5 Steps to a 5 AP Psychology, 2010-2011 Edition (69 page)

Social cognition
refers to the way people gather, use, and interpret information about the social aspects of the world around them. Theorists believe that everyone tries to figure out why people act the way that they do.
Attribution
theory accounts for why people behave the way they do. You probably credit either internal characteristics such as personality and intelligence (
dispositional attributions
) or environmental factors (
situational attributions
) to explain why you or another person acted in a particular way.

When evaluating our own behavior, we tend to show a
self-serving bias,
which means we attribute our achievements and successes to personal stable causes (dispositional attributes) and our failures to situational factors. If our group gets a good grade on a project, we are inclined to overestimate our contributions to the project. Unfortunately, we don’t tend to be as generous when evaluating the behavior of others. The
fundamental attribution error
is our tendency to underestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the impact of dispositional (personal) factors when assessing why other people acted the way they did. We are more likely to believe another student is lazy or stupid when he/she makes a low grade on a test than to look for situational causes, like the recent death of a pet, to explain the grade. When judging others, we tend to make more personal stable attributions while, when judging ourselves, we tend to look at situational constraints, particularly when dealing with our foolish or negative actions. The
actor–observer bias
is the tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and the behavior of others to personal causes. This can lead us to believe that people get what they deserve—the
just-world phenomenon.
As an extension of this concept, we tend to blame the victim of a crime such as rape.

Our attitudes about others can also have a dramatic impact upon their behavior.
Self-fulfilling prophecy
is a tendency to let our preconceived
expectations
of others influence how we treat them and, thus, bring about the very behavior we expected to come true. In the famous Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobsen “bloomer study,” teachers told to expect certain students to get smart during the year actually treated those kids differently, and as a result, the expectation became the reality. Kids who were expected to do well did, but largely because they were treated differently by their teachers. The ethical dilemma in this experiment, however, concerns those students not expected to “bloom.” Many point to the differences in minority achievement in our school systems as a result of lowered expectations for these students. The lowered expectations of teachers for minority students leads to perhaps unintentional differential treatment, which then results in poorer performance. Poorer grades fulfill the expectations that they were less capable in the first place.

As we learned in the unit on cognition, we form concepts by organizing people and objects in categories or groups. Categorizing people leads to our perception of in-groups and out-groups.
In-groups
are groups of which we are members, and
out-groups
are groups to which we do not belong. We tend to favor our own groups, attributing more favorable qualities to “us” (in-group favoritism), and attributing more negative qualities to “them” (out-group derogation). Social psychologists have studied ethnic and racial tensions, searching for causes and potential solutions. If we can halt the more negative tendencies of conflict, and increase cooperation, we will lessen social problems.

Prejudice
is defined as an unjustified negative attitude an individual has for another, based solely on that person’s membership in a different racial or ethnic group.
Discrimination
occurs when those prejudiced attitudes result in unjustified behavior toward members of that group. Both often arise as a result of
stereotypes,
or mental schemas society attributes uncritically to these different groups. Most are unaware of how these damaging images can lead to both negative attitudes and treatment of others (like the self-fulfilling prophecy
explained above). Stereotypes about Jews, Blacks, Italians, the rich, or cheerleaders lie dormant in our thought patterns and can easily lead to attitudes and behavior we would label prejudicial and discriminatory.

Scapegoat theory
offers one possible explanation for these unjustified attitudes and behaviors. A classic example of this is Hitler’s use of the Jews during Nazi Germany. When our self-worth is in doubt or in jeopardy, we become frustrated and tend to find others to blame. Hitler was able to whip up negative attitudes toward Jews (scapegoats) as a result of the frustration Germans felt about the humiliating defeat and reparations after World War I.
Ethnocentrism
is the basic belief that our culture is superior to others. This can easily lead to an in-group/out-group belief system based on limited information about others.
Out-group homogeneity
is a tendency to believe all members of another group are more similar than is true. Hitler increased German pride (ethnocentrism) by suggesting Aryan superiority and blaming all problems on the out-group—scapegoated Jews. Since all Jews were thought to be similar, atrocities during the Holocaust could temporarily be justified.

What solutions can social psychologists offer to turn group conflict into group cooperation and lessen tensions between different groups?
Contact theory
proposes that equal status contact between antagonistic groups should lower tension and increase harmony. Muzafer
Sherif
showed in his classic boys’ camp study that by creating a
superordinate goal
(an emergency situation that required joint cooperation of both groups to solve), conflicting groups could lessen their feelings of hostility and get rid of some of the stereotypes that lack of knowledge of the other group had created. Sherif’s camp consisted of 20 boys divided into two groups of 10. Each group bonded together for a week and engaged in competitive games against the other group. In-group solidarity developed among those in the separated groups and intergroup conflict arose from the competitive games between the groups. Fights between the groups outside of the competitions became increasingly more hostile. By creating the superodinate goal, the boys cooperated together and their prior prejudices disappeared.

Integration of public schools established by the Supreme Court in 1954 was based on this same premise. When Texas decided to end segregation of Mexican American children and integrate previously all-Anglo schools, ethnic tensions immediately arose. Elliott Aronson and Alex Gonzalez devised the
jigsaw classroom
based on contact theory. Elementary school teachers broke their classrooms into a number of diverse
expert groups
that all learned one part of a lesson. Next individuals from each expert group met with others in the
jigsaw group.
In order to learn the entire lesson, students were dependent upon each other. Their equal status was based on the “expert” knowledge of information not held by others. Stereotypes about inferior Mexican children disappeared as the self-concept and performance of these children improved and this experiment in group cooperation proved successful. Industrial-organizational psychologists can play roles in hiring, team-building, and providing a work/learning environment that helps people increase their productivity by applying social psychology concepts.

In friendships, proximity is the primary determinant of who will initially become friends. Long distance romances can continue, but it is more likely that one of the pair will become attracted to someone he/she sees every day. The
mere exposure effect
explains some of this. The more we come into contact with someone, the more likely we are to like that person. Certainly
physical attractiveness
is also a major factor. Most consider the “beautiful” people
to be more socially skilled than less attractive others. Studies show that friends usually are rated very similarly in physical attractiveness.
Similarity
of interests and social background is also likely to determine who becomes friends. Another factor is utilitarian value or complementary needs. If you are less skilled at some activity, getting to know someone who can help you improve in that skill can form the basis of friendship.

Solomon Asch set up a laboratory experiment using deception and confederates to determine what factors were involved in individual decisions to conform with a group decision. Asch instructed subjects to choose which of three lines was the same length as the original line shown. Each subject was on a panel with other “subjects” (Asch confederates) who all initially gave the same wrong answers. Approximately 35% of the real subjects chose to give an obviously wrong but conforming choice. Asch found that the greatest amount of conformity by subjects came when the confederates all gave the same wrong answer. If even one confederate voiced a different judgment, however, the subject was released from the conformity effect. During the debriefing sessions, subjects attributed their conformity to confusion about the nature of the task or doubts about what they were perceiving. Because subjects selected the correct line when allowed to vote secretly, Asch concluded that
normative social influence
resulting from a desire to gain social approval was the cause of the subjects’ behavior rather than
informational social influences
.

Individuals and groups are skilled in their ability to convince others to go along with their requests. The
foot-in-the-door
phenomenon is a tendency to comply with a large request if we have previously complied with a smaller request. John asks Mary for help with his physics problem set. If Mary agrees to help him she is much more likely to later agree to go out on a date with him.
Reciprocity
is a technique sometimes used by groups soliciting contributions. First a group member gives us a small gift like a flower or pamphlet and we politely listen to their pitch. Later when they ask for a small donation for their worthy cause, we may feel obligated to comply with that request because of the initial gift. The
low-ball technique
occurs when someone offers an initially cut-rate price, but then “ups the ante” with additional costs we assumed were included. We may decide to have expensive laser surgery from one doctor because his initial cost is so much lower than others, only to find out that required follow-up exams are not included. Finally, with the
door-in-the-face
technique, someone makes a very large request we are almost certain to refuse and follows this up with a smaller one later on. Out of guilt, we may comply with the later request.

Stanley Milgram was interested in finding out under what circumstances ordinary people could be influenced to inflict harm upon others. Milgram advertised for participants to be involved in a test of how punishment influenced learning. He had a confederate and subject flip a coin to determine who would be the “teacher” and “learner.” The participant always became the “teacher” and was told to give increasingly stronger electrical shocks to learners when they gave an incorrect answer. “Teachers” did not know that “leaners” were not actually shocked. Originally Milgram predicted that only 2% of the participants would actually go to the lethal shock level. At the conclusion of the study, 66% of the participants
actually had obeyed and gone to the upper limit. Why did this occur? “Teachers” were initially deceived about the experiment and were subjected to severe emotional distress. The highest obedience came when the experimenter was close to the “teacher” and the “learner” was further away and not visible. If the subject began to ask questions or show signs of quitting, the experimenter urged the subject to continue. Higher obedience came at Yale University than other settings, indicating that the prestige of the college and the legitimacy of the experimenter played a role in obedience. More than perhaps any other psychology experiment, the Milgram experiment led to the development of stringent ethical standards for psychological research. The powerful conclusion of this experiment is that even ordinary people who are not hostile can become agents of destruction when ordered to commit acts by someone they perceive as a legitimate authority figure.

One of the more striking ways that groups can affect us is through the shaping of our
attitudes
—or learned predispositions to respond in a favorable or unfavorable way to a specific object, person, or event. Some of our attitudes are a product of belonging to a particular culture. Through the
mere exposure effect,
we unconsciously begin to adopt the beliefs of our parents, friends, and significant others. Attitudes are relatively stable, but they are not good predictors of our behavior. Many people claim to be honest citizens, yet cheat on their income taxes or spouses.