SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT – I -Social Psychology– SPYA1301

 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

• Social psychology is the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions
and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with
others.

• It therefore looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which
social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne and Suls (1989) define social psychology as ....

'The scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social
situations’

Topics examined in social psychology include:

• the self-concept, social cognition, attribution theory, social influence, group processes, prejudice
and discrimination, interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes and stereotypes.

History of Social Psychology

• Early Influences
• Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity which allows us to live
together (an individual centered approach),

• Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through
social context (a socio-centered approach).

• Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development
of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, important in the study of social
psychology.

• Lazarus & Steinthal -focused on the idea of a collective mind. It emphasized the notion that
personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language,
which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular
social thought in the individual.

• Wundt (1900-1920) encouraged the methodology study of language and its influence on the
social being
Nonverbal Communication and Body Language

Your facial expressions, gestures, posture, and tone of voice are powerful communication tools.
Here’s how to read and use body language to build better relationships at home and work.

What is body language?

While the key to success in both personal and professional relationships lies in your ability to
communicate well, it’s not the words that you use but your nonverbal cues or “body language” that
speak the loudest. Body language is the use of physical behavior, expressions, and mannerisms to
communicate nonverbally, often done instinctively rather than consciously.

Whether you’re aware of it or not, when you interact with others, you’re continuously giving and
receiving wordless signals. All of your nonverbal behaviors—the gestures you make, your posture,
your tone of voice, how much eye contact you make—send strong messages. They can put people
at ease, build trust, and draw others towards you, or they can offend, confuse, and undermine what
you’re trying to convey. These messages don’t stop when you stop speaking either. Even when
you’re silent, you’re still communicating nonverbally.

In some instances, what comes out of your mouth and what you communicate through your body
language may be two totally different things. If you say one thing, but your body language says
something else, your listener will likely feel that you’re being dishonest. If you say “yes” while
shaking your head no, for example. When faced with such mixed signals, the listener has to choose
whether to believe your verbal or nonverbal message. Since body language is a natural,
unconscious language that broadcasts your true feelings and intentions, they’ll likely choose the
nonverbal message.

However, by improving how you understand and use nonverbal communication, you can express
what you really mean, connect better with others, and build stronger, more rewarding
relationships.

The importance of nonverbal communication

Your nonverbal communication cues—the way you listen, look, move, and react—tell the person
you’re communicating with whether or not you care, if you’re being truthful, and how well you’re
listening. When your nonverbal signals match up with the words you’re saying, they increase
trust, clarity, and rapport. When they don’t, they can generate tension, mistrust, and confusion.
 If you want to become a better communicator, it’s important to become more sensitive not only to
the body language and nonverbal cues of others, but also to your own.

Nonverbal communication can play five roles:

• Repetition: It repeats and often strengthens the message you’re making verbally.

• Contradiction: It can contradict the message you’re trying to convey, thus indicating to
your listener that you may not be telling the truth.

• Substitution: It can substitute for a verbal message. For example, your facial expression
often conveys a far more vivid message than words ever can.

• Complementing: It may add to or complement your verbal message. As a boss, if you

pat an employee on the back in addition to giving praise, it can increase the impact of your
message.

• Accenting: It may accent or underline a verbal message. Pounding the table, for
example, can underline the importance of your message.

TYPES OF NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

The many different types of nonverbal communication or body language include:

Facial expressions

The human face is extremely expressive, able to convey countless emotions without saying a
word. And unlike some forms of nonverbal communication, facial expressions are universal. The
facial expressions for happiness, sadness, anger, surprise, fear, and disgust are the same across
cultures.

Body movement and posture

Consider how your perceptions of people are affected by the way they sit, walk, stand, or hold
their head. The way you move and carry yourself communicates a wealth of information to the
world. This type of nonverbal communication includes your posture, bearing, stance, and the
subtle movements you make.
Gestures

Gestures are woven into the fabric of our daily lives. You may wave, point, beckon, or use your
hands when arguing or speaking animatedly, often expressing yourself with gestures without
thinking. However, the meaning of some gestures can be very different across cultures. While the
“OK” sign made with the hand, for example, usually conveys a positive message in English-
speaking countries, it’s considered offensive in countries such as Germany, Russia, and Brazil. So,
it’s important to be careful of how you use gestures to avoid misinterpretation.

Eye contact

Since the visual sense is dominant for most people, eye contact is an especially important type of
nonverbal communication. The way you look at someone can communicate many things,
including interest, affection, hostility, or attraction. Eye contact is also important in maintaining the
flow of conversation and for gauging the other person’s interest and response.

Touch

We communicate a great deal through touch. Think about the very different messages given by a
weak handshake, a warm bear hug, a patronizing pat on the head, or a controlling grip on the arm,
for example.

Space

Have you ever felt uncomfortable during a conversation because the other person was standing too
close and invading your space? We all have a need for physical space, although that need differs
depending on the culture, the situation, and the closeness of the relationship. You can use physical
space to communicate many different nonverbal messages, including signals of intimacy and
affection, aggression or dominance.

Voice

It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. When you speak, other people “read” your voice in
addition to listening to your words. Things they pay attention to include your timing and pace,
how loud you speak, your tone and inflection, and sounds that convey understanding, such as
“ahh” and “uh-huh.” Think about how your tone of voice can indicate sarcasm, anger, affection,
or confidence.
 HOW TO IMPROVE NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

Nonverbal communication is a rapidly flowing back-and-forth process that requires your full
focus on the moment-to-moment experience. If you’re planning what you’re going to say next,
checking your phone, or thinking about something else, you’re almost certain to miss nonverbal
cues and not fully understand the subtleties of what’s being communicated. As well as being fully
present, you can improve how you communicate nonverbally by learning to manage stress and
developing your emotional awareness.

Learn to manage stress in the moment

Stress compromises your ability to communicate. When you’re stressed out, you’re more likely to
misread other people, send confusing or off-putting nonverbal signals, and lapse into unhealthy
knee-jerk patterns of behavior. And remember: emotions are contagious. If you are upset, it is
very likely to make others upset, thus making a bad situation worse.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed by stress, take a time out. Take a moment to calm down before
you jump back into the conversation. Once you’ve regained your emotional equilibrium, you’ll feel
better equipped to deal with the situation in a positive way.

The fastest and surest way to calm yourself and manage stress in the moment is to employ your
senses—what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch—or through a soothing movement. By
viewing a photo of your child or pet, smelling a favorite scent, listening to a certain piece of music,
or squeezing a stress ball, for example, you can quickly relax and refocus. Since everyone
responds differently, you may need to experiment to find the sensory experience that works best
for you.

Develop your emotional awareness

In order to send accurate nonverbal cues, you need to be aware of your emotions and how they
influence you. You also need to be able to recognize the emotions of others and the true feelings
behind the cues they are sending. This is where emotional awareness comes in.

Being emotionally aware enables you to:

• Accurately read other people, including the emotions they’re feeling and the unspoken messages
they’re sending.

• Create trust in relationships by sending nonverbal signals that match up with your words.
• Respond in ways that show others that you understand and care.

Many of us are disconnected from our emotions—especially strong emotions such as anger,
sadness, fear—because we’ve been taught to try to shut off our feelings. But while you can deny
or numb your feelings, you can’t eliminate them. They’re still there and they’re still affecting your
behavior. By developing your emotional awareness and connecting with even the unpleasant
emotions, though, you’ll gain greater control over how you think and act.

How to read body language

Once you’ve developed your abilities to manage stress and recognize emotions, you’ll start to
become better at reading the nonverbal signals sent by others. It’s also important to:

Pay attention to inconsistencies. Nonverbal communication should reinforce what is being said.
Is the person saying one thing, but their body language conveying something else? For example,
are they telling you “yes” while shaking their head no?

Look at nonverbal communication signals as a group. Don’t read too much into a single
gesture or nonverbal cue. Consider all of the nonverbal signals you are receiving, from eye contact
to tone of voice and body language. Taken together, are their nonverbal cues consistent—or
inconsistent—with what their words are saying?

Trust your instincts. Don’t dismiss your gut feelings. If you get the sense that someone isn’t
being honest or that something isn’t adding up, you may be picking up on a mismatch between
verbal and nonverbal cues.

Evaluating nonverbal signals

Eye contact – Is the person making eye contact? If so, is it overly intense or just right?

Facial expression – What is their face showing? Is it masklike and unexpressive, or emotionally
present and filled with interest?

Tone of voice – Does the person’s voice project warmth, confidence, and interest, or is it strained
and blocked?

Posture and gesture – Is their body relaxed or stiff and immobile? Are their shoulders tense and
raised, or relaxed?

Touch – Is there any physical contact? Is it appropriate to the situation? Does it make you feel
uncomfortable?
Intensity – Does the person seem flat, cool, and disinterested, or over-the-top and melodramatic?

Timing and place – Is there an easy flow of information back and forth? Do nonverbal responses
come too quickly or too slowly?

Sounds – Do you hear sounds that indicate interest, caring or concern from the person?

How to improve nonverbal communication

Nonverbal communication is a rapidly flowing back-and-forth process that requires your full
focus on the moment-to-moment experience. If you’re planning what you’re going to say next,
checking your phone, or thinking about something else, you’re almost certain to miss nonverbal
cues and not fully understand the subtleties of what’s being communicated. As well as being fully
present, you can improve how you communicate nonverbally by learning to manage stress and
developing your emotional awareness.

Learn to manage stress in the moment

Stress compromises your ability to communicate. When you’re stressed out, you’re more likely to
misread other people, send confusing or off-putting nonverbal signals, and lapse into unhealthy
knee-jerk patterns of behavior. And remember: emotions are contagious. If you are upset, it is
very likely to make others upset, thus making a bad situation worse.If you’re feeling overwhelmed
by stress, take a time out. Take a moment to calm down before you jump back into the
conversation. Once you’ve regained your emotional equilibrium, you’ll feel better equipped to
deal with the situation in a positive way.

The fastest and surest way to calm yourself and manage stress in the moment is to employ your
senses—what you see, hear, smell, taste, and touch—or through a soothing movement. By
viewing a photo of your child or pet, smelling a favorite scent, listening to a certain piece of music,
or squeezing a stress ball, for example, you can quickly relax and refocus. Since everyone
responds differently, you may need to experiment to find the sensory experience that works best
for you.
 Develop your emotional awareness
In order to send accurate nonverbal cues, you need to be aware of your emotions and how they
influence you. You also need to be able to recognize the emotions of others and the true feelings
behind the cues they are sending. This is where emotional awareness comes in.Being emotionally
aware enables you to:

• Accurately read other people, including the emotions they’re feeling and the unspoken messages
they’re sending.

• Create trust in relationships by sending nonverbal signals that match up with your words.

• Respond in ways that show others that you understand and care.

Many of us are disconnected from our emotions—especially strong emotions such as anger,
sadness, fear—because we’ve been taught to try to shut off our feelings. But while you can deny
or numb your feelings, you can’t eliminate them. They’re still there and they’re still affecting your
behavior. By developing your emotional awareness and connecting with even the unpleasant
emotions, though, you’ll gain greater control over how you think and act.

How to read body language:

Once you’ve developed your abilities to manage stress and recognize emotions, you’ll start to
become better at reading the nonverbal signals sent by others. It’s also important to:

Pay attention to inconsistencies. Nonverbal communication should reinforce what is being said.
Is the person saying one thing, but their body language conveying something else? For example,
are they telling you “yes” while shaking their head no?

Look at nonverbal communication signals as a group. Don’t read too much into a single
gesture or nonverbal cue. Consider all of the nonverbal signals you are receiving, from eye contact
to tone of voice and body language. Taken together, are their nonverbal cues consistent—or
inconsistent—with what their words are saying?

Trust your instincts. Don’t dismiss your gut feelings. If you get the sense that someone isn’t
being honest or that something isn’t adding up, you may be picking up on a mismatch between
verbal and nonverbal cues.
 Attribution

➢ Attributions are inferences that people make about the causes of events and behavior.
➢ People make attributions in order to understand their experiences. Attributions strongly
influence the way people interact with others.
➢ Types of Attribution

o Researchers classify attributions along two dimensions:

o internal vs. external and stable vs. unstable.

By combining these two dimensions of attributes, researchers can classify a particular attribution
as being

o internal-stable,

o internal-unstable,

o external-stable, or

o external-unstable.

Internal vs. External

o Attribution theory proposes that the attributions people make about events and behavior can be
classed as either internal or external.
o In an internal, or dispositional, attribution, people infer that an event or a person’s behavior is due
to personal factors such as traits, abilities, or feelings.
o In an external, or situational, attribution, people infer that a person’s behavior is due to situational
factors.
o Example: Rahika’s car breaks down on the freeway. If she believes the breakdown happened
because of her ignorance about cars, she is making an internal attribution. If she believes that the
breakdown happened because her car is old, she is making an external attribution.

Stable vs. Unstable

o Researchers also distinguish between stable and unstable attributions.

o When people make a stable attribution, they infer that an event or behavior is due to stable,
unchanging factors. When making an unstable attribution, they infer that an event or behavior is
due to unstable, temporary factors.
o Example: Rohit fails in his Maths term paper. If he attributes the grade to the fact that he
always has bad luck, he is making a stable attribution. If he attributes the grade to the fact that
he didn’t have much time to study that week, he is making an unstable attribution.

Attribution Bias

o When people make an attribution, they are guessing about the causes of events or behaviors.
These guesses are often wrong. People have systematic biases, which lead them to make
incorrect attributions.

These biases include

o the fundamental attribution error,

o the self-serving bias, and

o the just world hypothesis.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

➢ The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to attribute other people’s behavior to
internal factors such as personality traits, abilities, and feelings. The fundamental attribution
error is also called the correspondence bias, because it is assumed that other people’s behavior
corresponds to their personal attributes. When explaining their own behavior, on the other
hand, people tend to attribute it to situational factors.
➢ Example: Radhika falls asleep in class. Mohan attributes her behavior to laziness. When he
fell asleep in class last week, however, he attributed his own behavior to the all-nighter he
pulled finishing a term paper.

The Self-Serving Bias

➢ The self-serving bias is the tendency to attribute successes to internal factors and failures to
situational factors. This bias tends to increase as time passes after an event. Therefore, the
further in the past an event is, the more likely people are to congratulate themselves for
successes and to blame the situation for failures.
➢ Example: Rohit wins a poetry competition but fails to get the poem published in a magazine
he sent it to. He attributes his success in the competition to his talent. He attributes his failure
to get it published to bad luck.

The Just World Hypothesis

➢ The just world hypothesis refers to the need to believe that the world is fair and that people get
what they deserve. The just world hypothesis gives people a sense of security and helps them
to find meaning in difficult circumstances. People are less generous about other people than
about themselves. Other people’s successes tend to be attributed to situational factors and their
failures to internal factors.
➢ Example: Rohit’s friend Ananadi does manage to get a poem published in a magazine.
However, she did not receive a prize in a poetry competition she entered. Rohit attributes
Diana’s publication success to good luck and her failure to her underdeveloped writing
abilities. Unfortunately, the just world hypothesis also leads to a tendency to blame the victim.
When something tragic or terrible happens to someone, people often reassure themselves by
deciding that the person must have done something to provoke or cause the event.
➢ Example: Pushkar gets into a car wreck. His friends believe that Pushkar must have been
driving rashly.

Cultural Influences on Attribution Style

➢ Research suggests that cultural values and norms affect the way people make attributions. In
particular, differences in attribution style exist between individualist and collectivist cultures.
People in individualist cultures place a high value on uniqueness and independence, believe
in the importance of individual goals, and define themselves in terms of personal attributes.
People in collectivist cultures, on the other hand, place a high value on conformity and
interdependence, believe in the importance of group goals, and define themselves in terms of
their membership in groups.
➢ North American and Western European cultures tend to be individualistic, while Asian, Latin
American, and African cultures tend to be collectivist. People in collectivist cultures tend to
be less susceptible to the fundamental attribution error than people in individualist cultures.

➢ People from collectivist cultures are more likely to believe that a person’s behavior is due to
situational demands rather than to personal attributes. People from collectivist cultures are
also less susceptible to the self-serving bias.
➢ Research suggests that people who are from a collectivist culture, such as the Japanese culture,
tend to have a self-effacing bias when making attributions. That is, they tend to attribute their
successes to situational factors rather than to personal attributes, and, when they fail, they
blame themselves for not trying hard enough

Attribution theory

1. Jones and Davis Correspondent Inference Theory

o Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional behavior (as
opposed to accidental or unthinking behavior).
o Jones and Davis’s theory helps us understand the process of making an internal attribution.
They say that we tend to do this when we see a correspondence between motive and behavior.
o For example when we see a correspondence between someone behaving in a friendly way and
being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e. internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can make
predictions about a person’s future behavior. The correspondent inference theory describes the
conditions under which we make dispositional attributes to behavior we perceive as intentional.
Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer infers
that a person’s behavior matches or corresponds with their personality. It is an alternative term
to dispositional attribution.

➢ Choice: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.

➢ Accidental vs. Intentional behavior: behavior that is intentional is likely to a attributed to the
person’s personality and behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation /
external causes.
➢ Social Desirability: behaviors low in sociably desirability (not conforming) lead us to make
(internal) dispositional inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors. For example, if
you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on the floor instead of one\of the seats. This
behavior has low social desirability (non conforming) and is likely correspond with the
personality of the individual.
➢ Non-common effects: If the other person’s behavior has important consequences for
ourselves. For example if the person asks us out on a date we assume it was the fact that they
 like you that was important (not that you were simply available!).
➢ Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit
or harm us, we assume that it is “personal”, and not just a by-product of the situation we are
both in.

2. Kelley's Covariation Model

o Kelley’s (1967) covariation model is the best-known attribution theory. He developed a
logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some
characteristic (internal) of the person or the environment (external).
o The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations,
at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its
causes. He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists.
More specifically they take into account three kinds of evidence.
o Kelley believed that there were three types of causal information which influenced
our judgments. Low factors = dispositional (internal) attributions.

➢ Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation.

E.g. Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend. If her friend
smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes it is low.

➢ Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations.
If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, her behavior is high in distinctiveness. If
she smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is low.

➢ Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs.
If Alison only smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high. If she only smoke on
one special occasion, consistency is low.
Let’s look at an example to help understand his particular attribution theory. Our subject is
called Tom. His behavior is laughter. Tom is laughing at a comedian.
▪ Consensus: Everybody in the audience is laughing. Consensus is high. If only Tom is
laughing consensus is low.
▪ Distinctiveness: Tom only laughs at this comedian. Distinctiveness is high. If Tom laughs at
everything distinctiveness is low.
▪ Consistency: Tom always laughs at this comedian. Consistency is high. Tom rarely laughs at
this comedian consistency is low.

ATTRIBUTIONAL STYLE
➢ Optimistic: negative events are explained in terms of external, unstable and specific causes;
and positive events to internal, stable, global causes.
➢ Pessimistic: negative events explained in terms of internal, stable, and global terms (I’m a bad
person); positive events in terms of external, unstable, and specific causes
o Individual differences in attributional style may lead to depression; health factors (immune
system and stress - 99 veterans of W.W.II responses on a questionnaire about their wartime
experiences (1946); explanatory style predicted health after age 45; more health problems
with those who had a more pessimistic explanatory style. Baseball players with a pessimistic
style died earlier than optimistic players.

Social Cognition

o Social Cognition- how we interpret, analyze, and remember information about our social
worldWhat role do schemas play in social cognition?
o What types of mental shortcuts do we use?

o What errors bias our social thoughts?How do our feelings influence our thoughts and vice-
versa?

Schemas

Schema- mental framework built around a specific theme (organizes social

information) Types of Schemas
➢ person- schemas about people “nerd”, “athlete”, “librarian”

➢ role- schemas relating to specific roles “professor”, “student”, “physician”

➢ event (script)- indicates typical sequence of events “restaurant”, “exam”, “first date”

Schemas impact social cognition by:

o providing frameworks for organizing and interpreting new information

o saving us considerable mental effort (efficient)

• acting us a cognitive filter during attention and encoding

o persisting in the presence of disconfirming info. (perseverance effect)

o exerting self-confirming effects (self-fulfilling prophecy- cause others to confirm our

beliefs)

Heuristics

Heuristics- mental shortcuts for making decisions (help to reduce information overload)

o Representativeness- judging by resemblance

• Bob is a lawyer, because he looks like typical lawyer Note: often population base rates are
ignored
o Availability- judging by how quickly examples come to mind

• k as first letter seems more common than k as third

priming- increased availability of information resulting from exposure (e.g., “medical student
syndrome”)

Sources of Error (“Tilts”)

To understand the social world, we can use:

➢ rational processing- follows basic rules of logic

➢ intuitive processing- relies on hunches (gut-level)

• intuitive processing used more for processing social information

• automobile safety devices (e.g., air bags) have not been proven to be safer, yet intuitively
they should work
Dealing with Inconsistent
Information

Researchers have found that:

o we tend to pay more attention to information that is inconsistent with our expectations

o inconsistent information often has greater impact on judgments than consistent because we
work harder to understand it
o extremely bizarre information, however, is often discounted

Planning Fallacy Planning Fallacy (Optimistic Bias)- tendency to:

o make optimistic predictions for completing a task

o assume we are more likely than others to experience good outcomes, and less likely to
experience bad
It occurs because we tend to:

o focus on future while ignoring related past events

o overlook important potential obstacles

as motivation to complete task increases, so does the planning fallacy

Counterfactual
Thinki
ng

Counterfactual Thinking- imagining “what might have been” (mentally undoing events)

Counterfactual thinking can

o increase sympathy, regret over missed opportunities

o increase our understanding of why event happened

o affect our current moods

• upward- imagining better outcomes (envy)silver medalist who imagines winning gold
• downward- imagining worse outcomes (satisfaction)bronze medalist who imagines winning
 no medal at all

Magical Thinking

Magical Thinking- thinking based on irrational assumptions

o law of contagion- two objects in contact pass properties to one anotherfear of wearing
sweater worn by AIDS patient
o law of similarity- things that resemble each other share basic properties fear of eating
chocolate shaped like a spider

Thought Suppression
Thought Suppression- preventing unwanted thoughts from entering
consciousness Thought suppression involves two processes:
• monitoring- automatically searches for unwanted thoughts

• operating- conscious attempt to distract oneself

Rebound effect- suppressing unwanted thoughts may actually increase them

• people high in reactance- react negatively to threats to freedom- more likely to show
rebound effect
Affect-Cognition Link

Affect- our current feelings and moods

How do our moods shape our thoughts?

o current moods strongly affect how we perceive new stimuli (e.g., people, foods)

o bad moods cause us to think more systematically, while good moods lead us to think more
superficially
• mood-dependent memory- information learned in a certain mood is recalled easier in same
mood
• mood congruence effects- we notice and remember info. congruent with our current moods.
 Cognition-Affect Link

How do our thoughts shape our moods?

o person and role schemas (e.g., race) exert powerful effects on our current feelings and moods

o our thoughts can shape our reactions to emotion-provoking events (e.g., anger, arousal)

Affect Infusion Model (AIM)

Affect influences analytic social thought by:

o priming mood-related thoughts

o serving as a heuristic cue to infer our reactions

Questions:

1. Explain nonverbal communication.

2. Describe social cognition.
3. Write about the uses of Facial Expressions.
4. Explain the Covariation Model
5. What are the types of Attributions?

References:

1. Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psychology, 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
2. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2013). Social psychology.9 th edition. Prentice
Hall/Pearson Education.
3. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology, 7th ed. Int. Education: Mc Graw Hill.
4. Chaube, S. P., &Chaube, A. (2007). Ground Work for Social Psychology. New Delhi:
Neelkamal.
 SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT – II -Social Psychology– SPYA1301

WHAT IS SOCIAL INFLUENCE?
A general definition is that it involves efforts by one or more people to change the
behavior, attitudes, or feelings of one or more others (Cialdini, 2000, 2006).
Confidence artists, including the electronic scammers described above, are intent on
changing the behavior of their intended victims so that these people give them what
they want—money, valuables, or confidential personal information. But people exert
social influence for many reasons, not just to swindle others. Sometimes they exert
influence in order to help the people involved (e.g., by getting them to stop smoking
or stick to their diets). Or—and less altruistically— they may try to get them to do
personal favors, buy certain products, or vote for specific candidates—the goals are
almost infinite. The means used for inducing such change—for exerting social
influence—vary greatly too, ranging from direct personal requests to clever
commercials and political campaigns.

Whatever the goals, though, social influence always involves efforts by one or more
people to induce some kind of change in others. Efforts to change others’ attitudes
involve persuasion. Direct efforts to change others’ overt behavior through requests
are often labeled compliance (or seeking compliance); these involve specific requests
to which the people who receive them can say “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe.” Often, efforts
to change others’ behavior involve the impact of rules or guidelines indicating what
behavior is appropriate or required in a given situation. These can be formal, as in
speed limits, rules for playing games or sports, and dress codes (if any still exist!); or
they can be informal, such as the general rule “Don’t stare at strangers in public
places.” This kind of influence is known as conformity, and is an important part of
social life. Finally, change can be produced by direct orders or commands from
others—obedience

To provide you with a broad over view of the nature—and power—of social influence,
we proceed as follows. First, because it was one of the first aspects of social influence
studied by social psychology, we examine conformity—pressures to behave in ways
that are viewed as acceptable or appropriate by a group or society in general. Next, we
turn to compliance—direct efforts to get others to change their behavior in specific
ways (Cialdini, 2006; Sparrowe, Soetjipto, & Kraimer, 2006). After that, we examine
what is, in some ways, the most intriguing form of social influence—influence that
occurs when other people are not present and are not making any direct attempts to
affect our behavior (e.g., Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003). We refer to such effects as
symbolic social influence to reflect the fact that it results from our mental
representations of other people rather than their actual presence or overt actions.
Finally, after considering this indirect form of social influence, we examine another
kind that is, in some respects, its direct opposite: obedience—social influence in which
one person simply orders one or more others to do what they want
Conformity: Group Influence in Action During an exam, another student’s cell phone
begins to ring loudly. What does this person do? You are driving on a street when you
see and hear an ambulance approaching you from behind. What do you do? In a
supermarket, a new checkout line suddenly opens, right next to a checkout with a long
line of shoppers. Who gets to go first in that new line? In each of these situations, the
people involved could, potentially, behave in many different ways. But probably you
can predict with great certainty what they will do. The student with the loud cell phone
will silence it immediately—and perhaps apologize to other members of the class
sitting nearby. When you hear an ambulance, you will pull over to the right and
perhaps stop completely until it passes. The checkout line is a little trickier. People
near the front of the long checkout line should get to be first in the new line—but this
might not happen. Someone from the back of the long line might beat them to it. In
contexts where norms are more obvious, greater conformity by most people can be
expected compared to contexts like this where norms are less clear about what action
is the “correct” one. The fact that we can predict others’ behavior (and our own) with
considerable confidence in these and many other situations illustrates the powerful and
general effects of pressures toward conformity—toward doing what we are expected
to do in a given situation. Conformity, in other words, refers to pressures to behave in
ways consistent with rules indicating how we should or ought to behave. These rules
are known as social norms, and they often exert powerful effects on our behavior. The
uncertainty you might experience in the checkout line situation stems from the fact
that the norms in that situation are not as clear as in the others; it’s uncertain whether
people in the front or the back of the existing line should go first. In some instances,
social norms are stated explicitly and are quite detailed. For instance, governments
generally function through written constitutions and laws; chess and other games have
very specific rules; and signs in many public places (e.g., along highways, in parks, at
airports) describe expected behavior in considerable detail (e.g., Stop!; No Swimming;
No Parking; Keep Off the Grass). As another example, consider the growing practice,
in many restaurants, of showing tips of various sizes on the bill (e.g., 15 percent, 17
percent, 20 percent, etc.). In a sense, these numbers establish social norms concerning
tipping, and in fact, research findings (Setter, Brownlee, & Sanders, 2011) indicate
that they are effective: when they are present, tips are higher than when they are absent.
In other situations, norms may be unspoken or implicit, and, in fact, may have
developed in a totally informal manner. For instance, we all recognize such unstated
rules as “Don’t make noise during a concert” and “Try to look your best when going
on a job interview.” Regardless of whether social norms are explicit or implicit, formal
or informal, though, one fact is clear: Most people follow them most of the time. For
instance, virtually everyone regardless of personal political beliefs stands when the
national anthem of their country is played at sports events or other public gatherings.
Similarly, few people visit restaurants without leaving a tip for the server. In fact, so
powerful is this social norm that most people leave a tip of around 15 percent
regardless of the quality of the service they have received (Azar, 2007). At first glance,
this strong tendency toward conformity—toward going along with society’s or a
group’s expectations about how we should behave in various situations— may seem
objectionable. After all, it does place restrictions on personal freedom. Actually,
though, there is a strong basis for so much conformity: without it, we would quickly
find ourselves facing social chaos. Imagine what would happen outside movie
theaters, stadiums, or at supermarket checkout counters if people did not obey the
norm “Form a line and wait your turn.” And consider the danger to both drivers and
pedestrians if there were not clear and widely followed traffic regulations. In many
situations, then, conformity serves a very useful function. If you have ever driven in a
country where traffic rules are widely ignored or viewed as mere suggestions (!), you
know what we mean: When people don’t follow social norms, their actions are
unpredictable—and sometimes, that can be dangerous!

Asch’s Research on Conformity:

Social Pressure—the Irresistible Force? Suppose that just before an important math
exam, you discover that your answer to a homework problem—a problem of the type
that will be on the test—is different from that obtained by one of your friends. How
would you react? Probably with some concern. Now imagine that you learn that a
second person’s answer, too, is different from yours. To make matters worse, it agrees
with the answer reported by the first person. How would you feel now? The chances
are good that your anxiety will increase. Next, you discover that a third person agrees
with the other two. At this point, you know that you are in big trouble. Which answer
should you accept? Yours or the one obtained by these three other people? The exam
is about to start, so you have to decide quickly. Life is filled with such dilemmas—
instances in which we discover that our own judgments, actions, or conclusions are
different from those reached by other people. What do we do in such situations?
Important insights into our behavior were provided by studies conducted by Solomon
Asch (1951, 1955). Asch created a compelling social dilemma for his participants
whose task was ostensibly to simply respond to a series of perceptual problems. On
each of the problems, participants were to indicate which of three comparison lines
matched a standard line in length. Several other people (usually six to eight) were also
present during the session, but unknown to the real participant, all were assistants of
the experimenter. On certain occasions known as critical trials (12 out of the 18
problems) the accomplices offered answers that were clearly wrong; they unanimously
chose the wrong line as a match for the standard line. Moreover, they stated their
answers before the real participants responded. Thus, on these critical trials, the people
in Asch’s study faced precisely the type of dilemma described above. Should they go
along with the other individuals present or stick to their own judgments? The
judgments seemed to be very simple ones, so the fact that other people agreed on an
answer different from the one the participants preferred was truly puzzling. Results
were clear: A large majority of the people in Asch’s research chose conformity. Across
several different studies, fully 76 percent of those tested went along with the group’s
false answers at least once; and overall, they voiced agreement with these errors 37
percent of the time. In contrast, only 5 percent of the participants in a control group,
who responded to the same problems alone, made such errors. Of course, there were
large individual differences in this respect. Almost 25 percent of the participants never
yielded to the group pressure. (We have more to say about such people soon.) At the
other extreme, some individuals went along with the majority nearly all the time.
When Asch questioned them, some of these people stated: “I am wrong, they are
right”; they had little confidence in their own judgments. Most, however, said they felt
that the other people present were suffering from an optical illusion or were merely
sheep following the responses of the first person. Yet, when it was their turn, these
people, too, went along with the group. They knew that the others were wrong (or at
least, probably wrong), but they couldn’t bring themselves to disagree with them. In
further studies, Asch (1959, 1956) investigated the effects of shattering the group’s
unanimity by having one of the accomplices break with the others. In one study, this
person gave the correct answer, becoming an “ally” of the real participant; in another
study, he chose an answer in between the one given by group and the correct one; and
in a third, he chose the answer that was even more incorrect than that chosen by the
majority. In the latter two conditions, in other words, he broke from the group but still
disagreed with the real participants. Results indicated that conformity was reduced
under all three conditions. However, somewhat surprisingly, this reduction was
greatest when the dissenting assistant expressed views even more extreme (and wrong)
than the majority. Together, these findings suggest that it is the unanimity of the group
that is crucial; once it is broken, no matter how, resisting group pressure becomes
much easier. There’s one more aspect of Asch’s research that is important to mention.
In later studies, he repeated his basic procedure, but with one important change:
Instead of stating their answers out loud, participants wrote them down on a piece of
paper. As you might guess, conformity dropped sharply because the participants didn’t
have to display the fact that they disagreed with the other people present. This finding
points to the importance of distinguishing between public conformity—doing or
saying what others around us say or do—and private acceptance—actually coming to
feel or think as others do. Often, it appears, we follow social norms overtly, but don’t
actually change our private views (Maas & Clark, 1984). This distinction between
public conformity and private acceptance is an important one, and we refer to it at
several points in this book.
Asch’s Line Judgment Task
Sherif’s Research on the Autokinetic Phenomenon:

How Norms Emerge A clear illustration of private acceptance of social influence was
provided many years ago by another founder of social psychology—Muzafer Sherif
(1937). Sherif was interested in several questions, but among these, two were most
important:
(1) How do norms develop in social groups? And
(2) How strong is their influence on behavior once they (the norms) emerge? To
examine these issues, he used a very interesting situation, one involving the
autokinetic phenomenon. This refers to the fact that when placed in a completely dark
room and exposed to a single, stationary point of light, most people perceive the light
as moving about. This is because in the dark room, there are no clear cues to distance
or location. The perceived movement is known as the autokinetic phenomenon.

Sherif (1937) realized that he could use this situation to study the emergence of social
norms. This is so because there is considerable ambiguity about how much the light is
moving and different people perceive it as moving different distances. Thus, when
placed in this setting with several others and asked to report how much they perceive
the light to be moving, they influence one another and soon converge on a particular
amount of movement; that agreement, in a sense, constitutes a group norm. If the same
individuals are then placed in the situation alone, they continue to give estimates of
the light’s movement consistent with the group norm, so clearly, the effect of such
norms persist. This suggests that these effects reflect changes in what participants in
these studies actually believe—private acceptance or commitment; after all, they
continue to obey the group norm even if they are no longer in the group! Sherif’s
findings also help explain why social norms develop in many situations— especially
ambiguous ones. We have a strong desire to be “correct”—to behave in an appropriate
manner—and social norms help us attain that goal. As we note below, this is one key
foundation of social influence; another is the desire to be accepted by others and liked
by them—which sometimes involves the “facades of conformity” studied by Hewlin
(2009), and discussed above. Together, these two factors virtually ensure that social
influence is a powerful force—one that can often strongly affect our behavior. Asch’s
research was the catalyst for much activity in social psychology, as many other
researchers sought to investigate the nature of conformity to identify factors that
influence it, and to establish its limits (e.g., Crutchfield, 1955; Deutsch & Gerard,
1955). Indeed, such research is continuing today, and is still adding to our
understanding of the factors that affect this crucial form of social influence (e.g.,
Baron, Vandello, & Brunsman, 1996; Bond & Smith, 1996; Lonnqvist, Leikas,
Paunonen, Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006).

Factors Affecting Conformity:

Variables That Determine the Extent to Which We “Go Along” Asch’s research
demonstrated the existence of powerful pressures toward conformity, but even a
moment’s reflection suggests that conformity does not occur to the same degree in all
settings. Why? In other words, what factors determine the extent to which individuals
yield to conformity pressure or resist it? Research findings suggest that many factors
play a role; here, we examine the ones that appear to be most important.
COHESIVENESS AND CONFORMITY: BEING INFLUENCED BY THOSE WE
LIKE One factor that strongly influences our tendency to conform—to go along with
whatever norms are operating in a given situation—is cohesiveness—the extent to
which we are attracted to a particular social group and want to belong to it (e.g.,
Turner, 1991). The greater cohesiveness is, the more we tend to follow the norms (i.e.,
rules) of the group. This is hardly surprising: the more we value being a member of a
group and want to be accepted by the other members, the more we want to avoid doing
anything that will separate us from them. So prestigious fraternities and sororities can
often extract very high levels of conformity from would-be members (see Figure 8.5)
who are very eager to join these highly selective groups. Similarly, acting and looking
like others is often a good way to win their approval. So, in very basic terms, the more
we like other people and want to belong to the same group as they do, and the more
we are uncertain of winning their acceptance, the more we tend to conform (Crandall,
1988; Latané & L’Herrou, 1996; Noel, Wann, & Branscombe, 1995). In other words,
cohesiveness and the desire to be accepted can be viewed as factors that intensify the
tendency to conform.

CONFORMITY AND GROUP SIZE: WHY MORE IS BETTER WITH

RESPECT TO SOCIAL PRESSURE Another factor that produces similar effects is
the size of the group that is exerting influence. Asch (1956) and other early researchers
(e.g., Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley, 1968) found that conformity increases with
group size, but only up to about three or four members; beyond that point, it appears
to level off or even decrease. However, more recent research has failed to confirm
these early findings concerning group size (e.g., Bond & Smith, 1996). Instead, these
later studies found that conformity tends to increase with group size up to eight group
members and beyond. In short, the larger the group—the greater the number of people
who behave in some specific way—the greater our tendency to conform and “do as
they do.”

DESCRIPTIVE AND INJUNCTIVE SOCIAL NORMS: HOW NORMS AFFECT

BEHAVIOR Social norms, as we have already seen, can be formal or informal in
nature—as different as rules printed on large signs and informal guidelines such as
“Don’t leave your shopping cart in the middle of a parking spot outside a
supermarket.” This is not the only way in which norms differ, however. Another
important distinction is that between descriptive norms and injunctive norms (e.g.,
Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Descriptive
norms are ones that simply describe what most people do in a given situation. They
influence behavior by informing us about what is generally seen as effective or
adaptive in that situation. In contrast, injunctive norms specify what ought to be
done—what is approved or disapproved behavior in a given situation. For instance,
there is a strong injunctive norm against cheating on exams—such behavior is
considered to be ethically wrong. The fact that some students disobey this norm does
not change the moral expectation that they should obey it.

Both kinds of norms can exert strong effects upon our behavior (e.g., Brown, 1998).
Since people obviously do disobey injunctive norms in many situations (they speed
on highways, cut into line in front of others), a key question is this: When, precisely,
do injunctive norms influence behavior? When are they likely to be obeyed? One
answer is provided by normative focus theory (e.g., Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990).
This theory suggests that norms will influence behavior only to the extent that they are
salient (i.e., relevant, significant) to the people involved at the time the behavior
occurs. In other words, people will obey injunctive norms only when they think about
them and see them as relevant to their own actions. This prediction has been verified
in many different studies (e.g., Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren, 1993; Kallgren, Reno, &
Cialdini, 2000), so it seems to be a general principle that norms influence our actions
 primarily when we think about them and view them as relevant to our behavior. When,
in contrast, we do not think about them or view them as irrelevant, their effects are
much weaker, or even nonexistent In fact, this is one reason why people sometimes
disobey even strong injunctive norms: they don’t see these norms as applying to them.

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE: THE DESIRE TO BE LIKED How can we

get others to like us? This is one of the eternal puzzles of social life. One of the most
successful of these is to appear to be as similar to others as possible. From our earliest
days, we learn that agreeing with the people around us, and behaving as they do, causes
them to like us. Parents, teachers, friends, and others often heap praise and approval
on us for showing such similarity One important reason we conform, therefore, is this:
we have learned that doing so can help us win the approval and acceptance we crave.
This source of conformity is known as normative social influence, since it involves
altering our behavior to meet others’ expectations.

THE DESIRE TO BE RIGHT: INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE If you

want to know your weight, you can step onto a scale. If you want to know the
dimensions of a room, you can measure them directly. But how can you establish the
accuracy of your own political or social views, or decide which hairstyle suits you
best? There are no simple physical tests or measuring devices for answering these
questions. Yet we want to be correct about such matters, too. The solution to this
dilemma is obvious: to answer such questions, we refer to other people. We use their
opinions and actions as guides for our own. Such reliance on others, in turn, is often a
powerful source of the tendency to conform. Other people’s actions and opinions
define social reality for us, and we use these as a guide for our own actions and
opinions. This basis for conformity is known as informational social influence, since
it is based on our tendency to depend on others as a source of information about many
aspects of the social world.

Resisting Conforming: Ways to resist conformity

• Desire for individuality
– more conformity occurs in collectivistic cultures, regardless of group size
• Desire to exert control over one’s life
– as the need for personal control increases, conformity decreases
 Summary
• Most people behave in accordance with social norms most of the time (conformity)
• Many factors determine to what extent conformity occurs
– Cohesiveness
– Group size
– Norms
• Resistance to conformity comes from:
– Strong need for individuality (individuation)
– Strong need for control
–
Compliance:

To Ask—Sometimes—Is to Receive Suppose that you wanted someone to do

something for you; how would you go about getting this person to agree? If you think
about this question for a moment, you’ll quickly realize that you have many tactics for
gaining compliance—for getting others to say yes to your requests What are these
techniques and which ones work best? These are among the questions we now
consider. Before doing so, however, we introduce a basic framework for
understanding the nature of these techniques and why they often work.

Compliance: The Underlying Principles

Some years ago, Robert Cialdini, a well-known social psychologist, decided that the
best way to find out about compliance was to study what he termed compliance
professionals— people whose success (financial or otherwise) depends on their ability
to get others to say yes. Who are such people? They include salespeople, advertisers,
political lobbyists, fundraisers, politicians, con artists, professional negotiators, and
many others. Cialdini’s technique for learning from these people was simple: He
temporarily concealed his true identity and took jobs in various settings where gaining
compliance is a way of life. In other words, he worked in advertising, direct (door-to-
door) sales, fund-raising, and other compliancefocused fields. On the basis of these
firsthand experiences, he concluded that although techniques for gaining compliance
take many different forms, they all rest to some degree on six basic principles
(Cialdini, 1994, 2008)
• Friendship/liking: In general, we are more willing to comply with requests from
friends or from people we like than with requests from strangers or people we don’t
like.
● Commitment/consistency: Once we have committed ourselves to a position or
action, we are more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent
with this position or action than with requests that are inconsistent with it.
● Scarcity: In general, we value, and try to secure, outcomes or objects that are scarce
or decreasing in availability. As a result, we are more likely to comply with requests
that focus on scarcity than ones that make no reference to this issue.
● Reciprocity: We are generally more willing to comply with a request from someone
who has previously provided a favor or concession to us than to someone who has not.
In other words, we feel obligated to pay people back in some way for what they have
done for us.
● Social validation: We are generally more willing to comply with a request for some
action if this action is consistent with what we believe people similar to ourselves are
doing (or thinking). We want to be correct, and one way to do so is to act and think
like others.
● Authority: In general, we are more willing to comply with requests from someone
who holds legitimate authority—or simply appears to do so. According to Cialdini
(2008), these basic principles underlie many techniques used by professionals—and
ourselves—for gaining compliance from others.

TACTICS BASED ON COMMITMENT OR CONSISTENCY: The Foot-in-the-

Door and the Lowball
Foot-in-the-door technique
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requesters begin with a small request
and then, when this is granted, escalate to a larger one (the one they actually desired
all along).
Low-ball procedure
A technique for gaining compliance in which an offer or deal is changed to make it
less attractive to the target person after this person has accepted it.

TACTICS BASED ON RECIPROCITY: The Door-in-the Face and the “That’s-

 Not-All”
Door-in-the-face technique
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requesters begin with a large request
and then, when this is refused, retreat to a smaller one (the one they actually desired
all along).
That’s-not-all technique
A technique for gaining compliance in which requesters offer additional benefits to
target people before they have decided whether to comply with or reject specific
requests.

TACTICS BASED ON SCARCITY: Playing Hard to Get and the Fast-

Approaching-Deadline Technique
Playing hard to get
A technique that can be used for increasing compliance by suggesting that a person or
object is scarce and hard to obtain.
Deadline technique
A technique for increasing compliance in which target people are told that they have
only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to obtain some item

Summary
• There are many different tactics people use to gain compliance.
• These compliance tactics are based on well-known psychological principles.
• These techniques should be used ethically and responsibly.

Obedience
Obedience to Authority: Would You Harm an Innocent Stranger If Ordered to Do So?
Have you ever been ordered to do something you didn’t want to do by someone with
authority over you—a teacher, your boss, your parents? If so, you are already familiar
with another major type of social influence—obedience—in which one person directly
orders one or more others to behave in specific ways.

Obedience in the Laboratory

In his research, Milgram wished to find out whether individuals would obey
commands from a relatively powerless stranger requiring them to inflict what seemed
to be considerable pain on another person—a totally innocent stranger. Milgram’s
interest in this topic derived from tragic events in which seemingly normal, law-
abiding people actually obeyed such directives. For example, during World War II,
troops in the German army frequently obeyed commands to torture and murder
unarmed civilians. In fact, the Nazis established horrible but highly efficient death
camps designed to eradicate Jews, Gypsies, and other groups they felt were inferior or
a threat to their own “racial purity.” In an effort to gain insights into the nature of such
events, Milgram designed an ingenious, if unsettling, laboratory simulation. The
experimenter informed participants in the study (all males) that they were taking part
in an investigation of the effects of punishment on learning. One person in each pair
of participants would serve as a “learner” and would try to perform a simple task
involving memory (supplying the second word in pairs of words they had previously
memorized after hearing only the first word). The other participant, the “teacher,”
would read these words to the learner, and would punish errors by the learner (failures
to provide the second word in each pair) through electric shock.

These shocks would be delivered by means of the equipment shown in Figure 8.16,
and as you can see from the photo, this device contained 30 numbered switches
ranging from “15 volts” (the first) through 450 volts (the 30th). The two people
present—a real participant and a research assistant—then drew slips of paper from a
hat to determine who would play each role; as you can guess, the drawing was rigged
so that the real participant always became the teacher. The teacher was then told to
deliver a shock to the learner each time he made an error on the task. Moreover—and
this is crucial—teachers were told to increase the strength of the shock each time the
learner made an error. This meant that if the learner made many errors, he would soon
be receiving strong jolts of electricity. It’s important to note that this information was
false: In reality, the assistant (the learner) never received any shocks during the
experiment.

The only real shock ever used was a mild pulse from button number three to convince
participants that the equipment was real. During the session, the learner (following
prearranged instructions) made many errors. Thus, participants soon found themselves
facing a dilemma: Should they continue punishing this person with what seemed to be
increasingly painful shocks? Or should they refuse? If they hesitated, the experimenter
pressured them to continue with a graded series “prods”: “Please continue”; “The
experiment requires that you continue”; “It is absolutely essential that you continue”;
and “You have no other choice; you must go on.” Since participants were all
volunteers and were paid in advance, you might predict that most would quickly refuse
the experimenter’s orders. In reality, though, fully 65 percent showed total
obedience—they proceeded through the entire series to the final 450-volt level. Many
participants, of course, protested and asked that the session be ended. When ordered
to proceed, however, a majority yielded to the experimenter’s influence and continued
to obey. Indeed, they continued doing so even when the victim pounded on the wall
as if in protest over the painful shocks (at the 300-volt level), and then no longer
responded, as if he had passed out.

The experimenter told participants to treat failures to answer as errors; so from this
point on, many participants believed that they were delivering dangerous shocks to
someone who might already be unconscious! In further experiments, Milgram (1965b,
1974) found that similar results could be obtained even under conditions that might be
expected to reduce obedience. When the study was moved from its original location
on the campus of Yale University to a rundown office building in a nearby city,
participants’ level of obedience remained virtually unchanged. Similarly, a large
proportion continued to obey even when the accomplice complained about the
painfulness of the shocks and begged to be released. Most surprising of all, about 30
percent obeyed even when they were required to grasp the victim’s hand and force it
down upon a metal shock plate! That these chilling results are not restricted to a single
culture is indicated by the fact that similar findings were soon reported in several
different countries (e.g., Jordan, Germany, Australia) and with children as well as
adults (e.g., Kilham & Mann, 1974; Shanab & Yanya, 1977).

Thus, Milgram’s findings seemed to be alarmingly general in scope. Psychologists and

the public both found Milgram’s results highly disturbing. His studies seemed to
suggest that ordinary people are willing, although with some reluctance, to harm an
innocent stranger if ordered to do so by someone in authority—in a sense, echoing the
theme stated by Zimbardo in his famous “Stanford Prison Study” and more recent
writings (Zimbardo, 2007). At this point, you might be tempted to conclude: “OK, in
1960 people obeyed a man in a white laboratory coat. But today, people are much
more sophisticated, so they would never hold still for this kind of thing. They’d just
refuse to play the FIGURE 8.16 Studying Obedience in the Laboratory The left photo
shows the apparatus Stanley Milgram used in his famous experiments on destructive
obedience. The right photo shows the experimenter (right front) and a participant
(rear) attaching electrodes to the learner’s (accomplice’s) wrist. (Source: From the film
Obedience, copyright 1968 by Stanley Milgram, copyright renewed 1993 by
Alexandra Milgram and distributed by Penn State Media Sales). That’s a comforting
thought, but in fact, one social psychologist (Burger, 2009), replicated Milgram’s
research just recently. He made a few changes to protect participants from the extreme
stress Milgram’s procedures generated.

For instance, he screened them to make sure that they had no medical problems that
would make them especially susceptible to the harmful effects of stress. In addition,
if they agreed to continue after the learner protested (150 volts), he stopped the study,
thus avoiding further stress for the participants. Burger reasoned that he could do this
because almost all of the participants in Milgram’s original research who continued
past 150 volts went all the way to the end of the series. In addition, both females and
males participated in the research; in Milgram’s studies, only males took part. What
were the results? Almost identical to those found by Milgram 45 years earlier. As you
can see in Figure 8.17, a very high proportion (66.7 percent for men, 72.7 percent for
women) continued past the 150-volt level—the point at which the victim protested and
said he wanted to stop the experiment. This is very similar to the figure reported by
Milgram. Furthermore, when procedures were used in which an assistant of the
experimenter refused to continue, this did not increase participant’s willingness to
stop—fully 54.5 percent of men and 68.4 percent of women continued despite seeing
another person refuse to obey. So what do these results tell us? That the pressures to
obey in a situation like the one Milgram created are difficult to resist—so difficult that
many people yield to them, even if this means harming an innocent stranger who has
done nothing to harm them. What are these pressures? What factors lie behind this
tendency to obey in such situations? That’s the question we consider next.
 Why did so many obey?
• experimenter said he was responsible (diffusion)
• commands were gradual in nature
• participants had little time for reflection
• experimenter was perceived as an authority figure
People believed he had the power to influence/control their behavior

Sources of Authority (Power)

Source Definition
Coercive Ability to punish or remove positiveconsequences
Reward Ability to provide positive or removenegative
consequences

Expert Person has expertise (knowledge)not widely

available

Legitimate Believe person has influence because of role.

Referent People identify with or want to be likeauthority

figure

Resisting Obedience
• Ways to resist obedience
– take responsibility for any harm produced
– realize total submission is inappropriate
– question authority’s motives
– increase awareness of the power of the situation
–
Summary
• Obedience is most direct form of social influence
• Persons readily obey commands, even those from a relatively powerless source of
authority
• Many factors influence obedience
– diffusion of responsibility
– perceived authority
– gradual escalation of commands
– rapid pace of situation
• Several strategies can be used to reduce obedience
Resisting Social Influence
• Reactance theory - reasserting prerogatives in response to the unpleasant state of
arousal experienced by people when they believe their freedoms are threatened.
Social Facilitation
• The mere presence of other people either as an audience or as co-actors can influence
our performance on many tasks. Such effects are known as social facilitation.
● The drive theory of social facilitation suggests that the presence of others is
arousing and can either increase or reduce performance, depending on whether
dominant responses in a given situation are correct or incorrect.
● The evaluation apprehension view suggests that an audience disrupts performance
because of concerns about being evaluated.
● The distraction conflict perspective suggests that the presence of others induces
conflicting tendencies to focus on the task being performed and on the audience or co-
actors. This can result both in increased arousal and narrowed attentional focus.
● Recent findings offer support for the view that several kinds of audiences produce
narrowed attentional focus among people performing a task. Both the arousal and
cognitive views of social facilitation can help explain why social facilitation occurs
among animals as well as people.

Social Loafing
Reductions in motivation and effort when individuals work in a group compared
to when they work individually
Hooliganism
Negative stereotype about how people behave in crowds at sporting events, especially
applied to incidents involving England’s soccer fans.
Deindividuation
A psychological state characterized by reduced self-awareness brought on by external
conditions, such as being an anonymous member of a large crowd
GROUP POLARIZATION
It is often supposed that groups make better decisions than individuals. However,
 research findings indicate that groups are often subject to group polarization, which
leads them to make more extreme decisions than individuals. This occurs for two
reasons: members want to hold views that are more prototypical than others, which
means more extreme than average, and because during group discussions members are
persuaded by the arguments that other members make and, therefore, they
subsequently move their own views in that direction.

In addition, groups often suffer from groupthink—a tendency for highly cohesive
groups to assume that they can do no wrong and that information contrary to the
group’s view should be rejected.
● Groups do tend to reject criticism from outgroup members relative to the identical
criticism from ingroup members. It is also more distressing to hear one’s ingroup
criticized in front of an outgroup compared to when the audience consists of other
ingroup members only.
● Group members often fail to share information during discussion that only some
members possess. Instead, discussions tend to focus on the information that all
members already know, so the decisions they make tend to reflect this shared
information. One way to prevent this is to ensure group members do not know other
members’ views and what information they have before discussion.

Brainstorming—generating ideas in a group without critically evaluating them—

does not result in more creativity than were those individuals producing the ideas on
their own. Debate about ideas, though, does tend to stimulate more creative idea
production.
Questions
1. What is social influence?
2. Explain Asch’s Research on Conformity
3. Explain Sherif’s Research on the Autokinetic Phenomenon:
4. Describe the Factors Affecting Conformity
5. List out the Underlying Principles of Compliance
6. Define Social Facilitation.
References:

Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psychology, 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
 SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT – III -Social Psychology– SPYA1301

ATTITUDES: Evaluating and Responding to the Social World.

“Attitudes are a mental and neural state of readiness, organised through experience,
exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects
and situations with which it is related” (Allport, 1935, p. 810) • Attitudes are
evaluations of various objects that are stored in memory (Judd et al., 1991)

Attitude is a – psychological tendency that is expressed by – evaluation of a particular

entity (attitude object) with – some degree of favour of disfavour • Evaluating refers
to – all classes of evaluative responding, whether – overt or covert, – cognitive,
affective or behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken,1993)

Attitude Structure Behavior Dowry Affect: “Practice of dowry makes me sick!”

Behavior: “I speak and vote against dowry whenever possible.” Cognition: “The
practice of dowry undermines the social status of women and leaves then vulnerable
to abuse”
S.No Function Purpose

1. Utilitarian / Helps a person

Adjustive behave in socially
acceptable ways to
achieve rewards,
gain approval and
avoid negative
outcomes

2. Knowledge Helps a person

organize and
structure
encountered
information to
make sense of the
world

3. Social Helps to guide

Identity / behavior in social
Value situations by
Expressive expressing
important aspects
of the self-concept
and helps
perform self- and
social-
categorization

4. Ego Helps to protect a

Defense person from
acknowledging
basic self-truths
and thus preserve a
 positive sense of
self

ocial psychologists use the term attitude to refer to people’s evaluation of almost any
aspect of the world. People can have favorable or unfavorable reactions to issues,
ideas, objects, actions, a specific person or entire social groups. Some attitudes are
quite stable and resistant to change, whereas others may be unstable and show
considerable variability depending on the situation. We may hold some attitudes with
great certainty, while our attitudes toward other objects or issues may be relatively
unclear or uncertain. What is your attitude toward the legalization of marijuana, an
issue currently on the agenda of many state legislatures. Is your attitude toward
marijuana attitude Evaluation of various aspects of the social world likely to depend
on whether you have used it or not? Later in this chapter we consider how our own
actions can influence our attitudes. Does it matter whether you think other people see
its use as acceptable or not?

The study of attitudes is central to the field of social psychology because attitudes are
capable of colouring virtually every aspect of our experience. Even when we do not
have strong attitudes toward a specific issue such as the legalization of marijuana,
related values can influence what attitudes we form. Let’s consider public attitudes
toward various scientific issues, specifically the use of human embryonic stem cells.
Research findings indicate that attitudes toward such novel issues are shaped by long-
term values—religious beliefs predict the formation of these new attitudes—rather
than the extent to which the public possesses scientific knowledge on the topic.

In addition, attitudes can influence our thoughts, even if they are not always reflected
in our overt behavior. Moreover, while many of our attitudes are explicit attitudes— -
conscious and reportable—other attitudes may be implicit attitudes—uncontrollable
and perhaps not consciously accessible to us. Consider this explicit versus implicit
attitudes distinction as it applies to racial attitudes. While social psychologists can
learn people’s attitudes about many objects from their conscious reports of the
thoughts and feelings they have about them, another approach is required if we want
to learn someone’s implicit attitudes—that is, attitudes they may be either unwilling
or unable to report. A method for assessing these is the Implicit Association Test. The
IAT is based on the fact that we explicit attitudes Consciously accessible attitudes that
are controllable and easy to report. implicit attitudes Unconscious associations
between objects and evaluative responses.
Explicit attitudes: Consciously accessible attitudes that are controllable and easy to
report. Implicit attitudes: Unconscious associations between objects and evaluative
responses.
Why Study Attitudes? Attitudes are important because they:
strongly influence our social thought help to organize and evaluate stimuli (e.g.,
categorizing stimuli as positive or negative) presumably have a strong affect on
behavior help to predict people’s behavior in wide range of contexts (e.g., voting,
interpersonal relations)
How are Attitudes Formed? • Learning Theories – Classical Conditioning –
Operational Condition – Observational Learning • Consistency Theories – Balance
Theory – Cognitive Dissonance • Cognitive Response Approaches

Learning Theories – Classical Conditioning • Product = beer (US) – Potential

audience = young males • Know what potential audience already responds positively
to (attractive women=CS) • Pair your product (Beer=CS) repeatedly with images of
beautiful women • Positive attitudes will be formed towards beer Pairing a CS with a
US that is causing a UR, eventually the CS causes a CR
Process of Pairing may be – Direct – Indirect • Subconscious / subliminal conditioning
– Classical conditioning of attitudes by exposure to stimuli that are below individuals’
threshold of conscious awareness
SUBLIMINAL CONDITIONING
Learning Theories – Instrumental Conditioning • Attitudes that result in positive
outcomes tend to be strengthened and are likely to be repeated • Attitudes that result
negative outcomes are weakened so their likelihood of being expressed again is
reduced • E.g. rewarding children with smiles, approval, or hugs for stating the “right”
views
Learning Theories – Observational Learning • “A basic form of learning in which
individuals acquire new forms of behavior as a result of observing others.” (Bandura,
1997) Social Comparison – The process through which we compare ourselves to
others to determine whether our view of social reality is, or is not, correct. Reference
groups – Groups of people with whom we identify and whose opinions we value

Men formed more positive attitudes toward the new product when they thought other
men liked it, but women formed more positive attitudes toward the product when they
thought other women liked it. (Fleming & Petty, 2000)
Consistency Theories – Balance Theory
• Heider (1958)
• The relations between a person and two attitude objects • Connected by either –
Favorable attitudes (good, liking, positive) – Unfavorable attitudes (bad, disliking,
negative)
• There is a tendency to maintain or restore balance in one’s attitude structures –
Unbalanced structures are uncomfortable / unpleasant
• To establish balance – Change own attitude – Change others’ attitude – Render
unbalanced states irrelevant (Agree to disagree)
Balance Theory
Cognitive Dissonance: “An internal state that results when individuals notice
inconsistency between – two or more attitudes – between their attitudes and their
behavior” When will our attitudes change more: When there are “good” reasons for
engaging in attitude-discrepant behavior or when there is little justification for doing
so?
Insufficient Justification: reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one’s
behavior when external justification is “insufficient”.
 Less Is More Effect • “The fact that offering individuals small rewards for engaging
in counter attitudinal behavior often produces more dissonance, and so more attitude
change, than offering them larger rewards.”
The Effort-Justification Paradigm Justification of Effort The tendency for
individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain

Reducing Cognitive Dissonance

Ways to reduce dissonance (e.g., “dieter binges”)
Direct methods : change attitude to be consistent with behavior – “diets don’t really
work anyway” , acquire supporting information – “many overweight people live long
healthy lives”, trivialize the behaviors in question – “looking thin is not all that
important”
Indirect methods : restore positive self-evaluations – “I like the way I look, regardless
of my weight” : distractions – Alcohol Use

Situational Aspects
• Prevent from acting on attitude - Social constraints
• Prevent from acting on attitude – Social Constraints
• Pluralistic Ignorance – Collectively misunderstanding what attitudes others hold and
believing erroneously that others have different attitudes than our own – Miller and
Morrison (2009)
• The private attitudes of Stanford Univ students toward heavy alcohol consumption
were negative
• They believed that other students’ attitudes toward heavy alcohol consumption were
more positive than their own • Given (manufactured) data on attitudes of other students
 • Students expressed greater comfort discussing campus drinking and chose that topic
for discussion more often when they thought other students’ attitudes were more pro-
alcohol than their own
Aspects of the Attitude Itself
Strength
➢ Attitude Extremity – strength of the emotional reaction
➢ Attitude Certainty – – sense of knowing the attitude – feeling it is the correct position
to hold
➢ Personal Experience
Attitude Extremity – Vested Interest - the extent to which the attitude is relevant to
the concerns of the individual who holds it – Students at a large university were
telephoned and asked if they would participate in a campaign against increasing the
legal age for drinking alcohol from 18 to 21 – responses depended on whether they
would be affected by the policy change or not (Sivacek & Crano, 1982)
Attitude Certainty – Attitude clarity—being clear about what one’s attitude is –
Attitude correctness—feeling one’s attitude is the valid or the proper one to hold•

Attitude Accessibility Model

Fazio (1989, 1995) Attitude is automatically activated on presence of situational cues
that have a strong effect on life outcomes
Attitudes are most influential when they are relevant and important Attitude object in
memory Evaluation of attitude object Attitude object in memory Evaluation of attitude
object Attitude object in memory Evaluation of attitude object No link Weak link
Strong link
How do Attitudes guide Behaviour?
o Theory of Reasoned Action → Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP)
o Attitudes in Spontaneous Behaviour Reactions (Attitude to Behaviour Process Model)
o Theory of Reasoned Action
“The decision to engage in a particular behavior is the result of a rational process in
which – behavioral options are considered – consequences or outcomes of each are
evaluated – a decision is reached to act or not to act. That decision is then reflected in
behavioral intentions, which strongly influence overt behavior” Theory of Planned
Behavior. An extension of TRA, suggesting that in addition to – attitudes toward a
given behavior – subjective norms about it. individuals also consider their ability to
perform the behavior
The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) Attitudes Subjective
Norms Intentions Behaviour General orientation towards the behaviour “good-
bad”,“useful-useless”,“harmful-beneficial” Stated volitional plans “I plan…/I
intend.../ I expect...” Measure of actual behaviour Evaluation of others evaluation “my
parents think…”,”my teacher thinks…”

Where do Attitudes and Subjective Norms Come From? Attitudes Subjective

Norms Intentions Behaviour Behavioural Beliefs X Outcome Evaluations Normative
Beliefs X Motivation to Comply
Evaluation of capacities/barriers/abilities “self-efficacy”/”easy-difficult” The Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen , 1989) Perceived Control Attitudes Subjective
Norms Intentions Behaviour Control Beliefs X Perceived Power
Attitude-to-behavior process model • (Fazio, 1990; Fazio & Roskos-Ewoldsen,
1994) • Event activates an attitude • That attitude influences how we perceive the
attitude object • Simultaneously, our knowledge about what is appropriate in a given
situation (knowledge of various social norms) is also activated • Together, the attitude
and the previously stored information about what’s appropriate or expected shape our
definition of the event • This perception, in turn, influences our behavior
Attitude to Behavior Process Model Event Attitude Perception of Event Social Norms
Behavior

Persuasive Communication • Communication advocating a particular side of an

issue intended to change a pre-existing attitude Yale Attitude Change Approach • “The
study of the conditions under which people are most likely to change their attitudes in
response to persuasive messages, focusing on “who said what to whom” – the source
of the communication – the nature of the communication – the nature of the audience”
(Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953)

hat To hom

WHO Communicator Variables Examples: Credibility Attractiveness Status Message

Variables Examples: Single personal example (e.g., emotional) versus factual One-
sided versus two-sided arguments Fear appeals Audience Variables Examples:
Knowledge/ Interests Personality (e.g., self-esteem) Pre-existing attitudes Motivation
Ego Depletion What To Whom

The Source or ‘Communicator’ • Experts more persuasive (and credible) than non-
experts (Hovland & Weiss, 1952) • Popular and attractive communicators are most
 effective (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969) • People speaking more quickly are more effective
than slow speakers (Miller et al., 1976), conveys expertise in subject matter
The ‘Message’ Itself • Persuasion is more effective if the message is not perceived to
be deliberately intending to manipulate opinions • Persuasion is enhanced using
evaluatively-biased language – information vs. evaluation e.g. price, contents, offer
etc. vs. value for money
- Does Fear Work? • Fear messages pervasive in advertising and communication •
But how fearful can a message become and still be effective?
Early research suggested low-fear was optimal (Janis & Feshbach, 1953) – Leventhal
et al. (1967) found high-fear message promoted greater willingness to stop smoking .
Messages with too little fear may not highlight the potential harm of the targeted act.
Very disturbing images may distract people from the message itself or may evoke an
‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995)
Amount of attitude change Increase in fear Low High High McGuire’s (1969)
‘Inverted-U’ hypothesis
One-Sided vs Two-Sided Messages: One-Sided – continuing arguments only in
support of favoured conclusion . Two-Sided – above + arguments against favoured
conclusion (but are also refuted) . Two sided messages more effective an audience –
Initially opposed advocated position – More knowledgeable about issues. One-sided
messages more effective an audience – Already inclined to believe advocated position
– Less knowledgeable about issues
Audience Properties in Persuasion: Individual personality traits – motivated to
engage in counter-arguing – attempt to bolster their own beliefs when they encounter
counter-attitudinal messages.
Selective Attention – A tendency to direct attention away from information that
challenges existing attitudes
➢ Forewarning – Advance knowledge that one is about to become the target of an
attempt at persuasion
➢ Inoculation – Prior experience of mild attempts against own position augment
resistance to future (stronger) attempts
➢ Ego Depletion – prior expenditure of limited self-regulation resources leave indl
vulnerable to persuasion • Tired • Have failed to self-regulate on a prior task – They
may simply acquiesce when confronted with a counter- attitudinal message
Cognitive Processes Underlying Persuasion Systematic Processing Processing of
 information in a persuasive message that involves careful consideration of message
content and ideas Heuristic Processing Processing of information in a peruasive
message that involves the use of simple rules of thumb or mental shortcuts Central
route to Persuasion Attitude change resulting from systematic processing of
information presented in persuasive messages Peripheral route to Persuasion Attitude
change that occurs in response to peripheral persuasion cues, which is often based on
information concerning the expertise or status of would-be persuaders
Elaboration-Likelihood Model Message unimportant, uninteresting Heuristic
processing Nonverbal cues important Argument Strength less important Message
important, interesting Systematic processing Nonverbal Cues less important
Argument strength important Peripheral Route Central Route

SUMMARY
• Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluation of a particular
entity (attitude object) with some degree of favour of disfavour
• Evaluating refers to all classes of evaluative responding, whether – overt or covert,
– cognitive, affective or behavioural
• Attitude may/may not lead to a behavioral response based on situational attributes &
attributes of the attitude itself
• Whether people are likely to change their attitudes in response to persuasive
messages is governed by – the source of the communication – the nature of the
communication – the nature of the audience

Questions
1. What is Attitude?
2. Explain One-Sided vs Two-Sided Messages
3. Why Study Attitudes?
4. How are Attitudes Formed?

References:
Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psychology, 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
 SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT – IV -Social Psychology– SPYA1301

 PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Actions by individuals that help others with no immediate benefit to the helper. Perhaps you’ve
never handed a plate of food to a hungry person on the beach, given your umbrella to an elderly
woman sitting unprotected in the rain, or rescued someone from subway tracks. We’re certain,
though, that you have helped others in various ways, and been helped by them, in turn, when
you needed assistance (see Figure 9.1). In fact, prosocial behavior—actions by individuals that
help others (often, with no immediate benefit to the helper)—are a very common part of social
life. We want to emphasize that fact right at the start because such kind, helpful actions are
definitely an important part of social life. The fact that they are, however, raises an intriguing
question: Why, precisely, do people help others frequently when they are not required to do so,
and often at considerable cost to themselves? What are the motives behind such behavior? And
when do people help or fail to help? In other words, what factors influence this very positive
side of social life? We examine all of these questions, plus several others, in the present chapter.
Specifically, our discussion of prosocial behavior will proceed as follows.

First, we examine the basic motives behind helpful actions—why, in short, people perform
them, often at considerable cost to themselves. Second, we consider helping in emergencies—
why people sometimes engage in heroic acts like the ones described above or, more
disturbingly, why they don’t. Third, we describe situational factors that influence helping,
focusing both on factors that increase the tendency to help others and ones that block or reduce
our helpful tendencies. Finally, we examine the effects of helping others both on the recipients
and on the helpers

Why People Help: Motives for Prosocial Behavior Why do people help others? That’s a very
basic question in efforts to understand the nature of prosocial behavior. As we’ll soon see, many
factors play a role in determining whether, and to what extent, specific people engage in such
actions. Several aspects of the situation are important, and a number of personal (i.e.,
dispositional) factors are also influential. We focus on these factors in later discussions. Here,
though, we focus on the basic question, What motives underlie the tendency to help others?
Several seem to play an important role.

➢ Empathy-Altruism: It Feels Good to Help Others One explanation of prosocial behavior

involves empathy—the capacity to be able to experience others’ emotional states, feel
sympathetic toward them, and take their perspective
➢ Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis The suggestion that some prosocial acts are motivated solely
by the desire to help someone in need.

Research findings indicate that empathy consists of three distinct components: an emotional
aspect (emotional empathy, which involves sharing the feelings and emotions of others), a
cognitive component, which involves perceiving others’ thoughts and feelings accurately
(empathic accuracy), and a third aspect, known as empathic concern, which involves feelings
of concern for another’s well-being (e.g., Gleason, JensenCampbell, & Ickes, 2009). This
distinction is important because it appears that the three components are related to different
aspects of prosocial behavior, and have different long-term effects. For instance, consider the
effects of empathic accuracy. This appears to play a key role in social adjustment—the extent
to which we get along well with others

Pro-social behaviour is defined as “…any act performed with the goal of benefiting another
person” (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2004 p. 382). How is it possible to differentiate the
meaning or motivation or consequences between a ten rupees donation to charity and rescuing
a drowning child? This is not a topic confined within one discipline. Even a cursory review of
the literature reveals that psychologists, philosophers, economists, sociobiologists, and others
all have distinct and often conflicting points of view. Prosocial are voluntary made with the
intention of benefiting others. This definition focuses on the potential benefits to the person
performing the prosocial behaviour. In this unit we will be dealing with noticing emergency for
help, understanding how and what do in such situations, and determining and taking decisions
to help. Such a helping behaviour is influenced by a large number of factors such as physical
attractiveness of the person who needs help, similarity in a number of factors, whether the
person is a relative and belong to kin etc. This unit deals with also the perspective of help from
the victim’s point of view and one’s own personal experience. Many theoretical perspectives
have also been put across in this unit which includes social learning theory and its influence on
helping behaviour, the motivation and social identity theories contributing to understanding of
helping behaviour empathic and receiprocity factors as to how they contribute to the
understanding of helping behaviour. Lastly the unit discusses the current trends in regard to pro
social behaviour. 2.1 OBJECTIVES After successful completion of this Unit, you are expected
to be able to: l Define Pro-social behaviour and altruism; l Have knowledge about various
factors affecting pro-social behaviour; l Explain pro-social behaviour in the light of different
theories; and l Analyse the current trends in research related to pro-social behaviour.
PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Definition and Description Staub (1979) defined pro-social behaviour as voluntary behaviour
intended to benefit another person. “Voluntary” emphasises the spontaneous initiative by the 3
32 Process of Social Influence 2.2.3 Certain Historical Aspects of Prosocial Behaviour The
term pro-social behaviour was introduced in the early 1970’s after the incident of Kitty
Genovese case in USA (Kohn, 1990) .On March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered in
front of her home. She parked her car a number of feet from her apartment when all of a sudden,
a man named Winston Moseley chased her down and stabbed her in the back twice. Kitty
screamed for help and a neighbour responded shouting at the criminal “Let that girl alone!”
Immediately, Winston fled the scene and left the girl crawling towards her apartment. Several
witnesses reported to have seen the whole scene. At that time, there was a strong degree of
interest in exploring why 38 neighbours ignored the pleas and calls for help from a woman
being repeatedly stabbed and ultimately murdered by her assailant. Why were such apathy,
indifference and lack of concern observed from all the neighbours of Kitty? Two social
psychologists, John Darley & Bibb Latane, started asking questions why the witnesses
demonstrated a lack of reaction towards the victim’s need for help. They found bystander
apathy is the major factor that influences helping behaviour. The term bystander effect refers
to the phenomenon in which greater the numbers of people present, the less likely people are
to help a person in distress.

When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few
or no other witnesses. In a series of classic study, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley
(1969) found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies
depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment, subjects were
placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with two other participants or with
two confederates who pretended to be normal participants. As the participants sat filling out
questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the
smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other
people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the
smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.
There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect.
First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other
observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to
take action is thought to be shared among all of the present. The second reason is the need to
behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals
often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers
have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous (Solomon,
1978). In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that
they were witnessing a “lover’s quarrel,” and did not realise that the young woman was actually
being murdered. 33 Pro-social Behaviour and Factors Contributing to Pro-social Behaviour

PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS There are five step

response in emergency situations (Darley & Latane, 1969), which include the following:

Noticing the Emergency In order for people to help, they must notice that an emergency has
occurred. Sometimes very trivial things, such as how much of a hurry a person is in, can prevent
them from noticing someone else in trouble. Darley and Batson (1973) showed that seminary
students who were in a hurry to give a sermon on campus were much less likely to help an
ostensibly injured confederate groaning in a doorway than were those who were not in a hurry.

Interpreting an Emergency as an Emergency The next determinant of helping is whether the

bystander interprets the event as an emergency. Ironically, when other bystanders are present,
people are more likely to assume an emergency is something innocuous. This pluralistic
ignorance occurs because people look to see others’ reactions (informational influence); when
they see that everyone else has a blank expression, they assume there must be no danger (Latané
and Darley, 1970)

Assuming that it is your Responsibility to Help The next step that must occur if helping is to
take place is for someone to take responsibility. When there are many witnesses, there is a
diffusion of responsibility, the phenomenon whereby each bystander’s sense of responsibility
to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases. Everyone assumes that someone else
will help, and as a result, no one does, as happened with the Kitty Genovese murder.

Knowing what to do Even if all the previous conditions are met, a person must know what
form of assistance to give. If they don’t, they will be unable to help
Making the Decision to Help Finally, even if you know what kind of help to give, you might
decide not to intervene because you feel unqualified to help or you are too afraid of the costs
to yourself. Markey (2000) examined helping in an Internet chat room situation; when the chat
room group as a whole was asked to provide some information about finding profiles, the larger
the group, the longer it took for anyone to help. However, when a specific person was addressed
by name, that person helped quickly, regardless of group size.

FACTORS AFFECTING HELPING BEHAVIOUR

Physical Attractiveness Attractiveness is defined as physical attractiveness or the

attractiveness of a person’s 34 Process of Social Influence personality or behaviour (DeVito,
1976). Researchers believe physical attractiveness can be defined for any one individual
situationally (DeVito, 1976). Physically attractive people are more likely to receive help than
unattractive people (Harrell, 1978). The explanation lies in the fact, that as a society, we
consciously or subconsciously tend to treat attractive individuals differently, expecting better
lives for them (Berscheid, Walster, Bohrnstedt, 1973). Adams and Cohen (1976) feel physical
attractiveness is a major factor in the development of prosocial behaviour in a child.

Similarity and Kinship Finally, individuals are more likely to behave prosocially towards
similar or likable others (Penner et al., 2005), and towards others considered to be close,
especially kin (Graziano et al., 2007). Genetic relatedness aside, pro-social behaviour towards
family members probably involves a sense of duty, reciprocity, and affective relationships.
Individuals care more for victims who belong to their in-group rather than to their out-group
(Dovidio et al. 1997; Flippen et al. 1996; Levine et al. 2002). Park and Schaller (2005) found
that attitude similarity serves as a heuristic cue signaling kinship, which may motivate kin-
recognition responses (e.g., prosocial behaviour) even to unrelated individuals.

Religiosity Although several studies have examined the impact of donor characteristics across
various domains, the findings are not as robust as those about victim characteristics. One
consistent finding is that humanitarian values and religiosity are correlated with giving (Burnett
1981; Pessemier, Bemmaor, and Hanssens 1977).

Victim’s Perspective Batson and colleagues have shown consistently greater empathy and
altruistic behaviour by individuals who are primed to take the victim’s perspective (Batson,
Early, and Salvarani 1997; Batson et al. 2003).
Personal Experience A vast literature examines the impact of personal experience on self-
protective behaviour (Weinstein, 1989, for a critical review). Although the majority of studies
examine effects on victims themselves, a few assess the impact of knowing a victim as a form
of personal experience (Manheimer, Mellinger & Crossley 1966 and Schiff 1977). Barnett et
al. (1986) found that participants who had been raped reported greater empathy when watching
a video about a rape victim than did those who had never been raped. Batson et al. (1996) found
that for females but not males, the expectation of oneself receiving a shock affected self-
reported empathy when one observed a same-sex peer receiving a shock. Christy and Voigt
(1994) found that those who reported being abused as a child indicated that they would be more
likely than those who had never been abused to intervene if they saw a child being abused.

Identifiable Victim Effect Previous research has shown that people give more to identifiable
victims than to unidentifiable or statistical victims (Kogut and Ritov 2005a, b; Small,
Loewenstein, and Slovic 2006). This effect has even been demonstrated when no meaningful
35 Pro-social Behaviour and Factors Contributing to Pro-social Behaviour information is
provided about the identified victim (Small and Loewenstein 2003). Other identifying factors,
such as showing a victim’s face or being in the presence of a victim, also increase pro-social
behaviour (Bohnet and Frey 1999). Charities do often describe or show images of specific
victims to potential donors in their advertising campaigns, but such attempts seem designed to
benefit from the identifiable victim effect (Kogut and Ritov, 2005a, b; Small et al. 2006), rather
than to create “friendship” between donors and victims.

Attributions Concerning Victim’s Responsibility People also give more to victims who are
perceived as “deserving,” in other words, whose needs arise from external rather than internal
causes (Weiner 1980). Thus, disabled children are deemed deserving; healthy unemployed men
are not (Schmidt and Weiner 1988). Finally, the effect of deservingness on prosocial behaviour
is mediated by sympathy, suggesting that giving decisions are not based on cold mental
calculations (Weiner, 1980). A study carried out on the New York subway showed that people
were more likely to help ‘blind’ rather than ‘drunk’ confederates who had collapsed (Piliavin,
1969). 2.4.8 Positive Friend Influence Barry and Wentzel (2006) supported the notion that
friends in particular can be important socialisers of pro-social behaviour. Children are similar
to their friends in the degree to which they display pro-social behaviour and are motivated to
behave this way (Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Adolescents
who have friends are more likely to be pro-social than those without friends (McGuire & Weisz,
1982).
Gender Females engage in prosocial behaviours more frequently than males (Fabes, Carlo,
Kupanoff, & Laible, 1999), which is consistent across ratings from parents, teachers, and peers
(Holmgren, Eisenberg, & Fabes, 1998). Additionally, observational studies have indicated that
females are more likely than males to share and cooperate when interacting (Burford, Foley,
Rollins, & Rosario, 1996). Beutel and Johnson (2004) reported that in a study of 12 through 17
year-olds, females placed more importance on prosocial values than males at younger ages, and
the gender gap in prosocial values was larger at older ages. Eagly and Crowley (1986) did a
meta-analysis and found that men are more likely to help in chivalrous, heroic ways, and
women are more likely to help in nurturant ways involving long-term commitment.

Age Older adolescent males placed less importance on prosocial values than younger
adolescent males (Beutel & Johnson, 2004). Further, in a study of adolescent soccer players’
behaviours, recruited from age groups of under 13, under 15, and under 17, significant
differences among the age groups indicated that the oldest group displayed more frequent
antisocial behaviours and less frequent prosocial behaviours compared to the younger groups
(Kavussanu, Seal, & Phillips, 2006). However, there appears to be an increase in the use of
some prosocial behaviours after a certain point in adolescence, as Eisenberg et al. (2005) found
that prosocial moral reasoning and perspective-taking abilities showed increases with age from
36 Process of Social Influence late adolescence to early adulthood, whereas helping and
displaying sympathy did not increase with age.

Personality Research following children from early childhood to adulthood supports the
existence of the long-debated altruistic or prosocial personality (Eisenberg et al., 1999).
Individual differences in prosociality are linked to sociability, low shyness, extroversion, and
agreeableness, although specific prosocial behaviours may require a combination of additional
traits, such as perceived self-efficacy in the case of helping (Penner et al., 2005). Personality
and contextual variables are likely to interact in determining prosocial behaviour. For example,
agreeable individuals were more likely to help an outgroup member than low-agreeableness
individuals, but agreeableness was not associated with helping an ingroup member (Graziano
et al., 2007). While, Hartshorne and May (1929) found only a .23 correlation between different
kinds of helping behaviours in children, and several studies have found that those who scored
high on a personality test of altruism were not much more likely to help than those who scored
low. People’s personality is clearly not the only determinant of helping. Instead, it seems to be
that different kinds of people are likely to help in different situations. 2.4.12 Effects of Positive
Moods: Feel Good, Do Good People who are in a good mood are more likely to help. For
example, Isen and Levin (1972) did a study in a shopping mall where subjects either found or
did not find a dime in a phone booth. As the person emerged from the booth, a confederate
walked by and dropped a sheaf of papers; 84% of those who found the dime helped compared
with 4% of those who did not find the dime. North, Tarrang, & Hargreaves (2004) found that
people are more likely to help others when in a good mood for a number of other reasons,
including doing well on a test, receiving a gift, thinking happy thoughts, and listening to
pleasant music. Good moods can increase helping for three reasons: (1) good moods make us
interpret events in a sympathetic way; (2) helping another prolongs the good mood, whereas
not helping deflates it; (3) good moods increase self-attention, and this in turn leads us to be
more likely to behave according to our values and beliefs (which tend to favor altruism).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

There are a large number of theorie which explain pro-social behaviour and these are described
and discussed below: 2.5.1 Social Learning Theory Social learning theory suggests that pro-
social behaviour is learned (Bandura, 1977; Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Batson, 1998).
Observing role models who are loved or respected, such as parents or authorities, engaged in
pro-social behaviour, demonstrates how people can and should behave prosocially. Rewards
reinforce helping behaviour; punishments reduce unhelpful or hurtful behaviour. Within a
group context, social recognition, not just private reward, increases pro- 37 Pro-social
Behaviour and Factors Contributing to Pro-social Behaviour social behaviour (Fisher &
Ackerman, 1998).Observational modeling processes with reinforcement will result in learning
over time (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Lim et al., 1997).

Motivation Perspective Theorists differentiate altruistic prosocial behaviour from egoistic

prosocial behaviour depending upon the motivation of the helper (Batson, 1991; Nelson, 1999;
Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Altruistic prosocial behaviour is motivated purely by the desire to
increase another person’s welfare; egoistic prosocial behaviour is motivated by the desire to
increase one’s own welfare or that of one’s group or cause through helping others (Batson,
1998; MacIntyre, 1967). Some researchers believe that pro-social behaviour does not need to
be based on unobservable underlying motivations of children (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989), but
other researchers believe that another person’s well-being must be of primary concern in
prosocial behaviours (Cialdini, Kenrick, & Bauman, 1976). It is generally understood that an
intention of prosocial behaviours is to achieve positive consequences for others (Jackson &
Tisak, 2001; Tisak & Ford, 1986), but it is possible that there are other reasons children behave
prosocially as well. Children’s expectancies may influence their likelihood of engaging in
prosocial behaviours. Adolescents who expect positive adult reactions to their prosocial
behaviours report engaging in more prosocial and less aggressive behaviours (Wyatt & Carlo,
2002).

Social Identity Theory Social identity theory and self-categorisation theory (Tajfel & Turner,
1986; Turner et al., 1987) are helpful in understanding why some people exhibit substantial
prosocial behaviour over time. Social identity theory is based on the premise that people
identify with particular groups in order to enhance their self-esteem. Identification leads to
selective social comparisons that emphasise intergroup differences along dimensions. This
leads to favouring the ingroup and confer positive distinctiveness on the ingroup when
compared to the salient outgroup (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).

Categorising the self and others in terms of groups accentuates the similarities between group
members with respect to their fit with the relevant group prototype or ‘cognitive representation
of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group’ (Hogg & Terry, 2000). The
prototype guides the participants’ understanding of the group and its expected behaviours and
attitudes. People identified with a group will thus be more likely to exhibit behaviours that are
consistent with shared group norms and will cooperate with the group and its members. Group
identification is an important antecedent to cooperative behaviours related to group
maintenance and survival (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Kramer, 1993; Mael & Ashforth, 1995;
Tyler, 1999).

Biological Perspective Empathy, altruism and prosocial behaviour are considered vital for the
good functioning of society. Although psychological theories emphasise the importance 38
Process of Social Influence of cognition and socialisation, genes also have a role to play.
Monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs share 100% of their genes, whereas dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs
share 50%; thus the comparison of MZ and DZ twin similarities and differences allows for
estimates to be made of genetic influences (Plomin et al. 2001). Several studies have found that
by adulthood, approximately 50% of the variance in altruism, empathy and social responsibility
is due to genes and 50% to nongenetic factors (Rushton et al. 1986; Rushton 2004).

NEGATIVE-STATE RELIEF HYPOTHESIS Negative State Relief Model, views empathic

concern as being accompanied by feelings of sadness that the helper tries to relieve through
helping someone in need (Smith, Keating, & Stotland, 1989; Cialindi, et al., 1987; Schroeder,
Dovidio, Sibicky, Matthews, & Allen, 1988). Here, the motivation for prosocial behaviour is
based on increasing the welfare of both the helper and helpee. Three prominent features of the
Negative State Relief Model are that: (1) helpers experience empathic concern; (2) such
concern is accompanied by feelings of sadness and (3) helpers attempt to relieve such feelings
by helping others. Cialdini’s (1987) experiments involved participants taking the place of
people receiving electric shocks. However, high empathy participants were less inclined to help
if they had been praised by the researchers. It is thought that this praise helped to lift their mood
so that it was not necessary to help the person receiving the shocks. When people feel guilty,
they are more likely to help. For example, Harris et al. (1975) found that churchgoers were
more likely to donate money after confession.

EMPATHY – ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS Batson (1987, 1991) introduced the empathy-

altruism hypothesis, which states refers to “ the claim that feeling empathic emotion for
someone in need evokes altruistic motivation to relieve that need has been called the empathy-
altruism hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the greater the empathetic emotion, the
greater the altruistic motivation.” (Batson et. al., 2002).

According to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, empathic concern motivates helpers to

enhance the welfare of those in need rather than avoid the situation instead (Smith, Keating, &
Stotland, 1989; Baston, 1987). In a study by Toi and Batson, (1982), students listened to a taped
interview with a student who had ostensibly broken both legs in an accident and was behind in
classes. Two factors were manipulated: empathetic vs. non-empathetic set, manipulated by
instructions given to Ss; and the costs of helping, manipulated by whether or not the injured
student was expected to be seen every day once she returned to class. The dependent variable
was whether Ss responded to a request to help the injured student catch up in class. As the
empathy-altruism hypothesis predicted, people in the high empathy condition helped regardless
of cost, while those in the low empathy condition helped only if the cost of not helping was
high.

Empathic-Joy Hypothesis Smith, Keating, and Stotland’s (1989) hypothesis proposes that
empathic concern 39 Pro-social Behaviour and Factors Contributing to Pro-social Behaviour is
based on a helper’s overarching sensitivity to a victim’s emotional state and a subsequent
heightened sense of vicarious happiness and relief upon the fulfillment of the recipient’s needs.
The authors propose that empathic witnesses to someone in need may regard empathic joy as
being more achievable and rewarding than would be a self-focused witness, and thus have
greater motivation to help. The three prominent features of the Empathic-Joy Hypothesis are
that: 1) helpers experience empathic concern; 2) this concern is a function of their sensitivity
to another’s needs; and 3) the awareness of relief for another’s distress promotes subsequent
relief of the helper’s empathic concern as well as a sense of joy.

Self-Efficacy Hypothesis This hypothesis reflects a combination of proposals from authors

regarding correlates to helping behaviours. According to Midlarsky (1968) individuals? level
of competence with a given skill can influence helping behaviour, especially in times of need.
Such competence may increase the likelihood of helping through increased certainty over what
to do, along with the decreased fear of making a mistake and decreased stress over the situation
(Withey, 1962; Janis 1962, Midlarsky, 1968; Staub, 1971).

RECIPROCITY AND SOCIAL NORMS The concept of reciprocity” is defined in settings in

which individuals act in a more cooperative manner in response to the positive or friendly
behaviour of others. As a result, reciprocity as a reputational motivation is very closely linked
to the idea that the more others contribute, the more one gives. For instance, although
contributing to charitable organisations does not benefit the donor directly, she may still gain
in the long run, because she expects to benefit from reciprocity in the future when she will need
help. Leider et al. (2009) established that giving is motivated, at least in part, by future
interaction (enforced reciprocity). Social norms also encourage people to find ways by which
to avoid being generous when it is not completely necessary. As suggested by Stephen Meier
(2004), reciprocity and concern to conform to social norms are closely tied together. In
particular, by observing the behaviour of others, one translates this behaviour into a recipe of
what one ‘should do’.

CURRENT TRENDS Genetics also contribute to individual variation in prosociality.

Research on adults finds that prosociality is substantially heritable. Research on young children
shows lower heritability, demonstrated by one longitudinal twin study showing increase in the
heritability of parent-rated prosociality, from 30 % at age 2 to 60 % at age 7 (Knafo & Plomin,
2006). Gene-environment correlations can also shape individual differences in prosociality.

For example, children’s low prosociality is related to parents’ use of negative discipline and
affection. This relationship can be traced back to children’s genetic tendencies, implying that
the genetically influenced low prosociality can initiate a negative reaction from 40 Process of
Social Influence parents (Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Some evidence suggests that children in
Western societies are less pro-social than children in other cultures, but some studies find no
differences along these lines (see review by Eisenberg et al., 2006). A field study by Levine,
 Norenzayan, and Philbrick (2001) found large cultural differences in spontaneously helping
strangers. For example, the proportion of individuals helping a stranger with a hurt leg pick up
dropped magazines ranged from 22 % to 95 % across 23 cultures. Perhaps, cultures differ
substantially in what each promotes as prosocial behaviour (Eisenberg et al., 2006). It has been
suggested that there are two reasons for cultural differences in altruism (Eisenberg & Mussen,
1989) first is Industrial societies place value on competition and personal success and secondly
Co-operation at the home in non-industrial societies promotes altruism.

SUMMARY|
Pro-social behaviours are voluntary behaviours made with the intention of benefiting others.
Prosocial behaviour is often accompanied with psychological and social rewards for its
performer. In the long run, individuals can benefit from living in a society where prosociality
is common. Altruism is generally defined as any form of voluntary act intended to favour
another withour expectation of reward. There are various factors that affect the pro-social
behaviour e.g. (i) Noticing the emergency, (ii) Interpreting an emergency as an emergency. (iii)
Assuming that it is your responsibility to help, (iv) Knowing what to do, (v) Making the
decision to help. Amongst the various factors affecting helping behaviour, we saw that (i)
Physical attractiveness, (ii) Similarity and kinship, (iii) Religiosity, (iv) Victim’s
perspective,(v) Personal experience, (vi) Gender, (vii) Age,

Questions
1) Define pro-social behaviour with factor leading us to help in a particular situation.

2) Discuss various factors that affect pro-social behaviour.

3) Critically evaluate theories of pro-social behaviour.

References:

1. Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psychology, 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
2. Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–40. Holmgren, R. A.,
3. Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). The relations of children’s situational empathy-related
emotions to dispositional prosocial behaviour. International Journal of Behavioural
Development, 22, 169-193.
4. Meier, Stephen. 2004. “An Economic Analysis of Pro-Social Behaviour.” Dissertation.
 SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIT – V -Social Psychology– SPYA1301

INTRODUCTION
Social Psychologists tried to define prejudice from different viewpoints. Some
psychologists define prejudice as a preconceived irrational judgement, while others
define it as an expression of dislike against members of some religion, race or group.
However, majority of psychologists agree upon the definition given by Secord and
Backman “Prejudice is an attitude that predisposes a person to think, perceive, feel
and act in favourable and unfavourable ways towards a group or its individual
members.”

According to Baron & Byrne “Prejudice is generally a negative attitude towards the
members of some social, ethnic or religious.” Prejudice be it negative or positive is
decidedly an attitude and has all the three components of attitude i.e. affective,
cognitive and behavioural. In this unit we will be discussing the definition of
prejudice, characteristics of prejudice and types of prejudice. We will also be
discussing discrimination as a process and how the prejudice and discrimination are
developed and maintained. Finally we try to see how one can reduce prejudice and
discrimination.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PREJUDICE
Psychologists have identified following characteristics of prejudice: Prejudice is
acquired: Like attitude prejudice is acquired through the process of learning and
socialisation. When born a child is like a blank slate and is free of any kind of
prejudice. It is only when the process of socialisation begins that he starts imitating
his parents and their likes and dislikes. Norms, values, customs, and traditions of the
society of which he is member make him prejudiced toward members of other group.

Acquisition of prejudice is facilitated by classical conditioning, instrumental and

observational learning. A child learns to hate Pakistanis only because he sees
significant others in the society hating pakistanis. Emotional overtones: Prejudice is
always colored with emotions. It is either for or against some group, community or
religion. If favourable, the person would show too much affection, love, care and
sympathy for members of another group. But if unfavourable the person would show
hatred, dislike and hostility. Prejudice is irrational: Prejudice does not lend itself to
reason, wisdom, and relevance. The individual does not change his prejudice in the
face of information and evidence to the contrary.
Prejudice is functional: Prejudice helps the individual justify his hostilities, repressed
desires and strengthen feelings of self-esteem and prestige. It helps individual justify
his exploitation, discrimination of members of other group. For example, in Indian
society the upper caste Hindus justified their exploitation of lower castes reasoning
that they are like that only and deserve to be exploited and discriminated against.
Prejudice has no connection with reality: It is primarily based on hearsay, incomplete
and wrong information, customs and traditions of the society. It can’t stand test of
logic and reasoning.

TYPES OF PREJUDICE
Prejudices are of different types depending upon the social conditions of the
individual. Sociologist and Psychologists delineate following main types of
prejudices: Racial prejudice: This is aimed at members of another race. For example,
Negros have been subject of racial prejudice at the hand of whites. Similarly, Jews
were a target of prejudice by Nazis in Germany. Hitler went to the extent of
exterminating at mass scale. Sex prejudice: This is for centuries women have been
target of prejudice. They have been thought of weak, dependent and intellectually less
gifted than men. Caste prejudice: Indian social structure is the best example of such
prejudice. Our society is divided into numerous castes and each caste is believed to
have specific characteristics.

Language prejudice: This is often evident when we go to different parts of India.

Prejudice and Discriminaion Particularly in South India it is very evident. People
despise Hindi knowing fully well that it is our national language. They prefer to speak
English but not Hindi even if they know Hindi. Infact organisation of states in India
has been on linguistic basis. Religious prejudice: This has been a burning problem in
India since pre independence days. Creation of Pakistan was only because of religious
differences. In religious prejudice individual holds positive attitude toward his own
religion and unfavourable attitude toward other religion. Consequently,
misunderstandings and misconceptions about people of other religions crop up. Some
other prejudices are political prejudice, communal prejudice etc.
DISCRIMINATION
Discrimination is the differential treatment of individuals belonging to a particular
social group or community or religion. It is generally the overt or behavioural
expression of prejudice. Generally the person discriminated is denied some privilege
or right that is accorded to other members of society who do not belong to the minority
group. According to the exchange theory when the reward-cost outcomes of two
separately bounded groups are perceived to be mutually exclusive, so that each group
can increase its gains only at the cost of other, members of each group try to protect
or increase their outcomes. If the two groups are unequal in power, they will establish
different outcomes unless prevented by norms that restrain 28 Attitudes, Stereotypes,
Prejudice and Discrimination exploitation of the weaker by the more powerful. These
different outcomes create differences in the status of the two groups. The extent to
which the members of the minority group feel discriminated against and dislike or feel
hostile toward the majority group is a function of the relation between their
comparison level and that of the majority group. If the minority group has the same
comparison level as the majority group, it will feel dissatisfied and hostile. But if
comparison is sufficiently low relative to majority group no adverse feelings would
occur. However, ‘minority groups’ use of comparison level relative to majority group
depends upon past experiences, the outcomes available in alternative relations, and
structural and cultural factors. For example, in Indian society lower caste people were
not allowed to take water from wells reserved for people of upper castes. They were
not supposed to sit before people of upper castes and there were many more
restrictions imposed upon them simply because they were born in shudra castes.
Sometimes discrimination occurs without the accompanying feeling of prejudice. For
example, a proprietor may refuse to accept as patrons members of a minority group
because he feels it would injure his business. He may not be prejudiced towards those
people but he gives priority to his business

DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF PREJUDICE AND

DISCRIMINATION
Psychologists have categorised the causal and maintenance factors of prejudice as
given below: Status and Power structures: The structure of relations between two
groups in terms of relative status and power sometimes gives rise to prejudice. For
example, where a dominant group holds another group in a condition of slavery, slaves
are likely to be considered lazy, irresponsible and lacking in initiative. These beliefs
emerge from the fact that slaves act upon orders from their masters and not given an
opportunity to demonstrate initiative or responsibility. Thus the beliefs about them are
consonant with their behaviour, which is controlled by structure of relations.

Historical facts: Prejudice and discrimination develop out of history of economic

conflict as well as from political power distribution among groups of people .
Historical incidents led to the development of attitude which slowly takes form of
prejudice. In our society prejudice against women is one such example. Women have
always been considered weak, dependant and tools such prejudice developed out of
atrocities perpetrated over women and they kept tolerating them thinking it to be their
duty.

Similarly some professions have historically been thought to be fit for men than
women. For example, truck driving has never been considered fit for women, Women
in this profession and other such professions are looked down upon. Another example
of historical reason of prejudice comes from prejudice against Jews. An image of Jews
as rich, grasping, and shrewd grew out of their occupational roles as money lenders.
The church prohibited Christians from lending 29 money at interest, but did permit
them to borrow from Jews. Thus the jews Prejudice and Discriminaion became
bankers when this occupation was extremely profitable, and the cognitive image
commensurate with the role became firmly established. Besides competitive
circumstances produced negative effect against Jews.
Situational Factors: The number of situational factors in the immediate environment
of the individual also lead to development of prejudice: Social learning: Every
individual during the process of socialisation learns and acquires beliefs, values and
attitudes through parents, school, religion and church. These agents of socialisation
invariably transmit prejudices held by them to the child. Besides childrearing practices
adopted by parents have been shown to help develop prejudice and discrimination.
Job Competition: Scarcity of job avenues and abundance of applicants is one
important economic factor for development of prejudice. It led to the emergence of
sons of soil theory. For example, the Marathi movement against North Indians in
Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra has one of its reasons based in economic
factors. North Indians coming to Mumbai are ready to work for longer hours and that
too at cheaper wages as against Local people. They have gradually outplace local
people in patty and traditional jobs thus rendering many of people jobless and fending
for struggle to survive. It has led them to believe that north Indians are responsible for
their plight and are replacing them in their own home. Such beliefs lead to
development prejudice against North Indians.
Conformity to Norms: Once prejudice and discrimination against outgroup are well
established, the accompanying cognitions and feelings concerning the out group
acquire a normative quality. They are shared by members of the ingroup and the
members expect each other to hold such attitudes. The factors underlying conformity
to the norms of prejudice may be explained in terms of the varying reward-cost
outcomes ensuing from conformity or nonconformity. If prejudice and discrimination
against other group is the norm, then overt expression of prejudice and discrimination
will receive approval from other members of the group.

Interaction Patterns:
Prejudice and discrimination create certain interaction patterns that contribute to
maintenance of the status quo. Several interaction patterns increase cohesion and thus
strengthen the power of the group to enforce conformity to norms of prejudice and
discrimination. Any factor that makes members more dependent on the group is likely
to increase cohesion. Interaction pattern within the ingroup may also increase the
economic dependence of members upon each other. Finally, if interaction within each
group predominates over interaction across group lines, the development of patterns
of thinking, feeling and behaving unique to each group is fostered. Such interaction
patterns increase the cultural gulf that separates the two group. Psychodynamic
factors: Researches reveal that a number of psychological factors also give rise to
prejudice.

Frustration and Aggression:

Frustration also gives rise to prejudice. The underlying theory in it is displaced
aggression. According to this theory when individual finds some obstacle between him
and his goal he gets frustrated and becomes aggressive toward the obstacle. Since the
interfering agent is stronger and powerful and has the power to punish him this
frustration and aggression is 30 Attitudes, Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination
displaced toward some weaker object. Thus, the weak person or group becomes
scapegoat. Authoritarian Personality: Among psychological factors of prejudice
authoritarian personality has received much attention from psychologists. People with
authoritarian personality exhibit rigid thinking, punitive tendency. These tendencies
predispose individual toward prejudice. Besides these people value people on the scale
of power, people above them in the power scale are attributed all good characteristics,
and people below them on power scale are treated as inferior and deserve to be
exploited and hated.

Personality needs:
A variety of personality needs may support prejudice and discrimination. One such
need is “intolerance for ambiguity”. Persons differ in the extent to which they are
disturbed by confusing or ambiguous situations. Some persons like to have everything
in black and white i.e. they are unable to tolerate least uncertainty or complexity in
situation while some persons are least disturbed by confusing or uncertain situations.
In general it has been found that individuals who are more intolerant of ambiguity are
also likely to be more prejudiced because prejudice for them serves to clarify
ambiguity and uncertainty embedded in the situation. Similarly, a need to achieve
superior status may be supported by prejudice, which provides a group of persons
lower in status than oneself. The need for security may be satisfied through rejection
of outgroup.

MANIFESTATION OF PREJUDICE
As we know that a prejudice is a negative attitude directed toward some member of a
particular group. An attitude is a hypothetical construct observable only through the
behaviour of a person. A prejudice manifests itself through the following modes of
behaviour: Withdrawal: It means moving from the object of prejudice. For example, a
person is prejudiced against jews. He goes to a party and fids that some jews have
been invited to that party. Now instead of making jews leave that party he decides to
move away from that party. Avoidance: Keeping away from the social situation where
the object of prejudice may be present. For example, the person who is prejudiced
against jews and hates them, comes to know before-hand that some of the invitees at
the party are jews. In that condition he may decide to not to join that party. Thus he is
able to avoid a situation where he might have to interact with object of prejudice.
Discrimination: It involves biased behaviour against the object person of prejudice.
For example, a teacher who is prejudiced against a particular community may fail
students belonging to that community. He may not select students of particular
community for school team, although the students in question deserve and merit
selection against all criteria. Lynching: It involves behaviour aimed at causing
physical hurt or injury to the object person of prejudice. For example, the teacher in
above example may go to the extent of actually subjecting students of a particular
community to physical punishment without any reasonable ground. Extermination: It
is an extreme form of manifestation of prejudice. It is aimed at removing the existence
of the object person of prejudice. For example, in the Second World War, Hitler, the
then Chancellor of Germany, ordered mass extermination of jews. Millions of Jews
were massacred at the orders of Hitler. Hitler believed himself to be Aryan and he
aimed to cleanse Germany of Non Aryans.

METHODS OF REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Social psychologists have suggested a number of methods for reducing prejudice
which as follow: Intergroup Contact: Allport was the first psychologist to realise the
importance of intergroup contact in between prejudiced person and the target person.
Such interactional situations provide the two parties an opportunity to know each other
from close quarters and understand each other thereby reducing misunderstandings
and misconceptions. However, for intergroup contact to be effective certain conditions
are to be met. Intergroup contact is an effective method of reducing prejudice only in
those conditions where both the parties have equal status. For this technique to be
effective contact between the prejudiced person and target person ought to be intimate
and not superficial. Intimate and honest contact between the concerned parties
motivates the person to perceive members of target group more as humans than as
stereotypes.
Intergroup contact method is more successful in situations where the success of both
parties is dependent on each other i.e. when a common goal is to be achieved. In such
situation both parties are forced to understand each other in a better manner.
Education: Social psychologists emphasise that appropriate education has important
role to play in reduction of prejudice, particularly racial prejudice. In it both informal
and formal education are important.
As far as informal education is concerned parents ought to be encouraged not to
indulge before children in things which knowingly or unknowingly promote prejudice.
As for formal education, its syllabus and curriculum should be designed to promote
harmony between different sections of society. It should aim at developing healthy
minds. It has been found that higher and better formal education leads to decreased
prejudice and increased liberalism. Recently, psychologists have devised a new
method called cultural assimilator. In this method a group of prejudice persons is
explained about traditions, norms, beliefs and value system of people of other
communities and races so that they can appreciate those communities and races in the
light of recent information. A number of social psychologists have successfully used
this method. Antiprejudice propaganda: Through mass media it has also been helpful
in reducing prejudice. In one of the studies it was found that films and documentaries
aimed at reducing prejudice have been successful in reducing prejudice upto 60
percent. Some other psychologists have reported antiprejudice propaganda to be more
effective than formal education. Incongruent role: It has been found that when a person
is made to play a role contrary to his prejudice it leads to reduction in prejudice after
some time. It happens because playing such role creates dissonance in the individual.
This dissonance gives rise to tension compelling the individual to change his prejudice
33 and restore balance between his behaviour and attitude. The person can’t change
Prejudice and Discriminaion his behaviour as it is public but his prejudice. For
example, if a person prejudiced against a particular community is entrusted the task of
welfare of that community, he is left with no alternative but change his prejudice
because he is not able to change his role. Social legislation: This is another method of
reducing prejudice. Government in different countries have adopted and enacted
several legislations which prohibit expression of prejudice in any form. Any public
manifestation of prejudice is unlawful and liable to punishment. Let us take the
example of our own country. Our constitution states that state shall not make any
discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, sex, and religion of the individual and no
person shall be allowed to do so. Consequently, today we don’t mind a harijan sitting
beside us and offering prayer in the temple.
Government even encourages people for intercaste marriages. Persons belonging to
deprived communities or castes have been provided reservation in jobs. Personality
change techniques: This is for prejudice reduction to be effective a person must have
balanced personality and open mind. However in cases where prejudice is an integral
part of personality it becomes imperative to seek help of therapeutic treatment. A
number of psychotherapies have been developed to help such persons. For example,
 Play therapy is an important tool for detecting prejudice at early stage and to bring
reformation in personality of children.

SUMMARY In this unit we studied prejudice and its nature. What are the different
types of prejudices and what havoc they play with society and individual. We also
studied characteristics of prejudice. Then we studied discrimination, what does it mean
and we also discussed prejudice and discrimination. It was followed by a detailed
discussion on the causes of development and maintenance of prejudice. We studied
manifestation of prejudice. In the last we discussed methods of reducing prejudice.

Questions
1) What do you understand by the term prejudice? What are the different types of prejudice?

2) What do you understand by the term discrimination? What are the different forms of
prejudice manifestation?

3) Write an essay on factors of development and maintenance of discrimination and

prejudice.

4) Discuss the psychological factors that give rise to prejudice and discrimination

5) Explain how authoritarian personality and personality needs contribute to the development
of prejudice and discrimination?

References:

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2010). Essential Social
Psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2. Baron, R. A., & Byrne, D. (2003). Social Psychology, 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice
Hall.