 360 375 390 405 420 435 450

XXX

Learner Responses

Slight Shock

Moderate Shock

Strong Shock

Very Strong Shock

IntenseShock

15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300

Grunts &

Moans

“Let me out!”

“I can’t stand the

pain!”

“I refuse to

answer!”

Conditions Affecting Obedience

The setting – did Yale foster obedience because it was well-known, Ivy League? Replication in a sleazy part of Bridgeport 48% gave max shock, compared to 65%

Presence/absence of peers also showing defiance or conformity: Conforming peers encouraged greater shock.

Proximity to the “victim”: 74% when hear victim, 40% when see victim, 30% when touch victim

Interpreting Conformity Results

Perhaps subjects trusted that no harm would really come to the subjects – treated the context as “make believe”.

Perhaps results underestimate conformity, since the experimenter truly has no authority over the subject.

Obedience is not necessarily bad – society would not function if people ignored laws and persons in authority.

Dependent Variables

Questionnaires measuring belief, attitude, preference (liking). Rating scales

Behavioral measures: Aggression measured by shock given. Attraction measured by how long a man talks

to a woman, smiles at her, whether he asks her out.

Converging measures are better.

Independent Variables

Characteristics of a social situation or of people (demographic variables).

Factors believed to affect behavior are manipulated: Persuasiveness – manipulate number or type

of arguments used. Aggression – manipulate temperature in a

room to test whether heat affects behavior. Conformity – manipulate number of people

who agree or disagree.

Demand Characteristics

Are subjects acting normally in an experiment, or are they just doing what they think they are expected to do? Did Milgram’s subjects give shock because

the experimental context demanded it? Orne and Evans (1965) examined demand

characteristics in a hypnosis study. Is behavior due to hypnosis or due to

demand characteristics?

Hypnosis Demos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmgptd8bXfA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn171z-CPLs

Orne’s Results

The Bystander Studies

Several incidents pre-1970 got researchers interested in another area of social influence: The mere presence of other people

The bystander effect -- the more people who observe a crisis, the less likely any one of them is to help the victim.

Is this true in every situation?

Outside of a Small Circle of Friends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4bSqSdto5g

Kitty Genovese (1964)

Darley and Latane (1968)

Over an intercom, subjects discussed problems in college life with 1, 2, or 5 others.

IV: Number of bystanders (0, 1, or 4) DV: whether subject responded &

elapsed sec The more bystanders, the less likely

subjects were to respond and the longer it took when they did respond

Note: typo in Kantowitz Table 13-2.

Darley & Latane’s Results

Diffusion of Responsibility

Piliavin et al. (1969) manipulated: Race of the victim simulating a crisis. Whether victim appeared ill or drunk.

They recorded race of helper, number of helpers, racial composition of bystanders.

Results: Help offered more readily to ill (95%) than

drunk (50%). Race only mattered for drunk victims. Number of bystanders didn’t matter.

Where Did the Effect Go?

Piliavin et al.’s study was done in the field not in the lab. Maybe other factors were present.

If people are made to feel responsible for a situation they are more likely to help, regardless of bystanders. Milgram’s subjects were told that the

experimenter was responsible. People may be reluctant to intervene due to

potential embarrassment, loss of poise.