What is Social Psychology?

Scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context.
Focus on:

• How people process social interactions
• How motives and behaviour are shaped by context

Two Fundamental Motives

Heart Motives (Affective)

• Positive self-regard
• Belonging
• Biological + psychological need for connection

Mind Motives (Cognitive)

• Accuracy
• Consistency
• Predictability
• Making sense of the environment

Features

• Empirical, evidence-based
• Studies individual × context interactions

What Do Social Psychologists Study?

A. Social Cognition

• How people think about themselves + the social world
• Automatic vs controlled processing
• Schema formation
• Attribution: identifying causes of behaviour

B. The Self

• Self-concept
• Self-awareness
• Self-knowledge
• Self-esteem
• Functions of the self
• Cultural differences (independent vs interdependent)
• Impression management

C. Close Relationships

• Factors influencing who we choose as friends
• Attraction processes
• Influence of early attachment
• Why relationships form and how they are maintained

D. Prosocial Behaviour

• Helping vs altruism
• Empathy: trait vs situational
• Cooperation vs conflict
• Consequences of receiving help

Aggression

• Hostile (emotion-driven) vs instrumental (goal-driven)
• Overt vs covert aggression

E. Groups

• How groups form + survive
• Group identity & cohesion
• Shared norms
• Social influence within groups

F. Social Influence

• Norm of reciprocity
• De-individuation
• Stanford Prison Study
• Conformity
• Compliance
• Obedience

G. Stigma

Definition

• Shared cultural beliefs about undesirable attributes
• A negative or devalued social identity
• Stigma depends on moral norms + social context, not the attribute itself

Types (Goffman)

1. Tribal identities → ethnicity, sexuality, religion
2. Abominations of the body → disabilities, HIV
3. Blemishes of character → addiction, mental illness

Reducing Stigma

• Consider cultural lenses, motivations, environment, long-term perspectives
• Emphasise multiculturalism rather than colour-blind ideology
• Increase empathy

Common Ingroup Identity Model

Reducing prejudice by:

• Reframing groups as one shared group
• Expanding “us”
• Stressing shared identity → decreases bias

Stereotypes, Prejudice & Discrimination

Prejudice

Negative/hateful attitude toward people based solely on group membership:

• Race
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Sexuality
• Nationality
• Religion
• Ideology
• Appearance
• Physical ability
• Health

Origin of Prejudice

A. Economic Perspective

• Competition over limited resources
• Leads to intergroup hostility

B. Motivational Perspective

Social Identity Theory

• People gain self-esteem from group identity
• In-group positivity = personal self-worth boost

Minimal Group Paradigm

Even arbitrary groups trigger:

• In-group favouritism
• Out-group derogation
• Exaggeration of differences
• Scapegoating
• Cognitive shortcuts due to limited mental resources

Frustration–Aggression Theory

• Frustration → aggression → often displaced onto safer targets

Attitudes

Definition

Evaluative reaction toward an object, person, or idea:

• Affective → emotions
• Behavioural → actions
• Cognitive → beliefs

Attitudes help simplify complex social information.

How Attitudes Are Formed

1. Exposure

• Mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968)
• People prefer their mirror image (Mita et al., 1977)

2. Classical Conditioning

• Pairing CS with US transfers emotional meaning
• Advertising uses this heavily
• Cacioppo et al. (1992): nonsense words paired with shock → rated more negatively

3. Operant Conditioning

• Reinforcement strengthens attitude expression
• Children rewarded for certain attitudes → adopt them

4. Imitation

• Adopt attitudes of parents, peers, role models

5. Bem’s Self-Perception Theory

• We infer attitudes by observing our behaviour
• Works for weak or ambiguous attitudes
  Example:
  To answer “Do I like ice cream?”, you recall behaviour (eating it).

6. Bodily Feedback

• Facial expressions can create attitudes
• Behaviour shapes emotion

Wells & Petty (1980) — Headphone Study

• Nodding → more agreement
• Shaking → less agreement

Functions of Attitudes

• Maintain cognitive consistency
• Organise beliefs
• Help navigation of social world
• Align us with like-minded others

Heider’s Balance Theory (1946)

Heider’s Balance Theory proposes:

• People strive for psychological harmony between their attitudes and relationships.
• Triads of relationships must be balanced:

The Triad:

P = Person
O = Other person
X = Attitude object

A triad is balanced if:

• The product of the signs is positive (e.g., + + + or + – –)

Examples:

• You like a person and you both dislike the same politician → balanced
• You like someone who hates what you like → unbalanced → leads to pressure to change your attitude or relationship

Key Ideas:

• “We like people who hate the same things we hate.”
• Children adopt attitudes early due to implicit balance pressures
• Balanced states feel comfortable; imbalance motivates change

Attitude–Behaviour Relationship

LaPiere (1934)

• Showed major inconsistency between expressed attitudes and actual behaviour
• Correlation between attitudes and behaviour < .3

Improve Prediction

• Measure context-specific attitudes
• Increase personal relevance
• Consider social pressures

Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)

Behavioural intentions ←

• Attitudes toward behaviour
• Subjective norms
• Perceived behavioural control

Intentions → Behaviour

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)

Definition

Psychological discomfort from inconsistency between behaviour & attitudes.

How We Reduce Dissonance

• Change behaviour
• Change attitude
• Justify behaviour

Important Effects

• Insufficient justification → attitude shifts
• Effort justification → suffering increases liking (e.g., hazing)
• Ben Franklin effect → doing favours increases liking
• Dissonance occurs even without conscious awareness (amnesics)
• Commitment increases resistance to alternatives

Persuasion

Message Learning Approach (Yale Group)

Attitude change requires:

1. Attention
2. Comprehension
3. Acceptance

Factors Influencing Persuasion

Source Variables (Who?)

• Attractiveness
• Likeability, optimism
• Similarity
• Credibility (fast speaking increases it)

Message Variables (What?)

• Vivid messages > dull messages
• Fear appeals
• Humour
• Repetition
• Medium of delivery

Audience Variables (To whom?)

• Self-esteem
  • Low → less attentive
  • High → more confident
• Mood
  • Happy → less critical
  • Sad → motivates change, more analytic

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Central Route

• Careful, deep processing
• Strong attitudes formed
• Predict behaviour better

Peripheral Route

• Heuristics
• Superficial cues
• Weaker attitudes

Compliance Techniques

Nudges

• Environmental tweaks → behaviour change
• Hanks (2012): healthy food line placement → +18% consumption

Principles

Reciprocity

• Return favours
• Door-in-the-face technique

Social Proof

• Follow others in uncertain situations

Flattery

• People like flatterers even when motives are obvious

Scarcity

• Desire increases when something is limited

Consistency

• Foot-in-the-door: small → large request
• Low-ball: reveal hidden costs after commitment

Conformity

Definitions

• Conformity: adjusting behaviour to match group norms
• Compliance: outward conformity without belief change
• Obedience: direct command
• Acceptance: internalised conformity

Normative Social Influence

• Desire to be liked/accepted
• Groups punish deviants

Sherif (1935) — Autokinetic Illusion

• Ambiguous light movement
• Estimates converge when in a group
• Demonstrates informational influence

Suggestibility

• Social influence can create false beliefs
• E.g., UFO sightings (1947)

Asch’s Line Study

Purpose

To test whether people would conform to a group’s clearly incorrect judgment in an unambiguous situation.

Method

• Participants sat in a group with confederates (actors instructed to give wrong answers).
• Shown a target line and asked to choose which of three comparison lines matched its length.
• Confederates unanimously gave incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 trials.

Findings

• 76% of participants conformed at least once.
• On average, participants conformed on about 37% of critical trials.
• Many reported doubt, but went along to avoid standing out → evidence of normative social influence.

Reasons for Conformity

1. Desire to fit in (normative influence)
2. Belief group might know something (informational influence), though less relevant since the task was clear
3. Fear of rejection or appearing different

When Conformity Decreased

• Presence of one ally reduced conformity dramatically (to around 5–10%).
• If answers were given privately, conformity dropped.
• Smaller group sizes (1–2 people) produced little conformity; 3–4 people maximised the effect.

Obedience

Milgram’s Obedience Studies

Purpose

To investigate how far ordinary people would go in obeying authority, even when the orders required harming another person.

Method

• Participants believed they were in a study about learning and memory.
• Assigned the role of “teacher,” while a confederate was the “learner.”
• The learner was strapped to a chair, connected to (fake) electric shock equipment.
• Teacher read word pairs; for each mistake, they administered an increasingly intense shock (15 → 450 volts).
• The learner eventually screamed, complained of heart problems, then fell silent.
• If the participant hesitated, the experimenter used verbal prompts:
  1. “Please continue.”
  2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
  3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
  4. “You have no other choice; you must go on.”

Findings

• 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock.
• All participants went to at least 300 volts.
• Many participants showed visible distress (sweating, trembling, stuttering) but still obeyed.

Why Did People Obey?

Milgram identified several situational factors:

1. Authority Proximity

• Obedience increased when the experimenter was physically close.
• When the experimenter gave orders by phone → obedience dropped sharply.

2. Victim Distance

• When the “learner” was further away (in another room) → obedience increased.
• When participants had to force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate → obedience dropped to ~30%.

3. Institutional Legitimacy

• Conducted at Yale → high obedience.
• Conducted in a run-down office → obedience slightly decreased but still high (~48%).

4. Diffusion of Responsibility

• Authority accepts responsibility → teacher feels less personally accountable.

5. Gradual Escalation (Foot-in-the-door)

• Shock levels increased in small increments → easier to justify continuing.

Interpretation

• Ordinary people will obey authority figures even when actions conflict with personal conscience.
• Obedience is shaped largely by situational factors, not personality.
• Demonstrates the power of:
  • Social roles
  • Obedience norms
  • Diffusion of responsibility

Ethical Issues

• Deception
• Psychological harm
• Lack of informed consent
• Pressured to continue

Applications & Interventions

• Behaviour change strategies
• Prejudice reduction
• Health psychology nudges
• Reducing stigma
• Intergroup harmony