lecture 2 - what is social psychology? Flashcards
we like to spend time with others - Larson et al 1982
- Paged teenagers and adults at random points during the day for a week.
- After each page, participants wrote whether they were alone or with others.
- Taylor, Peplau & Sears (2006) – p. 234
The study was actually research about feelings of loneliness, but the results incidentally gave some nice insights into the amount of time we spent with others.
what is social psychology?
our behaviour affects the way others think, feel and act and in turn their behaviour affects our thoughts feeling and actions. human interaction structures the norms, conventions and institutions that make up the societies we live in
social psychology definition 1 allport
- “The scientific investigation of how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviour of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.”
(Allport, 1954, p. 5)
the emphasis here is on whether the presence of others has to be actual or just imagined or implied
emphasis scientific method
focuses on the individual - understanding the reasons individuals out the way they do in social situations
social psychology definition 2 - smith and Mackie
“the scientific study of the effects of social and cognitive processes on the way individuals perceive, influence, and relate to others.”
(Smith & Mackie, 2015, p. 3)
cognitive and social processes are limited and mutually influencing.
emphasis scientific method
focuses on the individual - understanding the reasons individuals out the way they do in social situations
common sense vs scientific study
- Knowledge based on personal experience vs. Systematic knowledge gathering
○ Objective, based on logical analysis- Scientific method
○ Theory:
A set of propositions to describe certain phenomena
E.g., statement about causal relation between constructs
○ Experimental research:
Random assignment of people into groups, followed by systematic manipulation and measurement of constructs
- Scientific method
similar others (not opposites) tend to attract eg Byrne 1971 and White 1980
similarity encourages positive interaction over common interests
(e.g., Insko & Wilson, 1977)
2. Similar others validate our beliefs and attitudes
(Byrne, 1971)
Normative influence
(e.g., Deutsch & Gerard, 1955
theories of attraction
Martin (2019): pp. 705-706
- White (1980): Similarity in attractiveness predicts relationship success
- Byrne (1971; 1997): Linear relation between attitude similarity and attraction (law of attraction)
- Montoya et al. (2008; 2013): meta-analyses confirm that similarity and attraction are positively associated.
criticism of Byrne 1971
Condon and Crano 1988 crticised Byrne 1971 - Partial correlational analyses demonstrated that the similarity–attraction relation was mediated by subjects’ inferences of the stranger’s evaluation of them; holding inferred evaluation constant strongly attenuated the similarity–attraction association. Moreover, the inferred evaluation–attraction relation was unaffected when attitude similarity was partialed from it
complementarity in relationship
Need complementarity: in more developed relationships complementarity may become important, satisfying our needs.
interpersonal attraction - similarity
- in looks, interests and attitudes
- couples tend to be similar in attractiveness so couples who are mismatched in this respect are most likely to break up - white 1980
- couples also tend to have similar opinions
- byrne 1971 confirmed the important role of attitude similarity in relationships - results = reliable and consistent so byrne formed a ‘law of attraction’ - attraction towards a person has a linear relationship to the proportion of attitudes associated with the person - the more that other people agree with you, the more reinforcing they are and the greater your attraction to them
- age similarity, occupational status and ethnic background
- friends tend to have similar backgrounds and attitudes
- liking can sometimes reset on dissimilarity - winch 1958 suggested under some circumstances, particularly in more developed relationships, people seek others who have different qualities from ourselves and who can most satisfy our needs - we need complementarity
jenness (1932)
Jenness (1932) conducted one of the earliest experiments examining conformity.
He used an ambiguous situation that involved a glass bottle filled with 811 white beans. His sample consisted of 101 psychology students, who individually estimated how many beans the glass bottle contained. Participants were then divided into groups of three and asked to provide a group estimate through discussion. Following the discussion, the participants were provided with another opportunity individually estimate the number of beans, to see if they changed their original answer.
focus on the individual - three levels of analysis
works in a circle
thoughts -> feelings -> behaviour
For example - stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination
social processes - Bateson, Nettle and Roberts (2006) -
Study conducted in a psych department coffee room
- Option to pay for tea and coffee (notice)
- Banner - eyes or flowers alternated each week
- Recorded the amount of money collected (DVC)
- In weeks where a pair of eyes were displayed, people paid almost three times more
Implied presence of others increases pro-social behaviour
fundamental principles of social psychology - smith and mackie 2015
- People construct their own reality
Perception and understanding of social world is shaped by
Cognitive processes
(memories, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, motives)
Social processes (culture, socialisation) - Social influence pervades all social life
Others influence our thoughts, feelings and behaviours, whether they are present or not
summary part 1
- cognitive and social processes shape our experience of and reaction to the social world
The power of the (social) situation
History - social psychology as an empirical science
- Triplett (1898)
○ Cyclists race faster when competing against others than when alone
○ Children turned fishing reels faster when competing with another child than when alone.
- Graduate student at Indiana University
- Observed that (amongst others) cyclists race faster when competing than when alone
- Reviewed various theories that may explain this:
In particular “dynamogenic factors:” Presence arouses competitive instincts that release nervous energy.
- Constructed an elaborate competition machine and measurement device to test this hypothesis.
- Observed that children indeed reeled in a fishing line faster when in the presence of others. - Concluded competition increases effort and motivation
history - social facilitation and inhibition
Social facilitation and inhibition
* Social facilitation is the tendency to perform better in the presence of others than when alone. Occurs when task is simple or behaviour is well- learned.
Social inhibition is the tendency to perform worse in the presence of others than when alone. Occurs when task is complex or behaviour is not well-learned. eg triplett found some children were ‘overstimulated’ so lost control.
social facilitation
the enhancement of a persons performance by the presence of other people
triplett 1897
people performed simple tasks eg turning a crank on a fishing reel. ptps turned crank faster and for longer if other people present.
if task is difficult and complex the presence of an audience impaired the ptps performance
proline 2004
we laugh most with others = 30x more likely
Micheals et al (1982)
Watched pool players in a student billiards hall and classified the players as being either high or low in ability. Next a group of four confederates approached the players and watched them closely during several rounds of play. The close observation caused the shot accuracy to increase markedly for the good players (71% to 80%) while dropping for the poor players (36% to 25%). Whether the presence of others enhances or deteriorates performance depends on how well - learned the behaviour is.
zajonc (1965) - the role of arousal
Arousal facilitates dominant responses. Dominant responses are correct on simple and well-learned tasks, but tend to be incorrect on complex and unfamiliar tasks.
Presence of other people serves as a source of arousal, and this should enhance performance on simple and well-learned tasks and reduce it on complex and unfamiliar tasks.
the presence of people watching a performer raises a persons arousal level and produces ‘drives’. inc in arousal = inc probability of performing dominant responses - responses that are best learned and most likely to occur in a particular situation . when task is simple the dominant response is generally the correct one so an audience improves performance. when task is difficult the dominant response is generally not the correct one so an audience impairs performance.
Martens 1969
ptps performed a complex motor task alone or in the presence of 10 people the experimenter determined physiological arousal measuring the amount of sweat present on the ptps palms. the ptps who performed in front of other people had sweatier palms.
markus 1978
ptps undressed and dress up in either their own clothes (easy) or unfamilar clothes involving a special lab coat and shoes (difficult). some ptps did it alone and some were watched. those watched were faster on easy task and slow on hard - support
