Scientific Inquiry - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

Scientific Inquiry

Description:

Actions of individuals belonging to one group when they interact, collectively ... efficient organization of information about people based on their membership in ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:18
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: eliza77
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Scientific Inquiry


1
Social Psychology
2
Types of Social Influence
  • Compliance
  • ? tendency to agree to do things requested by
    others
  • Conformity
  • Obedience

3
Conformity
  • The altering of ones behavior to match those of
    others
  • Normative social influence ? people conform to
    social norms (i.e., expected standards of
    conduct)
  • Informational social influence ? look to others
    for information about how to respond in specific
    situations

4
Normative Social Influence
5
Informational Social Influence
6
In-group Inter-group Relations
  • In-group
  • The group to which we belong
  • Share similar values, beliefs, and goals
  • Through interaction, develop group norms that
    govern behavior
  • Involves strong sense of commitment to and
    preference for the group and, by extension, its
    members
  • Out-group
  • Those groups to which we do not belong

7
In-group Inter-group Relations
  • Inter-group relations
  • Functional relationships between two or more
    groups and their respective members
  • Inter-group behavior
  • Actions of individuals belonging to one group
    when they interact, collectively or individually,
    with another group or its members in terms of
    their group membership

8
In-group Inter-group Relations
  • Stereotypes
  • Schemas that allow for easy and efficient
    organization of information about people based on
    their membership in certain groups
  • Prejudice
  • Affective response associated with stereotypes
    usually involves negative judgments about people
    based on their group membership
  • Discrimination
  • inappropriate or unjustified treatment of people
    based solely on their group membership

9
Sherif Sherif (1969)
  • Study of
  • In-group/ Out-group formation
  • Inter-group relationships/ conflict
  • Reduction of inter-group conflict

10
Sherif Sherif (1969)
  • Participants
  • Relatively homogenous sample of 11-12 year old
    boys at two isolated summer camps
  • Summer camps completely at the disposal of the
    research team

11
In-group Formation
  • Spontaneous Interpersonal Choices
  • All boys arrived at the same time and were housed
    together in one large bunkhouse
  • Sociometric choices asked to indicate who was
    their best friend
  • Arbitrary division into two groups
  • Split into two equal groups housed in separate
    cabins
  • About 2/3rd of best friends were separated

12
Results
Before Arbitrary Split
After Arbitrary Split
13
In-group Formation
  • Matched groups on specified criteria
  • Boys divided into two, roughly equal, groups
    based on size and skills
  • Exp. III ? two groups of boys arrived on separate
    buses and were unaware of one another until the
    next study stage

14
Conclusions
  • Cooperative activities aimed toward desirable
    goals is sufficient for in-group formation
  • Hierarchy is established
  • Norms develop
  • In-groups form even when there is no awareness of
    an out-group

15
Inter-Group Conflict
  • Win-Lose competition
  • Tournament involving a series of team
    competitions
  • Winning team received a trophy and each
    individual member won highly desirable prizes
  • Planned frustration of In-groups
  • Frustrating situation for one group that was
    planned by staff so that it appeared to be caused
    by the other group

16
Results
  • Sustained competition toward goals that each
    group desired, but only one could achieve
    resulted in
  • An increase in in-group solidarity and pride
    (especially among the winning group)
  • Hostility and aggression toward the out-group,
    which continued to escalate over time
  • Social distance between groups that was justified
    by negative images (stereotypes) of and prejudice
    toward the out-groups

17
Inter-group Cooperation
  • Phase I ? Series of situations involving contact
    between groups but no interdependence
  • E.g., going to the movies eating in the same
    dining room
  • Result ? served as opportunities to express
    hostility and aggression

18
Inter-group Cooperation
  • Phase II? Have both groups work together toward
    superordinate goals
  • Superordinate goals ? goals that have high appeal
    for both groups but that neither group can
    accomplish alone
  • Result ? Cooperation on a series of superordinate
    goals resulted in a decrease in hostility and
    sociometric choices that transcended group status

19
Why do people conform to group norms?Why do
people violate larger societal norms and personal
standards?
  • DISPOSITION OR SITUATION?

20
Why do People Conform?
  • Self ? mental representation of ones personal
    experience conscious recognition that one is
    separate and unique from others
  • Self-awareness? A state when the sense of self is
    the object of awareness
  • Social comparison ? when the self is evaluated in
    contrast to others
  • Impression management ? how we exhibit our
    personal characteristics before an audience

21
Why do People Violate Norms?
  • Anonymity ? when ones identity will not be known
  • i.e., individual cannot be held accountable for
    his/her actions
  • Deindividuation ? when people are not self-aware
    and therefore do not attend to their own personal
    standards or those of the larger society

22
Bystander Apathy
  • Bystander apathy ? failure to offer help by those
    who observe someone in need
  • Diffusion of responsibility expectation that
    others will offer assistance
  • E.g., Kitty Genovese

23
Stanford Prisoner and Guard Experiment
  • Phillip Zimbardo

24
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • 22 male students from Stanford University
  • Extensively screened selected those who were
    most mature and least involved in antisocial
    behavior
  • Randomly assigned to be either a prisoner or a
    prison guard

25
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • Uniforms
  • Guards? Plain khaki shirts and trousers, a
    whistle, police night stick, and reflecting
    sunglasses
  • Prisoners ? loose fitting smock with ID number,
    no underwear, light chain and lock on one ankle,
    rubber sandals and a nylon stocking cap

26
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • Guards
  • Became more deprecating as time progressed
  • Did not inflict physical harm but did engage in
    verbal abuse
  • Planned privileges were never allowed
  • Often withheld bathroom visits and meals instead
    used these as rewards for good behavior
  • Punishment became more extreme over time

27
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • Prisoners
  • Increasingly expressed intentions to do harm to
    others or self
  • 5 out of 9 were released because of extreme
    emotional reactions (Depression, crying, rage,
    and acute anxiety)
  • Of the remaining prisoners, only two were
    unwilling to forfeit their compensation in order
    to be paroled

28
Key Points
  • Prison Guards
  • Deindividuated
  • wearing uniform
  • perception of being unobserved lead to worse
    treatment of prisoners
  • Complete power over another individual
  • Power is rewarding those with power had high
    status and respect
  • All demands were followed unquestioningly or
    could be met with sanctions
  • Sense of power intensified in situations of threat

29
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • Pathology of Power
  • Being a guard carried with it social status and
    above all, the freedom to exercise an
    unprecedented degree of control over the lives of
    other human beings. (pp. 13-14)

30
Key Points
  • Prisoners
  • Deindividuated -- Loss of personal identity
  • Loss of control leading to learned helplessness
  • Learned helplessness when in a situation where
    punishment is uncontrollable, exhibit depression
    and passivity i.e., they learned to be helpless
  • Dependent on guards for most basic needs
  • Emasculation
  • Dressed in smocks with no undergarments
  • Independence or rebellion quickly severely
    punished

31
Prisoner Guard Experiment
  • Pathological Prisoner Syndrome
  • At first they exhibited disbelief at the total
    invasion of privacy Their next response was
    rebellion They then tried to work within the
    system by setting up an elected grievance
    committee When that failed, individual
    self-interests emerged leading to social
    disintegration which gave rise to feelings of
    isolation half the prisoners coped by becoming
    sick as a passive way of demanding attention
    and help. As the days wore on, the model prisoner
    reaction was one of passivity, dependence, and
    flattened affect.

32
Obedience
  • The tendency to follow orders given by a
    legitimate authority
  • E.g., Stanley Milgrams work

33
Obedience
  • Showed obvious signs of tension (nervous
    laughter)
  • Psychiatrists predicted that fewer than 1 would
    deliver all of the shocks
  • However, 50 delivered all of the shocks

34
  • Distance of victim another room or in the same
    room subject had to place hand on shock plate
    negative correlation between distance between
    subject and victim and of shocks give
  • Distance of experimenter obedience dropped
    sharply as experimenter was distant than when
    close (psychological distance)
  • Less obedience in bridgeport than at yale
  • When with defectors 90 broke off.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com