KEY STUDIES IN PSYCHOLOGY Social psychology Jiří Čeněk, 2015 WHAT IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY? ¢Influence of social processes on the way people: nThink (thoughts; cognition) nFeel (feelings; emotions) nBehave (behaviour; actions) ¢ Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006). Psychology. Australian and New Zealand Edition. Queensland: Wiley. Also note: Allport's Classic Definition The scientific study of how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport) WHAT IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY? ¢Social processes: 1.Relationships 2. 2. 2. 2.Social influence 3. 3. 3. 3.Intergroup relations HISTORY & RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bandeau_portail_psychologie.jpg EARLY APPROACHES TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY ¢European approaches 1.Volkerpsychology 2.Psychology of the crowd 3. ¢American approaches 1.Tradition of behaviorism HISTORY ¢Psychology of nations (Volkerpsychologie) ¢W. Wundt (1860,Germany) —‘… psychological exploration the basis of the soul of the nations and its influencing and uncovering the mental processes…’ —Assumption: Nation is the natural form of human society ¢M. Lazarus, H. Steinthal —theory of languages and mythology. ¢Comparison of nations wilhelm wundt Psychology of nations (1860) (Völkerpsychologie) Half of the 19th century, Germany studies development of fenomena such as language: speech and writing, mythology, art etc. M. Lazarus, H. Steinthal – they studied the problem of the theory of languages (jazykoveda) and mythology In the book Introductory thoughts to the psychology of nations, they formulated the role of the psychology of nations as ‘… psychological exploration the basis of the soul of the nations and its influencing and uncovering the mental processes…’ However they all summarize that the spiritual life of a person is not based upon individual consciousness, but on the consciousness of the nation HISTORY ¢Psychology of nations ¢ ¢ Volksgeist (unifiyng mental principle of nation) Language Myths Habits Individual (mental life) Psychology of nations (1860) (Völkerpsychologie) Half of the 19th century, Germany studies development of fenomena such as language: speech and writing, mythology, art etc. M. Lazarus, H. Steinthal – they studied the problem of the theory of languages (jazykoveda) and mythology In the book Introductory thoughts to the psychology of nations, they formulated the role of the psychology of nations as ‘… psychological exploration the basis of the soul of the nations and its influencing and uncovering the mental processes…’ However they all summarize that the spiritual life of a person is not based upon individual consciousness, but on the consciousness of the nation HISTORY ¢Psychology of the crowd ¢Le Bon (1895, France) ¢Grounds of the theory: 1.Concept of the suggestion: 1 person can directly influence thoughts of other person ¢ — — http://wiki-images.enotes.com/thumb/5/5e/Gustave_Le_Bon.jpg/150px-Gustave_Le_Bon.jpg Psychology of the crowd (mass/mob psychology) Second half of the 19^th cent., France Le Bon defined typical characteristics of behavior of a person in crowd -depersonalization, domination of the feelings over the reason, loss of reasoning, loss of responsibility The characteristics of a person in crowd - anonymity, affect, lessened intelligence, lessened responsibility The crowd is mainly characterized by the lack of structure, it is unorganized, chaotic, it needs a leader HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CROWD : GROUNDS OF THE THEORY 2.Epidemiology (L. Pasteur, R. Koch): ¢Germ theory of disease ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢Spreading of negative affects in crowd = mental disease PSYCHOLOGY OF THE CROWD: GROUNDS OF THE THEORY 3.Criminology (Tarde): lowered legal responsibility ¢Individual in the crowd —Descends to more primitive level —Lowered logical thinking — ¢ HISTORY ¢Psychology of the crowd ¢Le Bon (1895, France) ¢Defined typical characteristics of behavior of a person in crowd: —Domination of the feelings over the reason, loss of reasoning, loss of responsibility —Lessened intelligence, lessened responsibility —The crowd is mainly characterized by the lack of structure, it is unorganized, chaotic, it needs a leader ¢ ¢ ¢ http://wiki-images.enotes.com/thumb/5/5e/Gustave_Le_Bon.jpg/150px-Gustave_Le_Bon.jpg Psychology of the crowd (mass/mob psychology) Second half of the 19^th cent., France Le Bon defined typical characteristics of behavior of a person in crowd -depersonalization, domination of the feelings over the reason, loss of reasoning, loss of responsibility The characteristics of a person in crowd - anonymity, affect, lessened intelligence, lessened responsibility The crowd is mainly characterized by the lack of structure, it is unorganized, chaotic, it needs a leader ¢First social psychological experiment ¢- Triplett (1898) – inspired by cyclists ¢- Social facilitation HISTORY Triplett – observed that cyclists go faster when racing against others or in front of a crowd. laboratory experiment and concluded that children perform a simple lab task faster in pairs than when performing by themselves. He arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turning a small fishing reel as quickly as possible. He found that those who played the game in pairs turned the reel faster than those who were alone.Triplett's design involved the creation of two groups (A and B) with the sequence of trials differing for each. Group A: (1) alone, (2) competition, (3) alone, (4) competition, (5) alone, (6) competition. Group B: (1) alone, (2) alone, (3) competition, (4) alone, (5) competition, (6) alone. The rationale for this design was to eliminate practice and fatigue effects. He concluded that moving from isolation to a group context can reduce our sense of uniqueness, but at the same time it can enhance our ability to perform simple tasks rapidly. Triplett discussed several possible explanations for his findings and concluded that the "bodily presence of another contestant participating simultaneously in the race serves to liberate latent energy not ordinarily available" (Triplett, 1898). Social facilitation has received much attention from social psychologists since Triplett's time, with a number of causal factors implicated, including mere presence, evaluation apprehension, competition, attention, and distraction. Ironically, although the phenomenon of social facilitation is now well established, Triplett's original experiment did not produce strong results, at least by modern standards in psychology (Strube, 2005). Triplett did not have the advantage of sophisticated statistical procedures available today and for his study he simply eyeballed the data. He decided that some children performed better when competing, some performed worse, and others were not affected. The fact that half of his participants showed no evidence of social facilitation would suggest that one should avoid overstating these findings. In Michael Strube's 2005 article he conducted an analysis of the data from the famed 1898 study. First he conducted a between-group analysis and found no evidence of significance. The results show that in 4 of 5 of the between group comparisons, the performance of participants in the presence of a co-acting peer was faster than the performances of the participants winding the fishing reel alone. The differences however are quite small and none of them are close to statistically significant. He also conducted two within subjects comparisons. A trial main effect was found that showed better performance on later trials, however the Trial X Order interaction was not significant. The analyses of Triplett's data hardly indicate an effect of social facilitation. ●Post WW2 - motivated to explain atrocities committed, learning the „psychology of the enemy“, etc. ●Conformity (Asch), ●Obedience (Milgram), ●Roles (Zimbardo). HISTORICAL EVENTS Much of social psychology was developed to explain war, especially the attempted genocide of WW2 – social psychology is a product of social context e.g., studies by Milgram (obedience) and Zimbardo (roles). STUDIES ON CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE CONFORMITY ¢Definition: A change in behavior or a belief as a result of real or imagined pressure. ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢“Conformity is not just acting as other people act, it is being affected by how they act. It is acting differently from the way you would act alone” – David Myers (1999) ¢ — CONFORMITY ¢Conformity in everyday life: ¢The bystander effect: —Conformity —Defusion of responsibility — CLASSIC STUDIES ¢Sherif – Norm formation ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢Asch – Group pressure ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢Milgram - Obedience sherif_m.jpg aschpipeforweb.jpg images.jpg GROUP PRESSURE (ASCH) ¢Salomon Asch: —Experiments on group pressure: ¢ Situations: rewards to conform + no punishment for deviance. —Perceptual judgements ¢http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzS5LS6m3KE —Elevator experiment ¢http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B738X-ibz2o — 0.jpg C:\Documents and Settings\sony\Desktop\2010-2011 Bahar Donemi Tum Ders Notlari\Persuasion\Conformity\asch_conformity.gif GROUP PRESSURE ¢Findings of the main study: ¢On the critical trials, the average rate of conformity was 32%. ¢74% agreed at least once. ¢5% agreed on nearly every trial ¢26% never gave a wrong answer ¢Behaviour was constant ¢ GROUP PRESSURE ¢Those who did not conform: ¢Asch states “Those who strike out on the path to independence, do not, as a rule, succumb to the majority”. ¢confidence in their own judgment ¢capacity to recover from doubt ¢felt it was “their obligation to call the play as they saw it” ¢ WHEN DO PEOPLE CONFORM? 1.Group size 2.Unanimity (unity) ¢„Easier to be non-conform with an ally.“ 3.Status ¢Higher status = more impact ¢Lower status = more obedience 4.No prior commitment ¢„ Once you take a position its hard to convince you otherwise.“ 5.Public/unfamiliar situations ¢Conformity decreases in private 6.Cohesion ¢In and outgroup, more cohesive = more conform with ingroup members. Feelings of warmth towards an ally + deny that they were influenced by him. Examples: Mormons, 12 angry men. Status – Thats why it is good when as many people as possible OBEDIENCE – FOLLOWING ORDERS ¢Definition: Form of conformity when a person simply follows orders given by others (authority). ¢http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ ¢Obedience to authority is not only typical to „weak“ but also to „normal people“. images.jpg obedience.jpg OBEDIENCE ¢The participants in the were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. Each was paid $4.50. ¢Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX." ¢ OBEDIENCE ¢Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along: ¢ ¢"Please continue." ¢"The experiment requires that you continue." ¢"It is absolutely essential that you continue." ¢"You have no other choice, you must go on.“ ¢ ¢What if anything happens? ¢„I am responsible.“ OBEDIENCE ¢Pre-tabed audio: ¢75-135 volts: “Ugh!!!” ¢150 volts: “Ugh!!! Experimenter! That's all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart's starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart's starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” ¢165-255 volts: (Shouting) “Ugh!!! Let me out!” ¢270-285 volts (Screaming) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here.” ¢300-315 volts: (Screaming) “I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can't hold me here. Get me out. Get me out of here.” ¢330 volts: (Intense and prolonged screaming) “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart's bothering me. Let me out, I tell you. (Hysterically) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out. Let me out.” ¢345-450 volts: (Silence) ¢The experiment was terminated by the experimenter after 3 shocks at 450 volts OBEDIENCE ¢How many percent of subjects did continue up to 450 volts? OBEDIENCE ¢Results: ¢Signs of high stress observed ¢3 subjects got uncontrollable seisures ¢All 40 subjects obeyed until 300 V ¢25 Obeyed until 450 V ¢ OBEDIENCE ¢Milgram varied the social conditions (variables). —Obedience 0 % - 93 % ¢4 factors determining obedience —Emotional distance of the victim —Closeness and legitimacy of the authority ¢„rectal ear ache“ —Institutional authority —Group influence — ¢Example: Jaywalking — Legitimacy – researcher called of and replaced with a clerk – obedience dropped In their book , Temple University professors of pharmacy Michael Cohen and Neil Davis attribute much of medication errors to the mindless deference given to the attending physician. Cohen, in Medication Errors: Causes and Prevention (1981), quotes a strange case of the ‘rectal earache’. A physician ordered ear drops to be administered to the right ear of a patient suffering pain and infection there. Instead of writing out completely the location ‘Right ear’ on the prescription, the doctor abbreviated it so that the instructions read ‘place in R ear’. Upon receiving the prescription, the duty nurse promptly put the required number of ear drops into the patient’s anus. OBEDIENCE JmA_02.gif JmA_04.gif OBEDIENCE ¢"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority" (Milgram, 1974). ¢ STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT: OBEDIENCE TO THE ROLE http://f.ptcdn.info/599/022/000/1408675079-StanfordPr-o.gif STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Original purpose: Psychology of prison life ¢ ¢What happens when you put good people in an evil place? ¢ ¢Intended duration: 14 days ¢Terminated after 6 days —Sadism of guards —Depression and severe stress of prisoners STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Advertisement in local newspaper: 15 bucks/day ¢75 replied, 24 most stable chosen ¢Randomly divided into 2 groups: prisoners and guards ¢„Prisoners“ arrested for armed robbery and burglary by real cops —Searched, hadcuffed —Brought to police station —Full identification —Finger-prints ¢Blindfolded ¢Brought to „the prison“ – basement of Stanford Psychology department building STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢The prison: ¢https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TShFPParenk ¢ STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Arrival of prisoners: ¢Stripped naked ¢Searched ¢Deloused with a spray STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Dehumanization of prisoners ¢Dress with ID ¢No underpants ¢Stockings over heads ¢Chain on right ankle ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢Goal: Arise feelings of anonimity, opression, losing ones individuality STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Guards ¢Need to maintain law ¢Command the respect of prisoners ¢No violence ¢Appearance: —Uniforms —Whistle —Billy club —Sunglasses STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Asserting control: ¢„Counts“ ¢Direct confrontations ¢ ¢Punishment: ¢Breaking rules ¢Improper attitudes toward guards ¢Push-ups ¢ ¢https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3wxEmHqVCY ¢ STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Rebellion on day II ¢https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTdttd7XTfQ ¢ ¢Harrassment begins: ¢Guards broken into cells ¢Stripped prisoners naked ¢Solitary confinement for leaders ¢Intimidation ¢Priviledged prisoners (special treatment) ¢Breaking alliances, causing distrust STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢36 hours from the start: ¢Prisoner #8612: acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. ¢ STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Conclusions: ¢3 types of guards: —Tough and fair following prison rules —Good guys: favors, no punishment —Hostile, enjoying power —No personality assessment discovered it ¢Prisoners coping styles: —Rebelling —Breaking down emotionally —Good prisoners ¢Disintegration of prisoners at both group and individual level ¢Rebels seen as trouble makers STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Prisoner #416: ¢"I began to feel that I was losing my identity, that the person that I called Clay, the person who put me in this place, the person who volunteered to go into this prison -- because it was a prison to me; it still is a prison to me. I don't regard it as an experiment or a simulation because it was a prison run by psychologists instead of run by the state. I began to feel that that identity, the person that I was that had decided to go to prison was distant from me -- was remote until finally I wasn't that, I was 416. I was really my number.„ ¢Prison guard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQnOkmvigi0#t=15 ¢ STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT ¢Discussion: prison system ¢ THANK YOU!