Study of how people influence others' behavior, beliefs, and attitudes
Social exclusion hurts us as much as physical pain
Asking strangers to commit a small act of vandalism
“Hi, I’m trying to play a prank on someone, but they know my handwriting. Will you just quickly write the word ‘pickle’ on this page of this library book?”
Fundamental Attribution Error
Entail assigning causes to behavior, distinguishing between dispositional (internal) and situational (external) influences
Types of social comparison
Upward (superiors) comparison: comparing ourselves to those who seem superior to us
Downward (inferiors) comparison: comparing ourselves to someone who is inferior
Japanese and Chinese individuals are less likely to commit the Fundamental Attribution Error
Deindividuation triggers
Wearing masks and concealing identity
Abu Ghraib Prison complex was used for violations including arranging detainees in sexually explicit positions, forcing nudity, and other abuses
Across three classic experiments, the percentage of helping when in groups was lower than when alone
Social Comparison Theory
We seek to evaluate our abilities and beliefs by comparing them with those of others
Humans as a Social Species
We have a biologically based need for interpersonal connections
People tend to underestimate the amount of influence they have over other people
Prosocial Behavior and Altruism
Situational influences can impact (increase) helping behavior
Bystander Nonintervention is influenced by pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility
The Stanford Prison Study had to be stopped after only 6 days due to nervous breakdowns by prisoners
When looking at others' behavior, people tend to overestimate the impact of dispositional influences and underestimate the impact of situational influences
Deindividuation is the tendency of people to engage in atypical behavior when stripped of their usual identity
Both upward and downward comparisons can boost our self-concept
Situational influences impacting helping
When you can't escape the situation
Helping someone on a bus vs. on the sidewalk
Characteristics of the victim
More similar to you
Time
Attitudes and Behavior
Attitudes only moderately correlate (.38) with actual behaviors
Across three classic experiments, the percentage helping when in groups was lower than the percentage helping when alone
Enlightenment Effect: Learning about bystander nonintervention increases intervention
Attitude Change
Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state of tension between two opposing thoughts
Routes to Persuasion
Dual processes model: Central route focuses on informational content, Peripheral route focuses on surface aspects
Reverse Endorsement
Abercrombie and Fitch offering payment to Mr. Sorrentino to wear an alternate brand
Study on Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger
Participants who received less money reported enjoying the task more, presumably to justify their lies
Prosocial Behavior and Altruism
Situational influences can impact (increase) helping
Prejudicial behaviors study by LaPiere
Over 90% of participants said they were unwilling to serve Chinese people, but follow-up showed that 99% had served them
Feelings of personality responsibility in the presence of others: '“It’s not my fault, because the others also…”'
Study on enlightenment effect
43% helped a person slumped over on a park bench after receiving a lecture on bystander nonintervention compared to 25% who did not
Characteristics of the Messenger
Impact of attractiveness, credibility, similarity to receiver, and ingroup bias
Persuasion Techniques
Foot-in-the-door, Door-in-the-face, Low-ball
Study on Seminary students
Students on their way to deliver a sermon on the Good Samaritan story
10% offered to help if they thought they were running late compared to 63% if they were not
Obedience
1. Stanley Milgram designed experiment to test the influence of obedience and authority on normal people
2. Wanted to know how the Holocaust could have occurred
Conformity
The tendency of people to alter their behavior as a result of group pressure
Stereotypes
Why Do People Conform?
Normative social influence: To fit in, feel good, and be accepted by the group
Informational social influence: Believe the group is competent and has the correct information
Group Think
An emphasis on group unanimity at the expense of critical thinking
Reducing Group Think: Can be treated by encouraging dissent, Appointing a "devil's advocate" or engage in a “kill the company” exercise, Having an independent expert evaluate decisions, Holding follow-up meetings, Brainstorming groups generate 16 percent more ideas when the members are encouraged to criticize one another (Nemeth et al. 2014)
Social Loafing
People's tendency to slack off in groups
The whole is less than the sum of its parts
Due to diffusion of responsibility
Influenced by cultural factors: People in individualistic (vs. collectivistic) countries are more prone to social loafing
Remedy: Ensure that each person in the group is identifiable
Persuasion Techniques
1. Door-in-the-face starts big then backs off (works just as well as foot-in-the-door)
2. Low-ball starts with a low price, then "adds-on" all the desirable options
3. "But you are free" asks someone to perform a favor for us by telling them that they are free not to do it