12:48 P.M. In less than 20 minutes, Gill had killed one woman and injured 19 other people, 8 critically.

Fortunately, all 19 people recovered. When police searched Gill’s home, they found a number of firearm
accessories, a letter of apology, and a letter praising the actions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the
Columbine shooters.
Gill’s blog at the Goth site vampirefreeks.com contained photos of all his weapons, articles on
his various interests, and information suggesting that the shooting was premeditated. Gill’s screen
name was “fatality 666” and he commented that he would become known as the Angel of Death. He
liked violent video games and was a fan of Postal, Blood, 25 to Life, and Doom. It is rumoured that
he also liked Super Columbine Massacre. In his profile, Gill wrote, “Work sucks . . . School sucks . . .
Life sucks . . . What else can I say? Life is like a video game, you gotta die sometime.”
To date, there have been over 145 shooting incidents at schools, colleges, and universities in
North America. Over 300 people have been killed.

A
s social beings, we belong. We spend our
lives in a stream of social environments
that profoundly shape how we behave,
think, and feel. In this chapter, we explore the
field of social psychology, which studies how
we think about and perceive our social world
(social thinking and social perception), how
other people influence our behaviour (social
inf luence), and how we behave toward other
people (social relations).

SOCIAL THINKING © Bruce Ayres/Getty Images

AND PERCEPTION FIGURE 13.1 “He’s been under a lot of stress lately.”
“He only thinks about himself. What a jerk!” Depending on
Beyond decision making, we spend a great which attribution she makes for her husband’s outburst,
deal of time thinking about our social world. this woman may respond with understanding or anger.
We hold countless attitudes and beliefs, won-
der about why people act as they do, and defendant’s behaviour influence their decisions
develop impressions of people. Social psy- about guilt versus innocence.
chologists have devoted considerable atten-
tion to these three aspects of social thinking Personal versus Situational Attributions
and perception. Fritz Heider, a pioneer of attribution theory, main-
tained that our attempts to understand why people
behave as they do typically involve either personal
Attribution: Perceiving the attributions or situational attributions (Heider,
Causes of Behaviour 1958; Stewart et al., 2010). Personal (internal)
In everyday life, we often make attribu- attributions infer that people’s behaviour is caused
tions, judgments about the causes of our own by their characteristics: Bill insulted Carl because
and other people’s behaviour and outcomes Bill is a rude person; my A on an exam reflects
(Figure 13.1). Was my A on the mid-term because my high ability. Situational (external) attribu-
of hard work and ability, or was it just an easy tions infer that aspects of the situation cause a
test? Did Bill criticize Carl because he is a rude behaviour: Bill was provoked into insulting Carl; I
person, or was he provoked? Attributions influ- received an A because the test was easy. 1. What types
of information
ence our subsequent behaviour and emotions. If I How do we decide whether a behaviour is
lead us to form a
attribute my A to hard work and ability, I will feel caused by personal or situational factors? Sup- situational rather
greater pride and continue to exert more effort pose you ask Kim for advice on whether to take a than a personal
than if I attribute it to an easy test (Weiner, 1985). particular course (say, Art 391) and she tells you attribution?
In the courtroom, jurors’ attributions about a that the course is terrible. Is Art 391 really terrible
500 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

(a situational attribution), or did something about attributions are more closely linked to the medial
Kim (a personal attribution) lead to this response? prefrontal cortex (Moran et al., 2014).
According to Harold Kelley (1973), three types of
information determine the attribution we make: Attributional Biases
consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus. Social psychology teaches us that the immedi-
2. Describe the First, is Kim’s response consistent over time? If ate social environment profoundly influences
fundamental you ask Kim again two weeks later and she still behaviour. Yet we often form negative opinions
attribution says that Art 391 is terrible, then consistency is about the participants in these studies because
error and the
high. Second, is her response distinctive? If Kim we tend to make a fundamental attribution
self-serving
dislikes only Art 391, then distinctiveness is high. error: We underestimate the impact of the situ-
bias. How do
cultural norms If she thinks that most of her courses are terrible, ation and overestimate the role of personal fac-
affect these then distinctiveness is low. Finally, how do other tors when explaining other people’s behaviour
attributional people respond? If other students agree with Kim (Neuschatz et al., 2008; Ross, 2001).
tendencies? that Art 391 is terrible, then consensus is high. But In a classic experiment, university students
if they disagree with her, then consensus is low. read either a favourable or unfavourable
As Figure 13.2 illustrates, when consistency, speech about Cuban president Fidel Castro, pre-
distinctiveness, and consensus are all high, we sumably written by a member of a university
are likely to make a situational attribution: The debating team (Jones & Harris, 1967). They then
course is terrible. But, when consistency is high estimated the writer’s attitude toward Castro.
and the other two factors are low, we make a Half the students were told that the debate team
personal attribution: Perhaps Kim is overly criti- member freely chose the favourable or unfa-
cal or just doesn’t like university. vourable position. The others were told that the
At times, people do respond thoughtfully and favourable or unfavourable viewpoint had been
take consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus assigned by the debate coach—it was not the
information into account when making attribu- debater’s choice. Figure 13.3 shows that when
tions. But, at other times, people take mental the speech was freely chosen, students logically
shortcuts and make snap judgments that bias assumed that the debater had a correspondingly
their attributions (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Inter- positive or negative attitude about Castro. Yet,
estingly, Brosch et al. (2013) have shown that when told that the role was assigned, students
when people take situational information into paid insufficient attention to this situational fac-
consideration, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex tor and still perceived that the pro-Castro and
is involved, indicating more thoughtful top-down anti-Castro debaters had different personal
processing of the information. Dispositional beliefs. Similarly, people make the fundamental

Behaviour Attributional factors Attribution

Consistency Distinctiveness Consensus

High Low Low Personal attribution

When asked, Kim Kim says that Other students Kim is overly critical
always says that all her classes say that Art 391
Art 391 is boring are boring is great
Kim says
that Art 391
is boring
High High High Situational attribution

When asked, Kim Kim says that Other students Art 391 is boring
always says that only Art 391 say that Art 391
Art 391 is boring is boring is boring

FIGURE 13.2 According to Harold Kelley, consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus information help us
determine whether to make personal or situational attributions for someone else’s behaviour. Note that in both
examples, above, consistency is high. If a person’s behaviour has low consistency (suppose that sometimes Kim
says Art 391 is boring, and other times she says it’s interesting), we typically attribute the behaviour to transient
conditions (e.g., changes in Kim’s mood) rather than to stable personal or situational factors.
Source: Based on Kelley, H.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 501

Attitude attributed
to speaker
Pro- 70
Castro Pro-Castro speech
Anti-Castro speech
60

50

40

30

20

Anti- 10
Castro Chosen Assigned

FIGURE 13.3 These data illustrate a fundamental NBC/Courtesy Everett Collection/The Canadian Press
attribution error. When told that a debate coach had
assigned a team member to write a pro- or anti-Castro FIGURE 13.4 Unlike Mr. Spock, the logical and emo-
speech, university students still attributed a more anti- tionless Vulcan from the series Star Trek, actor Leonard
Castro attitude to the writer of the anti-Castro speech. Nimoy has feelings just like the rest of us. TV and
movie fans make the fundamental attribution error
Source: Data from Jones, E.E., & Harris, V.A. (1967). The when they expect media stars to have the same traits
attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social as the characters they play. The title of Nimoy’s autobi-
Psychology, 3, 2–24. ography, I Am Not Spock, emphasizes this point.

attribution error on the basis of actors’ profes- schoolmates and a teacher. In the following
sional roles: They expect TV and movie stars to days, Gallup Polls found that most Americans
have the same personal traits as the characters rated situational factors such as parenting, gun
they play (Tal-Or & Papirman, 2007). Figure 13.4 availability, TV and movie violence, and media
illustrates this example. coverage of past shootings as bearing consid-
The fundamental attribution error applies to erable blame. On one set of questions, only
how we perceive other people’s behaviour rather 11 percent made a personal attribution for the
than our own. As comedian George Carlin once shooters’ behaviour, such as “mental problems,”
noted, the slow driver ahead of us is a “moron,” “bad kids,” “anger,” or “wanting attention”
and the fast driver trying to pass us is a “maniac.” (Gillespie, 1999; Saad, 1999).
Yet we do not think of ourselves as a “moron” or When people have time to reflect on their
a “maniac” when we are driving slowly or trying judgments or are highly motivated to be care-
to pass another driver. One reason for this is that ful, the fundamental attribution error is reduced
we have more information about the present situ- (Burger, 1991; Gilbert & Malone, 1995). The
ation when making judgments about ourselves, Columbine shooting was preceded by a tragic
as when we are driving slowly to follow unfamil- string of similar and highly publicized incidents
iar directions. Second, the perceptual principle across the United States. The American public
of figure-ground relations comes into play. When was already highly engaged in this issue and
you watch others behave, they are the “figure” had considerable time to think about the causes
that stands out against the background. But when of school violence. Similarly, when a 14-year-
we behave, we are not “watching” ourselves. We old boy opened fire at the W.R. Myers High
are part of the background, and the situation that School in Taber, Alberta, one week after Colum-
we are in stands out. If you watch yourself on a bine, we were ready to think about the possible
videotape, you now become the figure, and are situational determinants of such behaviour.
more likely to make personal attributions about When it comes to explaining our own behav-
your own behaviour—as if you were observing iour, we tend to protect our self-esteem by
someone else (Storms, 1973). displaying a self-serving bias: making rela-
Is the fundamental attribution error inevita- tively more personal attributions for successes
ble? Certainly not. Recall that Eric Harris and and more situational attributions for failures
Dylan Klebold went on a shooting rampage in (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). In one study of ath-
1999 killing 12 of their Columbine High School letes’ post-game statements, successes tended
502 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

to be attributed to personal factors, such as Personal attributions

“We played great defence and hung in there,” 50
North America
whereas losses were more frequently attrib-
India
uted to external causes, such as poor offici-
ating or “Everything they shot was going in”
(Lau & Russell, 1980). The strength of the self-
25
serving bias depends on various factors, rang-
ing from one’s psychological state to cultural

Percentage of personal and situational

norms. Depressed people, for example, often

attributions for negative behaviours

display the opposite attributional pattern—
taking too little credit for successes and too
much credit for failures—a pattern that helps 0
8 11 15 Adult
to keep them depressed.
Age of respondents
Culture and Attribution
Situational attributions
Just as culture influences how we perceive the 50
physical world (see Chapter 5), it also affects
how we perceive the social world. Consider the
fundamental attribution error. Many studies sug-
gest that the tendency to attribute other people’s
behaviour to personal factors reflects a Western-
25
ized emphasis on individualism (Triandis, 2001).
In a study by J.G. Miller (1984), participants of
varying ages from India and the United States
attributed causality for several behaviours. As
Figure 13.5 shows, with increasing age, partici-
pants from India made more situational attribu- 0
8 11 15 Adult
tions and those from the United States made more
personal attributions. Similarly, American uni- Age of respondents
versity students and British schoolchildren make FIGURE 13.5 With increasing age from childhood to
more personal attributions for other people’s crim- adulthood, North Americans show a greater tendency
inal behaviour than do Korean university students to make personal attributions for other people’s behav-
and Nigerian schoolchildren, who come from less iours. In contrast, participants from India show an
individualistic cultures (Na-Eun-Yeong & Loftus, increased tendency to make situational attributions.
1998; Pfeffer et al., 1998; Tyson & Hubert, 2002). Source: Data from J.G. Miller, 1984, Culture and the
Culture also influences attributions for our Development of Everyday Social Explanation, Journal of
own behaviour (Singh et al., 1979). Modesty is Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978, Table 2.
highly valued in China’s collectivistic culture, Copyright © 1984 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission of the author and the publisher.
and Chinese university students take less credit
for successful social interactions than do Ameri-
can students, while accepting more responsibil- higher overall on measures of holistic thinking
ity for their failures (Anderson, 1999). and also took a greater amount of information
Beyond influencing the types of attributions into account when making causal attributions
that we make, our cultural background also for other people’s behaviour.
seems to affect the way we go about making Importantly, this relation between holistic
attributions. Consider that East Asians, in gen- thinking and the use of information was also
eral, tend to hold a more holistic view of the found within each culture. Among the Ameri-
universe than Westerners (Nisbett et al., 2001, can students and among the Korean students,
2008). This view, reflected in the belief that those who thought more holistically than their
all events are interconnected and therefore peers took more information into account when
cannot be understood in isolation, leads East making attributions (Choi et al., 2003). Thus, the
Asians to develop more complex views about same underlying psychological principle—a
the causes of behaviour. Accordingly, Incheol link between holistic thinking and beliefs about
Choi and colleagues (2003) predicted and found causality—seems to account for information-
that compared with European-American col- seeking differences between cultures as well as
lege students, Korean college students scored among individuals within each culture.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 503

Forming and Maintaining (Ambady & Skowronski, 2008), and some evo-
lutionary psychologists propose that evaluating
Impressions stimuli quickly (such as rapidly distinguishing
As social beings, we constantly form impres- friend from foe) was adaptive for our survival
sions of other people, just as they form impres- (Krebs & Denton, 1997). But we are not slaves
sions of us. Attributions play a key role in to primacy. Primacy effects decrease—and
impression formation: Does a person’s behav- recency effects (giving greater weight to the
iour say something about her or him, or is it most recent information) may occur—when we
caused by the situation? Other factors, how- are asked to avoid making snap judgments, are
ever, also affect how we form and maintain reminded to carefully consider the evidence,
impressions. and are made to feel accountable for our judg-
ments (Luchins, 1957b; Webster et al., 1996).
Primacy versus Recency: Are First
Impressions More Important? Mental Sets and Schemas: Seeing
Try this simple exercise: Tell some people that What We Expect to See
you know a person who is “intelligent, indus- Imagine that we are going to a party and I tell
trious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envi- you that the host, George, is a distant, aloof, and
ous.” Tell others that this person is “envious, cold person. You meet him and try to make pleas-
stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and ant conversation. George doesn’t say much in
intelligent.” Then ask for their impression of response to your questions, avoids eye contact,
this person. Both groups receive the same and doesn’t ask you about your life. A bit later,
information but in reverse order. In a classic you say to me, “You were right; he’s really a cold
experiment, Solomon Asch (1946) found that fish.” Now let’s roll back this scene. Suppose that
the person in the first description was perceived I had described George as nice, but extremely
more positively—as being more sociable and shy. Later, when you try to make conversation,
happier—than the person in the second descrip- he doesn’t say much, avoids eye contact, and
tion. In another experiment, participants read doesn’t ask you about your life. You say to me,
a two-paragraph story about a boy named Jim. “You were right; he’s really shy.” Same behaviour,
One paragraph described Jim as outgoing, the different impression. This example reminds us of
other as introverted. Participants’ impression of a key perceptual principle highlighted in Chap-
Jim was influenced more strongly by whichever ter 5. Whether perceiving objects or people, the
paragraph they read first (Luchins, 1957a). same stimulus can be “seen” in different ways.
When forming impressions, the primacy Our mental set, which is a readiness to perceive
effect refers to our tendency to attach more 3. Why do
the world in a particular way, powerfully shapes
primacy
importance to the initial information that we how we interpret a stimulus (see Figure 5.2).
effects occur
learn about a person. New information can What creates our mental sets? One important in impression
change our opinion, but it has to “work harder” factor that we have encountered throughout the formation? How
to overcome that initial impression for two rea- book is schemas, mental frameworks that help can they be
sons. First, we tend to be most alert to informa- us organize and interpret information. By telling reduced?
tion we receive first. Second, initial information you that our host is “cold,” “shy,” or “distracted,” I
may shape how we perceive subsequent infor- activate a set of concepts and expectations (your 4. How do
mation. Imagine a student and an athlete who, schema) for how such a person is likely to behave. mental sets
respectively, get off to a great start in class or Although the host’s behaviour can be interpreted shape the way
training camp. The teacher and the coach attri- in multiple ways, you “fit” his behaviour into the we perceive
bute high ability to these people, but, suppose particular schema that is already activated. people? How
that as time goes on, performance declines. To do stereotypes
A stereotype, which is a generalized belief
create mental
maintain their positive initial impression, the about a group or category of people, represents
sets?
teacher and coach need only attribute the per- a powerful type of schema. In one experiment,
formance decline to fatigue, a drop in motiva- participants watched a videotape of a nine-year-
tion, or a string of bad breaks. old girl named Hannah and were asked to judge
Primacy is the general rule of thumb in her academic potential. Half of the participants
impression formation, especially for peo- were told that Hannah came from an upper-
ple who dislike ambiguity and uncertainty middle-class environment and that her parents
(Kruglanski, 2004). We seem to have a remark- had white-collar careers. Other participants
able capacity for forming snap judgments were told that Hannah came from a poor neigh-
based on small amounts of initial information bourhood and that her parents were blue-collar
504 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

workers. On the videotape, Hannah performed Self-fulfilling prophecies have since been
at an average level, answering some difficult demonstrated in hundreds of studies across dif-
questions and missing some others. Although all ferent countries and settings, including schools,
participants saw the same performance, those business organizations, the military, sports, and
who thought Hannah came from an affluent set- dating and marital relationships (Madon et al.,
ting rated her higher in ability than did those who 2006; Shapiro et al., 2007). In interacting with
thought she came from a disadvantaged back- others, our initial, unfounded expectations can
ground (Darley & Gross, 1983). In a real sense, influence how we behave toward them, thereby
participants’ stereotypes about blue-collar shaping their behaviour in a way that ultimately
and white-collar workers created a mental set confirms our expectations.
that biased their perception of Hannah’s subse-
quent behaviour. Attitudes and Attitude Change
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Creating In 1935, Gordon Allport called attitude “social
What We Expect to See psychology’s most indispensable concept”
(p. 798). Our attitudes help to define our iden-
Seeing what we expect to see is only one way
5. Explain how tity, guide our actions, and influence how we
we confirm our initial expectations and impres-
our incorrect judge people (Maio & Olson, 2000). Indeed,
sions. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs usually
expectations can attitudes help to steer the course of world
without conscious awareness, when people’s
become self- events, from political elections, to war, to the
fulfilling. erroneous expectations lead them to act toward
latest fashion craze.
others in a way that brings about the expected
An attitude is a positive or negative evalu-
behaviours, thereby confirming the original
ative reaction toward a stimulus, such as a per-
impression. Returning to our “party” example,
son, action, object, or concept (Crano & Prislin,
if you expect the host to be cold and aloof, your
2006; Gawronski, 2007). Whether disagreeing
behaviour toward him may change in subtle
with a governmental policy or agreeing with a
ways. You make conversation, but perhaps
movie review, you are expressing evaluative
you smile less, stand farther away, or give up
reactions. Sometimes, as shown in Figure 13.7,
a little earlier than you would have if I had told
our attitudes are supported by an extensive per-
you that George was a great guy. His reserved
sonal belief and value system.
response, in part, could be a reaction to your
behaviour (Figure 13.6).
Reduces
social
Your discomfort Eases
behaviour studying
(unfriendly, Friends +
Causes guarded) +
(1) dislike
smoking –
Smoking Health
cigarettes –
Your risks
Roommate –
expectation Causes (2) dislikes
(“George is smoking –
unfriendly”)
–

Makes Expensive
you smell
George bad
(3) responds
Confirms in an
your expectation unfriendly FIGURE 13.7 The components of a person’s attitude
fashion toward smoking. Around the attitude object (smoking
cigarettes) are beliefs related to smoking. The plus and
FIGURE 13.6 The self-fulfilling prophecy begins minus signs show the positive or negative value the
when a false expectation that we have about some- person associates with each belief. The minus sign in
one else influences how we treat that person. Next, the centre indicates the resulting overall negative atti-
influenced by our behaviour, the person responds in a tude toward smoking cigarettes.
particular way. Finally, we interpret the person’s behav- Source: Adapted from Sears, D.O., & Kinder, D.R. (1985).
iour as evidence that our expectation was correct all Whites’ opposition to busing: On conceptualizing and
along—unaware of the role that we played in shaping operationalizing group conflict. Journal of Personality and
the person’s behaviour. Social Psychology, 48, 1141–1147.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 505

Do Our Attitudes Influence seek HPV vaccination, become smokers, use

Our Behaviour? condoms, attend church, donate blood, and
If we tell you that, according to research, peo- seek out therapy (Armitage, 2005; Blanchard
ple’s attitudes strongly guide their behaviour, et al., 2002; Courneya et al., 1999; Elliot et al.,
you might reply, “So what? That’s just common 2007; Fisher et al., 2013; Rutter, 2000; Sieverding
sense.” But consider a classic study by Rich- et al., 2010; Yardley & Donovan-Hall, 2007). Atti-
ard LaPiere (1934). In the 1930s, he toured the tudes are even a strong predictor of your desire
United States with a young Chinese couple, to avoid physical exercise and remain a couch
stopping at 251 restaurants, hotels, and other potato (Prapavesis & DeJesus, 2015). But if situ-
establishments. At the time, prejudice against ational factors are strong, we may defer. For
Asians was widespread, yet the couple— example, Aschemann-Witzel et al. (2014) fol-
who often entered the establishment before lowed a group of young Danish shoppers who
LaPiere did—was refused service only once. held positive attitudes towards organic foods.
Later, LaPiere wrote to all the places they If the price was very high, they avoided buying
had visited, asking if they would provide ser- organic.
vice to Chinese patrons. More than 90 percent Second, attitudes have a greater inf luence
of those who responded stated they would on behaviour when we are aware of them and
not. In a similar study, Page (1999) reported when they are strongly held. Sometimes we
that landlords in Windsor and London, seem to act “without thinking,” out of impulse or
Ontario, were less likely to want to rent to a habit. Attitude-behaviour consistency increases
potential tenant if that person identified him- when people consciously think about their atti-
self or herself on the phone as an individual tudes before acting (Powell & Fazio, 1984; White
with AIDS. et al., 2002). In addition, attitudes are stronger
In LaPiere’s study, we cannot be sure that and more predictive of behaviour when they
the people who expressed negative attitudes are formed through direct personal experience, 6. Why did
rather than through second-hand, indirect infor- LaPiere’s study
in the survey were the same individuals who,
mation (Millar & Millar, 1996). raise doubts
months earlier, had actually served the Chi- about attitude-
nese couple. Yet the discrepancy between Third, general attitudes are better at pre-
behaviour
stated prejudicial attitudes and nondiscrimina- dicting general classes of behaviour, and spe-
consistency?
tory behaviour seemed so overwhelming that cific attitudes are better at predicting specific
it called into question the “common-sense” behaviours. For example, Martin Fishbein
assumption of attitude-behaviour consis- and Icek Ajzen (1974) found almost no rela-
tency. Decades of better-controlled research, tion between people’s general attitudes
however, indicate that attitudes do pre- toward religion and 70 specific religious
dict behaviour (Hunecke et al., 2010). Three behaviours (such as the frequency of praying
factors help to explain why the attitude- before meals or attending services). However,
behaviour relationship is strong in some cases when they combined the 70 specific behav-
but weak in others. iours into a single “global index” of religious
First, attitudes influence behaviour more behaviour, the relation between general reli-
gious attitudes and overall religious behav- 7. Discuss
strongly when counteracting situational factors
iour was substantial. Similarly, Zanna, Olson, three broad
are weak. Financial incentives, conformity and
conditions under
obedience pressures, deindividuation, group- and Fazio (1980) found a general composite
which attitudes
think, and other conditions may lead people index of over 90 separate religious behaviours
best predict
to behave in ways that are at odds with their (referred to as a multiple-act behavioural behaviour.
inner convictions. According to the theory criterion) was reasonably correlated with
of planned behaviour and similar models general attitudes (r = 0.54), whereas the cor-
(Ajzen, 1991, 2015; Fishbein, 1980), our inten- relation with specific behaviours was quite
tion to engage in a behaviour is strongest when low (r = 0.09 to 0.38).
we have a positive attitude toward that behav-
iour, when subjective norms (our perceptions Does Our Behaviour Influence
of what other people think we should do) sup- Our Attitudes?
port our attitudes, and when we believe that the As we have just seen, under the proper condi-
behaviour is under our control. Based on this tions, people’s attitudes guide their behaviour.
approach, researchers have successfully pre- But attitude-behaviour consistency is not a
dicted numerous behaviours, including whether one-way street: We also may come to develop
people will undergo breast cancer screenings, attitudes that are consistent with the way we
506 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

behave (McKimmie et al., 2009). Why should +1.5

this be?

Self-justification. Imagine that you volun- +1.0

Ratings of task enjoyableness

teer for an experiment, arrive at the labora-
tory, and perform two extremely boring tasks,
emptying and filling a tray with spools over +0.5
and over, and repeatedly turning 48 pegs
stuck into holes. After 60 minutes of the labo-
ratory equivalent of being bitten to death by 0.0
ducks, the experimenter enters, thanks you
for participating, and asks for your help. You
are told that it is important for the next student –0.5
to begin the study with a “positive attitude”
about the tasks and that all you have to do is
tell the student that the boring tasks are inter- –1.0
esting. Depending on the condition to which Control $1.00 $20.00
you have been randomly assigned, the experi- High Low
menter offers to pay you either $1 or $20 for, Dissonance
essentially, lying to the next participant. To
help out, you agree to do so. Afterwards, you FIGURE 13.8 Participants lied to a fellow student
by saying that a boring task was interesting. Those
go to the psychology department’s main office
offered $1 to lie later rated the task most positively.
to collect your money and fill out a “routine Presumably, they reduced their cognitive dissonance
form” that asks how much you enjoyed the about lying by convincing themselves that the task
tasks in the experiment. was interesting after all. Participants offered $20 had
Make a prediction: Comparing participants an external justification to lie, experienced little disso-
who received $1 and those who received $20 nance, and therefore did not need to convince them-
with a control group that simply rated the bor- selves that the task was enjoyable. They and control
participants who had not lied rated the task less favour-
ing tasks without telling any lie beforehand,
ably than did the $1 group.
which of the three groups rated the task most
positively? Why? Source: Based on Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J.M. (1959).
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of
Common sense might suggest that partici-
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210.
pants paid $20 would feel happiest about the
experiment and rate the task most highly.
However, as Figure 13.8 shows, and as Leon
Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959)
predicted, participants who were paid $1 a little lie for $20?”—and there was little rea-
gave the most positive ratings. Indeed, they son for them to change their attitude toward
actually rated the boring tasks as slightly the boring tasks. Those who had lied for only
enjoyable! $1 could not use this trivial monetary gain to
According to Festinger’s (1957) theory of justify their behaviour. But, if they could con-
8. What causes cognitive dissonance, people strive for con- vince themselves that the tasks were actually
cognitive
sistency in their cognitions. When two or more enjoyable, then they wouldn’t have lied after all!
dissonance,
cognitions contradict one another (such as “I In short, they changed their attitude about the
and how can it
produce attitude am a truthful person” and “I just told another task to bring it more into line with how they had
change? student that those boring tasks were interest- behaved.
ing”), the person experiences an uncomfortable Behaviour that is inconsistent with our atti-
state of tension that Festinger calls cognitive tude is called counterattitudinal behaviour,
dissonance, and becomes motivated to reduce and it produces dissonance only if we perceive
this dissonance. that our actions were freely chosen rather than
The theory predicts that, to reduce disso- coerced. Dissonance is maximized when the
nance and restore a state of cognitive con- behaviour threatens our sense of self-worth
sistency, people will change one of their or produces negative consequences that were
cognitions or add new cognitions. Participants foreseeable (Stone & Cooper, 2001; Petty &
who received $20 could justify their behaviour Wegener, 1998). For example, Powers & Jack
by adding a new cognition “Who wouldn’t tell (2013) argue that returning merchandise to
 Behaviour in a Social Context 507

stores is the result of dissonance induced by the Self-perception theory and cognitive dis-
negative consequence of purchasing a less than sonance theory both predict that counter-
desirable product. attitudinal behaviour will produce attitude
Dissonance, however, does not always lead change. One key difference, however, is that
to attitude change. People can reduce disso- dissonance theory assumes that we experi-
nance by rationalizing that their attitude or ence heightened physiological arousal (tension
their behaviour wasn’t important, by finding produced by dissonance) when we engage in
external justification, or by making other counterattitudinal behaviour. Do we? At least
excuses (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2001; Gosling et al., in some instances, it appears that this does
2006; McKimmie et al., 2009). In surveys of happen (Harmon-Jones et al., 1996).
over 3300 Scandinavian adolescents and Moreover, if unpleasant arousal motivates
adults, people who drank alcohol despite hav- attitude change, then factors that reduce
ing negative attitudes toward drinking often arousal should reduce attitude change. When
emphasized that “Other people drink more research participants experience arousal from
than I do.” As researcher Klaus Mäkelä (1997) dissonance-producing behaviours but are led to
noted, the general rationalization seemed to believe that their arousal is a side effect caused
be “I may not be perfect, but other people are by a pill (which in reality is a placebo), they
still worse.” do not change their attitudes to be more in line
Despite the many ways to reduce dissonance, with their behaviour (Cooper, 1998; Zanna &
the theory has successfully inspired researchers Cooper, 1974). The pill gives participants an
to change people’s attitudes by inducing them external justification (albeit a false one) for
to engage in counterattitudinal behaviours. For their arousal.
example, university students who agree to write In general, dissonance theory better
essays advocating positions opposite to their explains why people change their views after
own (such as supporting a tuition increase) behaving in ways that openly contradict their
often shift their attitudes in the direction of clearly defined attitudes, particularly when
the essay they have produced (Croyle & Coo- such behaviours threaten their self-images.
per, 1983; Stalder & Baron, 1998). Mediators in However, in situations in which counterattitu-
labour disputes occasionally use this principle dinal behaviour does not threaten one’s self-
by asking company executives and labour lead- worth and we have weak attitudes to begin
ers to switch roles for a time and present each with, such behaviour is less likely to create
other’s arguments. significant arousal—yet people still may alter
their attitudes to be more consistent with the
Self-perception. If we observe someone cam- way they have behaved. In this case, self-
paigning for a political candidate, we likely perception theory may provide the better 9. According to
will assume that this person has a positive explanation. Thus, both dissonance theory and self-perception
attitude toward the candidate. If we see some- self-perception theory appear to be correct but theory, why does
one exerting great effort to achieve a goal, we under different circumstances (Fazio et al., counterattitudinal
1977; Tesser & Shaffer, 1990). Both theories, behaviour produce
will judge, logically, that the goal is important
however, agree that our behaviours can inf lu- attitude change?
to that person. In short, we infer what other
people’s attitudes “must be” by watching how ence our attitudes.
10. What
they behave. According to Daryl Bem’s (1972) evidence
self-perception theory, we make inferences Persuasion supports
about our own attitudes in much the same Whether through political speeches, advertise- dissonance
way: by observing how we behave. Know- ments, or discussions with family and friends, theory? What
ing that, for very little external justification persuasion is a fact of everyday life (Maio & evidence favours
($1), you have told a fellow student that the Olson, 2000). Persuasion involves a communi- self-perception
boring experimental tasks are enjoyable, you cator who delivers a message through a chan- theory?
logically conclude that “deep down” you must nel (e.g., in writing, verbally, or visually) to an
feel that the tasks were at least somewhat 11. Identify
audience within a surrounding context (e.g., a
enjoyable. In Bem’s view, your attitude is communicator
cultural setting; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Here, and message
not produced by a mysterious concept called we briefly examine three components that have characteristics
cognitive dissonance. Rather, you sim- been studied extensively. that increase
ply observe how you have acted, and infer persuasiveness.
how you must have felt to have behaved in The communicator. Communicator credibil-
this fashion. ity—how believable the communicator is—often
508 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

is the key to effective persuasion. In fact, audi- The audience. A message loaded with logical
12. Describe
ence members who do not enjoy thinking deeply arguments and facts may prove highly persua-
the central and
about issues may pay little attention to the con- sive to some people yet fall flat on its face with
peripheral routes
to persuasion. tent of a message and simply go along with the others. According to Richard Petty and John
For whom is the opinions of a highly credible source (Chaiken & Cacioppo (1986), there are two basic routes
central route Maheswaran, 1994). Credibility has two major to persuasion. The central route to persua-
more likely to be components: expertise and trustworthiness sion occurs when people think carefully about
effective? (Schul et al., 2004; Tobin & Raymundo, 2009). the message and are influenced because they
The most effective persuader is one who appears find the arguments compelling. The peripheral
both to be an expert and to be presenting the route to persuasion occurs when people do
truth in an unbiased manner (Hovland et al., not scrutinize the message but are influenced
1953), as well as one who advocates a point of mostly by other factors, such as a speaker’s
view contrary to his or her own self-interest attractiveness or a message’s emotional appeal.
(Petty et al., 2001). Perceived expertise may Attitude change that results from the central
be particularly important when the issue is route tends to have a deeper foundation, lasts
complex (Cooper et al., 1996; Cooper & longer, and predicts future behaviour more
Neuhaus, 2000). successfully.
Communicators who are physically attrac- Under what conditions will we follow the
tive, likable, and similar to us (such as in central route? Petty and Cacioppo (1986) sug-
interests or goals) also may persuade us more gest that we tend to process a message more
effectively, which is why advertisers spend mil- closely when it is personally relevant: when it
lions of dollars hiring likable, attractive stars to actually will affect us in some way. Typically,
promote their products (Messner et al., 2008). high personal relevance or high involvement
with an issue will result in central processing.
The message. In trying to persuade someone, But this is not always the case. One reason is
is it more effective to present only your side that people differ in their need for cognition.
of the issue or to also present the opposition’s Some enjoy analyzing issues; others prefer
arguments and then refute them? A meta-analy- not to spend much mental effort (Cacioppo
sis indicates that, overall, the two-sided refuta- et al., 1983, 1996). People who have a high
tional approach is more effective (Allen, 1991). need for cognition tend to follow the cen-
Especially when an audience initially disagrees tral route to persuasion. In forming attitudes
with a message or is aware that there are two about consumer products, for example, they
sides to the issue, the audience will perceive a are influenced by information about product
two-sided message as less biased. characteristics (Wood & Swait, 2002). In con-
In stating your position to an audience that trast, people with a low need for cognition
disagrees with you, should you “go for broke” are more strongly influenced by peripheral
and present extreme arguments, hoping that the cues, such as the attractiveness of the per-
audience will compromise by moving toward son who endorses the product (Haugtvedt
your position? Or should you present a position et al., 1992).
that is only moderately discrepant with their Sorrentino and his colleagues at the Uni-
viewpoint? A highly credible communicator can versity of Western Ontario (e.g., Sorrentino
afford to present a more discrepant viewpoint et al., 2005) have reported also that people
than a low-credibility communicator (Aronson differ in their approach to new information.
et al., 1963), but in general, a moderate degree Those who are uncertainty-oriented look
of discrepancy is more effective (Bochner & for information, particularly in situations
Insko, 1966). that are new and unpredictable. In contrast,
Messages that attempt to persuade by arous- certainty-oriented individuals avoid such
ing fear can be effective under certain condi- situations, particularly when the information
tions (Wood, 2000). Overall, fear arousal works is self-relevant. Thus, uncertainty-oriented
best when the message evokes moderate fear people follow the central route when issues
and provides people with effective, feasible (i.e., are personally relevant, but those who are
low-cost) ways to reduce the threat (Johnson, certainty-oriented do not. In fact, they are
1991; Witte & Allen, 2000). If the message is too more likely to rely on peripheral information
frightening, people may reduce their anxiety by when the information is self-relevant and are
simply denying the message or the communica- more influenced by factors such as speaker
tor’s credibility. attractiveness or expertise.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 509

In Review
• Consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus infor- • ur behaviour also influences our attitudes
mation jointly influence whether we make a per- Counterattitudinal behaviour is most likely to
sonal or situational attribution for a particular act. create cognitive dissonance when the behaviour
• The fundamental attribution error is the tendency is freely chosen and has negative implications
to attribute other people’s behaviour to personal for our sense of self-worth or produces foresee-
factors while underestimating the role of situ- able negative consequences.
ational factors. The self-serving bias is the ten- • To reduce dissonance, we may change our
dency to attribute one’s successes to personal attitude to become more consistent with how
factors and one’s failures to situational factors. we have behaved. In situations where our atti-
• Although our impressions of people may change tudes are weak and counterattitudinal behaviour
over time, our first impression generally carries doesn’t threaten our self-worth, we may change
extra weight. Stereotypes and schemas create our attitudes through self-perception.
mental sets that powerfully shape our impressions. • Communicator, message, and audience charac-
teristics influence the effectiveness of persua-
• Through self-fulfilling prophecies, our initially
sion. Communicator credibility is highest when
false expectations shape the way we act toward
the communicator is perceived as expert and
someone. In turn, this person responds to our
trustworthy. Fear-arousing communications may
behaviour in a way that confirms our initially
be effective if they arouse moderate to strong
false belief.
fear and suggest how to avoid the feared result.
• Attitudes are evaluative judgments They predict The central route to persuasion works best with
behaviour best when situational influences are listeners who have a high need for cognition; for
weak, when the attitude is strong, and when we those with a low cognition need, the peripheral
consciously think about our attitude. route works better.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE performance improved when people were in

each other’s presence (Triplett, 1898).
Patricia, a novice piano player, makes more Many early studies replicated this finding; the
mistakes after her parents enter the room to lis- mere presence of coactors or a passive, silent
ten to her practise. Shawn donates money to a audience enhanced performance. Even ants car-
charity after seeing his co-workers contribute. ried more dirt when in the presence of other
Jenna, a university student, picks up the slack ants (Chen, 1937). Yet, other experiments found
on a class project because other members of her that performance on learning tasks worsened
group are not pulling their weight. These diverse when coactors or an audience were present.
situations share one basic ingredient: They all In 1965, Robert Zajonc proposed a theory to
involve social influence. explain this seeming paradox. First, the mere phys-
ical presence of another person (or member of the
The Mere Presence of Others same species) increases our arousal. Second, as
Norman Triplett (1898) helped to launch the arousal increases, we become more likely to per-
field of social psychology by testing a decep- form whatever behaviour happens to be our dom- 13. Under what
conditions
tively simple hypothesis: The presence of oth- inant response (i.e., our most typical response) to
does the mere
ers energizes performance. Triplett, who loved that specific situation. When a task is difficult and presence of
bicycle racing, analyzed the records of numer- complex, and we are first trying to learn it, our other people
ous competitions. In some races, cyclists per- dominant response is to make errors. Therefore, enhance
formed individually against the clock; in other performing in front of an audience or with coac- or impair
races of similar distance, they performed tors should impair performance. But when a task performance?
together in a “pack.” As Triplett predicted, either is simple or is complex but well learned, Why?
cyclists’ average speed per mile was much our dominant response usually is to perform the
faster in group races than in individual races. task correctly. In these situations, performing in
Next, in a laboratory experiment, Triplett had the presence of others enhances performance
children perform a simple physical task as rap- (Figure 13.9). This phenomenon is called social
idly as they could, either alone or in the pres- facilitation, an increased tendency to perform
ence of another child (called a coactor) who one’s dominant response in the mere presence of
independently performed the same task. Again, others (Blascovich et al., 1999).
510 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

If dominant
responses are Performance
correct in the is enhanced
present situation
Presence of Enhanced
others (either as Heightened tendency to
an audience arousal perform dominant
or as coactors) responses
If dominant
responses are Performance
incorrect in the is impaired
present situation
© PhotoAlto/SuperStock

FIGURE 13.9 Social facilitation of dominant responses. Whether this pool player’s performance improves or worsens when other people
are watching depends on whether she is highly skilled or a novice (Michaels et al., 1982). Zajonc’s (1965) theory of social facilitation pro-
poses that the presence of other people increases our arousal, which then makes us more likely to perform our dominant responses. If a
dominant response (e.g., stroking the pool cue in a particular way) happens to be correct—as typically occurs on simple tasks or complex
tasks that have been mastered—then performance will be enhanced. But if a dominant response is incorrect—as often occurs when a
novice is trying to learn a complex task—then the presence of other people most likely will impair performance.

Social facilitation occurs in species ranging and they are the cement that binds social sys-
from cockroaches and fruit flies to rats and hens tems together (Morris et al., 2001; Schaller &
(Duncan et al., 1998; Thomas et al., 2002). Meta- Crandall, 2004). Some norms are formal laws
analyzing the results of 241 studies involving and regulations, but many are implicit and
almost 24 000 participants, Charles Bond and Linda unspoken. As the “break-a-norm” examples illus-
Titus (1983) found that social facilitation produced trate, such norms often regulate daily behaviour
small but reliable effects on human performance. without our conscious awareness; we take them
In one study, James Michaels and his colleagues for granted—until they are violated.
(1982) identified pairs of pool players who had A social role consists of a set of norms that
either above average or below average skill. Then characterizes how people in a given social posi-
four observers (researchers) sauntered over to the tion ought to behave. The roles of “university stu-
pool tables at the student union building to watch dent,” “professor,” “police officer,” and “spouse”
the players. As predicted, the presence of an audi- carry different sets of behaviour expectations.
ence improved the performance of the accom- Because we may wear many hats in our daily life,
plished players (whose dominant responses were role conflict can occur when the norms accom-
assumed to be correct) but worsened the perfor- panying different roles clash. University students
mance of the less skilled players (whose dominant who hold jobs or have children often experience
responses were assumed to be incorrect). Social role conflict as they try to juggle the competing
facilitation may be the most basic of all social influ- demands of school, work, and parenthood.
ence processes, and it has an important practical Norms and roles can influence behaviour so
implication: When learning complex tasks, mini- strongly that they compel a person to act unchar-
mize the presence of other people. acteristically. In a classic study by Phil Zimbardo
(Zimbardo et al., 1973), students at Stanford Uni-
versity were recruited to participate in a two-
Social Norms: The Rules week-long simulation of prison life. Half were
of the Game assigned the role of guards and half the role of
Years ago, a professor we knew gave his class an prisoners. Guards wore uniforms and mirrored
unusual assignment: Without doing anything ille- glasses, and the prisoners were housed in cells in
gal, students were to violate some “unspoken rule” the basement of the psychology building. Within
of social behaviour and observe people’s reactions. six days the simulation had to be stopped because
One student licked her plate clean at a formal the guards became so brutal in their treatment
dinner, receiving cold stares from other guests. of the prisoners that the experimenters became
Another boarded a city bus, sat down next to the worried about the prisoners’ well-being. Prison-
only other passenger, and said “Hi.” The passen- ers were awakened in the middle of the night for
ger sat up stiffly and stared out the window. The roll call, forced to do push-ups with a guard’s foot
14. How do assignment ended when a third student entered holding them down, made to clean toilets with
norms and class—attired only in a thin coat of oil. their hands, and so on. The guards in the Stan-
roles guide our
Social norms are shared expectations about ford Prison Study were well-adjusted students,
behaviour?
how people should think, feel, and behave, yet norms related to the role of “guard” and to
 Behaviour in a Social Context 511

concepts of “crime and punishment” seemed to judgments over several sessions, their judgments
override their values, leading to dehumanizing converged and a group norm evolved. The partici-
treatment of the prisoners. pants did not explicitly communicate or “decide”
to develop a group norm; it just happened. More-
Culture and Norm Formation over, just as norms vary across cultures, the norm
Social norms lose invisibility not only when they that evolved for how far the dot of light moved var-
are violated, but also when we examine behaviour ied from group to group, and it was not the simple
across cultures and historical periods. In doing so, average of the original judgments (Figure 13.11).
we see that social customs we take for granted as When participants were retested individually a
“normal”—from gender roles to sexual practices year later, their judgments continued to reflect their
and views of love and marriage—are merely arbi- group’s norm (Rohrer et al., 1954).
trary (Figure 13.10). Norms regulate even such Sherif’s finding has been replicated in other
subtle aspects of social behaviour as the amount countries and with different types of tasks
of personal space that we prefer when interacting (Khoury, 1985). Whether at a cultural level
with people (Li, 2001; Li & Li, 2007). For example, or in small random groups, humans placed
Japanese sit farther apart when conversing than together seem to develop common standards
Venezuelans do, and Americans prefer an inter- for behaviour and judgment. Indeed, Bennett
mediate distance (Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982). and Sekaquaptewa (2014) were able to induce
Italians and Greeks are more likely to touch while a norm of embracing diversity that lasted
interacting than are Europeans from more north- throughout the year simply by having a faculty
ern regions (Remland et al., 1995). member talk about egalitarian social norms at
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any society, the beginning of the term. Ridout and Campbell
organization, or social group functioning well (2014) were also able to reduce alcohol use in
without norms. In a classic experiment, Muzafer a sample of university students by promoting
Sherif (1935) found that even randomly created safer levels of consumption via Facebook.
groups develop norms. The task involved an opti-
cal illusion called the autokinetic effect: When Conformity and Obedience
people stare at a dot of light projected onto a
Norms can influence behaviour only if people
screen in a dark room, they begin to perceive the
conform to them. Without conformity—the
dot as moving, even though it really is stationary.
adjustment of individual behaviours, attitudes,
When Sherif tested university students individu-
and beliefs to a group standard—we would have
ally over several trials, each student perceived
social chaos. It is no accident, therefore, that all
the light moving a different amount, from a few
social systems exert overt and subtle pressures
centimetres to almost 30 centimetres.
on their members to conform.
Later, the students were randomly placed into
groups of three and made further judgments. As the 25
members within each group heard one another’s Individual 1
Mean perceived movement

Individual 2
20 Individual 3
(centimetres)

15

10

0
I II III IV
Alone Group Group Group
Sessions

© Merie W. Wallace/Warner Bros/Bureau L.A.Collections/Corbis FIGURE 13.11 In Sherif’s experiments, individuals’

autokinetic judgments made alone (session I) began to
FIGURE 13.10 The evolution of norms across time converge when they were made in the presence of two
and cultures. The Academy Award–winning movie Mil- other participants (sessions II, III, IV). Each mean is
lion Dollar Baby portrayed an aspiring professional based on 100 judgments per session. These data are
female boxer—an activity that women would be barred from one of the three-person groups.
from in many countries and women were barred from Source: Based on Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social
decades ago in the United States. factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (No. 187).
512 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

A 1 2 3
Standard Comparison
“Well, heck! If all you smart cookies agree, line lines
who am I to dissent?”
© The New Yorker Collection 1972. J.B. Handelsman from cartoonbank.
com. All Rights Reserved.
(a)

FIGURE 13.12 Often we conform to a majority

because we believe that their opinion “must be right.”

Why Do People Conform?

Psychologically, our desire to understand the
world and respond to it effectively provides one
basic motive for conforming (Biener & Boudreau,
15. Explain 1991). As Figure 13.12 illustrates, at times we fol-
the difference low the opinions or behaviour of other people
between because we believe they have accurate knowledge
informational and what they are doing is “right.” This is called
and normative informational social influence. We also may
social influence. conform to obtain rewards that come from being (b)
accepted by other people, while at the same time
© William Vandivert, Scientific American, November 1955, Vol. 193,
avoiding their rejection. This is called normative Issue 5, pp. 31–35. Reproduced with permission by Scientific American,
social influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Inc. All rights reserved.
Solomon Asch’s (1951, 1956) landmark con- FIGURE 13.13 (a) In Asch’s (1956) conformity exper-
formity experiments illustrated both types of iments, students were asked to judge which of three
influence. In the experimental condition, groups comparison lines was the same length as the standard
of university students performed several trials line. They performed this task for 18 trials, using a dif-
of a simple visual task, shown in Figure 13.13. ferent set of standard and comparison lines each time.
Only one member of the group, however, actu- (b) Upon hearing other group members unanimously
ally was a participant. The rest were accomplices say that “Line 1” is the correct match, the participant
wonders whether his own judgment (Line 2) is correct.
(called confederates) of the experimenter. Group
members sat around a table and were called on
in order. The real participant sat next to last. During debriefing discussions with the experi-
According to plan, every confederate intention- menter after the task was over, many participants
ally gave the same wrong answer on some trials. said they were puzzled by the difference between
Imagine, for example, that the first member says their own and the group’s perceptions. Some
“Line 1.” (You think to yourself, “Huh?”). Then the felt that the group was wrong but went along to
next four members also say “Line 1.” (You won- avoid “making waves” and possible rejection. This
der, “Can this really be?”). Now it is your turn. behaviour reflects normative social influence.
Would anybody conform to the group’s incor- After several trials, other participants succumbed
rect judgments? Asch found that a quarter of the to informational social influence and began to
participants never conformed, a quarter con- doubt their eyesight and judgment.
formed frequently, and the rest conformed once
16. Identify
or a few times. Overall, participants conformed Factors That Affect Conformity
some situational
factors that 37 percent of the time, compared with a mere 1 Asch demonstrated that complex social behav-
influence percent error rate in a control condition in which iour could be studied scientifically under con-
people’s degree people judged the lines by themselves. This con- trolled conditions. In subsequent experiments
of conformity. formity rate stunned many scientists since the he manipulated different independent variables
task was very easy and the confederates did not and measured their effects on conformity. Con-
overtly pressure participants to conform. sider two examples:
 Behaviour in a Social Context 513

• Group size. Conformity increased from about Around the globe, conformity in face-to-face
5 to 35 percent as group size increased from situations tends to be greater among research
one to four or five confederates, but, contrary participants from collectivist cultures, in which
to common sense, further increases in group group harmony is valued more highly than in indi-
size did not increase conformity. Participants vidualistic cultures. Overall, gender differences
were just as likely to conform when there in conformity have been weak or non-existent
were four or five confederates giving incor- (Bond & Smith, 1996; Cinnirella & Green, 2007).
rect answers as when there were 10 or 15.
• Presence of a dissenter. When one confederate Minority Influence
(according to plan) disagreed with the others, Although majority influence is powerful, in some
this greatly reduced real participants’ confor- cases a minority of the group’s members may influ- 17. Under what
ence the majority’s behaviour (Clark, 2001). Serge conditions is
mity. Even when the dissenter gave an incor-
the minority
rect answer (e.g., the majority said “Line 3” and Moscovici (1985) proposes that, to maximize its
most likely to
the dissenter said “Line 1”), participants made influence, the minority must be highly committed to influence the
many fewer errors. The key is that, when some- its point of view, remain independent in the face of majority?
one else dissents, this person serves as a model majority pressure, and be consistent over time, yet
for remaining independent from the group. appear to keep an open mind. Dissenting informa-
Would Asch’s participants have conformed tion presented by the minority may cause majority
less if the task had been made more important members to change their view, at least on a private
to them, say, by offering a financial incentive for level (Butera & Levine, 2009; Maass & Clark, 1984).
giving correct answers? As Figure 13.14 shows, In reviewing almost a hundred studies, Wendy Wood
when the correct answer is obvious (the task is and her colleagues (1994) found that minority influ-
easy, as was Asch’s), conformity decreases when ence is strongest when it maintains a highly con-
the consequences of going along with the group’s sistent position over time. However, if the minority
erroneous judgment are made more costly appears too unreasonable, deviant, or negative, it
(Baron et al., 1996). But, when we are less sure may cause the majority to become entrenched or
of the right way to behave (the task is hard), con- lead some people to shift their attitudes even fur-
formity increases as the stakes become higher. ther away from the minority’s position.

Obedience to Authority
50 Like conformity to a group, obedience to an
authority figure is inherently neither good nor
Percentage of conformity

40 bad. As an airplane passenger, you would not be

Difficult
to wrong answers

judgments amused if the co-pilot disregarded the pilot’s com-

30
mands simply because he or she “didn’t feel like
obeying,” putting the flight and your life at risk.
20 Without obedience, society would face chaos.
Easy
judgments But obedience can also produce tragic results.
10 After World War II, the famous Nuremberg trials
were held to judge Nazi war criminals who had
0 slaughtered millions of innocent people in con-
Low High
centration camps. In many instances, the defence
Task importance
offered by the defendants was that they had “only
FIGURE 13.14 In this experiment, university students followed orders.” In the massacre of men, women,
made a series of eyewitness memory judgments. For and children at My Lai during the Vietnam War,
each judgment, one participant and two accomplices
American soldiers accused of atrocities gave the
were shown a slide of a person. Next, they had to pick
out that person from a second slide showing four people.
same explanation. No doubt we will hear the cry
The second slide was presented for five seconds (easy “I was just following orders” again as account-
task) or half a second (hard task), and the accomplices ability is judged for more recent mass atrocities in
intentionally gave wrong answers on some trials. Partici- Kosovo, Rwanda, and elsewhere around the globe.
18. Describe
pants were told that the task was important (including a Just as the Nuremberg court did, many of
possible $20 prize for high accuracy) or unimportant. The
Milgram’s
us reject justifications based on obedience to obedience
high incentive decreased conformity on the easy task,
authority as mere rationalizations, secure in our experiment. Do
but increased conformity when the task was difficult.
conviction that we would behave more humanely you believe the
Source: Based on Baron, R.S., Vandello, J.A., & Brunsman, B. in such situations. But would we? Let’s consider results would be
(1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact
the answers provided by Stanley Milgram in this similar today?
of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality
chapter’s Research Foundations feature. Why or why not?
and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.
514 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Research
Foundations

THE DILEMMA OF OBEDIENCE: WHEN

CONSCIENCE CONFRONTS MALEVOLENT
AUTHORITY
Introduction
Stanley Milgram wanted to examine conformity in a more
powerful situation than Asch had. Rather than have partici-
pants judge lines, Milgram thought about testing whether
people would conform to group pressure and give electric
shocks to a protesting victim. But he realized that a control
condition was needed to measure how much shock people
would give without group pressure. Here the experimenter
would instruct each participant to give the shocks. As he
thought about it, Milgram wondered: Would ordinary citizens
obey such malevolent orders? How far would they go? At that
moment, Milgram shifted his focus from conformity to obedi-
ence. Fuelled by his desire to better understand the horrors
and lessons of the Holocaust, Milgram conducted 18 obedi-
ence experiments between 1960 and 1963 (Milgram, 1974).

Method
The following experiment was conducted twice, first with © 1965 by Stanley Milgram. From the film Obedience, distributed by Penn State,
Media Sales
40 men and then with 40 women. Participants ranged in
age from 20 to 50 years and represented a cross-section of FIGURE 13.15 The participant (teacher) saw the learner
occupations and educational backgrounds. being strapped into the chair.
In the laboratory, each participant met a middle-aged
man who was introduced as another participant, but who
as “Please continue,” “You must continue,” and “You have
actually was a confederate. They were told that the experi-
no other choice.” At 75 volts the learner moaned when the
ment examined the effects of punishment on memory.
teacher threw the switch. At 150 volts the learner’s reaction
Then, through a supposedly random draw (it was rigged),
was “Ugh!!! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here. I
the real participant became the teacher and the confeder-
told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me
ate became the learner. The teacher presented a series of
now. Get me out of here, please . . . I refuse to go on. Let me
memory problems to the learner through a two-way intercom
out.” Beyond 200 volts he emitted agonized screams every
system. Each time the learner made an error, the teacher
time a shock was delivered, yelling “Let me out! Let me out!”
was instructed to administer an electric shock, using a
At 300 volts the learner refused to answer and continued
machine that had 30 switches, beginning with 15 volts
screaming to be let out. At 345 volts and beyond, there was
and increasing step-by-step to 450 volts. As the teacher
only silence. Full obedience was operationally defined as
watched, the learner was strapped into a chair in an adjoin-
continuing to the maximum shock level of 450 volts.
ing room and hooked up to wires from the shock generator
Participants wrestled with a dilemma: Should they con-
(Figure 13.15). The learner expressed concern about the
tinue to hurt this innocent person, as the experimenter com-
shock and mentioned he had a slight heart problem.
manded, or should they stop the learner’s pain by openly
Returning to the main room, the experimenter gave
disobeying? Most participants became stressed. Some
the teacher a sample shock (45 volts) and then ordered
trembled, sweated, laughed nervously, or in a few cases,
the experiment to begin. Unbeknownst to the teacher, the
experienced convulsions. But would they obey? Make a pre-
learner actually did not receive any shock and intentionally
diction: What percentage of people obeyed to 450 volts,
committed many errors. The learner made verbal protests
and were there any gender differences?
that were standardized on a tape recorder, so that they
were the same for all participants.
As the learner’s errors mounted, the teacher increased
Results
the shock. If the teacher balked at continuing, the experi- When Milgram asked psychiatrists, professors, university
menter issued one or more escalating commands, such students, and middle-class adults to predict the outcome,
continued
 Behaviour in a Social Context 515

100 While administering the shock, some participants stated

“I can’t stand
90 the pain!” (180) that they “were not responsible” for what happened. Others
“Ugh!”
Percentage of people obeying
command at each shock level

(75)
asked, “Who is responsible if something happens to the
80
learner?” When the experimenter replied, “I am responsi-
70
“Get me out ble,” participants felt greater freedom to continue. Yet they
60 of here! Agonized
screams were the ones flipping the switch.
My heart’s Silence
50 (270) (345) Would similar results occur today? We suspect so. For
starting to
40 bother me! 25 years after Milgram’s research, experiments in differ-
Intensely
30 I refuse to ent countries, in “real-world” settings, and with children,
agonized
go on! adolescents, and adults yielded depressingly consistent
20 screams
Let me out!”
(315) results (Miller, 1986). In the 1980s, Dutch researchers Wim
10 (150)
Meeus and Quinten Raaijmakers (1986, 1995) conducted
0
19 obedience studies. In one, 92 percent of male and
Slight Strong Intense Danger: female participants completely obeyed an experimenter’s
15 volts 135 volts 255 volts severe
shock orders to repeatedly disrupt the performance of a job appli-
375 volts cant (actually a confederate) taking a very important job
screening test. The applicant pleaded to no avail with par-
Moderate Very Extreme XXX ticipants to stop.
75 volts strong intensity 435–450
195 volts 315 volts volts How would you have responded? Almost all of our own
students say they would have disobeyed. So suppose we
Shock level
conduct the experiment today, but with real electric shock
FIGURE 13.16 This graph shows the percentage of male and with you as the learner. The teacher will be a randomly
participants who continued to shock the learner through various selected student from your class. Are you confident that
voltage levels. The pattern for women was similar. this student will disobey? Few of our students express such
Source: Based on Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An
confidence. In short, virtually all of us are confident that
experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row. we would not obey, but we are not so sure about other
people—and in turn they are not so sure about us.

they estimated a 1 percent obedience rate. Indeed, most

participants balked or protested at one time or another and
said they would not continue. But ultimately, 26 of the 40 Design
men and an identical 26 of 40 women (65 percent) obeyed
to the end (Figure 13.16). Question: Will “ordinary citizens” obey a
researcher’s orders to inflict painful electric shocks
Discussion on a person, against that person’s will? What factors
influence obedience?
Milgram’s research has generated controversy for decades
(Blass, 2000). On one level, its ethics were harshly criticized Type of Study: Experimental*
(Baumrind, 1964): Participants were deceived, exposed to
substantial stress, and risked long-lasting negative effects Independent Dependent
to their self-image. Milgram countered that the research Variables Variables
was so socially significant as to warrant the deception, that Variables are Level of obedience,
manipulated one study as measured by the
participants were carefully debriefed afterward, and that
at a time (e.g., teacher highest intensity of
psychiatric follow-ups of a sample of obedient participants can or cannot see the shock delivered by
suggested no long-term ill effects. Weighing the costs and learner; experimenter the teacher to the
benefits, do you believe that this research was justified? gives orders in person learner
Researchers also debate why obedience was high, but or by phone)
many agree with Milgram’s view that participants psycho-
logically transferred much of the “responsibility” for the *The situation is systematically changed from study to study and
teacher’s fate to the experimenter (Blass & Schmitt, 2001). effects on behaviour are observed.

Source: Stanley Milgram (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.
516 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Factors That Influence Destructive of obedient versus disobedient participants.

Obedience Differences were weak or non-existent. Like-
By changing various aspects of the experi- wise, gender was not consistently related to
mental situation, Milgram and other research- obedience rates (Milgram, 1974; Shanab &
ers obtained obedience rates ranging from 0 to Yahya, 1977).
more than 90 percent.
Lessons Learned: From the Holocaust
• Remoteness of the victim. Obedience was to Airline Safety
greater when the learner was out of sight. What lessons shall we draw from this research?
When the teacher and learner were placed Certainly, it is not that people are apathetic or
in the same room, obedience dropped to 40 evil. Participants became stressed precisely
percent. Furthermore, when the teacher had because they did care about the learner’s wel-
to make physical contact and force the learn- fare. Neither is the lesson that we are sheep. If
er’s hand onto a “shock plate,” obedience we were, obedience would be high across all sit-
dropped to 30 percent (Figure 13.17). uations, which is not the case. Rather, Milgram
• Closeness and legitimacy of the authority fig- sums up a key lesson as follows:
ure. Obedience was highest when the authority
. . . it would be a mistake . . . to make the
figure was close and perceived as legitimate.
simple-minded statement that kindly and
When the experimenter left the scene and gave
good persons disobey while those who are
orders by phone, or when an “ordinary person”
cruel do not . . . often, it is not so much the
(a confederate) took over and gave the orders,
kind of person a man is as the kind of situ-
obedience dropped to about 20 percent.
ation in which he finds himself that deter-
• Cog in a wheel. When another “participant” mines how he will act. (1974, p. 205)
(actually a confederate) flipped the shock
switch and real participants had to perform In other words, by arranging the situation
only another aspect of the task, 93 percent appropriately, most people—ordinary, decent
obeyed. In short, obedience increases when citizens—can be induced to follow orders from
someone else does the “dirty work.” In con- an authority figure they perceive as legitimate,
trast, when Harvey Tilker (1970) made par- even when doing so contributes to harming
ticipants feel fully responsible for the learner’s innocent people. The applicability of this princi-
welfare, not a single person obeyed to the end. ple to the Holocaust and other atrocities seems
clear (Blass, 2008; Saltzman, 2000). During the
• Personal characteristics. Milgram compared
Holocaust, obedience was made easier because
the political orientation, religious affiliation,
most of the personnel working at the concentra-
occupations, education, length of military
tion camps were cogs in a horrendous wheel:
service, and psychological characteristics
They didn’t pull the switch to flood the cham-
bers with gas but instead performed other tasks.
Their victims also were “remote” at the moment
of their murder. Furthermore, to lessen concen-
tration camp workers’ feeling of responsibility,
Hitler’s subordinate Heinrich Himmler told them
in manipulative speeches that only he and Hitler
were personally responsible for what took place
(Davidowicz, 1975). Keep in mind, however, that
the participants in Milgram’s studies did show
stress and remorse, unlike many of the Holo-
caust perpetrators (Fenigstein, 2015).
Does obedience research suggest that we are
© 1965 by Stanley Milgram. From the film Obedience,distributed by
Penn State, Media Sales. not responsible for following orders? This is a
moral and legal question, not a scientific one. But
FIGURE 13.17 In one of Milgram’s studies (Touch this research should heighten our sense of respon-
Proximity), the teacher was ordered to physically force
sibility and awareness of the pitfalls of blind
the learner’s hand onto a shock plate after the learner
refused to continue. Here, 30 percent of participants
obedience and prevent us from being so smug
obeyed fully to 450 volts. Although touch proximity or naive as to feel that such events “could never
strongly reduced obedience, the fact that a significant happen here.” We should note that Milgram’s
minority still obeyed raises considerable concern. results hold true today and not just decades ago.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 517

Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of often come armed with special compliance tech-
the Milgram experiment, but the shock level went niques: strategies that may manipulate you into
to only 150 volts (where participants began to saying “Yes” when you really want to say “No.”
stop in the original experiment). The procedures By learning to identify these techniques, you
used by Burger were fully reviewed by the Ameri- will be better able to withstand them.
can Psychological Association and deemed to be The powerful norm of reciprocity involves
ethical. Consistent with Milgram’s original report, the expectation that when others treat us well,
65 percent of those tested obeyed fully. we should respond in kind. Thus, to get you to
Increased sensitivity to the power of obedi- comply with a request, I can do something nice
ence pressures also has concrete applications. for you now—such as an unsolicited favour—
As an airline passenger, there are times when in hopes that you will feel pressure to recipro-
you would want the co-pilot to challenge a pilot’s cate later when I present you with my request
commands, such as when the pilot’s actions pose (Cialdini, 2008). As Figure 13.19 illustrates, the
a clear threat to flight safety. But, traditionally, Hare Krishna Society (a religious group) clev-
co-pilots have been reluctant to do this (National erly used “flower power” to manipulate the
Transportation Safety Board, 1979). Actual cock- norm of reciprocity and raise millions of dollars
pit recordings and flight simulator experiments in donations.
suggest that several jetliner crashes might have Now consider the door-in-the-face tech-
19. Identify
been prevented had co-pilots been more asser- nique: A persuader makes a large request, four common
tive in taking over control or questioning pilots’ expecting you to reject it (you “slam the door” compliance
decisions (Foushee, 1984; Helmreich, 1997). For in the persuader’s face), and then presents a techniques and
example, there were reports of disagreement smaller request. Telemarketers feast on this explain how they
between the pilot and co-pilot on the ill-fated technique. Rather than ask you directly for work.
Swiss Air flight 111 (Figure 13.18). a modest monetary donation to some orga-
nization or cause, they first ask for a much
Detecting and Resisting Compliance larger contribution, knowing that you will say
Techniques no. After you politely refuse, they ask for the
From telemarketers and salespeople to TV and smaller contribution. In one experiment, after
Internet advertisements, would-be persuaders people declined an initial request to donate $25
to a charity, they were more likely to donate $2

© Owen Franken
© STRJOH/Jonathan Hayward/The Canadian Press
FIGURE 13.19 In the 1970s, members of the Hare
FIGURE 13.18 On September 2, 1998, Swiss Air Krishna Society approached passersby and gave them
flight 111, carrying 215 passengers and 14 crew a small flower. If a passerby refused, the member said,
members, crashed off the coast of Peggy’s Cove, Nova “Please. It is a gift for you.” Reluctantly, people often
Scotia. Indications arose later that there was a dis- accepted. Then the member asked for a donation. Peo-
agreement between the pilot and co-pilot, in which the ple felt pressure to reciprocate, donated money, and
co-pilot acquiesced. often threw the flower away.
518 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

than were participants who were directly asked the smaller request. In lowballing, the stakes for
for $2 (Wang et al., 1989). To be effective, the the same behaviour are raised after you commit
same persuader must make both requests (or to it but before you consummate the behaviour.
at least, be present at both (Terrier et al., 2013). Having made a commitment, you may find it
The persuader “compromises” by making the easier to rationalize the added costs or may feel
second, smaller request, so we feel pressure to obligated to the person to whom you made the
reciprocate by complying (Lecat et al., 2009). commitment.
Refusing the first request also may produce By recognizing when compliance techniques
guilt, and complying with the smaller request are being used to manipulate your behaviour, you
may help us reduce guilt or feel socially respon- are in a better position to resist them. Consider
sible (Tusing & Dillard, 2000). Door-in-the-face the norm of reciprocity. Robert Cialdini (2008),
works for a variety of requests, including cut- an expert on influence techniques, suggests that
ting back on smoking (Pansu et al., 2014). the key is not to resist the initial gift or favour;
Using the foot-in-the-door technique, instead, accept the unsolicited “favour,” but if
a persuader gets you to comply with a small the person then asks you for a favour in return,
request first (getting the “foot in the door”) and recognize this as a manipulative technique. As
later presents a larger request (Eastwick et al., Cialdini notes, “The rule says that favors are to
2009). Imagine receiving an email message be met with favors; it does not require that tricks
from a stranger requesting help. It’s a student be met with favors” (1988, p. 53). Similarly, if a
who needs to collect data for a class project telemarketer asks you to agree to a large request
and asks if you would fill out a 20-minute online and then after you decline immediately asks for
questionnaire about your dietary habits. Would a smaller commitment, respond by thinking or
you do it? In an experiment with French college even saying, “I see: the door-in-the-face tech-
students, 44 percent complied (Guéguen, 2002). nique.” Of course, you can still choose to comply
Now let’s turn to a different condition of this if you believe it is the right thing to do. The goal
experiment. Imagine receiving an email from is not to automatically reject every social influ-
a stranger who asks for simple advice about a ence attempt but to avoid feeling coerced into
word-processing program. It takes less than a doing something you don’t want to do.
minute to reply, and you do (as did all the par-
ticipants in this condition of the experiment).
Once the person gets the foot in the door, a sec- Crowd Behaviour
ond email appears minutes later, asking if you and Deindividuation
would help with a class project by filling out a Years ago in New York City, a handyman sat
dietary questionnaire. In this condition, many perched on a ledge for an hour while a crowd
more students—76 percent—complied. of nearly 500 people on the street below shouted
With a final technique, lowballing, a persuader at him to jump. Fortunately, police managed to
gets you to commit to some action and then— rescue the man. New York is hardly alone, as
before you actually perform the behaviour—he Australian psychologist Leon Mann (1981) found
or she increases the “cost” of that same behav- when he analyzed newspaper reports of 21 cases
iour (Cialdini, 2008). Imagine negotiating to buy in which crowds were present when a person
a used car for $8000, a “great price.” The sales- threatened to jump off a building. In 10 cases, the
person says, “I need to confirm this with my crowd had encouraged the person to jump.
manager,” comes back shortly, and states, “I’m What could prompt people to encourage dis-
afraid my manager says the price is too low. But traught human beings to end their lives? In the
you can have the car for only $400 more. It’s still 19th century, French physician Gustave LeBon
a great price.” At this point, you are more likely (1895) suggested that the anonymity that exists
to go through with the deal than you would have in mobs leads to a loss of personal identity and
been, had the “real” $8400 price been set at the a weakening of restraints that prompt people to
outset. engage in behaviours they would not perform
Both lowballing and the foot-in-the-door tech- as individuals. This condition is called deindi-
nique involve moving from a smaller request to a viduation, a loss of individuality that leads to
larger, more costly one. But with the foot-in-the- disinhibited behaviour (Festinger et al., 1952).
door approach, the smaller and larger requests The concept of deindividuation has been applied
often involve different acts (e.g., giving advice, to diverse types of antisocial behaviour, from
filling out a questionnaire) and the larger cheating and stealing, to riots by sports fans, to
request is made after you finish complying with acts of genocide (Staub, 1996).
 Behaviour in a Social Context 519

But what is the primary aspect of deindividu- Group Influences on Performance

ation that disinhibits behaviour? Tom Postmes
and Russell Spears (1998) meta-analyzed 60
and Decision Making
deindividuation studies and determined that Much of our behaviour occurs in groups, from
anonymity to outsiders was the key. Condi- family and friendship groups to social clubs,
tions that make an individual less identifiable work groups, and athletic teams. People often
to people outside the group reduce feelings of form groups to make decisions or perform tasks
accountability and, slightly but consistently, that are too complex or physically demanding to
increase the risk of antisocial actions. Postmes be accomplished by one person (Figure 13.20).
and Spears suggest that being anonymous to We now consider some factors that enhance or
outsiders enhances the individual’s tendency to interfere with group productivity.
focus on his or her identity with the group and
makes the person more responsive to emerging Social Loafing: Failing to Pull
group norms. Your Own Weight
Reinforcing the importance of anonymity to In 1913, Max Ringelmann, a French agricultural
20. Describe
outsiders, Mann (1981) found that people were engineer, measured the force that men exerted deindividuation
most likely to encourage a potential suicide vic- while pulling on a rope as hard as they could. and how
tim to jump when the crowd was large and it was Individually, the men averaged 63 kilograms of conditions in the
dark outside. During the Stanford Prison Study, pull. In groups of three, you might expect a com- Stanford Prison
no names were used and guards had to be called bined pull of about 3 × 63 kilograms = 189 kilo- Study may have
“Mr. Correctional Officer.” All guards wore iden- grams, and 504 kilograms for groups of eight. fostered it.
tical uniforms and reflecting sunglasses that But this isn’t what happened. The total pull in
prevented the prisoners from making direct eye three- and eight-man groups was 16 percent and
contact. The guards were unaware that their 51 percent below expectations, respectively.
behaviour was being monitored by the experi- Why did this happen? Perhaps the men didn’t
menters, and antisocial norms evolved from the coordinate the timing of their pull precisely, and
role of “tough prison guard” adopted by those there was a loss of mechanical efficiency. Or
participants who spontaneously took over perhaps each person exerted less effort when
leadership roles (Zimbardo et al., 1973). These in a group. To resolve this issue, Alan Ingham
factors led Zimbardo to conclude that deindi- and his colleagues (1974) led blindfolded par-
viduation was a key factor in the cruelty exhib- ticipants to believe that they were pulling a rope
ited by the guards. Reducing anonymity—and (connected to a force meter) either alone or in
thereby increasing public accountability—may groups of various sizes. In reality, participants
be the most basic approach to counteracting were always alone, and therefore any perfor-
deindividuation. mance drop had to be due to diminished effort.

(left): Ammit Jack/Shutterstock; (right): © Digital Vision/Getty Images

FIGURE 13.20 Whether for recreational, volunteer, or work activities, much of human behaviour occurs in groups.
520 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Overall, participants exerted 18 percent less its parts.” But this is not always the case. Social
force when they thought they were in a group. loafing may disappear when individual perfor-
The tendency for people to expend less indi- mance is monitored (Lount & Wilk, 2014; Pearsall
21. What is vidual effort when working in a group than et al., 2010) or when members highly value their
social loafing when working alone is called social loafing. group or the task goal (Karau & Hart, 1998). In
and when is it
In contrast to social facilitation experiments, in fact, to achieve a highly desired goal, some mem-
most likely to
occur? which a person performs a task individually (in bers may engage in social compensation: They
front of an audience or with a coactor) and does will work harder in a group than alone if they
not pool her or his effort with anyone, social expect that their colleagues either don’t have
loafing involves collective performance. Thus, enough ability or will slack off (Hart et al., 2001).
contrary to what common sense might tell you,
when university students and high school cheer- Group Polarization: Going to Extremes
leaders are asked to be as loud as possible, they Groups are often called on to make key deci-
22. Identify two individually clap, shout, and cheer less loudly sions. Governments, educational institutions, and
causes of group
when performing as a group than when they are corporations frequently develop policies through
polarization.
alone (Hardy & Latané, 1986). committees. The fate of defendants often rests
Social loafing also occurs on cognitive in the hands of juries. Such decisions are often
tasks, such as when people have to evaluate entrusted to groups because they are assumed to
written materials, make decisions in simulated be more conservative than individuals and less
juries, and monitor the concentration of gases likely to “go off the deep end.” Is this assump-
in the air (Hoeksema et al., 1998). Why does tion correct? It is, as long as the group is gen-
social loafing occur? Steven Karau and Kipling erally conservative to begin with. In such cases,
Williams (1993, 2001) propose a collective effort the group’s final opinion or attitude likely will be
model: On a collective task, people will put forth even more conservative. But, if the group mem-
effort only to the extent that they expect their bers lean toward a more liberal or risky view-
effort to contribute to obtaining a valued goal. point to begin with, the group’s decision will tend
In support of this model, their meta-analysis to become more liberal or riskier. This principle
of 78 social loafing studies revealed that social is called group polarization: When a group of
loafing is more likely to occur when like-minded people discusses an issue, whether
face to face or through email, the “average” opin-
• people believe that individual performance ion of group members tends to become more
within the group is not being monitored; extreme (Krizan & Baron, 2007).
• the task (goal) has less value or meaning to Why does group polarization occur? One rea-
the person; son, reflecting normative social inf luence, is
• the group is less important to the person; and that individuals who are attracted to a group
may be motivated to adopt a more extreme
• the task is simple and the person’s input is
position to gain the group’s approval. A second
redundant with that of other group members.
reason, reflecting informational social inf lu-
Fatigue also seems to increase social loafing. ence, is that during group discussions people
By having participants work on various cog- hear arguments supporting their positions that
nitive tasks for 20 hours without sleep, Dutch they had not previously considered. These new
researchers demonstrated that we are more arguments tend to make the initial positions
likely to “skate by” on other group members’ seem even more valid (Sia et al., 2002).
shoulders when we are tired (Hoeksema et al.,
1998). Social loafing also depends on gender Groupthink: Suspending Critical Thinking
and culture (Karau & Williams, 1993). It occurs After the U.S. military ignored warning signs
more strongly in all-male groups than in all- of imminent attack by Japan in 1941, the fleet
female or mixed-sex groups, possibly because at Pearl Harbor was destroyed in a “surprise”
women may be more concerned about group attack. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy and
outcomes than men. Participants from individu- his advisors launched the doomed Bay of Pigs
alistic cultures (Canada and the United States) invasion of Cuba. In 1972, five men broke into
exhibit more social loafing than people from Democratic Party offices at the Watergate hotel,
collectivistic cultures (China, Japan, Taiwan), in and the following cover-up forced President
which group goals are especially valued. Richard Nixon to resign. According to Yale Uni-
Social loafing suggests that, in terms of group versity social psychologist Irving Janis (1983),
performance, “the whole is less than the sum of the decision makers involved in each of these
 Behaviour in a Social Context 521

Antecedent conditions
Janis developed the concept of groupthink,
shown in Figure 13.21, after analyzing historical 23. What are
some causes,
1. High stress to reach a decision accounts of group deliberations that resulted in
2. Insulation of the group symptoms, and
disastrous decisions. He proposed that group- consequences of
3. Directive leadership
4. High cohesiveness think is most likely to occur when a group groupthink?
• is under high stress to reach a decision;
• is insulated from outside input;
Some symptoms of groupthink • has a directive leader who promotes her or
1. Illusion of invulnerability his personal agenda; and
(group overestimates itself) • has high cohesion, reflecting a spirit of close-
2. Direct pressure on dissenters
3. Self-censorship
ness and ability to work well together.
4. Illusion of unanimity
Under these conditions, the group is so com-
5. Self-appointed mind guards
mitted to reaching a consensus, while remain-
ing loyal and agreeable, that members suspend
their critical judgment. Particularly when facing
Groupthink increases risk of a collective threat, the group’s desire to main-
defective decision making
tain a positive view of itself may lead members
1. Incomplete survey of alternatives to reach agreement without carefully weighing
2. Incomplete survey of objectives opposing views (Turner et al., 2007).
3. Failure to examine risks of
preferred choice
Various symptoms signal that groupthink
4. Poor information search is at work. For example, group members who
5. Failure to reappraise alternatives express doubt are faced with direct pressure to
stop “rocking the boat.” Some members serve
FIGURE 13.21 Antecedents, symptoms, and nega- as mind guards by preventing negative infor-
tive effects of groupthink on decision making. mation from reaching the group. Ultimately,
Source: Adapted from Janis, I.L. (1983). Groupthink: members display self-censorship and withhold
Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos (2nd ed.). their doubts, creating a potentially disastrous
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. illusion of unanimity in which each member
comes to believe that “everyone else seems to
agree with the decision” (Figure 13.22).
historical blunders fell victim to a process called Groupthink principles have been applied
groupthink, the tendency for group members to diverse situations. In the business world,
to suspend critical thinking because they are groupthink can contribute to poor manage-
striving to seek agreement. ment decisions that adversely affect the

“All those in favor say ‘aye’.”

“Aye.” “Aye.” “Aye.”
“Aye.” “Aye.”
(left): © The New Yorker Collection 1979 Henry Martin from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.; (right): NASA

FIGURE 13.22 (a) The illusion of unanimity occurs when group members collectively fail to speak their true
minds. (b) This illusion contributed to the ill-fated decision to launch the space shuttle Challenger on January 28,
1986. The Challenger exploded shortly after takeoff, killing all the astronauts on board.
522 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

financial value and public reputation of a com- In the days leading up to the fiery disinte-
pany (Eaton, 2001). In crime investigations, gration of the space shuttle Columbia as it re-
groupthink may lead the investigative team to entered Earth’s atmosphere in 2003, engineers,
prematurely reach agreement on a particular supervisors, and some NASA officials intensely
interpretation of the case without adequately debated whether Columbia’s left wing had sus-
considering other alternatives (Kerstholt & tained damage because of a mishap during
Eikelboom, 2007). launch. But as the Columbia Accident Investiga-
Many aspects of groupthink were present tion Board found, tragically, “dangerous aspects
during the decision process leading up to the of NASA’s 1986 culture . . . remained unchanged”
fatal launch of the space shuttle Challenger in (2003, p. 198). For example, stress was high, key
1986 (Esser & Lindoerfer, 1995; Moorhead et al., managers were isolated from outside expert
1991). The engineers who designed the rocket opinion, and a “need to produce consensus at
boosters had strongly opposed the launch, fear- each level” filtered out dissenting information
ing that subfreezing weather would make rub- on safety risks (p. 198).
ber seals too brittle to contain hot gases from Can groupthink be prevented? Janis sug-
the rocket. NASA, however, was under great gests that the leader should remain impartial
stress, and leadership was directive. This shuttle during discussions, regularly encourage criti-
mission was to be historic, carrying America’s cal thinking, bring in outsiders to offer their
first civilian into space. There had been several opinions, and divide the larger group into
delays and NASA did not want another one. subgroups—to see if each subgroup indepen-
To foster an illusion of unanimity, a key NASA dently reaches the same decision. Of course,
executive polled only management officials, even groups that display poor decision-making
excluding the engineers from the final decision- procedures may still end up making a correct
making process (Magnuson, 1986). Thanks to decision, or at least may “get away” with a bad
mind guarding, the NASA official who gave the one (Raven, 1998). Conversely, critical debate
final go-ahead was never informed of the con- does not guarantee a positive outcome, but it
cerns expressed by the engineers. does enhance the odds.

In Review
• A social norm is a shared rule or expectation • Deindividuation is a temporary lowering of restraints
about how group members should think, feel, and that can occur when a person is immersed in a
behave. A social role is a set of norms that defines group. Anonymity to outsiders appears to be the
a particular position in a social system. key factor in producing deindividuation.
• People conform to a group because of informa- • Social loafing occurs when people exert less
tional social influence and normative social influ- individual effort when working as a group than
ence. The size of the majority and the presence when working alone. Social loafing decreases
or absence of dissenters influence the degree of when the goal or group membership is valued
conformity. Minority influence is strongest when highly and when people’s performance within the
the minority maintains a consistent position over group can be individually monitored.
time but does not appear too deviant. • When the members of a decision-making group
• Milgram’s obedience research raised strong ethical initially share the same conservative or lib-
concerns and found unexpectedly high percentages eral viewpoint, the group’s final decision often
of people willing to obey destructive orders. Such reflects a polarization effect and becomes more
obedience is stronger when the victim is remote and extreme than the average opinion of the individ-
when the authority figure is close by, legitimate, ual members.
and assumes responsibility for what happens. • Cohesive decision-making groups that have
• People often use special techni ues to get us directive leaders, are under high stress, and
to comply with their requests. These compliance are insulated from outside input may display
techniques include the norm of reciprocity, the groupthink, a suspension of critical thinking to
door-in-the-face technique, the foot-in-the-door maintain cohesion and loyalty to the leader’s
technique, and lowballing. viewpoint.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 523

SOCIAL RELATIONS and enables us to judge the level of our cogni-

tive and physical abilities (Festinger, 1954).
Our relations with other people take many People differ in how strongly they desire
forms. Here we explore four types of social to affiliate. In one study, university students
interaction that help to define who we are, both who scored high on a personality test of need
individually and collectively: attraction, preju- for affiliation made more friends during the
dice, altruism, and aggression. semester than did students who scored low
(Byrne & Greendlinger, 1989). In another study,
Affiliation and Interpersonal high school students wore beepers over a one-
Attraction week period. They were signalled approxi-
mately every two hours, and then recorded their
What makes your life meaningful? To many peo-
thoughts and activities. Participants with high
ple, close relationships are one key. Abraham
need for affiliation were more likely than their
Maslow (1954) viewed belongingness and love
peers to report they were thinking about friends
as basic psychological needs, and considerable
and wishing they could be with people (Wong &
research indicates that “… the need to belong is a
Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive
People with high need for affiliation also show
motivation” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497).
a stronger psychological sense of community—
Why Do We Affiliate? the feeling of being part of a larger collective
and being engaged with others in pursuing com-
Humans are social beings and affiliate in many
mon goals (Burroughs & Eby, 1998). People with
ways (Figure 13.23). Some theorists argue that, 24. According
a strong sense of community are more likely
over the course of evolution, individuals whose to evolutionary
to engage in extracurricular school activities
biological makeup predisposed them to affiliate and social
and to keep abreast of local and national news
were more likely to survive and reproduce than comparison
(Davidson & Cotter, 1997). Clearly, our desire to
those who were reclusive. By affording greater viewpoints, why
feel connected can express itself in many ways.
access to sexual mates, more protection from are humans such
Many situational factors affect our tendency
predators, an efficient division of labour, and social creatures?
to affiliate. For example, fear-inducing situations
the passing of knowledge across generations,
increase our desire to be with others (Schachter, 25. How does
a socially oriented lifestyle had considerable
1959). During emergencies, as in the aftermath fear influence
adaptive value (Flinn, 1997; Kottak, 2000).
of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes, many affiliation?
Craig Hill (1987) suggests that, psychologi-
people find themselves bonding to strangers
cally, we affiliate for four basic reasons: to
(Humphriss, 1989). When afraid, we prefer to be
obtain positive stimulation, receive emotional
with people who have been through the feared
support, gain attention, and permit social com-
situation we are facing. This way, we can gauge
parison. Social comparison involves compar-
the normalcy of our reactions and learn informa-
ing our beliefs, feelings, and behaviours with
tion about what to expect. In one study, hospital
those of other people. This comparison helps us
patients awaiting open-heart surgery expressed a
determine whether our responses are “normal,”
stronger desire to have a roommate who already
had been through the surgery than a preoperative
roommate like themselves (Kulik & Mahler, 1989).
And, when such patients were assigned to postop-
erative rather than preoperative roommates, they
became less anxious and later recovered from
surgery more quickly (Kulik et al., 1996).

Initial Attraction
Attraction is the first phase of most friendships
and romantic relationships. What causes us to
“connect” with some people, but not others?
Ingram Publishing/SuperStock
Proximity and mere exposure: “Haven’t I seen
FIGURE 13.23 Affiliation brings us companionship,
intimacy, love, and also basic social contact. To satisfy
you somewhere?” People cannot develop a
these desires, we form friendships, interact with family relationship unless they first meet, and proxim-
members, join groups, converse with strangers, and ity (nearness) is the best predictor of who will
flock together in crowds. cross paths with whom. In today’s increasingly
524 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

wired world, friendships and romances some- So like mismatched roommates Felix Unger
times develop after strangers make initial contact (an uptight neatnik) and Oscar Madison (a care-
through Internet chat rooms, social-networking free slob) in the classic movie The Odd Couple,
sites, or email. Still, physical proximity matters. do opposites ever attract? At times, of course.
We interact most with people who are physi- But much more often, opposites repel (Krueger &
cally closer (Latané et al., 1995). Residents in Caspi, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1986). When choosing
married-student apartments are more likely to potential friends or mates, we typically screen
form friendships with other residents who live out people who are dissimilar to us. And, when
close by; students placed in assigned classroom dissimilar people do form relationships, they
seats are more likely to become friends with stu- tend not to last as long (Byrne, 1997). As Diane
dents seated nearby (Back et al., 2008); and many Felmlee (1998) found, dissimilarity increases
adults meet their spouse or current dating partner the risk of “fatal attractions”: We initially find
at school, work, or place of worship (Festinger some characteristic of another person appeal-
et al., 1950; Michael et al., 1994). In fact, if we are ing, but over time we come to dislike it. In short,
thinking about affiliating with other people, we what is intriguing and different today may repel
actually see ourselves as physically closer to oth- us tomorrow!
ers (Stel & Koningsbruggen, 2015).
26. How and why Proximity increases the chance of frequent Physical attractiveness: Spellbound by
does proximity encounters, and over 200 experiments provide beauty. It may be shallow and in many ways
influence evidence of a mere exposure effect: Repeated unfair, but most people seem drawn to beauty
affiliation and exposure to a stimulus typically increases our lik- like moths to a flame (Figure 13.24). In many
attraction? ing for it. No matter the stimuli—university class- studies, when men and women rate the desirabil-
mates, photographs of faces, random geometric ity of hypothetical short-term dating partners,
shapes, foreign words, and so on—so long as they their judgments are influenced most strongly by
are not unpleasant and we are not oversaturated, how good-looking the person is.
exposure generally enhances liking (Monahan Consider the heterosexual college students
et al., 2000; Winograd et al., 1999). This effect who participated in a recent speed-dating survey
occurs even when we are not consciously aware of at a southeastern U.S. public university (Luo &
the repeated exposures (Hansen & Wänke, 2009). Zhang, 2009). Prior to the actual speed-dating
sessions, the researchers measured the stu-
Similarity: Birds of a feather. When it comes to dents’ interests, values, personality characteris-
attraction, folk wisdom covers all the bases. On tics, and other personal factors. Eight research
the one hand, “opposites attract.” On the other, team members also rated each student’s physi-
“birds of a feather flock together.” So which is cal attractiveness based on a photograph of the
it? The evidence is overwhelming: People most student taken moments prior to their particular
often are attracted to others who are similar to speed-dating session. At a session, each speed
themselves (Byrne, 1997). For psychological date lasted five minutes and immediately after-
attributes, similarity of attitudes, beliefs, and wards, participants rated their desire to see that
27. Do birds of
a feather flock values seems to matter the most (Buss, 1985). person again. The results were as follows: For
together, or In the laboratory, university students’ degree men and women, their desire to date the partners
do opposites of liking for a stranger can be predicted very they met depended far more strongly on the part-
attract? Describe accurately simply by knowing the proportion ner’s physical attractiveness than on any other
the evidence. of similar attitudes that they share (Byrne, 1997; characteristic the researchers measured.
Byrne & Nelson, 1965). This similarity-attraction In other research, psychologists have mea-
relationship has been found across many groups, sured people’s physical attractiveness and per-
including people in Mexico, India, and Japan who sonal characteristics, and then randomly paired
ranged from Grade 4 students to retirees. Outside them on actual blind dates. In one classic study
the laboratory, Donn Byrne and his colleagues with university students, the partners’ physi-
(1970) matched university students on a brief cal attractiveness was the only factor that pre-
30-minute date, pairing people with partners who dicted students’ attraction (Walster et al., 1966).
had either highly similar or dissimilar attitudes. Women and men who dated physically attrac-
Students were more attracted to similar part- tive partners liked them more and had a stron-
ners, talked with them more during the rest of the ger desire to date them again. Similarly, among
semester, and had a stronger desire to date them. 100 homosexual men who researchers paired
One reason we like people with similar attitudes together for a date, men’s liking for their part-
is that they validate our view of the world. ners and desire to date them again were most
 Behaviour in a Social Context 525

(left): © PhotoAlto/Alamy Stock Photo; (right): © Sid Bahrt/Photo Researchers, Inc.

FIGURE 13.24 Hey, good lookin’! The way that both sexes initially judge someone is influenced by that person’s
attractiveness and other physical features. We are not alone. Many species, such as these Frigate birds (male on
the left), have evolved distinct features and ritualized mating displays to attract a potential mate’s attention.

strongly influenced by the partners’ physical individuals may attribute the positive responses
attractiveness (Sergios & Cody, 1986). of others solely to their “surface” beauty rather
What motivates our desire to affiliate with than to their inner personal qualities.
attractive people? One factor may be the wide- Although we are attracted to “beautiful peo-
28. Identify two
spread stereotype that “what is beautiful is ple,” we are most likely to have a dating partner
factors that may
good”; we often assume that attractive people or spouse whose level of physical attractive-
underlie the
have more positive personality characteris- ness is similar to our own: a matching effect desire to affiliate
tics than unattractive people (Dion et al., 1972; (Feingold, 1988). In this case, “birds of equally more with
Feingold, 1992). The popular media reinforce this attractive feathers flock together.” One reason attractive people
stereotype. Analyzing five decades of top-grossing for this is that the most attractive people may than unattractive
Hollywood movies, Stephen Smith and his col- match up first and be “taken,” then the next people.
leagues (1999) found that good-looking male most attractive, and so on (Kalick & Hamilton,
and female characters were portrayed as more 1988). Another factor is that, to lessen the risk
intelligent, moral, and sociable than less attrac- of rejection, some people may refrain from
tive characters. However, attractiveness can approaching potential dating partners who are
work against you if you are in need and asking more attractive than they are (Huston, 1973).
for help (Fisher & Ma, 2014). Because we are Among dating couples, those who are best
often judged by the company we keep, we also matched on attractiveness are most likely to
may prefer to associate with attractive people fall deeply in love, and couples who eventually
to buttress our self-esteem. Self-conscious peo- marry are more similar in attractiveness than
ple, who are highly concerned about how they dating couples in general (White, 1980).
come across to others, are especially likely to
gravitate toward attractive people (Richardson, Facial attractiveness: Is “average” beautiful?
1991; Snyder et al., 1985). Given beauty’s power, what makes a face physi-
Lest you conclude that beauty is the key to cally attractive? Beauty may be in the eye of the
happiness, we should note that physical attrac- beholder, but within and across cultures, people
tiveness during the university years is unrelated are seeing through similar eyes; their ratings of
to life satisfaction in middle age (Kaner, 1995). facial attractiveness agree strongly (Langlois
And physically attractive people do not necessar- et al., 2000).
ily have the highest levels of self-esteem (Major Look at face 3 and face 5 in Figure 13.25. The
et al., 1984), although attractiveness has been first thing you need to know is that these people
shown to be related to psychological well-being don’t exist. These photos are composites, “aver-
(Datta Gupta et al., 2015). Beauty is sometimes aged” male and female faces created digitally
linked with self-doubt, because highly attractive by blending 16 photographs of young men and
526 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Face 1 Face 2 Face 3 Face 4 Face 5 Face 6 Face 7

“Extreme” “Averaged” “Averaged” “Extreme”

male face male face female face female face

FIGURE 13.25 Judging beauty. Which male face do you find most attractive? Which female face? Faces 3 and 5 are “averaged”
composite photographs digitally created by blending photos of 16 men and 16 women, respectively. These averaged composites were
then digitally altered to accentuate either masculine or feminine features. Faces 1 and 7 are extremely masculinized and feminized,
respectively; faces 2 and 6, moderately so. Face 4 blends the masculine and feminine features. In actual experiments, masculinization-
feminization changes typically are done very gradually, creating many more choices than you see here.
Source: Adapted with permission Johnston, V.S. et al. Male Facial Attractiveness: Evidence for Hormone-Mediated Adaptive Design. Fig. 1, p. 255,
Evaluation and Behavior 22. pp. 251–ßß267. Elsevier Publishing.

16 photographs of young women (Johnston et al., faces as the most attractive (Johnston et al.,
2001). Using different sets of photographs, stud- 2001; Perrett et al., 1998). In contrast, depending
ies in North America, Europe, and Asia consis- on the study, male faces that have been some-
tently find that people typically rate “averaged” what masculinized or feminized are rated as the
male and female faces as more attractive than most attractive.
almost all the individual faces used to create
the composites (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). As Attraction Deepens: Close
Moreover, people perceive individual faces as Relationships
more attractive when those faces are digitally Budding relationships grow closer as peo-
modified to look more like the “averaged” face ple share more diverse and meaningful
(Rhodes et al., 2001). One reason that averaged experiences(Altman & Taylor, 1973). Self-
faces seem more attractive is that they are more disclosure—the sharing of innermost thoughts
symmetrical, and people prefer facial symme- and feelings—plays a key role (Dindia, 2002). In
try (B. Jones et al., 2004). However, even when friendships, dating relationships, and marriages,
viewing faces from the side, where symmetry more extensive and intimate self-disclosure is
is not an issue, averaged faces are still rated as associated with greater emotional involvement
more attractive. and relationship satisfaction. This relation is
As Gestalt psychologists noted, in visual per- reciprocal. Self-disclosure fosters intimacy
ception, the whole is more than the sum of its and trust, and intimacy and trust encourage
parts. As individual facial features—noses, eyes, self-disclosure.
lips, and so on—conform more to an “averaged” Social exchange theory proposes that
29. According to norm, we perceive the “whole face” as more the course of a relationship is governed by
social exchange attractive. But keep in mind that some individ- rewards and costs that the partners experience
theory, what ual faces, which deviate from their composite, (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Rewards include com-
factors influence
are rated the most attractive overall. Moreover, panionship, emotional support, and the sat-
whether a
as Figure 13.25 shows, some researchers have isfaction of other needs (van de Rijt & Macy,
relationship
will deepen, be taken composite faces and digitally altered 2006). Costs may include the effort spent to
satisfying, and them to appear progressively more masculine maintain the relationship, arguments, conflict-
continue? (e.g., larger jaw and brow ridges) or more femi- ing goals, and so forth. The overall outcome
nine (e.g., fuller lips, a narrower jaw). Consis- (rewards minus costs) in a relationship can be
tently, people perceive moderately feminized positive or negative.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 527

Satisfaction
Comparison
with
level
relationship
vs.
Rewards – Costs = Outcomes

vs.
Comparison Commitment
level for to
alternatives relationship

FIGURE 13.26 Social relationships: Are you satisfied and committed? According to Thibaut and Kelley’s (1959)
social exchange theory, rewards minus costs equal the outcome of a relationship. Comparing our outcomes with
two standards, the comparison level and the comparison level for alternatives, determines our satisfaction and
commitment to the relationship, respectively.

Outcomes are evaluated against two stan- women viewed it as the most important qual-
dards (Figure 13.26). The first, called the com- ity they desired in a mate. In many cultures, a
parison level, is the outcome that a person has mate’s chastity (no previous experience in sex-
grown to expect in relationships, and it influ- ual intercourse) was viewed as last or near-last
ences the person’s satisfaction with the pres- in importance, but in China and India, men and
ent relationship. Outcomes that meet or exceed women viewed chastity as an important quality
the comparison level are satisfying; those that in a mate.
fall below this standard are dissatisfying. The There are also remarkably consistent sex dif-
second standard, called the comparison level ferences in mate preferences across cultures. 30. Describe
for alternatives, focuses on potential alterna- Men tend to place greater value on a potential some gender
differences
tives to the relationship, and it influences the mate’s physical attractiveness and domestic
in mate
person’s degree of commitment. Even when a skills, whereas women place greater value on preferences.
relationship is satisfying, partners may feel low a potential mate’s earning potential, status, and
commitment if they perceive that something ambitiousness. Men tend to desire a mate who
better is available. In turn, the partners’ sense of is a few years younger, whereas young and
commitment helps to predict whether they will middle-aged women tend to desire a mate who
remain together or end their relationship in the is a few years older (Alterovitz & Mendelsohn,
future (Sprecher, 2001). 2009). Men also are more likely to desire and
pursue a greater number of short-term romantic
Sociocultural and Evolutionary Views encounters than are women (Schmitt et al., 2001).
According to social exchange theory, a part- As we discussed in detail in Chapter 4, some
ner’s desirable characteristics can be viewed as evolutionary psychologists argue that these sex
rewards, whereas undesirable characteristics differences reflect inherited predispositions,
represent costs. But what specific characteris- shaped by natural selection in response to dif-
tics do people desire in a partner? In a massive ferent adaptive problems that men and women
study involving 10 000 men and women from have faced over the ages (Gangestad et al., 2006).
37 cultures around the world, evolutionary psy- According to the sexual strategies theory, ances-
chologist David Buss and his colleagues asked tral men who were predisposed to have sex with
people to identify the qualities they sought in more partners increased the likelihood of father-
an ideal long-term mate (Buss, 1989; Buss et al., ing more children and passing on their genes.
1990). Overall, for both sexes, mutual attraction/ Such men may have perceived a woman’s youth
love, dependable character, emotional stabil- and attractive appearance as signs that she was
ity, and a pleasing disposition emerged (in that fertile and had many years left to bear children
order) as the most highly rated of the 18 charac- (Buss, 1989). Ancestral women, however, maxi-
teristics evaluated. mized their reproductive success by selecting
The importance attached to many qualities, mates who were willing and able to commit time,
however, varied considerably across cultures. energy, and other resources (e.g., food, shelter,
For example, whereas North American men protection) to the family (Buss, 1989).
and women viewed refinement/neatness as hav- Do men and women have different biologi-
ing only modest importance, Iranian men and cal wiring when it comes to romantic attraction
528 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

and relationships? Social structure theory types of love contribute to satisfaction in long-
proposes that most of these sex differences term romantic relationships (Sprecher & Regan,
in mating strategies and preferences occur 1998). In general, passionate love is less stable
because society directs men into more advan- and declines more quickly over time than com-
taged social and economic roles (Eagly & panionate love, but this does not mean that the
Wood, 1999, 2006). As this theory predicts, flames of passionate love inevitably are extin-
in cultures with more gender equality, many guished (Tucker & Aron, 1993).
31. How does of the sex differences in mate preferences The distinction between passionate and com-
Sternberg’s shrink. Women place less emphasis, for exam- panionate love is one of psychology’s most basic.
model expand on ple, on a mate’s earning power and status, and However, Robert Sternberg (1988, 1997) pro-
the passionate- men and women seek mates more similar in poses a three-component triangular theory of
companionate age. Men’s tendency to place more emphasis love that focuses on intimacy (closeness, shar-
love distinction? on a mate’s physical attractiveness, however, ing, and valuing one’s partner), commitment
does not decrease in such cultures. But it is (the decision to remain in the relationship), and
still a leap, say critics, to conclude that sex passion (feelings of romance, physical attrac-
differences in mating preferences reflect a tion, and sexual desire). Research suggests that
hereditary predisposition rather than some these three qualities do a good job of captur-
other aspect of gender socialization that may ing the way people commonly think about love
be consistent across cultures. (Aron & Westbay, 1996).
This issue is far from settled, but perhaps Figure 13.27 shows that different combina-
the most important point to realize is the notion tions of these components characterize seven
that men and women come from “different types of love (plus “non-love,” which is the
planets” when it comes to attraction, romance, absence of all three components). Sternberg
and close relationships is more pop psychol- proposes that the ultimate form of love
ogy than reliable science (Hazan & Diamond, between people—consummate love—occurs
2000). Sex differences exist, but cross-cultural when intimacy, passion, and commitment are
differences tend to be stronger. That is, men all present.
and women within the same culture are typi-
cally more similar to one another than are men The Cognitive-Arousal Model: Why Does
from different cultures or women from differ- My Heart Pound?
ent cultures (Buss et al., 1990). Our culture believes in the concept of love, and
we are exposed to love themes from childhood.
Love
Love must be a powerful motive if it indeed
“makes the world go round,” but which type of Liking
love does this? In his book The Art of Loving, (intimacy alone)
psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1956) identified
Intimacy

five fundamental types of love: parental love,

erotic (sexual) love, self-love, love for human- Romantic love Companionate love
ity, and love of God. Restricting ourselves to (intimacy + (intimacy +
passion) commitment)
friendships and romantic relationships, poet
Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s insight, “How Consummate
do I love thee? Let me count the ways” is most love
(intimacy +
applicable. passion +
commitment) Co
mm
Types of Love ion
itm
ss en
Passionate love involves intense emotion, Pa t

arousal, and yearning for the partner (Hatfield, Infatuation Empty love
(passion alone) (commitment alone)
1988). We may ride an emotional roller coaster Fatuous love
that ranges from ecstasy when the partner is (passion + commitment)
present to heartsickness when the person is
FIGURE 13.27 According to Sternberg, different
absent. Companionate love involves affec- types of love involve varying combinations of intimacy,
tion, deep caring about the partner’s well-being, commitment, and passion. Consummate love involves
and a commitment to “being there” for the other the presence of all three factors, whereas non-love rep-
(Caspi & Herbener, 1990; Hatfield, 1988). Both resents the absence of all three.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 529

Woman meets Prince Charming; they fall in prefrontal cortex shows lower activity levels
love, get married, and live happily ever after. By (Zeki, 2007)—indicating that we are likely to
adolescence, we are eagerly awaiting the glo- engage in riskier behaviours.
ries of love. Of course, for close relationships to develop 32. Explain
According to the cognitive-arousal model and endure, they need more than passion alone. how transfer of
of love, the passionate component of love has Intimacy, self-disclosure, and commitment pro- excitation can
interacting cognitive and physiological com- vide a basis for the trust and friendship that influence our
ponents (Berscheid, 1984; Hatfield & Rapson, sustain and increase love. As this chapter’s feelings of love.
1987). Primed with our beliefs and expectations Applications feature highlights, other behav-
about love, when we experience high arousal in iours also help to make close relationships
the presence of someone whom we perceive as successful.
attractive and desirable, we may conclude that
we must be “falling in love.” This model suggests Prejudice and Discrimination
that emotional arousal actually caused by some
Walk into a party, classroom, job interview—any
other factor may sometimes be misinterpreted
social situation—and just by looking at your body
as love. This phenomenon is known as transfer
build people will start to form an impression of
of excitation: arousal due to one source is per-
you (Crandall et al., 2001). If they perceive you 33. Based on
ceived (“misattributed”) as being due to another
as “overweight,” for example, then you may be marital research,
source (Zillmann, 1984).
judged as less likable, as having poorer will power give some advice
Remember the Capilano Suspension Bridge
and social skills, and as being more unhappy to a newlywed
experiment by Donald Dutton and Arthur
with yourself than your nonfat peers (Crandall & couple about
Aron (1974) that we discussed in Chap- behaviours that
Martinez, 1996; Carr & Friedman, 2005).
ter 11? As you will recall, an experimenter will help to keep
Attractiveness matters too. Both children
approached male participants as they crossed their relationship
and adults tend to form less favourable impres-
over one of two bridges just north of Vancou- strong.
sions of people who are less attractive. They
ver. Participants who crossed the narrow,
expect them to have less desirable personality
wobbly, and arousing Capilano Suspension
traits and to achieve less success and happiness
Bridge included more sexual themes in their
in life, even though correlational studies typi-
stories than did participants who crossed
cally find that such variables are unrelated or
a wide, sturdy non-arousing bridge. Dutton
only weakly related to attractiveness and other
and Aron (1974) concluded that men’s sexual
facial features (Dion et al., 1972; Zebrowitz
attraction toward the woman was increased
et al., 1996).
by the arousal produced by being on the sus-
Perhaps above all, ethnicity and gender mat-
pension bridge, and a meta-analysis of over
ter. They are likely to be the first character-
30 experiments supports this model (Foster
istics someone notices about you, and like so
et al., 1998). When we are in the presence of
many other personal qualities, can be the basis
someone we find attractive, other sources of
for prejudice and discrimination (Fiske, 2002).
arousal—whether a wobbly bridge, physical
Prejudice refers to a negative attitude toward
exercise, or a frightening movie—increase
people based on their membership in a group.
our sexual attraction even if we recognize
Thus, we prejudge people—dislike them or hold
those outside sources. If we are not aware
negative beliefs about them—simply because of
of these sources, our attraction increases
their gender, ethnic or religious identity, sexual
even more.
orientation, and so on. This type of prejudging
As you might expect, love does seem to have
is more likely to found in people with lower
a neurological component. The ventral tegmen-
levels of education and lower levels of income
tal area of the brain is triggered when you think
(Carvacho et al., 2013). Discrimination refers
about the person you love. This results in the
to overt behaviour: It involves treating people
release of dopamine, which is related to plea-
unfairly based on the group to which they belong.
sure. People who are in love, show greater activ-
ity in the entire reward structure of the brain
(Song et al., 2015). Other neurotransmitters are Overt and Covert Prejudice:
affected as well. For example, norephinephrine Have Times Changed?
increases and serotonin decreases. The result Even in this day and age, overt prejudice and
is an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, discrimination are in abundant supply. Armed
and we tend to become almost obsessive in conflicts based on ethnic or religious divisions
our thoughts about our loved one. Finally, the continue across the globe; supremacist groups and
530 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Applications

MAKING CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS WORK: reported being happily married, unhappily married, or
LESSONS FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL divorced. Using data collected while the couples were new-
RESEARCH lyweds, the researchers predicted which marriages would
end in divorce with 83 percent accuracy, and the degree of
Close relationships go through good times and bad, per- marital satisfaction in still-married couples with 80 percent
sisting or dissolving over time. Consider marriage. Though accuracy.
highly intimate, this union often is fragile. In North America, Surprisingly, the amount of anger expressed by hus-
about half of first marriages end in divorce, and the fail- bands and wives in their laboratory interactions predicted
ure rate for second marriages is higher. How can people neither stability nor happiness six years later. Instead, the
make their close relationships more satisfying and stable? crucial factor was the manner in which couples dealt with
Recent research on marriage suggests several answers that their anger. Particularly important were four behaviours that
also may be applied to dating relationships and friendships. Gottman (1994) calls “The Four Horsemen of the Apoca-
For decades, most marital research simply asked people lypse”: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling
about their marriages. But as Figure 13.28 shows, research- (listener withdrawal and nonresponsiveness).
ers are now bringing couples into laboratories to videotape Couples headed for unhappiness or divorce often exhibit
their interactions and to chart their facial and physiologi- these behaviours while discussing conflict, thereby esca-
cal responses as they discuss emotionally charged issues lating their conflict and negative emotions. When the wife
(Gottman et al., 1999; Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 1998). Rather criticizes the husband, he often stonewalls and withdraws
than focusing only on unhappy couples to find out what from her attempts to reach some resolution. Her resulting
is going wrong in their relationships, researchers also are frustration leads to stronger emotional displays and criti-
studying happy couples to discover the secrets of their cism, and the interaction degenerates into exchanges of
success. contempt in which the partners tear down each other. Once
Using these methods and new marital interview tech- this negative cycle develops, even positive overtures by
niques, psychologists have predicted whether marriages one spouse are likely to evoke a negative response from
will last or dissolve with impressive accuracy (Carrere et al., the other (Margolin & Wampold, 1981).
2000). In one laboratory study, John Gottman and his col- Happily married couples experience conflict and anger,
leagues (1998) collected behavioural and physiological data too, but do not allow the spiral of negativity to get out of
from 130 newlywed couples as they discussed areas of control. Instead, they make frequent “repair attempts” to
marital conflict (e.g., in-laws, finances, sex) during the first resolve their differences in a spirit of mutual respect and
six months of their marriage. Six years later, participants support. Gottman and his colleagues (1998) found that
in happy marriages, the wife often introduced the conflict
topic in a softened or low-intensity manner, rather than with
sarcasm, criticism, and strong emotion. Next a key factor
occurred: The husband responded to the issues she raised
in a concerned and respectful manner that de-escalated
negative emotion. A husband who turns off the TV and lis-
tens to his wife, or who says, “I can see you’re upset, so
let’s work this out,” demonstrates that her concerns are
important to him. In happy marriages, after the husbands’
responsiveness de-escalated the conflict, couples tended
to “soothe” each other (and themselves) with positive com-
ments and humour, resulting in more emotionally positive
interchanges and lowered physiological arousal.
Happily married partners also make the effort to get
to know each other’s psychological world—their fears and
dreams, philosophy of life, attitudes, and values—and they
continually update their knowledge. This “love map,” as
© Andrew Brusso
Gottman calls it, allows each partner to be more responsive
FIGURE 13.28 In John Gottman’s “love lab,” married cou- to the other’s needs and to navigate around relationship
ples (husband visible in rear) are filmed while interacting. roadblocks (Gottman et al., 1998; Gottman & De Claire,
Facial expressions, actions, heart rate, breathing rate, perspi- 2002). Such behaviour contributes to an essential aspect of
ration, fidgeting, and other responses are measured. happy marriages: a deep and intimate friendship between

continued
 Behaviour in a Social Context 531

TABLE 13.1 How Strong Is Your Relationship? the partners. Gottman (1994; Gottman & Silver, 2012)
notes that the lessons of happy marriages can be applied
Answer each question True (T) or False (F):
to other types of close relationships. Affirmative answers to
I can tell you about some of my partner’s dreams. T F the questions in Table 13.1 suggest that such relationships
We just love talking to each other. T F are on solid psychological ground.
My partner is one of my best friends. T F
My partner listens respectfully, even when we T F
disagree.
We generally mesh well on basic values and goals T F
in life.
I feel that my partner knows me pretty well. T F

The greater the number of “True” answers, the stronger your

relationship. Courtesy of John Gottman.
Source: Gottman & De Claire, 2002. The relationship cure: A five-step guide to strengthening your marriage, family, and friendships. New York, NY:
Three Rivers Press

hate crimes persist (Figure 13.29); and people’s implicit association test in which a series of word-
race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation spark pairs, such as “black—pleasant” and “white—pleas-
unfair treatment (Herek, 2000). In some ways, ant” are flashed on a computer screen. As soon as
however, the most blatant forms of prejudice and you see each pair, your task is to press a computer
discrimination have decreased in many countries. key as quickly as you can, and this represents your
Racial segregation is no longer sanctioned by reaction time. The principle underlying this test is
government policy in the United States and South that people react more quickly when they perceive
Africa, and opinion polls indicate that fewer people that the two words in each pair are associated with
express prejudiced attitudes toward other ethnic each other (i.e., the words “fit” together) than when
groups than was the case decades ago. they don’t fit together. Thus, without conscious con-
Although prejudiced attitudes truly seem to trol, a person prejudiced against Blacks will react
have faded a bit, in many ways modern racism, sex- more slowly to the “black—pleasant” pair than to
ism, and other forms of prejudice have gone under- the “white—pleasant” pair. The larger the discrep-
ground and are more difficult to detect (Brochu ancy in reaction times, the stronger are the person’s
et al., 2008; Dovidio et al., 2005; Dovidio et al., underlying negative attitudes. Greenwald and his
1997). Many people consciously hide their preju- associates found large reaction time differences of
dices, expressing them only when they feel it is this kind even among White males who claimed—
safe or socially appropriate. In other cases, people in response to standard questions—to have no
may honestly believe that they are not prejudiced prejudice toward Blacks. Likewise, Japanese and
but still show bias when tested in sophisticated Koreans, whose nations have a history of conflict,
ways (Fazio et al., 1995; Olson & Fazio, 2003). react differently toward pairs such as “Japanese—
To measure covert prejudice, Anthony pleasant” and “Korean—pleasant.”
34. How do
Greenwald and his colleagues (1998) developed an Prejudiced attitudes may surface when we are
psychologists
cued to think in negative ways. Esses and Zanna use reaction
(1995) had students listen to music that put them time tasks to
in a good, bad, or neutral mood. They then gener- detect people’s
ated a set of traits for a variety of ethnic groups covert prejudice?
(e.g., English Canadians, Pakistanis) and rated
how positive or negative they felt each trait
was. The data indicated that English-Canadian
students rated other ethnic groups more nega-
tively when they were in a bad mood but not
when they were in a good mood. Thus, the
way we are feeling can influence how we think
about others. Recent research has attempted to
© Royalty-Free/Corbis
identify the neural basis for these reactions. We
FIGURE 13.29 Prejudice reveals itself in many sub- examine this work more closely in this chapter’s
tle and not-so-subtle forms. Focus on Neuroscience feature.
532 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Focus on
Neuroscience

THE NEUROSCIENCE Black faces than for White faces. However, the dark-toned
OF STEREOTYPING White face resulted in as much activity as observed with the
Black faces (see Figure 13.30). There was a nonsignificant
Researchers wanting to study stereotyping acknowledge decrease observed for the light-toned Black faces.
that modern versions of prejudice are more covert, more Ronquillo et al. (2007) suggest that these subtle differ-
implicit than they were in the past (e.g., Esses & Hodson, ences are the bases of stereotype formation. Phenotypic
2006; Greenwald et al., 1998). Rather than directly indicat- features such as dark skin tone are detected at the level of
ing that a particular group is disliked, prejudice is more the amygdala and in a largely automatic fashion result in
likely to show up as increased reaction time when the stereotypic bias. We are likely to have a negative-affective
names of targeted groups are paired with positively toned response to individuals who possess this feature, regardless
adjectives (e.g., Black—pleasant). What neural circuits of their group membership. How fast does all of this hap-
might we expect to be involved in this kind of reaction? pen? Ito and Bartholow (2009) and others (e.g., Kubota &
Recent work has focused on the amygdala. Activity in the Ito, 2007) have found EEG spikes (event-related potentials)
amygdala can reflect a quick assessment of the potential within 180 milliseconds following the presentation of an
threat posed by an emotionally laden stimulus (Adolphs et al., out-group target.
1994; Nelson, 2013). Thus, if an individual perceives an out-
group member as threatening, we should observe heightened 600
amygdala activity. This result has been reported by several
researchers (e.g., Chekroud, et al., 2014; Cunningham et al.,
2004; Eberhardt, 2005) in studies where participants simply 500
(mean percent signal change)

look at faces of in-group and out-group members. Indeed,

amygdala activation can be observed even when the target
400
Amygdala activity

face is presented subliminally (Cunningham et al., 2004)

and the strength of activation is correlated with measures of
implicit racism (Phelps et al., 2000). 300
Which facial features might trigger such a response?
While there are many possible features to examine (e.g., 200
size of nose, straightness of hair), one that seems an
obvious candidate is skin tone. Variations in skin tone are
100
related to perceptions of favourability (lighter skin tones are
preferred), even by same-race judges (e.g., Maddox & Gray,
2002). Perhaps looking at skin tone itself will activate the 0
amygdala. Ronquillo et al. (2007) presented photographs White White Black Black
light dark light dark
of both Black and White faces to participants (White males)
while being scanned with fMRI. The faces had been colour
FIGURE 13.30 Amygdala activity in response to Black and
adjusted by using Photoshop so that participants saw both White faces (after Ronquillo et al., 2007).
light-toned and dark-toned versions of each face. Their task
Source: Data from Ronquillo, J., Denson, T.F., Lickel, B., Lu, Z., Nandy,
was simply to decide whether the individual presented was A., & Maddox, K.B. (2007). The effects of skin tone on race-related
older or younger than 24 years. Consistent with previous amygdala activity: An fMRI investigation. Social Cognitive and Affective
findings, greater activity was observed in the amygdala for Neuroscience, 2(1), 39–44.

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

perceptual tendency to categorize objects and peo-
Whether overt or subtle, prejudice and dis-
ple. At times, this helps us react to the environment
crimination are caused by a constellation of
quickly and to predict others’ behaviour (Ito &
factors, including historical and cultural norms
Cacioppo, 2000). But our automatic tendency to
that legitimize differential treatment of various
categorize people also helps to lay a foundation for
35. Identify groups. Here, we examine several cognitive and
cognitive
prejudice (Dovidio et al., 1997; Glick & Fiske, 1999).
motivational causes of prejudice.
processes that Categorization leads to the perception of “in-
foster prejudice. Categorization and us-them thinking. To orga- groups” and “out-groups,” groups to which we do
nize and simplify our world, we have a normal and do not belong, respectively. In turn, in-group
 Behaviour in a Social Context 533

versus out-group distinctions spawn two common distinguish among “Hispanic” subgroups than
biases. First, we display in-group favouritism, a were Cuban-American, Mexican-American, and
tendency to favour in-group members and attri- Puerto Rican–American university students
bute more positive qualities to “us” than to “them.” (Huddy & Birtanen, 1995). But just like Anglo
In-group favouritism emerges in laboratory exper- students, the Cuban-, Mexican-, and Puerto
iments across the globe, even when participants Rican–American students also engaged in us-
are assigned to temporary groups based on the them thinking: They saw their own subgroup as
flip of a coin or some trivial characteristic (Reichl, distinct from the others but did not differentiate
1997; Tajfel, 1970). Out-group derogation reflects between the other two Hispanic subgroups.
a tendency to attribute more negative qualities to
“them” than to “us.” Although people may display Stereotypes and attributional distortions. Cat-
both biases, especially when they feel threatened, egorization and in-group biases lead us to respond 36. How can
in-group favouritism is usually the stronger of the quickly to out-group members based on perceived people maintain
two (Hewstone et al., 2002). group characteristics—stereotypes—rather than their stereotypes
Second, people display an out-group homo- based on their individual characteristics. Recall that in the face of
merely labelling Hannah’s parents as “blue-collar” contradictory
geneity bias. They generally view members of
information?
out-groups as being more similar to one another or “white-collar” created a mental set that shaped
than are members of in-groups (Du et al., how people perceived her behaviour (Darley &
2003; Brauer, 2001). In other words, we per- Gross, 1983). Similarly, 73 percent of White univer-
ceive that “they are all alike,” but recognize that sity students who observed a videotape of a Black
“we are diverse” (Linville & Jones, 1980). The man shoving a White man perceived the behav-
mere fact that we identify people as “Asian,” iour as “violent,” but when the tape showed a
“Hispanic,” “Black,” and “White” reflects such White man shoving a Black man, only 13 percent
a bias, because each of these ethnic categories of students saw it as violent (Duncan, 1976).
contains many subgroups. In one study, Anglo- Figure 13.31 illustrates how racial and gender
American university students were less likely to stereotypes affect our perceptions.

(a) (b)

FIGURE 13.31 (a) Who is holding the razor knife? Allport and Postman (1947) showed this picture to one person, who then told another,
who then told another, and so forth. Typically, by the sixth telling, the Black man was erroneously described as holding the razor. (b) Which
person contributes most strongly to this research team? When the drawing shows an all-male group, all-female group, or mixed-sex group with
a male at the head of the table (seat 3), participants say that the person in seat 3 is the strongest member. But in this mixed-gender drawing,
most male and female participants do not pick the woman in seat 3. Instead, they pick one of the two men (Porter & Geis, 1981).
Source: (a) From The Psychology of Rumor, by G.W. Allport (L. Postman, 1947, Henry Holt & Co. Reprinted by permission of Robert Allport; (b) based on
Porter, N.P., & Geis, F.L. (1981). “Women and nonverbal leadership cues: When seeing is not believing.” In C. Mayo & N.M. Henley (Eds.), Gender and
nonverbal behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
534 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

What happens when we encounter individual threats to the in-group threaten our self-esteem.
members of out-groups whose behaviour clearly Our group identity thus creates a tendency to
contradicts our stereotypes? One possibility is take pride in one’s in-group while also derogat-
that we may change our stereotype; but some- ing out-groups (Perdue et al., 1990). Compared
one who is motivated to hold on to a prejudiced with relatively unprejudiced people, prejudiced
belief can “explain away” discrepant behaviour individuals show greater concern with accu-
in several ways. For example, the out-group rately determining who is an in-group versus
member may be seen as an “exceptional case” out-group member (Blascovich et al., 1997).
or as having succeeded at a task not because
of high ability but because of good luck, spe- How Prejudice Confirms Itself
cial advantage, or some other situational factor Self-fulfilling prophecies are one of the most
(Stewart et al., 2010). invisible yet damaging ways of maintaining
prejudiced beliefs. A classic experiment by Carl
Motivational Roots of Prejudice Word and his colleagues (1974) illustrates this
People’s ingrained ways of perceiving the point. The researchers began with the premise—
world—categorizing, forming in-groups and supported by research at the time—that Whites
out-groups, and so forth—appear to set the held several negative stereotypes of Blacks. In
wheels of prejudice in motion, but motivational the experiment, White male university students
factors affect how fast those wheels spin. interviewed White and Black high school stu-
dents who were seeking admission into a spe-
Competition and conflict. According to real-
37. According to cial group. The participants used a fixed set
istic conflict theory, competition for lim-
realistic conflict of interview questions provided by the experi-
ited resources fosters prejudice. In the United
theory and social menter. Unknown to them, each applicant
identity theory,
States and Europe, hostility toward minority
was an “accomplice” who had been trained to
what are the groups increases when economic conditions
respond in a standard way to the questions. The
motivational worsen (Green et al., 1998; Catalano et al., 2002;
findings indicated that these White participants
roots of Hovland & Sears, 1940; Pettigrew & Meertens,
sat farther away, conducted shorter interviews,
prejudice? 1995). Originally, it was believed that a threat to
and made more speech errors when the appli-
one’s personal welfare was the prime motivator
cants were Black. In short, their behaviour was
of prejudice, but research suggests that preju-
discriminatory.
dice is triggered more strongly by a perceived
But this is only half the picture. In a second
threat to one’s in-group (Tajfel et al., 2004). In a
experiment—a job interview simulation—White
classic study by Sherif et al. (1961), students at
male undergraduates served as job applicants.
a summer camp were divided into two groups
Through random assignment they were treated
(“The Rattlers” and “The Eagles”). When the
either as the White applicants had been treated
groups had to compete with each other for
in the first experiment, or as the Black appli-
scarce resources, hostility and derogation of
cants had been treated. In other words, for half
the out-group was maximized. Likewise, among
the participants, the interviewer sat farther
Whites, prejudice toward Blacks is not related
away, held a shorter interview, and made more
to personal resource gains and losses, but to the
speech errors. The findings revealed that White
belief that White people as a group are in dan-
participants who were treated more negatively
ger of being overtaken (Bobo, 1988).
performed worse during the job interview, were
Enhancing self-esteem. According to social less composed, made more speech errors, and
identity theory, prejudice stems from a need rated the interviewer as less friendly. In short,
to enhance our self-esteem. Some experiments these experiments suggest that an interviewer’s
find that people express more prejudice after negative stereotypes can lead to discriminatory
their self-esteem is threatened (such as by treatment during a job interview, and this dis-
receiving negative feedback about their abili- criminatory behaviour can cause the applicant
ties) and that the opportunity to derogate oth- to perform more poorly—ultimately confirming
ers helps to restore self-esteem (Fein & Spencer, the interviewer’s initial stereotype.
38. Discuss how
1997). Self-esteem, however, is based on two Stanford University psychologist Claude
self-fulfilling
prophecies and components: a personal identity and a “group” Steele (1997) has demonstrated another debili-
stereotype threat identity that reflects membership in various tating way that prejudice ends up “confirm-
perpetuate groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). We can raise ing itself.” His concept of stereotype threat
prejudice. self-esteem by associating ourselves with our proposes that stereotypes create a fear and
in-group’s accomplishments, and, conversely, self-consciousness among stereotyped group
 Behaviour in a Social Context 535

members that they will “live up” to other peo- evaluation studies of desegregation programs
ple’s stereotypes. For example, in a study com- and concluded that increasing direct contact
paring female and male college students who through desegregation did not, in and of itself,
major in various fields, women majoring in the consistently reduce racial prejudice. Indeed,
traditionally “male” fields of math, science, and some studies found that prejudice increased
engineering reported the highest level of stereo- after desegregation.
type threat (Steele et al., 2002). They were more Why weren’t the results more positive? First,
likely to feel that they (as well as other women in the condition of equal status contact was often
their major) had been targets of sex discrimina- not met, and contact when status is unequal
tion and that because of their gender, other peo- serves only to perpetuate both groups’ nega-
ple (including their professors) expected them tive stereotypes of each other. Second, in many
to have less ability and do more poorly. Stereo- integrated school situations, close and per-
type threat can occur even if the group mem- sonal contact between group members did not
bers do not accept the stereotype themselves. occur. Black and White students were some-
Given the stereotype that “Blacks are not as times placed in different “learning tracks” that
intelligent as Whites,” Black university students minimized in-class contact, and they tended to
who take a difficult test perform more poorly associate only with members of their own eth-
than White students when the test is described nic group outside of class. Third, classroom
as “an intelligence test.” But Blacks perform as experiences focused on individual rather than
well as Whites when the items are described cooperative learning. And finally, intergroup
merely as being a “laboratory task.” Stereotypes contact was often not supported by broader
that Whites are inferior to Asians in math, and social norms. In the early years of desegrega-
that women are inferior to men in math, pro- tion, many White politicians, parents, teachers,
duce analogous results. When a difficult stan- and school officials militantly opposed school
dardized math test is given in situations that integration.
activate these stereotypes, Whites and women When intergroup contact takes place under
perform more poorly than when the test is pre- proper conditions, however, prejudice often
sented in a more neutral way (Aronson et al., decreases (Krahe & Altwasser, 2006; Pettigrew &
1999; Spencer et al., 1999). Tropp, 2000). In school settings, cooperative
learning programs place children into multira-
Reducing Prejudice cial learning groups. Contact is close and sus-
Psychologists are interested not only in the tained, each child is accorded equal status, and
causes of prejudice but also in identifying ways each has responsibility for learning and then
to reduce it. With some success, they have teaching other group members one piece of the
implemented many techniques aimed at chang- information that is needed for the group to suc-
ing the way people categorize one another ceed in its assignment (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997).
and think about in-groups and out-groups Overall, such programs reduce prejudice and
(Hewstone et al., 2002; Kawakami et al., 2000). promote appreciation of ethnic group differences
The best-known approaches to prejudice (Johnson & Johnson, 2000; McKown, 2005).
reduction are based on a principle called equal Beyond equal status contact, cooperative
status contact: Prejudice between people is learning programs enable children to forge a
most likely to be reduced when they (1) engage common group identity, much as athletes on a
in sustained close contact, (2) have equal sta- team or members of a military unit form a group
tus, (3) work to achieve a common goal that identity. Adopting a common identity is another
requires cooperation, and (4) are supported by factor that helps to reduce prejudice among
broader social norms (Allport, 1954). group members (Dovidio et al., 2000).
In 1954, the United States Supreme Court Research investigating the cognitive mecha-
handed down a momentous decision in the case nisms that underlie prejudice and stereotyping
of Brown v. Board of Education, ruling that suggests that the automatic activation of ste-
school segregation based solely on race violates reotypes can be reduced. Kawakami and col-
the constitutional rights of racial minorities. leagues (2000) demonstrated that training in
Providing key testimony, several psychologists negating stereotypes reduced subsequent ste-
stated that segregation contributed to racial reotype activation in participants. Gawronski
prejudice and hostility. and colleagues (2008) have since argued that in
Did school desegregation reduce prejudice? fact affirmation of counter-stereotypic associa-
Walter Stephan (1990) reviewed more than 80 tions is much more effective than negation of
536 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

stereotypic associations in reducing stereotype Prosocial Behaviour: Helping

activation. Mentally processing a statement
such as “Not all African Americans are crimi-
Others
nals” involves the breakdown of the statement Helping behaviour comes in many forms, from
into several components, including the pairing heroic acts of bravery and charitable donations
of Africans and criminality, and the presence of to tutoring a classmate or returning a lost wal-
the negation (i.e., the word “not,” which reverses let. It characterizes the entire being of people
the meaning of the rest of the sentence). For such as Mother Teresa, who devoted her life to
this reason, extensive training in negating ste- the world’s poor. Acts of violence often grab the
reotypes can have the ironic effect of actually news headlines, but we should not lose sight of
increasing stereotype activation. the mountains of good deeds performed around
the world each day (Figure 13.32).
Using simulations to reduce “shooter bias.” In
Why Do People Help?
several highly publicized cases during the past
39. According to What motivates prosocial behaviour? The
decade, police officers investigating a crime
sociobiologists, debate over this question has practical con-
what is the have shot and killed unarmed Black men. The
officers, faced with a split-second decision sequences and profound implications for our
evolutionary
about whether to shoot, mistakenly perceived conception of human nature. In Chapter 4, we
basis of helping
that these men were either reaching for or hold- considered the evolutionary principle of kin
behaviour?
ing a weapon. Was the victims’ race a factor in selection. Let’s examine some more environ-
40. How do these shootings? Social psychologists devised mental explanations.
social norms, experiments in which college students and Social learning and cultural influences. Social-
self-reinforcers, other adults quickly had to decide whether to ization, modelling, and reinforcement play a key
and empathy shoot armed and unarmed White and Black role in fostering prosocial behaviour and attitudes
influence helping suspects who appeared on a computer screen (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989; Janoski et al., 1998).
behaviour? during a video simulation. The results revealed Beginning in childhood, we are exposed to helpful
a “shooter bias” in which participants—both models and taught prosocial norms. Recall from
White and Black participants in some studies— Chapter 7 that children were more likely to place
were more likely to shoot unarmed suspects several dogs’ welfare above their own if they had
who were Black (Correll et al., 2002). Miller et al. first seen adults rescue a puppy on a TV program
(2012) have shown that this bias extends to peo- (Sprafkin et al., 1975). A survey of nearly 200 stud-
ple who are simply perceived as different from ies suggests that TV programs that model acts of
you. Participants were randomly assigned a kindness and helping have a strong positive effect
personality type (red or green) and then shown on viewers’ prosocial behaviour (Hearold, 1986).
images of other people who had a similar or dif- Two social norms are especially relevant to
ferent personality type. Sometimes the person helping behaviour (De Cremer & van Lange, 2001;
in the image had a weapon, sometimes not. Par- Miller et al., 1990). First, the norm of reciprocity
ticipants had 600 milliseconds to decide whether states that we should reciprocate when others
or not to shoot. Results indicated that people
were more likely to shoot unarmed suspects if
they were different.
In computer simulation experiments with
students and police officers, E. Ashby Plant and
colleagues have been able to reduce this shooter
bias (Plant & Peruche, 2005; Plant et al., 2005).
The shooting simulation program, like those
used in other experiments, was designed so that
White and Black criminal suspects were equally
likely to be armed or unarmed. Over time, with
repeated exposure to the simulation program,
the shooter bias that students and police offi-
cers displayed on the earlier trials disappeared.
As the researchers note, these findings are only © Ken Gillespie Photography/Alamy Stock Photo

a promising first step that await further test- FIGURE 13.32 Like these rescue workers, many
ing in a more rigorous police academy training people seek out careers or join volunteer organizations
program. that allow them to help other people.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 537

treat us kindly. Second, the norm of social respon- 100

sibility states that people should help others and
contribute to the welfare of society. We are rein-

Percentage of subjects volunteering to help

forced with approval when we adhere to these 80
norms, receive disapproval when we do not, and
observe that other people receive praise for con-
forming to these norms. Eventually, we internalize
prosocial norms and values as our own, enabling 60
powerful self-reinforcers such as pride, self-praise,
and feelings of satisfaction to maintain prosocial
behaviours even when external reinforcement is
40
absent. If we remind people about these norms in
the lab, they are more likely to help even when
bystanders are present (Abbate et al., 2013).
Studies in Europe, Asia, and North America 20
confirm that socialization matters (Eisenberg &
Valiente, 2002). Children are more likely to act pro-
socially when they have been raised by parents 0
who have high moral standards, who are warm Low High
and supportive, and who encourage their chil- empathy empathy
dren to develop empathy and “put themselves in Empathy condition
other people’s shoes” (Janssens & Dekovic, 1997;
Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). However, there also are FIGURE 13.33 Compared with women in a low-empa-
cross-cultural differences in beliefs about when thy condition, women who were led to feel high empathy
for a fellow research participant were more likely to vol-
and why we should help (Eckensberger & Zimba,
unteer to receive electric shocks in her place.
1997). Joan Miller and her colleagues (1990) found
that Hindu children and adults in India believe Source: Data from Batson, C.D., Duncan, B.D., Ackerman, P.,
Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source
that one has a moral obligation to help friends and of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social
strangers, whether their need is serious or mild. Psychology, 40, 290–302.
In contrast, when a person’s need for assistance is
mild, American children and adults feel less obli- places with the woman, thereby saving her from
gated to help and view helping as more of a choice. the trauma of being shocked. Consistent with the
empathy-altruism hypothesis, Figure 13.33 shows
Empathy and altruism. Are all prosocial acts, that high-empathy participants were much more
regardless of how noble they appear, ultimately likely to voluntarily change places.
motivated by self-reinforcement, or do we have As critical thinkers, we need to ask whether
a capacity for altruism, the desire to aid another participants exchanged places not by virtue
without concern for oneself? According to C. of empathy, but because they would have felt
Daniel Batson’s empathy-altruism hypoth- guilty for not doing so. Or perhaps, as the nega-
esis, altruism does exist, and it is produced by tive state relief model proposes, high empathy
empathy, the ability to put oneself in the place of causes us to feel distress when we learn of oth-
another and to share what that person is experi- ers’ suffering, so by helping them we reduce our
encing (Batson, 2006; Batson et al., 2002). own personal distress—a self-focused goal, not an
In one study, female students’ empathy for altruistic one (Cialdini et al., 1987). Indeed, there
another female participant (actually an accom- are many reasons for acts of helping, but Batson’s
plice) was increased or decreased by leading research suggests that at least some prosocial
them to believe that her values were either simi- behaviour is motivated by unselfish goals and not
lar or dissimilar to their own (Batson et al., 1981). by the reduction of guilt, sadness, or one’s own
Then, by a rigged coin flip, the accomplice was distress (Batson et al., 1997). Given that altruistic
selected to receive supposedly painful electric behaviour has been observed in children as young
shocks while performing a task, while the real as 18 months of age and even in young chimpan-
participant acted as an observer. When the exper- zees (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006), it seems likely
iment began, the accomplice expressed great that Batson is correct. Other researchers are not
fear of the shocks. At this point, the participant convinced, however, and the larger philosophical
was told that she could leave after watching only debate as to whether people are ever truly altruis-
two shock trials or, if she wished, could change tic rages on (Cialdini et al., 1997).
538 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

No
Thinking critically 1. Notice an event?

Yes
DOES PURE ALTRUISM REALLY EXIST?
Interpret as an No
Do you believe that people ever help one another 2.
emergency?
for purely altruistic reasons? Or is even a small
degree of egoism always involved? Yes
Think about it, and then see the Answers section
at the end of the book. Assume responsibility No
3.
for helping?

Yes
No
4. Know how to help?
When Do People Help?
Ordinary citizens often go to great lengths Yes
41. Identify
two key ways to help strangers, but, as the infamous Kitty
(two stages of Genovese murder (discussed in Chapter 2) illus- No
5. Decide to help
intervention) trates, at times bystanders fail to assist victims
in which the who are clearly in distress (Figure 13.34). What
presence of influences whether a bystander will intervene? Yes
other bystanders Bibb Latané and John Darley (1970) view Help No help
often inhibits bystander intervention as a five-step process victim given
people from (Figure 13.35). First, a bystander will not help
responding to an unless she or he notices the situation. Imagine
emergency. FIGURE 13.35 Bystander intervention in an emer-
that as you walk along a street, you hear two gency situation can be viewed as a five-step process. If
people yelling and then hear a single scream the answer at each step is “Yes,” help is given.
coming from inside a house. You’ve noticed the Source: Based on Latané, B., & Darley, J.M. (1970). The
situation, but now what? In everyday life, many unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY:
social situations are ambiguous, and step 2 Appleton-Century-Crofts.
involves deciding whether this is an emergency.
Is someone really in danger? To answer this Laboratory experiments confirm the impor-
question, we often engage in social compari- tance of social comparison. In one classic study,
son: We look around to see how other people are participants were filling out a questionnaire
responding. You might say to yourself, “No one when smoke started to pour into the room from
else seems concerned, so it mustn’t be anything underneath a locked side door (Latané & Darley,
too serious.” In Kitty Genovese’s murder, some 1968). Among those who were alone, three-
bystanders mistakenly thought that because quarters left the room to report the smoke.
nobody else intervened they were merely wit- But when three participants were in the room
nessing a “lover’s quarrel” that didn’t warrant together, only 38 percent of the groups reported
their “butting in” (Darley & Latané, 1968). the smoke. Astonishingly, most groups kept
working while the room filled with smoke. Each
person looked around, saw that nobody else
was doing anything, and became convinced that
the smoke didn’t represent an emergency!
If you conclude that a situation is an emer-
gency, then you move to the next step: assum-
ing responsibility to intervene. If you are the
only person to hear someone screaming, then
responsibility for helping falls squarely on you.
But if others are present, there may be a diffu-
sion of responsibility—“If I don’t help, some-
one else will”—and if each bystander has this
thought, the victim won’t receive help. In the
Kitty Genovese murder, many bystanders who
George Widman/AP Photo
did interpret the incident as an emergency failed
FIGURE 13.34 Why do bystanders sometimes fail to to intervene because they were certain that
assist a person in need? someone must already have called the police
 Behaviour in a Social Context 539

(Darley & Latané, 1968). Similarly, in an experi- as MDMA (ecstasy) may influence emotional
ment in which university students were isolated empathy and, thus, result in increased helping
in individual cubicles and listened to another (Hysek et al., 2014). Finally, we help more when
student who indicated he was having a seizure, there is a lack of time pressure and we are not
participants were less likely to assist the seizure in a hurry.
victim if they believed that other bystanders
were present (Darley & Latané, 1968). Whom Do We Help?
If you take responsibility, whether you actu- Some people are more likely to receive help
ally intervene still depends on a fourth factor, 42. Whom are
than others. Three prominent factors are the we most likely to
your self-efficacy (confidence) in dealing with following: help? How might
the situation. Sometimes we fail to help because the belief in a
we don’t know how or believe that our help won’t • Similarity. Perceiving that a person is simi-
just world inhibit
be effective. In one survey, 269 university stu- lar to us increases our willingness to provide us from helping?
dents and faculty indicated they had witnessed help. The similarity may be in dress, atti-
a public episode of child abuse, yet only a quar- tudes, nationality, music preference or other
ter reported that they had intervened (Christy & characteristics (Clark & Giacomantonio,
Voigt, 1994). Of those who intervened, 71 per- 2013; Dovidio, 1984), and it may make it eas-
cent said that they had been certain about what ier for us to identify with the victim’s plight.
to do. Among those who did not intervene, 80 • Gender. Women are more likely to receive
percent said they were not certain about what help than men if the bystander is male
action to take. (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). Women and men
Finally, a bystander might decide not to inter- are equally likely to be helped by female
vene because of the perceived costs (Dovidio bystanders.
et al., 1991). Potential costs include not only pos- • Perceived responsibility. People are more
sible physical danger, but also negative social likely to receive help when their need for aid
consequences, such as “appearing foolish” by is viewed as being caused by factors beyond
trying to help inappropriately. their control (Blader & Tyler, 2002; Weiner,
As this model indicates, the common-sense 1996). Thus, people who are homeless
adage “there is safety in numbers” is not always because of a natural disaster are more likely
true when it comes to receiving help. Many to receive help than those who are perceived
experiments find a bystander effect: The as being homeless because they are unwilling
presence of multiple bystanders inhibits each to work.
person’s tendency to help, largely because of
social comparison or diffusion of responsibil- Because our attributions regarding why a
ity. This inhibition is more likely to occur when person needs help can be inaccurate, this last
the bystanders are strangers rather than friends factor—perceived responsibility—can take an
(Latané & Rodin, 1969). Markey (2000) reports odd twist. Ironically, one factor that can lead
that the bystander effect occurs even when com- attributions astray is a belief that the world is a
municating over the Web. A general request for just place. The just world hypothesis (Lerner,
help (“Can anyone tell me how to look at some- 1980) holds that, because people want to view
one’s profile?”) was sent to 200 chat groups over the world as fair, they perceive that people get
a 30-day period. Assistance came more slowly what they deserve and deserve what they get.
from larger chat groups than from smaller ones. This belief may lead some people to conclude
Beyond the bystander effect, other factors that victims of rape, AIDS, and other misfor-
also help to explain why people may be help- tunes somehow deserve their fate (Ford et al.,
ful on some occasions but not on others. First, 1998; Landstrom et al., 2016; Wyer et al., 1985).
we are more likely to help when we are in a This irrational blaming of victims may reduce
good mood (Salovey et al., 1991). Ironically, pre- people’s feelings of responsibility to help.
existing guilt—feeling guilty about something
we have recently done—also increases helping Increasing Prosocial Behaviour
(Regan et al., 1972). Apparently, assisting oth- Can prosocial behaviour be increased? “Man-
ers eases our guilt, even when the two actions datory volunteerism” is one approach used in
are unrelated. Observing a helpful role model, some high schools, universities, and businesses.
such as someone assisting a stranded motorist Obviously, the students and workers who are
or donating blood, increases prosocial behav- required to donate their time to charitable orga-
iour (Sarason et al., 1991). Certain drugs such nizations provide a valuable service, but do these
540 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

programs increase participants’ intrinsic vol-

unteerism later in life? Unfortunately, research
results are mixed (Janoski et al., 1998; Stukas,
1999). The outcome probably depends on the
personal rewards that volunteers experience and
their increased awareness of human needs.
Another approach, consistent with social
learning theory, is to expose people to prosocial
models. Psychologists used prosocial modelling
as part of a nationwide program to increase
blood donations (Sarason et al., 1991). Students
in 66 high schools watched an audiovisual pro- FIGURE 13.36 During the mating season, the male
gram showing high-school donors giving blood. stickleback fish develops a red belly. The sight of
Compared with a control condition presented another red-bellied male—a potential rival for a mate—
with a standard appeal from the local blood reflexively triggers an attack by the first male. The key
bank, the prosocial video increased blood dona- releaser stimulus for this fixed action pattern is the red
tions by 17 percent. marking. A male stickleback will not attack a realistic-
looking male model that has no red belly but will attack
Research suggests that developing feel-
unrealistic fish models that have this red marking.
ings of empathy and connectedness with oth-
Source: Based on Tinbergen, N. (1951). The study of instinct.
ers also may make people more likely to help Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
(Eisenberg, 2000). Margaret Clark and her col-
leagues (1987) found that people who felt a
greater sense of connectedness to their com- fish shown in Figure 13.36, certain aggressive
munities were more likely to experience a need behaviours represent a fixed-action pattern that
to be socially responsible and help others. Even is reflexively triggered by specific environmental
group musical training in children increases stimuli. Humans do not display such rigid, reflex-
connectedness and prosocial behaviour ive aggressive responses, but behaviour geneti-
(Schellenberg et al., 2015). cists argue that heredity partly determines why
Finally, simply learning about factors that some people are more aggressive than others.
hinder bystander intervention may increase the Identical twins are more similar in their aggres-
tendency to help someone in distress. Arthur sive behaviour patterns than are fraternal twins,
Beaman and his colleagues (1978) exposed even when the identical twins are raised in dif-
some university students to information about ferent homes with presumably different social
the bystander effect. Control participants did environments (Bouchard et al., 1990; Coccaro
not receive this information. Two weeks later, et al., 1997; Beatty et al., 2002). Sociobiologists
more than half of the students who had learned propose that a genetic predisposition toward
about the bystander effect provided aid to the aggression can be traced to evolutionary adapta-
victim of an accident (staged by the research- tion (see Chapter 4). As in nonhumans, aggres-
ers), compared with only about a quarter of the sion at the proper time helped our ancestors
control group participants. compete successfully for mates, food, and shel-
ter, defend territory, and survive against attack.
Aggression: Harming Others This aggression increased the odds that such
individuals would pass their genes on to the next
We love. We nurture. We help. But as current generation (Rushton, 1989).
43. What events and the history of humankind attest, we The search for biological causes of aggres-
evidence also harm. In humans, aggression represents sion also has led researchers deep within the
supports a any form of behaviour that is intended to harm brain, to the hypothalamus, amygdala, and
genetic role in another person, and it can be analyzed at biolog- other subcortical structures (Adams, 2006;
aggression? ical, environmental, and psychological levels. Falkner et al., 2014; Siegel et al., 1999). Elec-
trically stimulate certain neural pathways in
44. Describe Biological Factors in Aggression a cat’s hypothalamus, and it will arch its back
some brain
Is aggression rooted in heredity? From bulls, and attack. Surgically destroy areas of the
regions and
body chemicals roosters, and dogs to laboratory mice and rats, amygdala—an approach that sometimes has
that play a role animals can be selectively bred over generations been used with violent human criminals—and
in aggression. to be more or less aggressive (Lagerspetz et al., in many species defensive aggression will
1968). In some species, such as the stickleback decrease (Aggleton, 1993). There is, however, no
 Behaviour in a Social Context 541

single brain structure that “turns on” and “turns proposed the frustration-aggression hypoth-
off” aggression. Different types of aggression— esis, stating that (1) frustration inevitably leads
defending oneself, defending one’s offspring, to aggression, and (2) all aggression is the result
predatory aggression, establishing dominance, of frustration (Dollard et al., 1939).
and so forth—may involve different neural cir- Both of these sweeping assertions have since
cuits (Siegel et al., 1999). been disproved. From human infants to adults,
Aggression also involves activity of the fron- frustration does increase the risk of verbal or
tal lobes, and the important role that the frontal physical aggression (Calkins & Johnson, 1998).
lobes play in impulse control (Hawkins & Trobst, At the workplace, it contributes to acts of
2000). Adrian Raine and his colleagues (1998) employee hostility, theft, and sabotage (Spector,
examined the brain functioning of 24 adults who 1997). But people do not always respond to frus-
had murdered someone, either out of emotional, tration by aggressing. Instead, they may exhibit
momentary impulse, or as a planned predatory despair, resignation, or non-aggressive ways of
act. PET scans revealed that both groups of mur- dealing with conflict (Björkqvist, 1997).
derers showed more subcortical activity than a The second postulate is false as well. Aggres-
control group of non-murderers, but the impulsive sion can be increased not only by frustration, 45. Identify
murderers also had lower frontal lobe activity. but also by exposure to a wide range of aversive some major
types of
Deficient frontal lobe activity may make it more stimuli (Berkowitz, 1990). For example, pain-
environmental
difficult to regulate aggressive impulses gener- ful stimuli can trigger irritability and aggres- stimuli that
ated by subcortical brain regions (Raine, 2002). sion in humans and other animals. Provocation increase the risk
Just as there is no single brain centre for is another stimulus to aggress. Experiments with of aggression.
aggression, there is no one “aggression chemical.” university students confirm that we often retali-
In humans and other animals, however, atypically ate against someone who insults us or causes us
low levels of serotonin activity may play a role physical harm (Ohbuchi & Kambara, 1985). In
in impulsive aggression, as when people lash out other species, even animals that are normally pas-
from emotional rage (Audero et al., 2013; Siegel sive and prefer to flee when attacked will fight if
et al., 1999; Siever et al., 1999; Moore et al., 2002). they become cornered (Enquist & Leimar, 1990).
When a drug designed to boost serotonin activity Crowding can trigger aggression in many spe-
is administered to men who physically abuse their cies. In humans, when people feel crowded and
partners and also to psychiatric patients who believe they have little control over the situation,
have difficulty controlling aggressive impulses, they report greater stress, have higher levels of
both groups show a relatively weak response to stress hormones, and tolerate frustration more
the drug (Rosenbaum et al., 1997). poorly (Fleming et al., 1987). For some motor-
And what about the sex hormone testoster- ists, increasingly congested roads and being
one, which is found in males and also in females trapped in inescapable traffic jams set the stage
(though in smaller amounts)? In many species for high stress and aggressive acts of “road rage”
of mammals, higher testosterone levels contrib- (Figure 13.37). These aggressive acts are slightly
ute to greater social aggression: unprovoked lower for motorcycle riders, who are more vul-
aggressive acts that are designed to establish nerable than drivers (Rowden et al., 2016).
a dominance hierarchy among members of the
same species. Injecting adult males with tes-
tosterone increases social aggression, whereas
castration decreases it. But in humans and other
primates, the association between testosterone
and aggression is weaker and less consistent
(Pinel, 1997; O’Connor et al., 2002).

Aversive Environmental Stimuli:

Beyond Frustration
Aggression is influenced not only by biology,
but also by our present environment and past
learning experiences (Eron, 2000; Rotton &
Cohn, 2000). Frustration, which occurs when
Gabriela Medina/Blend Images/Getty Images
some stimulus or event interferes with our prog-
ress toward a goal, often contributes to aggres- FIGURE 13.37 Increasingly crowded roads and stressed
sion. In 1939, several leading psychologists drivers have made road rage an international problem.
542 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Heat also increases the risk of aggres- cause and effect, find that aggressive and
sion (Anderson, 2001; Bushman et al., 2005). delinquent children tend to have parents
Assaults, rapes, family disturbances, and riots who frequently model aggressive behaviour
increase in summer months. These correlational (Bandura, 1973; Stormshak et al., 2000).
findings are supported by several controlled
experiments. In one, Dutch police officers were Psychological Factors in Aggression
exposed to two temperature conditions (27° Numerous psychological factors influence
and 21°C/80.6° and 69.8°F) and shown firearm- whether we behave aggressively in a particular
training videotapes portraying interactions with situation (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). From
crime suspects (Vrij et al., 1994). When the tem- face-to-face and cyber (email, chat) aggres-
perature was hotter, police perceived suspects sion among schoolmates to gang violence,
as more threatening and responded with greater “road rage,” and war, people may employ
aggression. Recently, several authors (e.g., several types of self-justification to make it
Anderson, 2012; Mares, 2013) have suggested psychologically easier to aggress toward oth-
that global warming has the effect of increas- ers (Lanier, 2001; Pornari & Wood, 2010).
ing violence, particularly in disadvantaged Aggressors may blame the victim for imag-
neighbourhoods. ined wrongs, thereby convincing themselves
that the victim “deserves it.” They may mini-
Learning to Aggress: Reinforcement mize the seriousness of their own aggression
and Modelling by believing that other people’s acts are even
46. Discuss how Aggression, like other behaviours, is influenced more repulsive, or by displacing responsibility.
reinforcement by learning (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Non- They may also “dehumanize” their victims by
and modelling aggressive animals can be trained to become stripping them of human qualities and regard-
contribute to vicious aggressors if conditions are arranged so ing them as objects or animals.
aggression. that they are consistently victorious in fights with
weaker animals. Conversely, if conditions are Perceived intent, empathy, and emotional
47. How do arranged so that an animal is defeated in its early regulation. Other cognitive factors, such as
cognitive factors battles, it becomes submissive. The younger an the attribution of intentionality, affect how
determine animal is when it first suffers repeated defeats, we respond to provocation. When we perceive
whether we the more submissively it will react to attacks by that someone’s negative behaviour toward us
will respond
other animals (Zillmann, 1979). was intended or controllable, we are more likely
to a stimulus
aggressively? Reward affects human aggression in much to become angry and retaliate (Betancourt &
the same way. In one study of four-year-old Blair, 1992; Graham et al., 1992). Unfortunately,
nursery-school children, the investigators people who are generally angry and aggressive
recorded a total of 2583 aggressive acts and tend to perceive others as having greater hostile
their consequences. Children became increas- intent, which may contribute to a vicious cycle
ingly aggressive when their aggressive behav- of aggression (Epps & Kendall, 1995).
iour produced positive outcomes for them (as Our degree of empathy for someone also
when an aggressive act resulted in another influences how we react to provocation. When
child’s giving up a desired toy). Children whose people offend us and then apologize, the likeli-
aggressive behaviour was unsuccessful or who hood that we will forgive them depends, in part,
experienced unpleasant consequences were less on how well we can understand their viewpoints
likely to be aggressive in the future (Patterson (McCullough et al., 1997). And even when we
et al., 1967). Unfortunately, about 80 percent of don’t forgive, whether we respond to provoca-
the aggressive behaviours were rewarding for tion calmly or lash out depends on our ability
the aggressor. to regulate our emotions. Some children and
Aggression also can be learned by observ- adults seem to be more physiologically reactive
ing others (Huesmann, 1997). As Alber t to provocation than others, and reduced frontal
Bandura’s (1965) famous “Bobo doll” experi- lobe activity may impair the ability to control
ments clearly demonstrated, children learn aggressive impulses (Raine et al., 1998). But cul-
“how to aggress” even when they witness an tural norms and cognitive factors also influence
aggressive model being punished (Chapter 7). how we regulate our emotions and manage con-
Later, if the punishing agent is not present, flict (Bjoerkqvist, 1997). Thus, when nonviolent
or if rewards are available for aggressing, married men listen to audiotaped interactions
children may reproduce the model’s actions. designed to induce anger, they respond with
Correlational studies, while not establishing more anger-controlling thoughts than do men
 Behaviour in a Social Context 543

with a history of domestic abuse (Eckhardt & women (Donnerstein & Berkowitz, 1981). And
Kassinove, 1998). what about watching violent movies and TV
programs? Do these activities help people “blow
Psychodynamic processes. Sigmund Freud off steam,” as some stars in the entertainment
believed that human aggression is instinctive, a industry claim?
view shared by the famous ethologist Konrad
Lorenz (1966) and some modern psychody- Media Violence: Catharsis versus
namic thinkers (Raphling, 1998). Freud pro- Social Learning
posed that, in a never-ending cycle, aggressive Many movies, as well as fiction and non-fiction
impulses build up over time, eventually have to TV programs, are saturated with violence.
be released, and then build up again. His princi- According to psychodynamic theory, movie
ple of catharsis stated that performing an act 48. According
and TV violence should be a cathartic pot of
of aggression discharges aggressive energy and to the catharsis
gold. But social learning theorists argue that, and social
temporarily reduces our impulse to aggress. by providing numerous aggressive models— learning
But how does one do this in a world in which including many who are reinforced—media viewpoints, what
violence is discouraged and punished? One violence is more likely to increase viewers’ role does media
method of releasing aggressive impulses is to aggressive behaviour than to reduce it (Ander- violence play
channel them into socially acceptable “aggres- son et al., 2010; Huesmann, 2007). From a in regulating
sive” behaviours, such as participating in verbal social learning perspective, it is particularly human
debates, vigorous exercise, competitive sports, disturbing that aggression?
hunting, and so forth. Another approach is to
discharge aggressive impulses vicariously by • 40 percent of violent incidents on TV were
watching and identifying with other people who initiated by “good guys” whom viewers were
behave aggressively. likely to perceive as attractive role models
If people cannot express their aggressive and identify with;
impulses in direct or disguised forms, will the • about 75 percent of violent scenes contained
unreleased pressures build up to an explosion no remorse or penalty for violence, and the
point? In some cases, seemingly meek or unas- “bad guys” went unpunished in 40 percent of
sertive people commit shocking and brutal the programs; and
crimes. These individuals, whom psychologist • only 15 percent of TV programs portrayed
Edwin Megargee (1966) describes as having long-term negative consequences of violence
overcontrolled hostility, show little immediate (National Television Violence Study, 1998).
reaction to provocation. Instead, they bottle
up their anger and, over time, the pressure to Headline-making “copycat” acts of violence
aggress builds up. At a critical point, they erupt clearly illustrate social learning effects. Still,
into violence. Often, the provocation that trig- hundreds of millions of people view media vio-
gers their destructive outburst is trivial. For lence, and such horrendous acts thankfully are
example, one ten-year-old boy with no previ- rare. What, then, are the more general effects
ous history of aggression stabbed his sister of media violence on aggression? Over the past
more than 80 times with an ice pick after she 30 years, hundreds of experiments and correla-
changed the channel during his favourite TV tional studies have shed light on the “catharsis
show. After the aggressive outburst, such peo- versus social learning” debate.
ple revert to their former passive, unassertive To most experts, the verdict is clear: The
state (Quinsey et al., 1983). preponderance of evidence favours the social
Cases of overcontrolled hostility are con- cognitive view (Eron, 2000; Gentile, 2007;
sistent with the concept of catharsis, but other Huesmann, 2010; Johnson et al., 2002). Expo-
research results are not. For example, when sure to TV and movie violence is related to the
people are aroused by just-completed vigorous tendency of both children and adults to behave
physical exercise, it is easier—not harder— aggressively (Huesmann et al., 2003).
to provoke them to aggression (Bushman & For example, using data collected over
Bonacci, 2002). Psychodynamic theory also pre- 22 years, Leonard Eron (1987) found that
dicts that viewing violent pornography should American children who had watched greater
help people discharge aggressive impulses, but, amounts of TV violence at age eight were
as noted in Chapter 11, this is not what hap- more likely to have committed serious criminal
pens. After watching scenes of rape and sexual activity by age 30 (Figure 13.38). In Finland,
coercion, men act more aggressively toward Vappu Viemeroe (1996) found that boys and
544 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

45
qualifications that we should consider. First

Seriousness of criminal acts by age 30

Amount of violent TV of all, some people are more influenced by
40 watched at age 8
TV violence than others. For example, Eron
Low
35 (1987) notes that boys tend to be more sus-
Medium
ceptible to media violence effects than girls
30 High
(see Figure 13.38 again). In addition, aggres-
25 sive behaviour does not occur in a vacuum—
20 in most cases, some kind of negative stimulus
(e.g., insult, provocation, extreme heat, high
15
arousal level) must be present. Finally, the
10 highest level of aggression is observed when
the cues present in the TV program are simi-
5
lar to those encountered in the actual situa-
0 tion. Wendy Josephson (1987) at the University
Females Males
of Winnipeg asked boys in Grade 2 or 3 to
FIGURE 13.38 Children who watched more violent watch either a violent or nonviolent program.
TV at age eight committed more serious criminal behav- Both shows were action-oriented, but the vio-
iour by age 30. Although criminal behaviour is higher lent show involved a lot of gunplay between
overall for males than for females, the general pattern a police SWAT team and gang members. The
of results is the same. These findings are correlational
SWAT team kept in constant communication
(can you think of alternative explanations for this TV-
crime relation?), but, in conjunction with controlled
with one another by using walkie-talkies. After
experiments, the weight of evidence convinces most watching the program, the boys were asked
experts that viewing media violence has psychological to play a game of floor hockey while observ-
consequences. ers coded their behaviour for aggression.
Source: Data from Eron, L.D. (1987). The development of However, before starting the match, the play-
aggressive behavior from the perspective of a developing ers were “interviewed” by the experimenter
behaviorism. American Psychologist, 42, 435–442. in a manner similar to pre-game interviews at
actual hockey games. For some of the boys,
girls who had watched more violent TV when the experimenter used a microphone and for
they were seven to nine years old were more others, a walkie-talkie.
likely to have been arrested by their mid-20s. The highest level of aggression was found
In Belgium, Jacque Leyens and his colleagues in the boys who watched the violent program
(1975) went into a facility for high-school-age and who were interviewed with a walkie-talkie.
juvenile delinquents and held a special “movie The lowest level was reported for those who
week” in which they showed different groups watched the nonviolent show. Apparently, the
of boys either violent or nonviolent mov- presence of the aggressive cue (the walkie-
ies each night. The result: Among boys who talkie) stimulated more aggression because
watched the violent films, physical and verbal of its association with the violence in the film
49. Based clip. Similar results of increased aggression fol-
aggression increased.
on research, lowing exposure to aggressive cues have been
how does Media violence appears to exert its effects
through multiple avenues (Huesmann, 1997; reported in both laboratory (e.g., Berkowitz &
media violence
National Television Violence Study, 1998): LePage, 1967) and field settings (e.g.,
affect people’s
behaviour and Boyanowski & Griffiths, 1982).
• Viewers learn new aggressive behaviours Beyond movies and TV, the question of
attitudes?
through modelling. whether violent video games promote aggres-
50. According • Viewers come to believe that aggression sion also has raised public and scientific con-
to learning usually is rewarded or, at least, is rarely cern. In July 2000, the St. Louis County (Missouri)
principles, how punished. Council passed an ordinance to penalize busi-
might violent • Viewers become desensitized to the sight and nesses that allow people under the age of 18 to
video games thought of violence, and to the suffering of play violent video games without parental con-
teach people sent (Jurkowitz, 2002). This decision has since
victims.
to behave been overturned by a U.S. federal appeals court,
aggressively? • Viewers’ fear of becoming a target of crime
but it still highlights the issue of video game
Does evidence or violence increases.
violence. What does science have to say? This
support this
view? Before you become completely disillu- chapter’s Frontiers feature looks at this issue in
sioned and toss out your TV, there are some more detail.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 545

Frontiers

DO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES PROMOTE free-play period, and more physical aggression toward the
AGGRESSION? boy during the competition.

On a summer’s eve in 2008, four bored teenagers from New What Research May Show
Hyde, New York, decided to go on a crime spree. Seeking Let’s think critically about these results. Did the violent con-
to emulate the behaviour of the lead character in the vio- tent of the video game increase the children’s aggression, or
lent video game Grand Theft Auto IV, they beat and robbed was it simply a more exciting game? Heart rate measures
a victim, broke into garages, attempted a carjacking, and recorded before and during video game play indicated that
tried to rob a man driving a van before being arrested by the game’s content was not more arousing, strengthening the
the police (Crowley, 2008, June 27). In August of 2013, an conclusion that the game’s content was the key factor. Other
eight-year boy shot and killed his grandmother after playing experiments with college students have found that briefly
the same game. Over a decade earlier, in April 1999, two playing violent video games, at least in the short term,
students went on a shooting rampage in Columbine High increases subsequent aggressive behaviour and physiologi-
School, Colorado, killing a teacher and 12 students, and cally desensitizes students to scenes of real-world violence
wounding others. The killers were avid players of many vio- (Carnagey & Anderson, 2005; Carnagey et al., 2007).
lent video games, most notably the “first-person shooter” Some correlational studies also suggest a possible link
games Doom and Doom 2 (Block, 2007). between playing violent video games and getting into physi-
In North America and Europe, crimes such as these cal fights (Gentile et al., 2004; Rudatsikira et al., 2008).
reinforce public, political, and scientific concern about the But as a critical thinker, remember that correlation doesn’t
effect of violent video games (Glock & Kneer, 2009). Yet establish causation. Recall the bidirectionality problem:
such tragic cases cannot, by themselves, provide clear perhaps getting into fights produces consequences (e.g.,
answers. Many factors play a role in aggression, and try- anger, frustration) that prompt people to play video games.
ing to isolate how any single factor contributed to a crime Also consider the third-variable problem: perhaps people
after the fact typically involves much speculation. Had the who have a more hostile personality to begin with play more
four teens, the eight-year-old, or the two Columbine shoot- violent video games and also get into more fights. Indeed,
ers never played a violent video game (or watched a violent in one study, adolescents exposed to more violent video
movie), would they still have committed those crimes? games did score higher on personality tests of hostility
Keep in mind that in other school shootings, the killers (Gentile et al., 2004). So the researchers adjusted their
have had little, if any, expertise with violent video games statistical analyses to take this possible confounding factor
(Ferguson, 2008). Moreover, many millions of people play into account. They found that violent video game exposure
violent video games (and watch violent media) and don’t com- was still correlated—albeit weakly—with a tendency to get
mit violent crimes. So, in an interview on the TV station CNN, into more physical fights.
was the president of the Interactive Digital Software Asso-
ciation correct when he stated, “I think the issue has been
vastly overblown. . . . There is absolutely no evidence, none,
that playing a violent video game leads to aggressive behav-
iour” (Lowenstein, 2000, May 12; quoted in Anderson &
Bushman, 2001, p. 353)?
Even back then, experiments in which researchers
directly manipulated people’s exposure to violent video
games provided such casual evidence. In what remains one
of the better experiments to this date, Roland Irwin and Alan
Gross (1995) randomly assigned 60 seven- and eight-year-
old boys to play with a violent or nonviolent video game for
20 minutes. Afterwards, each child engaged in a ten-minute
“free-play” period with another boy (an accomplice). Next,
as each participant competed against this boy on a task for
a prize, the boy (according to plan) cheated. Compared with
© Sylent-Press/ullstein bild/The Image Works
participants who had played the nonviolent game, those
who had played the violent game displayed more physical FIGURE 13.39 Do children who play graphically violent video
and verbal aggression toward inanimate objects (e.g., toys), games become desensitized to violence and more likely to
more verbal aggression toward the other boy during the behave aggressively toward other people?

continued
546 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Several longitudinal studies have examined video game vio- As in the case of mass media research, debate about
lence. For example, two studies of adolescents in Germany and violent video games still exists. Based on their own con-
one of adolescents and children in Finland found that exposure siderably smaller meta-analysis and concerns about the
to violent video games helped to predict physical aggression or methods used in many studies, Christopher Ferguson and
delinquency 24 to 30 months later (Hopf et al., 2008; Möller & John Kilburn (2009) believe that it’s premature to conclude
Krahé, 2009; Wallenius & Punamäki, 2008). In contrast, a that violent video games cause aggression. Researchers
one-month longitudinal American study involving older partici- have also swapped critiques about whose meta-analysis
pants (with an average age of 28 years) found no link between approach is more appropriate (Anderson et al., 2010b;
playing an online violent video game and subsequent aggres- Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010).
sion (Williams & Skoric, 2005). Aldachi & Willoughby (2013) We agree that more research, and especially more
followed students throughout high school and report that the complete longitudinal research, is needed. But based on
more competitive video gamers were indeed more aggressive. the evidence available now, the conclusion that exposure
But they attribute this to the competition factor rather than the to video game violence is more likely to increase than
violence per se. The same students were also more violent if decrease aggression is more reality than myth. In fact, the
they were engaged in competitive gambling. American Psychological Association has recently taken a
stand on this issue noting that there is definitely a link
The Big Picture between violent video games and aggression. The APA is
Based on the most comprehensive meta-analysis of violent less sure whether or not this can lead to actual crimes.
video game research to date, which covers 136 studies This doesn’t mean that everyone who plays violent video
and 130 296 participants in Western countries and Japan, games becomes more aggressive, angrier, or desensitized.
Craig Anderson and his colleagues (2010a) concluded that After Australian researchers exposed adolescents to a vio-
playing violent video games increases people’s aggressive lent video game for 20 minutes, 72 percent showed no
behaviour, cognition, and emotions, and also desensitizes significant change in feelings of anger. But among those
them to violence. Most of these associations are weak, but who changed, almost three times as many experienced
they all support social-cognitive models of aggression. As increased (20.6 percent) rather than decreased (7.4 per-
for practical importance, Anderson and his colleagues note, cent) anger (Unsworth et al., 2007). In a more recent study,
Hasan et al. (2013) report that playing an aggressive video
When effects accumulate across time, or when large por-
game for three consecutive days results in more aggression
tions of the population are exposed to the risk, or when
and an increase in hostile expectations about the behaviour
consequences are severe, statistically small effects
of others. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of children,
become much more important (2010a, p. 170).
teens, and adults who play violent video games don’t go
As an analogy, think of some factor (shoe or ski design, out and assault or kill people. But aggression comes in
anxiety) that reduces a sprinter’s or ski racer’s time in a compe- many forms—physical and verbal, obvious and subtle—and
tition by only two-tenths of a second. In many circumstances, even the potential for a small increased risk of aggression
this might be trivial, but in the Olympics, it could mean the dif- among some people some of the time can have important
ference between a gold medal and no medal at all. consequences.

In Review
• Proximity, mere exposure, similarity of attitudes, with conflicts by de-escalating their emotions
and physical attractiveness typically enhance our and providing mutual support.
attraction toward someone. Relationships deepen
• vert prejudice has decreased in some ways,
as partners self-disclose and exchanges between
but people may hide their prejudice or be
them become more intimate and broader. Social
unaware of subtle prejudices they harbour.
exchange theory analyzes relationships in terms of
the rewards and costs experienced by each partner. • Prejudice stems partly from our tendency to per-
• The ualities that people find most attractive in a ceive in-groups and out-groups. People typically
mate vary somewhat across cultures. Evolution- display in-group favouritism and an out-group
ary theorists propose that gender difference in homogeneity bias. Perceived threats to one’s in-
mate preferences reflect inherited biological ten- group and a need to enhance one’s self-esteem
dencies, whereas sociocultural theorists believe can motivate prejudice.
that these differences result from socialization • Prejudice often is reduced when in-group and out-
and gender inequities in economic opportunities. group members work closely together, with equal
• Partners are more likely to remain happily mar- status, on tasks involving common goals and under
ried when they understand each other and deal conditions of broader institutional support.
 Behaviour in a Social Context 547

• Some theorists propose that through kin selec- amygdala, and frontal lobes play especially
tion and reciprocal altruism, evolution has helped important roles in certain types of aggression.
to shape a genetic predisposition toward prosocial • Provocation, heat, crowding, and stimuli that
behaviour among humans. Social learning theorists cause frustration or pain increase the risk of
emphasize how social norms, modelling, and rein- aggression. Learning experiences help to shape
forcement shape prosocial attitudes and behaviour. a tendency to behave more or less aggressively.
• The presence of multiple bystanders may People are more likely to aggress when they find
decrease bystander intervention through social ways to justify and rationalize their aggressive
comparison processes and a diffusion of respon- behaviour, perceive provocation as intentional,
sibility for helping. We are most likely to help and have little empathy for others.
others when we perceive that they are similar to • Most research supports the social-cognitive
us and not responsible for their plight. theory prediction that watching movie and
• Prosocial behaviour can be increased by enhanc- TV violence, and playing violent video games,
ing people’s feelings of empathy for victims and increase the risk that children and adults will act
providing prosocial models. aggressively.
• eredity influences the strength of an organ-
ism’s tendency to aggress. The hypothalamus,

Aggression
Levels of Analysis
We’ve just seen that biological, psychological, and environmental
factors all contribute to aggressive behaviour. Let’s recap some of ENVIRONMENTAL
these factors. • Stimuli that produce frustration (i e ,
that block goal accomplishment increase
the risk of aggression
• Painful stimuli, heat, and crowding increase the
risk of aggression
• Past and present reinforcement for aggression
affects the likelihood of current aggressive behaviour
• Exposure to live models and media models who
BIOLOGICAL display aggression can promote the social learning of
• Within a species, heredity partly aggression
accounts for individual differences in
aggressiveness
• The frontal lobes, amygdala, hypothalamus,
and other brain regions play key roles in
regulating aggression
• Serotonin is among the major neurotransmitters that
regulate aggression
• igher testosterone levels contribute to greater
social aggression in many mammalian species PSYCHOLOGICAL
• Aggression is more likely when a potential
provocation is perceived as intentional
• A lack of empathy for a potential target increases
the risk of aggression toward that person
• People denigrate and dehumanize potential targets to
self-justify acts of aggression
• Impaired reasoning may decrease the ability to regulate
hostile feelings
In the social influence section of this chapter, we discussed
how norms, conformity, obedience, and group processes affect
behaviour. Think about the relevance of these social influence
factors in accounting for human aggression. For example, in what
contexts do these factors promote or inhibit aggression, and how do
they shape the form that aggression takes?

FIGURE 13.40
548 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Gaining Direction

What are the Among all the events of the past years, the ones ties with his friends. Like Harris and Klebold,
issues? that seem to have the greatest impact on the he liked violent video games and hated almost
millennial generation involve disasters and everything that was “normal.” Goth culture was
mass shootings (e.g., the tsunami of 2004, the where he found his identity. His online pro-
shooting at Dawson College). Kimveer Gill, file lists the following as his number one dis-
much like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, was like: “the world and everything in it.” How do
best described as “different.” He was into Goth people decide which groups to affiliate with?
culture and did not really like other people. He What happens when you feel rejected from the
became obsessed with 9/11 conspiracy theories majority group? Does a culture of fantasy vio-
and the Columbine massacre. Months before lence lead to actual violence? Do people copy
the shooting at Dawson College, he cut off all the behaviours of others?

What do What is social identity? How are people influenced by others?

we need to Why do we conform to group norms? Can social influence extend to harmful
know? How does the group affect the individual? aggressive behaviour?
Can violent video games lead to real
aggression?

Where can A good place to start is with the section on might we come to adopt such beliefs? Review
we find the social influence. People respond to group the discussion on the theory of cognitive disso-
information to norms (real or imagined) all the time. We often nance. Festinger reminds us that we may come
view this as positive (e.g., complying with to hold “false” beliefs as our own to justify our
answer these
laws), but in some situations, conformity can behaviour. Finally, look at the material regard-
questions? result in behaviours that are not consistent with ing media influences on aggression. If an indi-
one’s true beliefs. If you feel rejected from one vidual is predisposed to aggression because he
group, you may adopt the norms of another and or she is angry, upset, or frustrated, media por-
over time, come to believe them. Such behav- trayals of aggression (e.g., TV, movies, video
iour can be harmful, as demonstrated in Stanley games) can fuel these feelings and result in
Milgram’s classic work on obedience. But how actual violence.