psychological science essays

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 1

This text was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License without attribution as

requested by the work’s original creator or licensee.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 2

Chapter 14

Psychology in Our Social Lives Binge Drinking and the Death of a Homecoming Queen

Sam Spady, a 19-year-old student at Colorado State University, had been a homecoming queen, a class president, a

captain of the cheerleading team, and an honor student in high school. But despite her outstanding credentials and

her hopes and plans for the future, Sam Spady died on September 5, 2004, after a night of binge drinking with her

friends.

Sam had attended a number of different parties on the Saturday night that she died, celebrating the CSU football

game against the University of Colorado–Boulder. When she passed out, after consuming 30 to 40 beers and shots

over the evening, her friends left her alone in an empty room in a fraternity house to sleep it off. The next morning a

member of the fraternity found her dead (Sidman, 2006). [1]

Sam is one of an estimated 1,700 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 who die from alcohol-related injuries

each year. These deaths come from motor vehicle crashes, assaults, and overdosing as a result of binge drinking

(National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2010). [2]

“Nobody is immune,” said Sam’s father. “She was a smart kid, and she was a good kid. And if it could happen to her, it

could happen to anybody.”

Despite efforts at alcohol education, Pastor Reza Zadeh, a former CSU student, says little has changed in the drinking

culture since Sam’s death: “People still feel invincible. The bars still have 25-cent shot night and two-for-ones and no

cover for girls”(Sidman, 2006). [3]

Sam’s parents have created a foundation in her memory, dedicated to informing people, particularly college students,

about the dangers of binge drinking, and to helping them resist the peer pressure that brings it on. You can learn

more at http://samspadyfoundation.org about the foundation.

We have now reached the last chapter of our journey through the field of psychology. The

subdiscipline of psychology discussed in this chapter reflects the highest level of explanation that

we will consider. This topic, known associal psychology, is defined as the scientific study of how

we feel about, think about, and behave toward the other people around us, and how those people

influence our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.

The subject matter of social psychology is our everyday interactions with people, including the

social groups to which we belong. Questions these psychologists ask include why we are often

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 3

helpful to other people but at other times are unfriendly or aggressive; why we sometimes

conform to the behaviors of others but at other times are able to assert our independence; and

what factors help groups work together in effective and productive, rather than in ineffective and

unproductive, ways. A fundamental principle of social psychology is that, although we may not

always be aware of it, our cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are substantially influenced by

the social situation, or the people with whom we are interacting.

In this chapter we will introduce the principles of social cognition—the part of human thinking

that helps us understand and predict the behavior of ourselves and others—and consider the

ways that our judgments about other people guide our behaviors toward them. We’ll explore how

we form impressions of other people, and what makes us like or dislike them. We’ll also see how

our attitudes—our enduring evaluations of people or things—influence, and are influenced by,

our behavior.

Then we will consider the social psychology of interpersonal relationships, including the

behaviors of altruism, aggression, and conformity. We will see that humans have a natural

tendency to help each other, but that we may also become aggressive if we feel that we are being

threatened. And we will see howsocial norms, the accepted beliefs about what we do or what we

should do in particular social situations (such as the norm of binge drinking common on many

college campuses), influence our behavior. Finally, we will consider the social psychology of

social groups, with a particular focus on the conditions that limit and potentially increase

productive group performance and decision-making.

The principles of social psychology can help us understand tragic events such as the death of

Sam Spady. Many people might blame the tragedy on Sam herself, asking, for instance, “Why

did she drink so much?” or “Why didn’t she say no?” As we will see in this chapter, research

conducted by social psychologists shows that the poor decisions Sam made on the night she died

may have been due less to her own personal weaknesses or deficits than to her desires to fit in

with and be accepted by the others around her—desires that in her case led to a disastrous

outcome.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 4

[1] Sidman, J. (2006, June 26). A college student’s death may help save lives. USA Today. Retrieved

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-spady -binge-drinking_x.htm

[2] National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2010). Statistical snapshot of college drinking. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/NIAAASponsoredPrograms /StatisticalSnapshotCollegeDrinking.htm

[3] Sidman, J. (2006, June 26). A college student’s death may help save lives. USA Today. Retrieved

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-06-26-spady -binge-drinking_x.htm

14.1 Social Cognition: Making Sense of Ourselvesand Others L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Review the principles of social cognition, including the fundamentals of how we form judgments about other people.

2. Define the concept of attitude and review the ways that attitudes are developed and changed, and how attitudes

relate to behavior.

One important aspect of social cognition involves forming impressions of other people. Making

these judgments quickly and accurately helps us guide our behavior to interact appropriately with

the people we know. If we can figure out why our roommate is angry at us, we can react to

resolve the problem; if we can determine how to motivate the people in our group to work harder

on a project, then the project might be better.

Perceiving Others

Our initial judgments of others are based in large part on what we see. The physical features of

other people, particularly their sex, race, age, and physical attractiveness, are very salient, and we

often focus our attention on these dimensions (Schneider, 2003; Zebrowitz & Montepare,

2006). [1]

Although it may seem inappropriate or shallow to admit it, we are strongly influenced by the

physical attractiveness of others, and many cases physical attractiveness is the most important

determinant of our initial liking for other people (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann,

1966). [2]

Infants who are only a year old prefer to look at faces that adults consider to be

attractive than at unattractive faces (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn,

1991). [3]

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that our belief that “what is beautiful is also

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 5

good” may be because we use attractiveness as a cue for health; people whom we find more

attractive may also, evolutionarily, have been healthier (Zebrowitz, Fellous, Mignault, &

Andreoletti, 2003). [4]

One indicator of health is youth. Leslie Zebrowitz and her colleagues (Zebrowitz, 1996;

Zebrowitz, Luevano, Bronstad, & Aharon, 2009) [5]

have extensively studied the tendency for

both men and women to prefer people whose faces have characteristics similar to those of babies.

These features include large, round, and widely spaced eyes, a small nose and chin, prominent

cheekbones, and a large forehead. People who have baby faces (both men and women) are seen

as more attractive than people who are not baby-faced.

Another indicator of health is symmetry. People are more attracted to faces that are more

symmetrical than they are to those that are less symmetrical, and this may be due in part to the

perception that symmetrical faces are perceived as healthier (Rhodes et al., 2001). [6]

Although you might think that we would prefer faces that are unusual or unique, in fact the

opposite is true. Langlois and Roggman (1990) [7]

showed college students the faces of men and

women. The faces were composites made up of the average of 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 faces. The

researchers found that the more faces that were averaged into the stimulus, the more attractive it

was judged. Again, our liking for average faces may be because they appear healthier.

Although preferences for youthful, symmetrical, and average faces have been observed cross-

culturally, and thus appear to be common human preferences, different cultures may also have

unique beliefs about what is attractive. In modern Western cultures, “thin is in,” and people

prefer those who have little excess fat (Crandall, Merman, & Hebl, 2009). [8]

The need to be thin

to be attractive is particularly strong for women in contemporary society, and the desire to

maintain a low body weight can lead to low self-esteem, eating disorders, and other unhealthy

behaviors. However, the norm of thinness has not always been in place; the preference for

women with slender, masculine, and athletic looks has become stronger over the past 50 years. In

contrast to the relatively universal preferences for youth, symmetry, and averageness, other

cultures do not show such a strong propensity for thinness (Sugiyama, 2005). [9]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 6

Forming Judgments on the Basis of Appearance: Stereotyping, Prejudice, and

Discrimination

We frequently use people’s appearances to form our judgments about them and to determine our

responses to them. The tendency to attribute personality characteristics to people on the basis of

their external appearance or their social group memberships is known as stereotyping. Our

stereotypes about physically attractive people lead us to see them as more dominant, sexually

warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than we perceive physically unattractive

people (Langlois et al., 2000). [10]

And our stereotypes lead us to treat people differently—the

physically attractive are given better grades on essay exams, are more successful on job

interviews, and receive lighter sentences in court judgments than their less attractive counterparts

(Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003; Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991). [11]

In addition to stereotypes about physical attractiveness, we also regularly stereotype people on

the basis of their sex, race, age, religion, and many other characteristics, and these stereotypes

are frequently negative (Schneider, 2004). [12]

Stereotyping is unfair to the people we judge

because stereotypes are based on our preconceptions and negative emotions about the members

of the group. Stereotyping is closely related to prejudice, the tendency to dislike people because

of their appearance or group memberships, and discrimination, negative behaviors toward

others based on prejudice.Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination work together. We may

not vote for a gay person for public office because of our negative stereotypes about gays, and

we may avoid people from other religions or those with mental illness because of our prejudices.

Some stereotypes may be accurate in part. Research has found, for instance, that attractive

people are actually more sociable, more popular, and less lonely than less attractive individuals

(Langlois et al., 2000). [13]

And, consistent with the stereotype that women are “emotional,”

women are, on average, more empathic and attuned to the emotions of others than are men (Hall

& Schmid Mast, 2008). [14]

Group differences in personality traits may occur in part because

people act toward others on the basis of their stereotypes, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A self-fulfilling prophecyoccurs when our expectations about the personality characteristics of

others lead us to behave toward those others in ways that make those beliefs come true. If I have

a stereotype that attractive people are friendly, then I may act in a friendly way toward people

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 7

who are attractive. This friendly behavior may be reciprocated by the attractive person, and if

many other people also engage in the same positive behaviors with the person, in the long run he

or she may actually become friendlier.

But even if attractive people are on average friendlier than unattractive people, not all attractive

people are friendlier than all unattractive people. And even if women are, on average, more

emotional than men, not all men are less emotional than all women. Social psychologists believe

that it is better to treat people as individuals rather than rely on our stereotypes and prejudices,

because stereotyping and prejudice are always unfair and often inaccurate (Fiske, 1989; Stangor,

1995). [15]

Furthermore, many of our stereotypes and prejudices occur out of our awareness, such

that we do not even know that we are using them.

Implicit Association Test

You might want to test your own stereotypes and prejudices by completing the Implicit Association Test, a

measure of unconscious stereotyping.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo

We use our stereotypes and prejudices in part because they are easy; if we can quickly size up

people on the basis of their physical appearance, that can save us a lot of time and effort. We

may be evolutionarily disposed to stereotyping. Because our primitive ancestors needed to

accurately separate members of their own kin group from those of others, categorizing people

into “us” (the ingroup) and “them” (the outgroup) was useful and even necessary (Neuberg,

Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010). [16]

And the positive emotions that we experience as a result of our

group memberships—known associal identity—can be an important and positive part of our

everyday experiences (Hogg, 2003). [17]

We may gain social identity as members of our

university, our sports teams, our religious and racial groups, and many other groups.

But the fact that we may use our stereotypes does not mean that we should use them.

Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, whether they are consciously or unconsciously

applied, make it difficult for some people to effectively contribute to society and may create both

mental and physical health problems for them (Swim & Stangor, 1998). [18]

In some cases getting

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 8

beyond our prejudices is required by law, as detailed in the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, the

Equal Opportunity Employment Act of 1972, and the Fair Housing Act of 1978.

There are individual differences in prejudice, such that some people are more likely to try to

control and confront their stereotypes and prejudices whereas others apply them more freely

(Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006; Plant & Devine, 1998). [19]

For instance, some people believe

in group hierarchies—that some groups are naturally better than others—whereas other people

are more egalitarian and hold fewer prejudices (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Stangor & Leary,

2006). [20]

Social psychologists believe that we should work to get past our prejudices. The tendency to hold

stereotypes and prejudices and to act on them can be reduced, for instance, through positive

interactions and friendships with members of other groups, through practice in avoiding using

them, and through education (Hewstone, 1996). [21]

Research Focus: Forming Judgments of People in Seconds

Research has demonstrated that people can draw very accurate conclusions about others on the basis of very

limited data. Ambady and Rosenthal (1993) [22]

made videotapes of six female and seven male graduate students

while they were teaching an undergraduate course. The courses covered diverse areas of the college curriculum,

including humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. For each teacher, three 10-second video clips were

taken: 10 seconds from the first 10 minutes of the class, 10 seconds from the middle of the class, and 10 seconds

from the last 10 minutes of the class.

The researchers then asked nine female undergraduates to rate the clips of the teachers on 15 dimensions

including optimistic, confident, active,enthusiastic, dominant, likable, warm, competent, and supportive. Ambady

and her colleagues then compared the ratings of the participants who had seen the teacher for only 30 seconds

with the ratings of the same instructors that had been made by students who had spent a whole semester with

the teacher, and who had rated her at the end of the semester on scales such as “Rate the quality of the section

overall” and “Rate section leader’s performance overall.” As you can see in Table 14.1 "Accurate Perceptions in

30 Seconds", the ratings of the participants and the ratings of the students were highly positively correlated.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 9

Table 14.1 Accurate Perceptions in 30 Seconds

Variable Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)

Accepting 0.50

Active 0.77

Attentive 0.48

Competent 0.56

Confident 0.82

Dominant 0.79

Empathic 0.45

Enthusiastic 0.76

Honest 0.32

Likable 0.73

(Not) anxious 0.26

Optimistic 0.84

Professional 0.53

Supportive 0.55

Warm 0.67

Overall, across all traits 0.76

This table shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between the impressions that a group of students made after they

had seen a video of instructors teaching for only 30 seconds and the teaching ratings of the same instructors made by

students who had spent a whole semester in the class. You can see that the correlations are all positive, and that many of

them are quite large. The conclusion is that people are sometimes able to draw accurate impressions about other people

very quickly.

Source: Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of

nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441.

If the finding that judgments made about people in 30 seconds correlate highly with judgments made about the

same people after a whole semester surprises you, then perhaps you may be even more surprised to hear that

we do not even need that much time. Indeed, Willis and Todorov (2006) [23]

found that even a tenth of a second

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 10

was enough to make judgments that correlated highly with those same judgments made by other people who

were given several minutes to make the judgments. Other research has found that we can make accurate

judgments, for instance, about our perceptions of salespersons (Ambady, Krabbenhoft, & Hogan, 2006) [24]

and

about the sexual orientation of other people (Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999), [25]

in just a few seconds.

Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, and Hall (2005) [26]

found that people voted for political candidates in large part

on the basis of whether or not their faces, seen only for one second, looked like faces of competent people.

Taken together, this research shows that we are well able to form initial impressions of others quickly and often

quite accurately.

Close Relationships

One of the most important tasks faced by humans is to develop successful relationships with

others. These relationships include acquaintanceships and friendships but also the more

important close relationships, which are the long-term intimate and romantic relationships that

we develop with another person—for instance, in a marriage (Hendrick & Hendrick,

2000). [27]

Because most of us will want to enter into a close relationship at some point, and

because close relationships are evolutionarily important as they form the basis for effective child

rearing, it is useful to know what psychologists have learned about the principles of liking and

loving within them.

A major interest of social psychologists is the study of interpersonal attraction, or what makes

people like, and even love, each other. One important factor is a perceived similarity in values

and beliefs between the partners (Davis & Rusbult, 2001). [28]

Similarity is important for

relationships both because it is more convenient (it’s easier if both partners like to ski or go to

the movies than if only one does), but also because similarity supports our values—I can feel

better about myself and my choice of activities if I see that you also enjoy doing the same things

that I do.

Liking is also enhanced by self-disclosure, the tendency to communicate frequently, without fear

of reprisal, and in an accepting and empathetic manner. Friends are friends because we can talk

to them openly about our needs and goals, and because they listen to and respond to our needs

(Reis & Aron, 2008). [29]

But self-disclosure must be balanced. If I open up to you about the

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 11

concerns that are important to me, I expect you to do the same in return. If the self-disclosure is

not reciprocal, the relationship may not last.

Another important determinant of liking is proximity, or the extent to which people are

physically near us. Research has found that we are more likely to develop friendships with

people who are nearby, for instance, those who live in the same dorm that we do, and even with

people who just happen to sit nearer to us in our classes (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). [30]

Proximity has its effect on liking through the principle of mere exposure, which is the tendency

to prefer stimuli (including but not limited to people) that we have seen more frequently.

Moreland and Beach (1992) [31]

studied mere exposure by having female confederates attend a

large lecture class of over 100 students 0, 5, 10, or 15 times during a semester. At the end of the

term, the other students in the class were shown pictures of the confederates and asked to

indicate both if they recognized them and also how much they liked them. The number of times

the confederates had attended class didn’t influence the other students’ ability to recognize them,

but it did influence their liking for them. As predicted by the mere exposure hypothesis, students

who had attended class more often were liked more (Figure 14.5 "Mere Exposure in the

Classroom").

Figure 14.5 Mere Exposure in the Classroom

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 12

Richard Moreland and Scott Beach (1992) had female confederates visit classrooms 0, 5, 10, or 15 times over the

course of a semester. Then the students rated their liking of the confederates. As predicted by the principles of mere

exposure, confederates who had attended class more often were also liked more.

Source: Adapted from Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of

affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255–276.

The effect of mere exposure is powerful and occurs in a wide variety of situations. Infants tend to

smile at a photograph of someone they have seen before more than they smile at a photograph of

someone they are seeing for the first time (Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1981), [32]

and people prefer

side-to-side reversed images of their own faces over their normal (nonreversed) face, whereas

their friends prefer their normal face over the reversed one (Mita, Dermer, & Knight,

1977). [33]

This is expected on the basis of mere exposure, since people see their own faces

primarily in mirrors and thus are exposed to the reversed face more often.

Mere exposure may well have an evolutionary basis. We have an initial fear of the unknown, but

as things become more familiar they seem more similar and safe, and thus produce more positive

affect and seem less threatening and dangerous (Freitas, Azizian, Travers, & Berry, 2005). [34]

In

fact, research has found that stimuli tend to produce more positive affect as they become more

familiar (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001). [35]

When the stimuli are people, there may well be an

added effect. Familiar people become more likely to be seen as part of the ingroup rather than the

outgroup, and this may lead us to like them more. Leslie Zebrowitz and her colleagues found that

we like people of our own race in part because they are perceived as similar to us (Zebrowitz,

Bornstad, & Lee, 2007). [36]

In the most successful relationships the two people begin to see themselves as a single unit.

Arthur Aron and his colleagues (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) [37]

assessed the role of closeness

in relationships using the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale as shown in Figure 14.6 "The

Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale". You might try completing the measure yourself for some

different people that you know—for instance, your family members, friends, spouse, or girlfriend

or boyfriend. The measure is simple to use and to interpret; if people see the circles representing

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 13

the self and the other as more overlapping, this means that the relationship is close. But if they

choose the circles that are less overlapping, then the relationship is less so.

Figure 14.6 The Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale

This scale is used to determine how close two partners feel to each other. The respondent simply circles which of the

seven figures he or she feels best characterizes the relationship.

Source: Adapted from Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the

structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

Although the closeness measure is very simple, it has been found to be predictive of people’s

satisfaction with their close relationships, and of the tendency for couples to stay together (Aron,

Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991; Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995). [38]

When the partners in a

relationship feel that they are close, and when they indicate that the relationship is based on

caring, warmth, acceptance and social support, we can say that the relationship is intimate (Reis

& Aron, 2008). [39]

When a couple begins to take care of a household together, has children, and perhaps has to care

for elderly parents, the requirements of the relationship become correspondingly bigger. As a

result of this complexity, the partners in close relationships increasingly turn to each other for

help in coordinating activities, remembering dates and appointments, and accomplishing tasks.

Relationships are close in part because the couple becomes highly interdependent, relying on

each other to meet important goals (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). [40]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 14

In relationships in which a positive rapport between the partners is developed and maintained

over a period of time, the partners are naturally happy with the relationship and they become

committed to it. Commitmentrefers to the feelings and actions that keep partners working

together to maintain the relationship (Rusbult, Olsen, Davis, Hannon, 2001) [41]

and is

characterized by mutual expectations that the self and the partner will be responsive to each

other’s needs (Clark & Mills, 2004). [42]

Partners who are committed to the relationship see their

mates as more attractive, are less able to imagine themselves with another partner, express less

interest in other potential mates, and are less likely to break up (Simpson & Harris, 1994). [43]

People also find relationships more satisfactory, and stay in them longer, when they feel that they

are being rewarded by them. When the needs of either or both of the partners are not being met,

the relationship is in trouble. This is not to say that people only think about the benefits they are

getting; they will also consider the needs of the other. But over the long term, both partners must

benefit from the relationship.

Although sexual arousal and excitement are more important early on in relationships, intimacy is

also determined by sexual and romantic attraction. Indeed, intimacy is also dependent

on passion—the partners must display positive affect toward each other. Happy couples are in

positive moods when they are around each other; they laugh with each other, express approval

rather than criticism of each other’s behaviors, and enjoy physical contact. People are happier in

their relationships when they view the other person in a positive or even an “idealized” sense,

rather than a more realistic and perhaps more negative one (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,

1996). [44]

Margaret Clark and Edward Lemay (2010) [45]

recently reviewed the literature on close

relationships and argued that their most important characteristic is a sense

of responsiveness. People are happy, healthy, and likely to stay in relationships in which they are

sure that they can trust the other person to understand, validate, and care for them. It is this

unconditional giving and receiving of love that promotes the welfare of both partners and

provides the secure base that allows both partners to thrive.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 15

Causal Attribution: Forming Judgments by Observing Behavior

When we observe people’s behavior we may attempt to determine if the behavior really reflects

their underlying personality. If Frank hits Joe, we might wonder if Frank is naturally aggressive

or if perhaps Joe had provoked him. If Leslie leaves a big tip for the waitress, we might wonder

if she is a generous person or if the service was particularly excellent. The process of trying to

determine the causes of people’s behavior, with the goal of learning about their personalities, is

known as causal attribution (Jones et al., 1987). [46]

Making causal attributions is a bit like conducting an experiment. We carefully observe the

people we are interested in and note how they behave in different social situations. After we have

made our observations, we draw our conclusions. Sometimes we may decide that the behavior

was caused primarily by the person; this is called making a person attribution. At other times, we

may determine that the behavior was caused primarily by the situation; this is called making

a situation attribution. And at other times we may decide that the behavior was caused by both

the person and the situation.

It is easier to make personal attributions when behavior is more unusual or unexpected. Imagine

that you go to a party and you are introduced to Tess. Tess shakes your hand and says “Nice to

meet you!” Can you readily conclude, on the basis of this behavior, that Tess is a friendly

person? Probably not. Because the social situation demands that people act in a friendly way

(shaking your hand and saying “nice to meet you”), it is difficult to know whether Tess acted

friendly because of the situation or because she is really friendly. Imagine, however, that instead

of shaking your hand, Tess sticks out her tongue at you and walks away. I think you would agree

that it is easier in this case to infer that Tess is unfriendly because her behavior is so contrary to

what one would expect (Jones, Davis, & Gergen, 1961). [47]

Although people are reasonably accurate in their attributions (we could say, perhaps, that they

are “good enough”; Fiske, 2003), [48]

they are far from perfect. One error that we frequently

make when making judgments about ourselves is to make self-serving attributions by judging the

causes of our own behaviors in overly positive ways. If you did well on a test, you will probably

attribute that success to person causes (“I’m smart,” “I studied really hard”), but if you do poorly

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 16

on the test you are more likely to make situation attributions (“The test was hard,” “I had bad

luck”). Although making causal attributions is expected to be logical and scientific, our emotions

are not irrelevant.

Another way that our attributions are often inaccurate is that we are, by and large, too quick to

attribute the behavior of other people to something personal about them rather than to something

about their situation. We are more likely to say, “Leslie left a big tip, so she must be generous”

than “Leslie left a big tip, but perhaps that was because the service was really excellent.”The

common tendency to overestimate the role of person factors and overlook the impact of

situations in judging others is known as

thefundamental attribution error (or correspondence bias).

The fundamental attribution error occurs in part because other people are so salient in our social

environments. When I look at you, I see you as my focus, and so I am likely to make personal

attributions about you. If the situation is reversed such that people see situations from the

perspectives of others, the fundamental attribution error is reduced (Storms, 1973). [49]

And when

we judge people, we often see them in only one situation. It’s easy for you to think that your

math professor is “picky and detail-oriented” because that describes her behavior in class, but

you don’t know how she acts with her friends and family, which might be completely different.

And we also tend to make person attributions because they are easy. We are more likely to

commit the fundamental attribution error—quickly jumping to the conclusion that behavior is

caused by underlying personality—when we are tired, distracted, or busy doing other things

(Trope & Alfieri, 1997). [50]

An important moral about perceiving others applies here: We should not be too quick to judge

other people. It is easy to think that poor people are lazy, that people who say something harsh

are rude or unfriendly, and that all terrorists are insane madmen. But these attributions may

frequently overemphasize the role of the person, resulting in an inappropriate and inaccurate

tendency to blame the victim (Lerner, 1980; Tennen & Affleck, 1990). [51]

Sometimes people are

lazy and rude, and some terrorists are probably insane, but these people may also be influenced

by the situation in which they find themselves. Poor people may find it more difficult to get work

and education because of the environment they grow up in, people may say rude things because

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 17

they are feeling threatened or are in pain, and terrorists may have learned in their family and

school that committing violence in the service of their beliefs is justified. When you find yourself

making strong person attributions for the behaviors of others, I hope you will stop and think

more carefully. Would you want other people to make person attributions for your behavior in

the same situation, or would you prefer that they more fully consider the situation surrounding

your behavior? Are you perhaps making the fundamental attribution error?

Attitudes and Behavior

Attitude refer to our relatively enduring evaluations of people and things(Albarracín, Johnson, & Zanna,

2005). [52] We each hold many thousands of attitudes, including those about family and friends,

political parties and political figures, abortion rights, preferences for music, and much more.

Some of our attitudes, including those about sports, roller coaster rides, and capital punishment,

are heritable, which explains in part why we are similar to our parents on many dimensions

(Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001). [53] Other attitudes are learned through direct and indirect

experiences with the attitude objects (De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001). [54]

Attitudes are important because they frequently (but not always) predict behavior. If we know

that a person has a more positive attitude toward Frosted Flakes than toward Cheerios, then we

will naturally predict that she will buy more of the former when she gets to the market. If we

know that Charlie is madly in love with Charlene, then we will not be surprised when he

proposes marriage. Because attitudes often predict behavior, people who wish to change

behavior frequently try to change attitudes through the use of persuasive communications. Table 14.2

"Techniques That Can Be Effective in Persuading Others" presents some of the many techniques

that can be used to change people’s attitudes (Cialdini, 2001). [55]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 18

Table 14.2 Techniques That Can Be Effective in Persuading Others

Technique Examples

Choose effective communicators.

Communicators who are attractive, expert, trustworthy, and similar to the listener are

most persuasive.

Consider the goals of the listener.

If the listener wants to be entertained, then it is better to use a humorous ad; if the listener

is processing the ad more carefully, use a more thoughtful one.

Use humor. People are more easily persuaded when they are in a good mood.

Use classical conditioning.

Try to associate your product with positive stimuli such as funny jokes or attractive

models.

Make use of the listener’s emotions.

Humorous and fear-arousing ads can be effective because they arouse the listener’s

emotions.

Use the listener’s behavior to modify

his or her attitude.

One approach is the foot-in-the-door technique. First ask for a minor request, and then ask

for a larger request after the smaller request has been accepted.

Attitudes predict behavior better for some people than for others. People who are high in self-

monitoring—the tendency to regulate behavior to meet the demands of social situations—tend to

change their behaviors to match the social situation and thus do not always act on their attitudes

(Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). [56]

High self-monitors agree with statements such as, “In different

situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons” and “I guess I put on

a show to impress or entertain people.” Attitudes are more likely to predict behavior for low self-

monitors, who are more likely to act on their own attitudes even when the social situation

suggests that they should behave otherwise. Low self-monitors are more likely to agree with

statements such as “At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that

others will like” and “I can only argue for ideas that I already believe.”

The match between the social situations in which the attitudes are expressed and the behaviors

are engaged in also matters, such that there is a greater attitude-behavior correlation when the

social situations match. Imagine for a minute the case of Magritte, a 16-year-old high school

student. Magritte tells her parents that she hates the idea of smoking cigarettes. But how sure are

you that Magritte’s attitude will predict her behavior? Would you be willing to bet that she’d

never try smoking when she’s out with her friends?

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 19

The problem here is that Magritte’s attitude is being expressed in one social situation (when she

is with her parents) whereas the behavior (trying a cigarette) is going to occur in a very different

social situation (when she is out with her friends). The relevant social norms are, of course, much

different in the two situations. Magritte’s friends might be able to convince her to try smoking,

despite her initial negative attitude, by enticing her with peer pressure. Behaviors are more likely

to be consistent with attitudes when the social situation in which the behavior occurs is similar to

the situation in which the attitude is expressed (Ajzen, 1991). [57]

Although it might not have surprised you to hear that our attitudes predict our behaviors, you

might be more surprised to learn that our behaviors also have an influence on our attitudes. It

makes sense that if I like Frosted Flakes I’ll buy them, because my positive attitude toward the

product influences my behavior. But my attitudes toward Frosted Flakes may also become more

positive if I decide—for whatever reason—to buy some. It makes sense that Charlie’s love for

Charlene will lead him to propose marriage, but it is also the case that he will likely love

Charlene even more after he does so.

Behaviors influence attitudes in part through the process of self-perception.Self-

perception occurs when we use our own behavior as a guide to help us determine our own

thoughts and feelings (Bem, 1972; Olson & Stone, 2005). [58]

In one demonstration of the power

of self-perception, Wells and Petty (1980) [59]

assigned their research participants to shake their

heads either up and down or side to side as they read newspaper editorials. The participants who

had shaken their heads up and down later agreed with the content of the editorials more than the

people who had shaken them side to side. Wells and Petty argued that this occurred because the

participants used their own head-shaking behaviors to determine their attitudes about the

editorials.

Persuaders may use the principles of self-perception to change attitudes. Thefoot-in-the-door

technique is a method of persuasion in which the person is first persuaded to accept a rather

minor request and then asked for a larger one after that. In one demonstration, Guéguen and

Jacob (2002) [60]

found that students in a computer discussion group were more likely to

volunteer to complete a 40-question survey on their food habits (which required 15 to 20 minutes

of their time) if they had already, a few minutes earlier, agreed to help the same requestor with a

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 20

simple computer-related question (about how to convert a file type) than if they had not first

been given the smaller opportunity to help. The idea is that when asked the second time, the

people looked at their past behavior (having agreed to the small request) and inferred that they

are helpful people.

Behavior also influences our attitudes through a more emotional process known as cognitive

dissonance. Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort we experience when we choose to

behave in ways that we see as inappropriate (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills,

1999). [61]

If we feel that we have wasted our time or acted against our own moral principles, we

experience negative emotions (dissonance) and may change our attitudes about the behavior to

reduce the negative feelings.

Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills (1959) [62]

studied whether the cognitive dissonance created by

an initiation process could explain how much commitment students felt to a group that they were

part of. In their experiment, female college students volunteered to join a group that would be

meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. According to random

assignment, some of the women were told that they would be required to perform an

embarrassing procedure (they were asked to read some obscene words and some sexually

oriented passages from a novel in public) before they could join the group, whereas other women

did not have to go through this initiation. Then all the women got a chance to listen to the

group’s conversation, which turned out to be very boring.

Aronson and Mills found that the women who had gone through the embarrassing experience

subsequently reported more liking for the group than those who had not. They argued that the

more effort an individual expends to become a member of the group (e.g., a severe initiation), the

more they will become committed to the group, to justify the effort they have put in during the

initiation. The idea is that the effort creates dissonant cognitions (“I did all this work to join the

group”), which are then justified by creating more consonant ones (“OK, this group is really

pretty fun”). Thus the women who spent little effort to get into the group were able to see the

group as the dull and boring conversation that it was. The women who went through the more

severe initiation, however, succeeded in convincing themselves that the same discussion was a

worthwhile experience.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 21

When we put in effort for something—an initiation, a big purchase price, or even some of our

precious time—we will likely end up liking the activity more than we would have if the effort

had been less; not doing so would lead us to experience the unpleasant feelings of dissonance.

After we buy a product, we convince ourselves that we made the right choice because the

product is excellent. If we fail to lose the weight we wanted to, we decide that we look good

anyway. If we hurt someone else’s feelings, we may even decide that he or she is a bad person

who deserves our negative behavior. To escape from feeling poorly about themselves, people

will engage in quite extraordinary rationalizing. No wonder that most of us believe that “If I had

it all to do over again, I would not change anything important.”

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

 Social psychology is the scientific study of how we influence, and are influenced by, the people around us.

 Social cognition involves forming impressions of ourselves and other people. Doing so quickly and accurately is

functional for social life.

 Our initial judgments of others are based in large part on what we see. The physical features of other people—and

particularly their sex, race, age, and physical attractiveness—are very salient, and we often focus our attention on

these dimensions.

 We are attracted to people who appear to be healthy. Indicators of health include youth, symmetry, and averageness.

 We frequently use people’s appearances to form our judgments about them, and to determine our responses to

them. These responses include stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Social psychologists believe that people

should get past their prejudices and judge people as individuals.

 Close relationships are based on intimacy. Intimacy is determined by similarity, self-disclosure, interdependence,

commitment, rewards, and passion.

 Causal attribution is the process of trying to determine the causes of people’s behavior with the goal of learning about

their personalities. Although people are reasonably accurate in their attributions, they also succumb to biases such as

the fundamental attribution error.

 Attitudes refer to our relatively enduring evaluations of people and things. Attitudes are determined in part by genetic

transmission from our parents and in part through direct and indirect experiences.

 Although attitudes predict behaviors, behaviors also predict attitudes. This occurs through the processes of self-

perception and cognitive dissonance.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 22

E X E R C I S E S A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. What kinds of people are you attracted to? Do your preferences match the factors that we have just discussed?

2. What stereotypes and prejudices do you hold? Are you able to get past them and judge people as individuals? Do you

think that your stereotypes influence your behavior without your being aware of them?

3. Consider a time when your behavior influenced your attitudes. Did this occur as a result of self-perception or cognitive

dissonance?

[1] Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press; Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J.

(2006). The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In M. Schaller, J. A.

Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 81–113). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

[2] Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 508–516.

[3] Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive

faces. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 79–84.

[4] Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J.-M., Mignault, A., & Andreoletti, C. (2003). Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to

adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(3),

194–215.

[5] Zebrowitz, L. A. (1996). Physical appearance as a basis of stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone

(Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 79–120). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Zebrowitz, L. A., Luevano, V. X., Bronstad, P.

M., & Aharon, I. (2009). Neural activation to babyfaced men matches activation to babies. Social Neuroscience, 4(1), 1–10.

[6] Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry

signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(1), 31–46.

[7] Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.Psychological Science, 1(2), 115–121.

[8] Crandall, C. S., Merman, A., & Hebl, M. (2009). Anti-fat prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping,

and discrimination (pp. 469–487). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

[9] Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary

psychology (pp. 292–343). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[10] Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A

meta-analytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 23

[11] Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A

meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 431–462; Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The

impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law & Human Behavior, 15(6),

603–623.

[12] Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[13] Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A

meta-analytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.

[14] Hall, J. A., & Schmid Mast, M. (2008). Are women always more interpersonally sensitive than men? Impact of goals and

content domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 144–155.

[15] Fiske, S. T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and prejudice. In J. S.

Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 253–286). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Stangor, C. (1995). Content and

application inaccuracy in social stereotyping. In Y. T. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: Toward

appreciating group differences (pp. 275–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[16] Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 761–796). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[17] Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

[18] Swim, J. T., & Stangor, C. (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. Santa Barbara, CA: Academic Press.

[19] Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal

confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803; Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and

external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832.

[20] Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press; Stangor, C., & Leary, S. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 243–283.

[21] Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations. In C.

N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

[22] Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior

and physical attractiveness.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 24

[23] Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological

Science, 17(7), 592–598.

[24] Ambady, N., Krabbenhoft, M. A., & Hogan, D. (2006). The 30-sec sale: Using thin-slice judgments to evaluate sales

effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 4–13.

[25] Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 538–547.

[26] Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election

outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–1626.

[27] Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (Eds.). (2000). Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[28] Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,

81(1), 65–84.

[29] Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate? Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 3(1), 80–86.

[30] Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance.Psychological Science, 19(5), 439–440.

[31] Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among

students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(3), 255–276.

[32] Brooks-Gunn, J., & Lewis, M. (1981). Infant social perception: Responses to pictures of parents and

strangers. Developmental Psychology, 17(5), 647–649.

[33] Mita, T. H., Dermer, M., & Knight, J. (1977). Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 35(8), 597–601.

[34] Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Travers, S., & Berry, S. A. (2005). The evaluative connotation of processing fluency: Inherently

positive or moderated by motivational context? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 636–644.

[35] Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological

and individual differences approaches. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 889–898.

[36] Zebrowitz, L. A., Bronstad, P. M., & Lee, H. K. (2007). The contribution of face familiarity to ingroup favoritism and

stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25(2), 306–338.

[37] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal

closeness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 25

[38] Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality

& Social Psychology, 60, 241–253; Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept

change. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102–1112.

[39] Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate? Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 3(1), 80–86.

[40] Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The

handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vols. 1–2, pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

[41] Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001). Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J.

Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

[42] Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (2004). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. In H. T. Reis & C. E.

Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships: Key readings (pp. 245–256). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

[43] Simpson, J. A., & Harris, B. A. (1994). Interpersonal attraction. In A. L. Weber & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Perspectives on close

relationships (pp. 45–66). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[44] Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of

satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70(1), 79–98.

[45] Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of

social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898–940). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[46] Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (Eds.). (1987). Attribution: Perceiving the

causes of behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[47] Jones, E. E., Davis, K. E., & Gergen, K. J. (1961). Role playing variations and their informational value for person

perception. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 63(2), 302–310.

[48] Fiske, S. T. (2003). Social beings. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[49] Storms, M. D. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors’ and observers’ points of view. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 165–175.

[50] Trope, Y., & Alfieri, T. (1997). Effortfulness and flexibility of dispositional judgment processes. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73(4), 662–674.

[51] Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum; Tennen, H., & Affleck, G.

(1990). Blaming others for threatening events.Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 209–232.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 26

[52] Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.). (2005). The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

[53] Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of

Personality & Social Psychology, 80(6), 845–860.

[54] De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research

on human evaluative conditioning.Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 853–869.

[55] Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[56] Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530–555.

[57] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

[58] Bem, D. J. (1972). Self perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6). New

York, NY: Academic Press; Olson, J. M., & Stone, J. (2005). The influence of behavior on attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson,

& M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 223–271). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[59] Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of

responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(3), 219–230.

[60] Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2002). Solicitation by e-mail and solicitor’s status: A field study of social influence on the

web. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 5(4), 377–383.

[61] Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson; Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J.

(1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

[62] Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 59, 171–181.

14.2 Interacting With Others: Helping, Hurting, and Conforming L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Summarize the genetic and environmental factors that contribute to human altruism.

2. Provide an overview of the causes of human aggression.

3. Explain the situations under which people conform to others and their motivations for doing so.

Humans have developed a variety of social skills that enhance our ability to successfully interact

with others. We are often helpful, even when that helping comes at some cost to ourselves, and

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 27

we often change our opinions and beliefs to fit in with the opinions of those whom we care

about. Yet we also are able to be aggressive if we feel the situation warrants it.

Helping Others: Altruism Helps Create Harmonious Relationships

Altruism refers to any behavior that is designed to increase another person’s welfare, and

particularly those actions that do not seem to provide a direct reward to the person who

performs them (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). [1]

Altruism occurs when we stop

to help a stranger who has been stranded on the highway, when we volunteer at a homeless

shelter, or when we donate to a charity. According to a survey given by an established coalition

that studies and encourages volunteering (http://www.independentsector.org), in 2001 over 83

million American adults reported that they helped others by volunteering, and did so an average

of 3.6 hours per week. The survey estimated that the value of the volunteer time that was given

was over 239 billion dollars.

Why Are We Altruistic?

Because altruism is costly, you might wonder why we engage in it at all. There are a variety of

explanations for the occurrence of altruism, and Table 14.3 "Some of the Variables Known to

Increase Helping" summarizes some of the variables that are known to increase helping.

Table 14.3 Some of the Variables Known to Increase Helping

Positive moods We help more when we are in a good mood (Guéguen & De Gail, 2003).

Similarity

We help people who we see as similar to us, for instance, those who mimic our behaviors (van Baaren,

Holland, Kawakami, & van Knippenberg, 2004).

Guilt If we are experiencing guilt, we may help relieve those negative feelings.

Empathy

We help more when we feel empathy for the other person (Batson, O’Quin, Fultz, Varnderplas, & Isen,

1983).

Benefits

We are more likely to help if we can feel good about ourselves by doing so (Snyder, Omoto, & Lindsay,

2004).

Personal

responsibility We are more likely to help if it is clear that others are not helping.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 28

Self-presentation We may help in order to show others that we are good people (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006).

Sources: Guéguen, N., & De Gail, M.-A. (2003). The effect of smiling on helping behavior: Smiling and Good

Samaritan behavior. Communication Reports, 16(2), 133–140; van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K.,

& van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior.Psychological Science, 15(1), 71–74; Batson, C.

D., O’Quin, K., Fultz, J., Varnderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy

on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 706–718;

Snyder, M., Omoto, A. M., & Lindsay, J. J. (Eds.). (2004). Sacrificing time and effort for the good of others: The

benefits and costs of volunteerism. New York, NY: Guilford Press; Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys

finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413.

The tendency to help others in need is in part a functional evolutionary adaptation. Although

helping others can be costly to us as individuals, helping people who are related to us can

perpetuate our own genes (Madsen et al., 2007; McAndrew, 2002; Stewart-Williams,

2007). [2]

Burnstein, Crandall, and Kitayama (1994) [3]

found that students indicated they would

be more likely to help a person who was closely related to them (e.g., a sibling, parent, or child)

than they would be to help a person who was more distantly related (e.g., a niece, nephew, uncle,

or grandmother). People are more likely to donate kidneys to relatives than to strangers (Borgida,

Conner, & Manteufel, 1992), [4]

and even children indicate that they are more likely to help their

siblings than they are to help a friend (Tisak & Tisak, 1996). [5]

Although it makes evolutionary sense that we would help people who we are related to, why

would we help people to whom we not related? One explanation for such behavior is based on

the principle of reciprocal altruism (Krebs & Davies, 1987; Trivers,

1971). [6]

Reciprocal altruismis the principle that, if we help other people now, those others will

return the favor should we need their help in the future. By helping others, we both increase our

chances of survival and reproductive success and help others increase their survival too. Over the

course of evolution, those who engage in reciprocal altruism should be able to reproduce more

often than those who do not, thus enabling this kind of altruism to continue.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 29

We also learn to help by modeling the helpful behavior of others. Although people frequently

worry about the negative impact of the violence that is seen on TV, there is also a great deal of

helping behavior shown on television. Smith et al. (2006) [7]

found that 73% of TV shows had

some altruism, and that about three altruistic behaviors were shown every hour. Furthermore, the

prevalence of altruism was particularly high in children’s shows. But just as viewing altruism

can increase helping, modeling of behavior that is not altruistic can decrease altruism. For

instance, Anderson and Bushman (2001) [8]

found that playing violent video games led to a

decrease in helping.

We are more likely to help when we receive rewards for doing so and less likely to help when

helping is costly. Parents praise their children who share their toys with others, and may

reprimand children who are selfish. We are more likely to help when we have plenty of time than

when we are in a hurry (Darley and Batson 1973). [9]

Another potential reward is the status we

gain as a result of helping. When we act altruistically, we gain a reputation as a person with high

status who is able and willing to help others, and this status makes us more desirable in the eyes

of others (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). [10]

The outcome of the reinforcement and modeling of altruism is the development of social norms

about helping—standards of behavior that we see as appropriate and desirable regarding helping.

The reciprocity normreminds us that we should follow the principles of reciprocal altruism. If

someone helps us, then we should help them in the future, and we should help people now with

the expectation that they will help us later if we need it. The reciprocity norm is found in

everyday adages such as “Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” and in religious and

philosophical teachings such as the “Golden Rule”: “Do unto other as you would have them do

unto you.”

Because helping based on the reciprocity norm is based on the return of earlier help and the

expectation of a future return from others, it might not seem like true altruism. We might hope

that our children internalize another relevant social norm that seems more altruistic: the social

responsibility norm. The social responsibility norm tells us that we should try to help others who

need assistance, even without any expectation of future paybacks. The teachings of many

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 30

religions are based on the social responsibility norm; that we should, as good human beings,

reach out and help other people whenever we can.

How the Presence of Others Can Reduce Helping

Late at night on March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Kitty Genovese was murdered within a few yards

of her apartment building in New York City after a violent fight with her killer in which she

struggled and screamed. When the police interviewed Kitty’s neighbors about the crime, they

discovered that 38 of the neighbors indicated that they had seen or heard the fight occurring but

not one of them had bothered to intervene, and only one person had called the police.

Video Clip: The Case of Kitty Genovese

Was Kitty Genovese murdered because there were too many people who heard her cries? Watch

this video for an analysis.

Two social psychologists, Bibb Latané and John Darley, were interested in the factors that

influenced people to help (or to not help) in such situations (Latané & Darley, 1968). [11]

They

developed a model (see Figure 14.9) that took into consideration the important role of the social

situation in determining helping. The model has been extensively tested in many studies, and

there is substantial support for it. Social psychologists have discovered that it was the 38 people

themselves that contributed to the tragedy, because people are less likely to notice, interpret, and

respond to the needs of others when they are with others than they are when they are alone.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 31

Figure 14.9

The Latané and Darley model of helping is based on the idea that a variety of situational factors can influence

whether or not we help.

The first step in the model is noticing the event. Latané and Darley (1968) [12]

demonstrated the

important role of the social situation in noticing by asking research participants to complete a

questionnaire in a small room. Some of the participants completed the questionnaire alone,

whereas others completed the questionnaire in small groups in which two other participants were

also working on questionnaires. A few minutes after the participants had begun the

questionnaires, the experimenters started to let some white smoke come into the room through a

vent in the wall. The experimenters timed how long it took before the first person in the room

looked up and noticed the smoke.

The people who were working alone noticed the smoke in about 5 seconds, and within 4 minutes

most of the participants who were working alone had taken some action. On the other hand, on

average, the first person in the group conditions did not notice the smoke until over 20 seconds

had elapsed. And, although 75% of the participants who were working alone reported the smoke

within 4 minutes, the smoke was reported in only 12% of the groups by that time. In fact, in only

3 of the 8 groups did anyone report the smoke, even after it had filled the room. You can see that

the social situation has a powerful influence on noticing; we simply don’t see emergencies when

other people are with us.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 32

Even if we notice an emergency, we might not interpret it as one. Were the cries of Kitty

Genovese really calls for help, or were they simply an argument with a boyfriend? The problem

is compounded when others are present, because when we are unsure how to interpret events we

normally look to others to help us understand them, and at the same time they are looking to us

for information. The problem is that each bystander thinks that other people aren’t acting

because they don’t see an emergency. Believing that the others know something that they don’t,

each observer concludes that help is not required.

Even if we have noticed the emergency and interpret it as being one, this does not necessarily

mean that we will come to the rescue of the other person. We still need to decide that it is our

responsibility to do something. The problem is that when we see others around, it is easy to

assume that they are going to do something, and that we don’t need to do anything

ourselves. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when we assume that others will take action and

therefore we do not take action ourselves. The irony again, of course, is that people are more

likely to help when they are the only ones in the situation than when there are others around.

Perhaps you have noticed diffusion of responsibility if you participated in an Internet users group

where people asked questions of the other users. Did you find that it was easier to get help if you

directed your request to a smaller set of users than when you directed it to a larger number of

people? Markey (2000) [13]

found that people received help more quickly (in about 37 seconds)

when they asked for help by specifying a participant’s name than when no name was specified

(51 seconds).

The final step in the helping model is knowing how to help. Of course, for many of us the ways

to best help another person in an emergency are not that clear; we are not professionals and we

have little training in how to help in emergencies. People who do have training in how to act in

emergencies are more likely to help, whereas the rest of us just don’t know what to do, and

therefore we may simply walk by. On the other hand, today many people have cell phones, and

we can do a lot with a quick call; in fact, a phone call made in time might have saved Kitty

Genovese’s life.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 33

Human Aggression: An Adaptive yet Potentially Damaging Behavior

Aggression is behavior that is intended to harm another individual. Aggression may occur in the

heat of the moment, for instance, when a jealous lover strikes out in rage or the sports fans at a

university light fires and destroy cars after an important basketball game. Or it may occur in a

more cognitive, deliberate, and planned way, such as the aggression of a bully who steals another

child’s toys, a terrorist who kills civilians to gain political exposure, or a hired assassin who kills

for money.

Not all aggression is physical. Aggression also occurs in nonphysical ways, as when children

exclude others from activities, call them names, or spread rumors about them. Paquette and

Underwood (1999) [14]

found that both boys and girls rated nonphysical aggression such as name-

calling as making them feel more “sad and bad” than did physical aggression.

The Ability to Aggress Is Part of Human Nature

We may aggress against others in part because it allows us to gain access to valuable resources

such as food, territory, and desirable mates, or to protect ourselves from direct attack by others.

If aggression helps in the survival of our genes, then the process of natural selection may well

have caused humans, as it would any other animal, to be aggressive (Buss & Duntley, 2006). [15]

There is evidence for the genetics of aggression. Aggression is controlled in large part by the

amygdala. One of the primary functions of the amygdala is to help us learn to associate stimuli

with the rewards and the punishment that they may provide. The amygdala is particularly

activated in our responses to stimuli that we see as threatening and fear-arousing. When the

amygdala is stimulated, in either humans or in animals, the organism becomes more aggressive.

But just because we can aggress does not mean that we will aggress. It is not necessarily

evolutionarily adaptive to aggress in all situations. Neither people nor animals are always

aggressive; they rely on aggression only when they feel that they absolutely need to (Berkowitz,

1993). [16]

The prefrontal cortex serves as a control center on aggression; when it is more highly

activated, we are more able to control our aggressive impulses. Research has found that the

cerebral cortex is less active in murderers and death row inmates, suggesting that violent crime

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 34

may be caused at least in part by a failure or reduced ability to regulate aggression (Davidson,

Putnam, & Larson, 2000). [17]

Hormones are also important in regulating aggression. Most important in this regard is the male

sex hormone testosterone, which is associated with increased aggression in both males and

females. Research conducted on a variety of animals has found a positive correlation between

levels of testosterone and aggression. This relationship seems to be weaker among humans than

among animals, yet it is still significant (Dabbs, Hargrove, & Heusel, 1996). [18]

Consuming alcohol increases the likelihood that people will respond aggressively to

provocations, and even people who are not normally aggressive may react with aggression when

they are intoxicated (Graham, Osgood, Wells, & Stockwell, 2006). [19]

Alcohol reduces the

ability of people who have consumed it to inhibit their aggression because when people are

intoxicated, they become more self-focused and less aware of the social constraints that normally

prevent them from engaging aggressively (Bushman & Cooper, 1990; Steele & Southwick,

1985). [20]

Negative Experiences Increase Aggression

If I were to ask you about the times that you have been aggressive, I bet that you would tell me

that many of them occurred when you were angry, in a bad mood, tired, in pain, sick, or

frustrated. And you would be right—we are much more likely to aggress when we are

experiencing negative emotions. One important determinant of aggression is frustration. When

we are frustrated we may lash out at others, even at people who did not cause the frustration. In

some cases the aggression is displaced aggression, which is aggression that is directed at an

object or person other than the person who caused the frustration.

Other negative emotions also increase aggression. Griffit and Veitch (1971) [21]

had students

complete questionnaires in rooms in which the heat was at a normal temperature or in which the

temperature was over 90 degrees Fahrenheit. The students in the latter conditions expressed

significantly more hostility. Aggression is greater on hot days than it is on cooler days and

during hot years than during cooler years, and most violent riots occur during the hottest days of

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 35

the year (Bushman, Wang, & Anderson, 2005). [22]

Pain also increases aggression (Berkowitz,

1993). [23]

If we are aware that we are feeling negative emotions, we might think that we could release those

emotions in a relatively harmless way, such as by punching a pillow or kicking something, with

the hopes that doing so will release our aggressive tendencies. Catharsis—the idea that observing

or engaging in less harmful aggressive actions will reduce the tendency to aggress later in a

more harmful way—has been considered by many as a way of decreasing violence, and it was an

important part of the theories of Sigmund Freud.

As far as social psychologists have been able to determine, however, catharsis simply does not

work. Rather than decreasing aggression, engaging in aggressive behaviors of any type increases

the likelihood of later aggression. Bushman, Baumeister, and Stack (1999) [24]

first angered their

research participants by having another student insult them. Then half of the participants were

allowed to engage in a cathartic behavior: They were given boxing gloves and then got a chance

to hit a punching bag for 2 minutes. Then all the participants played a game with the person who

had insulted them earlier in which they had a chance to blast the other person with a painful blast

of white noise. Contrary to the catharsis hypothesis, the students who had punched the punching

bag set a higher noise level and delivered longer bursts of noise than the participants who did not

get a chance to hit the punching bag. It seems that if we hit a punching bag, punch a pillow, or

scream as loud as we can to release our frustration, the opposite may occur—rather than

decreasing aggression, these behaviors in fact increase it.

Viewing Violent Media Increases Aggression

The average American watches over 4 hours of television every day, and these programs contain

a substantial amount of aggression. At the same time, children are also exposed to violence in

movies and video games, as well as in popular music and music videos that include violent lyrics

and imagery. Research evidence makes it very clear that, on average, people who watch violent

behavior become more aggressive. The evidence supporting this relationship comes from many

studies conducted over many years using both correlational designs as well as laboratory studies

in which people have been randomly assigned to view either violent or nonviolent material

(Anderson et al., 2003). [25] Viewing violent behavior also increases aggression in part through

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 36

observational learning. Children who witness violence are more likely to be aggressive. One

example is in the studies of Albert Bandura, as shown in below.

Video Clip

This video shows Professor Albert Bandura describing his studies on the observational learning

of aggression in children.

Another outcome of viewing large amounts of violent material isdesensitization, which is the

tendency over time to show weaker emotional responses to emotional stimuli. When we first see

violence, we are likely to be shocked, aroused, and even repulsed by it. However, over time, as

we see more and more violence, we become habituated to it, such that the subsequent exposures

produce fewer and fewer negative emotional responses. Continually viewing violence also makes

us more distrustful and more likely to behave aggressively (Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir,

2006; Nabi & Sullivan, 2001). [26]

Of course, not everyone who views violent material becomes aggressive; individual differences

also matter. People who experience a lot of negative affect and who feel that they are frequently

rejected by others whom they care about are more aggressive (Downey, Irwin, Ramsay, &

Ayduk, 2004). [27]

People with inflated or unstable self-esteem are more prone to anger and are

highly aggressive when their high self-image is threatened (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden,

1996). [28]

For instance, classroom bullies are those children who always want to be the center of

attention, who think a lot of themselves, and who cannot take criticism (Salmivalli & Nieminen,

2002). [29]

Bullies are highly motivated to protect their inflated self-concepts, and they react with

anger and aggression when it is threatened.

There is a culturally universal tendency for men to be more physically violent than women

(Archer & Coyne, 2005; Crick & Nelson, 2002). [30]

Worldwide, about 99% of rapes and about

90% of robberies, assaults, and murders are committed by men (Graham & Wells,

2001). [31]

These sex differences do not imply that women are never aggressive. Both men and

women respond to insults and provocation with aggression; the differences between men and

women are smaller after they have been frustrated, insulted, or threatened (Bettencourt & Miller,

1996). [32]

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 37

Research Focus: The Culture of Honor

In addition to differences across cultures, there are also regional differences in the incidence of violence in

different parts of the United States. As one example, the homicide rate is significantly higher in the southern

and the western states but lower in the eastern and northern states. One explanation for these differences is

variation in cultural norms about the appropriate reactions to threats against one’s social status. These cultural

differences apply primarily to men. In short, some men react more violently than others when they believe that

others are threatening them.

The social norm that condones and even encourages responding to insults with aggression is known as

the culture of honor. The culture of honor leads people to view even relatively minor conflicts or disputes as

challenges to one’s social status and reputation and can therefore trigger aggressive responses. Beliefs in culture

of honor norms are stronger among men who live or who were raised in the South and West than among men

who are from or living in the North and East.

In one series of experiments, Cohen, Nisbett, Bosdle, and Schwarz (1996) [33]

investigated how white male

students who had grown up either in the northern or in the southern regions of the United States responded to

insults. The experiments, which were conducted at the University of Michigan, involved an encounter in which

the research participant was walking down a narrow hallway. The experimenters enlisted the help of a

confederate who did not give way to the participant but rather bumped into him and insulted him. Compared

with Northerners, students from the South who had been bumped were more likely to think that their

masculine reputations had been threatened, exhibited greater physiological signs of being upset, had higher

testosterone levels, engaged in more aggressive and dominant behavior (gave firmer handshakes), and were less

willing to yield to a subsequent confederate (Figure 14.10 "Results From Cohen, Nisbett, Bosdle, and Schwarz,

1996").

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 38

Figure 14.10Results From Cohen, Nisbett, Bosdle, and Schwarz, 1996

Students from southern U.S. states expressed more anger and had greater levels of testosterone after being insulted

than did students from northern states.

Source: Adapted from Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bosdle, B., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the

southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–

960.

In another test of the impact of culture of honor, Cohen and Nisbett (1997) [34]

sent letters to employers across

the United States from a fictitious job applicant who admitted having been convicted of a felony. To half the

employers, the applicant reported that he had impulsively killed a man who had been having an affair with his

fiancée and then taunted him about it in a crowded bar. To the other half, the applicant reported that he had

stolen a car because he needed the money to pay off debts. Employers from the South and the West, places in

which the culture of honor is strong, were more likely than employers in the North and East to respond in an

understanding and cooperative way to the letter from the convicted killer, but there were no cultural differences

for the letter from the auto thief.

One possible explanation for regional differences in the culture of honor involves the kind of activities typically

engaged in by men in the different regions. While people in the northern parts of the United States were usually

farmers who grew crops, people from southern climates were more likely to raise livestock. Unlike the crops

grown by the northerners, the herds were mobile and vulnerable to theft, and it was difficult for law

enforcement officials to protect them. To be successful in an environment where theft was common, a man had

to build a reputation for strength and toughness, and this was accomplished by a willingness to use swift, and

sometimes violent, punishment against thieves.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 39

Conformity and Obedience: How Social Influence Creates Social Norms

When we decide on what courses to enroll in by asking for advice from our friends, change our

beliefs or behaviors as a result of the ideas that we hear from others, or binge drink because our

friends are doing it, we are engaging in conformity, a change in beliefs or behavior that occurs

as the result of the presence of the other people around us. We conform not only because we

believe that other people have accurate information and we want to have knowledge

(informational conformity) but also because we want to be liked by others (normative

conformity).

The typical outcome of conformity is that our beliefs and behaviors become more similar to

those of others around us. But some situations create more conformity than others, and some of

the factors that contribute to conformity are shown in Table 14.4 "Variables That Increase

Conformity".

Table 14.4 Variables That Increase Conformity

Variable Description Example

Number in

majority

As the number of people who are engaging

in a behavior increases, the tendency to

conform to those people also increases.

People are more likely to stop and look up in the air when many,

rather than few, people are also looking up (Milgram, Bickman, &

Berkowitz, 1969).

Unanimity

Conformity reduces sharply when any one

person deviates from the norm.

In Solomon Asch’s line-matching research, when any one person

gave a different answer, conformity was eliminated.

Status and

authority

People who have higher status, such as

those in authority, create more conformity.

Milgram (1974) found that conformity in his obedience studies was

greatly reduced when the person giving the command to shock was

described as an “ordinary man” rather than a scientist at Yale

University.

Sources: Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different

size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82; Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An

experimental view. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

At times conformity occurs in a relatively spontaneous and unconscious way, without any

obvious intent of one person to change the other, or an awareness that the conformity is

occurring. Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) [35]

found that

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 40

college students were more likely to throw litter on the ground themselves when they had just

seen another person throw some paper on the ground, and Cheng and Chartrand (2003) [36]

found

that people unconsciously mimicked the behaviors of others, such as by rubbing their face or

shaking their foot, and that that mimicry was greater when the other person was of high versus

low social status.

Muzafer Sherif (1936) [37]

studied how norms develop in ambiguous situations. In his studies,

college students were placed in a dark room with a single point of light and were asked to

indicate, each time the light was turned on, how much it appeared to move. (The movement,

which is not actually real, occurs because of the saccadic movement of the eyes.) Each group

member gave his or her response on each trial aloud and each time in a different random order.

As you can see in Figure 14.11 "Sherif’s (1936) Studies on Conformity", Sherif found a

conformity effect: Over time, the responses of the group members became more and more

similar to each other such that after four days they converged on a common norm. When the

participants were interviewed after the study, they indicated that they had not realized that they

were conforming.

Figure 14.11 Sherif’s (1936) Studies on Conformity

The participants in the studies by Muzafer Sherif initially had different beliefs about the degree to which a point of

light appeared to be moving. (You can see these differences as expressed on Day 1.) However, as they shared their

beliefs with other group members over several days, a common group norm developed. Shown here are the

estimates made by a group of three participants who met together on four different days.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 41

Source: Adapted from Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Not all conformity is passive. In the research of Solomon Asch (1955) [38]

the judgments that

group members were asked to make were entirely unambiguous, and the influence of the other

people on judgments was apparent. The research participants were male college students who

were told that they were to be participating in a test of visual abilities. The men were seated in

front of a board that displayed the visual stimuli that they were going to judge. The men were

told that there would be 18 trials during the experiment, and on each trial they would see two

cards. The standard card had a single line that was to be judged, and the test card had three lines

that varied in length between about 2 and 10 inches.

Figure 14.12

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 42

On each trial, each person in the group answered out loud, beginning with one end of the group

and moving toward the other end. Although the real research participant did not know it, the

other group members were actually not participants but experimental confederates who gave

predetermined answers on each trial. Because the real participant was seated next to last in the

row, he always made his judgment following most of the other group members. Although on the

first two trials the confederates each gave the correct answer, on the third trial, and on 11 of the

subsequent trials, they all had been instructed to give the same wrong choice. For instance, even

though the correct answer was Line 1, they would all say it was Line 2. Thus when it became the

participant’s turn to answer, he could either give the clearly correct answer or conform to the

incorrect responses of the confederates.

Remarkably, in this study about 76% of the 123 men who were tested gave at least one incorrect

response when it was their turn, and 37% of the responses, overall, were conforming. This is

indeed evidence for the power of conformity because the participants were making clearly

incorrect responses in public. However, conformity was not absolute; in addition to the 24% of

the men who never conformed, only 5% of the men conformed on all 12 of the critical trials.

Video Clip

Asch’s Line Matching Studies

Watch this video to see a demonstration of Asch’s line studies.

The tendency to conform to those in authority, known as obedience, was demonstrated in a

remarkable set of studies performed by Stanley Milgram (1974). [39]

Milgram designed a study in

which he could observe the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority

would be able to produce obedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others.

Like many other researchers who were interested in conformity, Milgram’s interest stemmed in

part from his desire to understand how the presence of a powerful social situation—in this case

the directives of Adolph Hitler, the German dictator who ordered the killing of millions of Jews

and other “undesirable” people during World War II—could produce obedience.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 43

Milgram used newspaper ads to recruit men (and in one study, women) from a wide variety of

backgrounds to participate in his research. When the research participant arrived at the lab, he or

she was introduced to a man who was ostensibly another research participant but who actually

was a confederate working with the experimenter as part of the experimental team. The

experimenter explained that the goal of the research was to study the effects of punishment on

learning. After the participant and the confederate both consented to be in the study, the

researcher explained that one of them would be the teacher, and the other the learner. They were

each given a slip of paper and asked to open it and indicate what it said. In fact both papers read

“teacher,” which allowed the confederate to pretend that he had been assigned to be the learner

and thus to assure that the actual participant was always the teacher.

While the research participant (now the teacher) looked on, the learner was taken into the

adjoining shock room and strapped to an electrode that was to deliver the punishment. The

experimenter explained that the teacher’s job would be to sit in the control room and read a list

of word pairs to the learner. After the teacher read the list once, it would be the learner’s job to

remember which words went together. For instance, if the word pair was “blue sofa,” the teacher

would say the word “blue” on the testing trials, and the learner would have to indicate which of

four possible words (“house,” “sofa,” “cat,” or “carpet”) was the correct answer by pressing one

of four buttons in front of him.

After the experimenter gave the “teacher” a mild shock to demonstrate that the shocks really

were painful, the experiment began. The research participant first read the list of words to the

learner and then began testing him on his learning. The shock apparatus (Figure 14.13 "Materials

Used in Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience") was in front of the teacher, and the learner was

not visible in the shock room. The experimenter sat behind the teacher and explained to him that

each time the learner made a mistake he was to press one of the shock switches to administer the

shock. Moreover, the switch that was to be pressed increased by one level with each mistake, so

that each mistake required a stronger shock.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 44

Figure 14.13 Materials Used in Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience

Source: Adapted from Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper

and Row.

Once the learner (who was, of course, actually the experimental confederate) was alone in the

shock room, he unstrapped himself from the shock machine and brought out a tape recorder that

he used to play a prerecorded series of responses that the teacher could hear through the wall of

the room.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 45

The teacher heard the learner say “ugh!” after the first few shocks. After the next few mistakes,

when the shock level reached 150 V, the learner was heard to exclaim, “Let me out of here. I

have heart trouble!” As the shock reached about 270 V, the protests of the learner became more

vehement, and after 300 V the learner proclaimed that he was not going to answer any more

questions. From 330 V and up, the learner was silent. At this point the experimenter responded to

participants’ questions, if any, with a scripted response indicating that they should continue

reading the questions and applying increasing shock when the learner did not respond.

The results of Milgram’s research were themselves quite shocking. Although all the participants

gave the initial mild levels of shock, responses varied after that. Some refused to continue after

about 150 V, despite the insistence of the experimenter to continue to increase the shock level.

Still others, however, continued to present the questions and to administer the shocks, under the

pressure of the experimenter, who demanded that they continue. In the end, 65% of the

participants continued giving the shock to the learner all the way up to the 450 V maximum,

even though that shock was marked as “danger: severe shock” and no response had been heard

from the participant for several trials. In other words, well over half of the men who participated

had, as far as they knew, shocked another person to death, all as part of a supposed experiment

on learning.

In case you are thinking that such high levels of obedience would not be observed in today’s

modern culture, there is fact evidence that they would. Milgram’s findings were almost exactly

replicated, using men and women from a wide variety of ethnic groups, in a study conducted this

decade at Santa Clara University (Burger, 2009). [40]

In this replication of the Milgram

experiment, 67% of the men and 73% of the women agreed to administer increasingly painful

electric shocks when an authority figure ordered them to. The participants in this study were not,

however, allowed to go beyond the 150 V shock switch.

Although it might be tempting to conclude that Burger’s and Milgram’s experiments demonstrate

that people are innately bad creatures who are ready to shock others to death, this is not in fact

the case. Rather it is the social situation, and not the people themselves, that is responsible for the

behavior. When Milgram created variations on his original procedure, he found that changes in

the situation dramatically influenced the amount of conformity. Conformity was significantly

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 46

reduced when people were allowed to choose their own shock level rather than being ordered to

use the level required by the experimenter, when the experimenter communicated by phone

rather than from within the experimental room, and when other research participants refused to

give the shock. These findings are consistent with a basic principle of social psychology: The

situation in which people find themselves has a major influence on their behavior.

Do We Always Conform?

The research that we have discussed to this point suggests that most people conform to the

opinions and desires of others. But it is not always the case that we blindly conform. For one,

there are individual differences in conformity. People with lower self-esteem are more likely to

conform than are those with higher self-esteem, and people who are dependent on and who have

a strong need for approval from others are also more conforming (Bornstein, 1993). [41]

People

who highly identify with or who have a high degree of commitment to a group are also more

likely to conform to group norms than those who care less about the group (Jetten, Spears, &

Manstead, 1997). [42]

Despite these individual differences among people in terms of their

tendency to conform, however, research has generally found that the impact of individual

difference variables on conformity is smaller than the influence of situational variables, such as

the number and unanimity of the majority.

We have seen that conformity usually occurs such that the opinions and behaviors of individuals

become more similar to the opinions and behaviors of the majority of the people in the group.

However, and although it is much more unusual, there are cases in which a smaller number of

individuals is able to influence the opinions or behaviors of the larger group—a phenomenon

known as minority influence. Minorities who are consistent and confident in their opinions may

in some cases be able to be persuasive (Moscovici, Mugny, & Van Avermaet, 1985). [43]

Persuasion that comes from minorities has another, and potentially even more important, effect

on the opinions of majority group members: It can lead majorities to engage in fuller, as well as

more divergent, innovative, and creative thinking about the topics being discussed (Martin,

Hewstone, Martin, & Gardikiotis, 2008). [44]

Nemeth and Kwan (1987) [45]

found that participants

working together in groups solved problems more creatively when only one person gave a

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 47

different and unusual response than the other members did (minority influence) in comparison to

when three people gave the same unusual response.

It is a good thing that minorities can be influential; otherwise, the world would be pretty boring

indeed. When we look back on history, we find that it is the unusual, divergent, innovative

minority groups or individuals, who—although frequently ridiculed at the time for their unusual

ideas—end up being respected for producing positive changes.

Another case where conformity does not occur is when people feel that their freedom is being

threatened by influence attempts, yet they also have the ability to resist that persuasion. In these

cases they may develop a strong emotional reaction that leads people to resist pressures to

conform known aspsychological reactance (Miron & Brehm, 2006). [46]

Reactance is aroused

when our ability to choose which behaviors to engage in is eliminated or threatened with

elimination. The outcome of the experience of reactance is that people may not conform at all, in

fact moving their opinions or behaviors away from the desires of the influencer. Consider an

experiment conducted by Pennebaker and Sanders (1976), [47]

who attempted to get people to

stop writing graffiti on the walls of campus restrooms. In the first group of restrooms they put a

sign that read “Do not write on these walls under any circumstances!” whereas in the second

group they placed a sign that simply said “Please don’t write on these walls.” Two weeks later,

the researchers returned to the restrooms to see if the signs had made a difference. They found

that there was significantly less graffiti in the second group of restrooms than in the first one. It

seems as if people who were given strong pressures to not engage in the behavior were more

likely to react against those directives than were people who were given a weaker message.

Reactance represents a desire to restore freedom that is being threatened. A child who feels that

his or her parents are forcing him to eat his asparagus may react quite vehemently with a strong

refusal to touch the plate. And an adult who feels that she is being pressured by a car salesman

might feel the same way and leave the showroom entirely, resulting in the opposite of the

salesman’s intended outcome.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 48

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

 Altruism is behavior that is designed to increase another person’s welfare, and particularly those actions that do not

seem to provide a direct reward to the person who performs them. The tendency to help others in need is in part a

functional evolutionary adaptation and in part determined by environmental factors.

 Although helping others can be costly to us as individuals, helping people who are related to us can perpetuate our

own genes. Some helping is based on reciprocal altruism, the principle that if we help other people now, those others

will return the favor should we need their help in the future.

 We also learn to help through modeling and reinforcement. The result of this learning is norms about helping,

including the reciprocity norm and the social responsibility norm.

 Research testing the Latané and Darley model of helping has shown the importance of the social situation in noticing,

interpreting, and acting in emergency situations.

 Aggression is physical or nonphysical behavior that is intended to harm another individual. Aggression has both

genetic and environmental causes. The experience of negative emotions tends to increase aggression.

 Viewing violence tends to increase aggression.

 The social norm that condones and even encourages responding to insults with aggression is known as the culture of

honor.

 Conformity, the change in beliefs or behavior that occurs as the result of the presence of the other people around us,

can occur in both active and passive ways. The typical outcome of conformity is that our beliefs and behaviors become

more similar to those of others around us.

 The situation is the most powerful determinant of conformity, but individual differences may also matter. The

important influence of the social situation on conformity was demonstrated in the research by Sherif, Asch, Milgram,

and others.

 Minority influence can change attitudes and change how majorities process information.

E X E R C I S E S A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Consider a time when you were helpful. Was the behavior truly altruistic, or did you help for selfish reasons?

2. Consider a time when you or someone you know was aggressive. What do you think caused the aggression?

3. Should parents limit the amount of violent TV shows and video games that their children are exposed to? Why or why

not?

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 49

4. Is conformity a “good thing” or a “bad thing” for society? What determines whether it is good or bad? What role do

you think conformity played in Sam Spady’s death?

[1] Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[2] Madsen, E. A., Tunney, R. J., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H. C., Dunbar, R. I. M., Richardson, J.-M.,…McFarland, D. (2007). Kinship

and altruism: A cross-cultural experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 339–359; McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New

evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 11(2), 79–82; Stewart-Williams, S. (2007). Altruism among kin vs. nonkin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal

exchange. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 193–198.

[3] Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for

inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5),

773–789.

[4] Borgida, E., Conner, C., & Manteufel, L. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding living kidney donation: A behavioral decision-making

perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[5] Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (1996). My sibling’s but not my friend’s keeper: Reasoning about responses to aggressive

acts. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(3), 324–339.

[6] Krebs, J. R., & Davies, N. B. (1987). An introduction to behavioural ecology (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates;

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

[7] Smith, S. W., Smith, S. L., Pieper, K. M., Yoo, J. H., Ferris, A. L., Downs, E.,…Bowden, B. (2006). Altruism on American

television: Examining the amount of, and context surrounding, acts of helping and sharing. Journal of Communication, 56(4),

707–727.

[8] Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition,

aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological

Science, 12(5), 353–359.

[9] Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in

helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100–108.

[10] Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 50

[11] Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221.

[12] Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221.

[13] Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2),

183–188.

[14] Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’ experiences of peer victimization:

Social and physical aggression.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(2), 242–266.

[15] Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (Eds.). (2006). The Evolution of Aggression. Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

[16] Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

[17] Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation—A possible

prelude to violence. Science, 289(5479), 591–594.

[18] Dabbs, J. M. Jr., Hargrove, M. F., & Heusel, C. (1996). Testosterone differences among college fraternities: Well-behaved

vs. rambunctious. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(2), 157–161.

[19] Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Wells, S., & Stockwell, T. (2006). To what extent is intoxication associated with aggression in

bars? A multilevel analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67(3), 382–390.

[20] Bushman, B. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1990). Effects of alcohol on human aggression: An integrative research

review. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 341–354; Steele, C. M., & Southwick, L. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior: I. The

psychology of drunken excess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 18–34.

[21] Griffit, W., & Veitch, R. (1971). Hot and crowded: Influence of population density and temperature on interpersonal

affective behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 92–98.

[22] Bushman, B. J., Wang, M. C., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). Is the curve relating temperature to aggression linear or curvilinear?

Assaults and temperature in Minneapolis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 62–66.

[23] Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications.Motivation and Emotion, 17(3), 277–293.

[24] Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Self-fulfilling or

self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 367–376.

[25] Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D.,…Wartella, E. (2003). The influence

of media violence on youth.Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81–110.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 51

[26] Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to

violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 532–539; Nabi, R.

L., & Sullivan, J. L. (2001). Does television viewing relate to engagement in protective action against crime? A cultivation analysis

from a theory of reasoned action perspective. Communication Research, 28(6), 802–825.

[27] Downey, G., Irwin, L., Ramsay, M., & Ayduk, O. (Eds.). (2004). Rejection sensitivity and girls’ aggression. New York, NY:

Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

[28] Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark

side of high self-esteem.Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33.

[29] Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-

victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30–44.

[30] Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 9(3), 212–230; Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships:

Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599–607.

[31] Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45(9–10), 595–622.

[32] Bettencourt, B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.

[33] Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bosdle, B., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An

“experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960.

[34] Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1997). Field experiments examining the culture of honor: The role of institutions in

perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1188–1199.

[35] Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to

reduce littering in public places.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.

[36] Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation

strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1170–1179.

[37] Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

[38] Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 11, 32.

[39] Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

[40] Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.

[41] Bornstein, R. F. (1993). The dependent personality. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 52

[42] Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: The influence of

group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 603–609.

[43] Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Van Avermaet, E. (1985). Perspectives on minority influence. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

[44] Martin, R., Hewstone, M., Martin, P. Y., & Gardikiotis, A. (2008). Persuasion from majority and minority groups. In W. D.

Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 361–384). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

[45] Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and the detection of correct solutions. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 17, 788–799.

[46] Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reaktanz theorie—40 Jahre sparer.Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 9–18.

[47] Pennebaker, J. W., & Sanders, D. Y. (1976). American graffiti: Effects of authority and reactance arousal. Personality &

Social Psychology Bulletin, 2(3), 264–267.

14.3 Working With Others: The Costs and Benefits of Social Groups L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

1. Summarize the advantages and disadvantages of working together in groups to perform tasks and make decisions.

2. Review the factors that can increase group productivity.

Just as our primitive ancestors lived together in small social groups, including families, tribes,

and clans, people today still spend a great deal of time in groups. We study together in study

groups, we work together on production lines, and we decide the fates of others in courtroom

juries. We work in groups because groups can be beneficial. A rock band that is writing a new

song or a surgical team in the middle of a complex operation may coordinate their efforts so well

that it is clear that the same outcome could never have occurred if the individuals had worked

alone. But group performance will only be better than individual performance to the extent that

the group members are motivated to meet the group goals, effectively share information, and

efficiently coordinate their efforts. Because these things do not always happen, group

performance is almost never as good as we would expect, given the number of individuals in the

group, and may even in some cases be inferior to that which could have been made by one or

more members of the group working alone.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 53

Working in Front of Others: Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition

In an early social psychological study, Norman Triplett (1898) [1]

found that bicycle racers who

were competing with other bicyclers on the same track rode significantly faster than bicyclers

who were racing alone, against the clock. This led Triplett to hypothesize that people perform

tasks better when there are other people present than they do when they are alone. Subsequent

findings validated Triplett’s results, and experiments have shown that the presence of others can

increase performance on many types of tasks, including jogging, shooting pool, lifting weights,

and solving problems (Bond & Titus, 1983). [2]

The tendency to perform tasks better or faster in

the presence of others is known as social facilitation.

However, although people sometimes perform better when they are in groups than they do alone,

the situation is not that simple. Perhaps you remember an experience when you performed a task

(playing the piano, shooting basketball free throws, giving a public presentation) very well alone

but poorly with, or in front of, others. Thus it seems that the conclusion that being with others

increases performance cannot be entirely true. The tendency to perform tasks more poorly or

more slowly in the presence of others is known as social inhibition.

Robert Zajonc (1965) [3]

explained the observed influence of others on task performance using

the concept of physiological arousal. According to Zajonc, when we are with others we

experience more arousal than we do when we are alone, and this arousal increases the likelihood

that we will perform thedominant response, the action that we are most likely to emit in any

given situation (Figure 14.15 "Drive-Arousal Model of Social Facilitation").

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 54

Figure 14.15 Drive-Arousal Model of Social Facilitation

The most important aspect of Zajonc’s theory was that the experience of arousal and the

resulting increase in the occurrence of the dominant response could be used to predict whether

the presence of others would produce social facilitation or social inhibition. Zajonc argued that

when the task to be performed was relatively easy, or if the individual had learned to perform the

task very well (a task such as pedaling a bicycle), the dominant response was likely to be the

correct response, and the increase in arousal caused by the presence of others would create social

facilitation. On the other hand, when the task was difficult or not well learned (a task such as

giving a speech in front of others), the dominant response is likely to be the incorrect one, and

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 55

thus, because the increase in arousal increases the occurrence of the (incorrect) dominant

response, performance is hindered.

A great deal of experimental research has now confirmed these predictions. A meta-analysis by

Bond and Titus (1983), [4]

which looked at the results of over 200 studies using over 20,000

research participants, found that the presence of others significantly increased the rate of

performing on simple tasks, and also decreased both rate and quality of performance on complex

tasks.

Although the arousal model proposed by Zajonc is perhaps the most elegant, other explanations

have also been proposed to account for social facilitation and social inhibition. One modification

argues that we are particularly influenced by others when we perceive that the others are

evaluating us or competing with us (Baron, 1986). [5]

In one study supporting this idea, Strube,

Miles, and Finch (1981) [6]

found that the presence of spectators increased joggers’ speed only

when the spectators were facing the joggers, so that the spectators could see the joggers and

assess their performance. The presence of others did not influence joggers’ performance when

the joggers were facing in the other direction and thus could not see them.

Working Together in Groups

The ability of a group to perform well is determined by the characteristics of the group members

(e.g., are they knowledgeable and skilled?) as well as by the group process—that is, the events

that occur while the group is working on the task. When the outcome of group performance is

better than we would expect given the individuals who form the group, we call the outcome

a group process gain, and when the group outcome is worse than we would have expected given

the individuals who form the group, we call the outcome a group process loss.

One group process loss that may occur in groups is that the group members may engage

in social loafing, a group process loss that occurs when people do not work as hard in a group

as they do when they are working alone. In one of the earliest social psychology experiments,

Ringelmann (1913; reported in Kravitz & Martin, 1986) [7]

had individual men, as well as groups

of various numbers of men, pull as hard as they could on ropes while he measured the maximum

amount that they were able to pull. As you can see in Figure 14.16 "Group Process Loss",

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 56

although larger groups pulled harder than any one individual, Ringelmann also found a

substantial process loss. In fact, the loss was so large that groups of three men pulled at only 85%

of their expected capability, whereas groups of eight pulled at only 37% of their expected

capability. This type of process loss, in which group productivity decreases as the size of the

group increases, has been found to occur on a wide variety of tasks.

Figure 14.16 Group Process Loss

Ringlemann found that although more men pulled harder on a rope than fewer men did, there was a substantial

process loss in comparison to what would have been expected on the basis of their individual performances.

Group process losses can also occur when group members conform to each other rather than

expressing their own divergent ideas. Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group

made up of members who may be very competent and thus quite capable of making excellent

decisions nevertheless ends up, as a result of a flawed group process and strong conformity

pressures, making a poor decision (Baron, 2005; Janis, 2007). [8]

Groupthink is more likely to

occur in groups whose members feel a strong group identity, when there is a strong and directive

leader, and when the group needs to make an important decision quickly. The problem is that

groups suffering from groupthink become unwilling to seek out or discuss discrepant or

unsettling information about the topic at hand, and the group members do not express

contradictory opinions. Because the group members are afraid to express opinions that contradict

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 57

those of the leader, or to bring in outsiders who have other information, the group is prevented

from making a fully informed decision. Figure 14.17 "Causes and Outcomes of Groupthink"

summarizes the basic causes and outcomes of groupthink.

Figure 14.17 Causes and Outcomes of Groupthink

It has been suggested that groupthink was involved in a number of well-known and important,

but very poor, decisions made by government and business groups, including the decision to

invade Iraq made by President Bush and his advisors in 2002, the crashes of two Space Shuttle

missions in 1986 and 2003, and the decision of President John Kennedy and his advisors to

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 58

commit U.S. forces to help invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro in 1962. Analyses of the

decision-making processes in these cases have documented the role of conformity pressures.

As a result of the high levels of conformity in these groups, the group begins to see itself as

extremely valuable and important, highly capable of making high-quality decisions, and

invulnerable. The group members begin to feel that they are superior and do not need to seek

outside information. Such a situation is conducive to terrible decision-making and resulting

fiascoes.

Psychology in Everyday Life: Do Juries Make Good Decisions?

Although many other countries rely on judges to make judgments in civil and criminal trials, the jury is the

foundation of the legal system in the United States. The notion of a “trial by one’s peers” is based on the

assumption that average individuals can make informed and fair decisions when they work together in groups.

But given the potential for group process losses, are juries really the best way to approach these important

decisions?

As a small working group, juries have the potential to produce either good or poor decisions, depending on the

outcome of the characteristics of the individual members as well as the group process. In terms of individual

group characteristics, people who have already served on juries are more likely to be seen as experts, are more

likely to be chosen to be the jury foreman, and give more input during the deliberation. It has also been found

that status matters; jury members with higher status occupations and education, males rather than females,

and those who talk first are more likely be chosen as the foreman, and these individuals also contribute more to

the jury discussion (Stasser, Kerr, & Bray, 1982). [9]

However, although at least some member characteristics have an influence on jury decision making, group

process plays a more important role in the outcome of jury decisions than do member characteristics. Like any

group, juries develop their own individual norms, and these norms can have a profound impact on how they

reach their decision. Analysis of group process within juries shows that different juries take very different

approaches to reaching a verdict. Some spend a lot of time in initial planning, whereas others immediately

jump into the deliberation. Some juries base their discussion around a review and reorganization of the

evidence, waiting to make a vote until it has all been considered, whereas other juries first determine which

decision is preferred in the group by taking a poll and then (if the first vote does not lead to a final verdict)

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 59

organize their discussion around these opinions. These two approaches are used quite equally but may in some

cases lead to different decisions (Davis, Stasson, Ono, & Zimmerman, 1988). [10]

Perhaps most importantly, conformity pressures have a strong impact on jury decision making. As you can see

in Figure 14.18 "Results From Stasser, Kerr, and Bray, 1982", when there are a greater number of jury members

who hold the majority position, it becomes more and more certain that their opinion will prevail during the

discussion. This does not mean that minorities can never be persuasive, but it is very difficult for them to do so.

The strong influence of the majority is probably due to both informational conformity (i.e., that there are more

arguments supporting the favored position) and normative conformity (the people on the majority side have

greater social influence).

Figure 14.18Results From Stasser, Kerr, and Bray, 1982

This figure shows the decisions of 6-member mock juries that made “majority rules” decisions. When the majority of

the 6 initially favored voting guilty, the jury almost always voted guilty; when the majority of the 6 initially favored

voting innocent, the jury almost always voted innocent. The juries were frequently hung (could not make a decision)

when the initial split was 3–3.

Source: Adapted from Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations:

Structure, process and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256).

New York, NY: Academic Press.

Given the potential difficulties that groups face in making good decisions, you might be worried that the

verdicts rendered by juries may not be particularly effective, accurate, or fair. However, despite these concerns,

the evidence suggests that juries may not do as badly as we would expect. The deliberation process seems to

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 60

cancel out many individual juror biases, and the importance of the decision leads the jury members to carefully

consider the evidence itself.

Using Groups Effectively

Taken together, working in groups has both positive and negative outcomes. On the positive

side, it makes sense to use groups to make decisions because people can create outcomes

working together that any one individual could not hope to accomplish alone. In addition, once a

group makes a decision, the group will normally find it easier to get other people to implement it,

because many people feel that decisions made by groups are fairer than are those made by

individuals.

Yet groups frequently succumb to process losses, leading them to be less effective than they

should be. Furthermore, group members often don’t realize that the process losses are occurring

around them. For instance, people who participate in brainstorming groups report that they have

been more productive than those who work alone, even if the group has actually not done that

well (Nijstad, Stroebe, Lodewijkx, 2006; Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1992). [11]

The

tendency for group members to overvalue the productivity of the groups they work in is known as

theillusion of group productivity, and it seems to occur for several reasons. For one, the

productivity of the group as a whole is highly accessible, and this productivity generally seems

quite good, at least in comparison to the contributions of single individuals. The group members

hear many ideas expressed by themselves and the other group members, and this gives the

impression that the group is doing very well, even if objectively it is not. And, on the affective

side, group members receive a lot of positive social identity from their group memberships.

These positive feelings naturally lead them to believe that the group is strong and performing

well.

What we need to do, then, is to recognize both the strengths and limitations of group

performance and use whatever techniques we can to increase process gains and reduce process

losses. Table 14.5 "Techniques That Can Be Used to Improve Group Performance" presents

some of the techniques that are known to help groups achieve their goals.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 61

Table 14.5 Techniques That Can Be Used to Improve Group Performance

Technique Example

Provide rewards for

performance.

Rewarding employees and team members with bonuses will increase their effort toward the group goal.

People will also work harder in groups when they feel that they are contributing to the group goal than

when they feel that their contributions are not important.

Keep group member

contributions

identifiable.

Group members will work harder if they feel that their contributions to the group are known and

potentially seen positively by the other group members than they will if their contributions are summed

into the group total and thus unknown (Szymanski & Harkins, 1987).

Maintain distributive

justice (equity).

Workers who feel that their rewards are proportional to their efforts in the group will be happier and

work harder than will workers who feel that they are underpaid (Geurts, Buunk, & Schaufeli, 1994).

Keep groups small.

Larger groups are more likely to suffer from coordination problems and social loafing. The most

effective working groups are of relatively small size—about four or five members.

Create positive group

norms.

Group performance is increased when the group members care about the ability of the group to do a

good job (e.g., a cohesive sports or military team). On the other hand, some groups develop norms that

prohibit members from working to their full potential and thus encourage loafing.

Improve information

sharing.

Leaders must work to be sure that each member of the group is encouraged to present the information

that he or she has in group discussions. One approach to increasing full discussion of the issues is to

have the group break up into smaller subgroups for discussion.

Allow plenty of time.

Groups take longer to reach consensus, and allowing plenty of time will help keep the group from

coming to premature consensus and making an unwise choice. Time to consider the issues fully also

allows the group to gain new knowledge by seeking information and analysis from outside experts.

Set specific and

attainable goals.

Groups that set specific, difficult, yet attainable goals (e.g., “improve sales by 10% over the next 6

months”) are more effective than groups that are given goals that are not very clear (e.g., “let’s sell as

much as we can!”; Locke & Latham, 2006).

Sources: Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social

standard. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 53(5), 891–897; Geurts, S. A., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W.

B. (1994). Social comparisons and absenteeism: A structural modeling approach.Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 24(21), 1871–1890; Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting

theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 62

K E Y T A K E A W A Y S

 The performance of working groups is almost never as good as we would expect, given the number of individuals in

the group, and in some cases may even be inferior to the performance of one or more members of the group working

alone.

 The tendency to perform tasks better or faster in the presence of others is known as social facilitation. The tendency

to perform tasks more poorly or more slowly in the presence of others is known as social inhibition.

 The ability of a group to perform well is determined by the characteristics of the group members as well as by the

events that occur in the group itself—the group process.

 One group process loss that may occur in groups is that the group members may engage in social loafing. Group

process losses can also occur as a result of groupthink, when group members conform to each other rather than

expressing their own divergent ideas.

 Taken together, working in groups has both positive and negative outcomes. It is important to recognize both the

strengths and limitations of group performance and use whatever techniques we can to increase process gains and

reduce process losses.

E X E R C I S E A N D C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G

1. Consider a time when you worked together with others in a group. Do you think the group experienced group process

gains or group process losses? If the latter, what might you do now in a group to encourage effective group

performance?

[1] Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition.American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507–

533.

[2] Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292.

[3] Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

[4] Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94(2), 265–292.

[5] Baron, R. (1986). Distraction/conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 19). New York, NY: Academic Press.

[6] Strube, M. J., Miles, M. E., & Finch, W. H. (1981). The social facilitation of a simple task: Field tests of alternative

explanations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4), 701–707.

[7] Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 50, 936–941.

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 63

[8] Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. In M. P.

Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 219–253). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press; Janis, I.

L. (2007). Groupthink. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in

organizations (2nd ed., pp. 157–169). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

[9] Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process and product. In N.

L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221–256). New York, NY: Academic Press.

[10] Davis, J. H., Stasson, M. F., Ono, K., & Zimmerman, S. (1988). Effects of straw polls on group decision making: Sequential

voting pattern, timing, and local majorities. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 55(6), 918–926.

[11] Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2006). The illusion of group productivity: A reduction of failures

explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 31–48; Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion

of group effectivity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650.

14.4 Chapter Summary

Social psychology is the scientific study of how we feel about, think about, and behave toward

the other people around us, and how those people influence our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.

A fundamental principle of social psychology is that although we may not always be aware of it,

our cognitions, emotions, and behaviors are substantially influenced by the people with whom

we are interacting.

Our initial judgments of others are based in large part on what we see. The physical features of

other people—particularly their sex, race, age, and physical attractiveness—are very salient, and

we often focus our attention on these dimensions. At least in some cases, people can draw

accurate conclusions about others on the basis of physical appearance.

Youth, symmetry, and averageness have been found to be cross-culturally consistent

determinants of perceived attractiveness, although different cultures may also have unique

beliefs about what is attractive.

We frequently use people’s appearances to form our judgments about them, and these judgments

may lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. We use our stereotypes and prejudices in

part because they are easy and we may be evolutionarily disposed to stereotyping. We can

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 64

change and learn to avoid using them through positive interaction with members of other groups,

practice, and education.

Liking and loving in friendships and close relationships are determined by variables including

similarity, disclosure, proximity, intimacy, interdependence, commitment, passion, and

responsiveness.

Causal attribution is the process of trying to determine the causes of people’s behavior.

Attributions may be made to the person, to the situation, or to a combination of both. Although

people are reasonably accurate in their attributions, they may make self-serving attributions and

fall victim to the fundamental attribution error.

Attitudes refer to our relatively enduring evaluations of people and things. Attitudes are

important because they frequently (but not always) predict behavior. Attitudes can be changed

through persuasive communications. Attitudes predict behavior better for some people than for

others, and in some situations more than others.

Our behaviors also influence our attitudes through the cognitive processes of self-perception and

the more emotional process of cognitive dissonance.

The tendency to help others in need is in part a functional evolutionary adaptation. We help

others to benefit ourselves and to benefit the others. Reciprocal altruism leads us to help others

now with the expectation those others will return the favor should we need their help in the

future. The outcome of the reinforcement and modeling of altruism is the development of social

norms about helping, including the reciprocity norm and the social responsibility norm. Latané

and Darley’s model of helping proposes that the presence of others can reduce noticing,

interpreting, and responding to emergencies.

Aggression may be physical or nonphysical. Aggression is activated in large part by the

amygdala and regulated by the prefrontal cortex. Testosterone is associated with increased

aggression in both males and females. Aggression is also caused by negative experiences and

emotions, including frustration, pain, and heat. As predicted by principles of observational

Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 65

learning, research evidence makes it very clear that, on average, people who watch violent

behavior become more aggressive.

The social norm that condones and even encourages responding to insults with aggression,

known as the culture of honor, is stronger among men who live or were raised in the South and

West than among men who are from or living in the North and East.

We conform not only because we believe that other people have accurate information and we

want to have knowledge (informational conformity) but also because we want to be liked by

others (normative conformity). The typical outcome of conformity is that our beliefs and

behaviors become more similar to those of others around us. Studies demonstrating the power of

conformity include those by Sherif and Asch, and Milgram’s work on obedience.

Although majorities are most persuasive, numerical minorities that are consistent and confident

in their opinions may in some cases be able to be persuasive.

The tendency to perform tasks better or faster in the presence of others is known as social

facilitation, whereas the tendency to perform tasks more poorly or more slowly in the presence of

others is known as social inhibition. Zajonc explained the influence of others on task

performance using the concept of physiological arousal.

Working in groups involves both costs and benefits. When the outcome of group performance is

better than we would expect given the individuals who form the group, we call the outcome a

group process gain, and when the group outcome is worse that we would have expected given

the individuals who form the group, we call the outcome a group process loss.

Process losses are observed in phenomena such as social loafing, groupthink. Process losses can

be reduced by better motivation and coordination among the group members, by keeping

contributions identifiable, and by providing difficult but attainable goals.