PSY 100 – General Psychology
Lecture Guide 13: Social Psychology
Michael L. Thomas, PhD
- 1 Introduction and Learning Objectives
- 2 Social Psychology
- 3 Attribution and Biases
- 4 Do Attitudes Shape Our Actions, or Do Actions Shape Our Attitudes?
- 5 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- 6 Social Influence and Conformity
- 7 Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
- 8 Deindividuation
- 9 Group Polarization and Groupthink
- 10 Social Relations
- 11 Summary
1 Introduction and Learning Objectives
3 Attribution and Biases
One of the classic debates in psychology revolves around the relative importance of social influences versus stable personal traits in explaining behavior. While social psychologists emphasize how situations and group dynamics can lead ordinary people to act in surprising ways, personality psychologists focus on consistent traits, like extroversion or conscientiousness, that predict how individuals typically behave across different situations. This debate has fueled significant research, highlighting that both perspectives are crucial for fully understanding human behavior.
Within this context, one important concept in social psychology is attribution theory, which examines how people interpret the causes of behavior. We often wonder whether someone’s actions are due to their personality or to the situation they’re in, reflecting the ongoing interplay between individual traits and social context.
A well-known example of attribution gone awry is the tragic murder of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese in 1964. Genovese was attacked outside her apartment building in New York City while numerous neighbors reportedly did not intervene, even though the assault lasted for more than 30 minutes and occurred in the heart of a residential area with multiple potential witnesses. A newspaper headline at the time declared, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police,” sparking public outrage and years of research and debate. This incident inspired studies on the bystander effect, a phenomenon demonstrating that individuals are less likely to help when others are present, often assuming that someone else will take action.
🔎 Fact Check: Although the Kitty Genovese case has been featured in introductory psychology textbooks for decades, subsequent research has revealed many inaccuracies in the original reporting. As a result, the story today serves more as a parable than a precise historical account.
There are numerous examples of people making attribution errors. For instance, imagine I’m presenting this lecture to a class of students. I might notice that some students talk to their neighbors during my lecture more than others and attribute this behavior to differences in their personalities. I might conclude that the students who talk during class are disrespectful, while those who sit quietly are polite. However, if I fail to consider situational factors, I may be making an error. For example, perhaps the students who speak more often are seated further back, have more people around them, or are struggling to hear me due to poor audio and are simply trying to clarify points from the lecture that they misunderstood. In this situation, I am committing the fundamental attribution error, which is the tendency to underestimate the influence of the situation on behavior.
One of the most famous studies demonstrating the fundamental attribution error was conducted by Jones and Harris (1967). In this study, participants read essays either supporting or opposing Fidel Castro (the longtime communist leader of Cuba). Some participants were told the essay writer chose their position freely, while others were informed that the writer had been assigned the position and had no choice. Yet, even when participants knew the writer was simply following instructions, they still attributed the essay’s stance to the writer’s personal beliefs. This shows how we tend to overlook situational explanations and assume people’s actions reflect their true personality.
This tendency is part of why it’s so hard to avoid typecasting our favorite actors. For example, it’s tough not to automatically assume that Jennifer Coolidge (an American actress known for roles in movies and shows such as Legally Blonde and The White Lotus) is always bubbly or ditzy in real life, because she’s so often cast in comedic roles that emphasize those traits. You might even commit the fundamental attribution error with some of your professors, assuming they’re more intelligent and confident than they really are (we’re using notes!).
People’s worldviews often influence how they attribute causes in different situations. For instance, in general, political conservatives are more likely to attribute success and failure to individual traits, whereas political liberals are more likely to emphasize broader societal and structural factors (e.g., Morgan, Mullen, & Skitka, 2010; Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001).
Another type of attribution bias, blaming the victim, happens when we attribute someone’s misfortune to their personal failings rather than to external forces. Researchers believe this occurs because of our desire to believe in a just world. That is, we want to think that the world is fair and that people generally get what they deserve. This belief can provide comfort and a sense of predictability, but it also leads us to overlook situational factors and unfair circumstances. For example, people might assume that a person living in poverty simply isn’t working hard enough, rather than considering broader social or economic factors.
There are situations where the fundamental attribution error doesn’t occur. One such exception is the actor-observer discrepancy, which refers to our tendency to attribute other people’s behavior to internal causes, while explaining our own actions in terms of external circumstances. There’s also the closely related self-serving bias, where we generally see ourselves in a more positive light than others—blaming external factors for our own failures while taking credit for our successes. In other words, if someone else fails, we’re likely to think it’s because of their personality or abilities, but if we fail, we’re more likely to blame circumstances outside our control.
🌧️ Clinical Note: Interestingly, people with depression often reverse this pattern, showing what’s sometimes called a depressive realism worldview. In this cognitive style, they blame themselves for failures and tend to downplay or dismiss their successes, contributing to low self-esteem and persistent negative thinking. This suggests that there may be a psychological benefit to the self-serving bias, as it helps protect us from negative appraisals of our behaviors and outcomes.
4 Do Attitudes Shape Our Actions, or Do Actions Shape Our Attitudes?
While we like to believe that our attitudes determine our actions, studies suggest that our actions can also shape our attitudes.
For example, studies show that people who agree to small requests are more likely to comply with larger ones later. This is called the foot-in-the-door phenomenon (e.g., salespeople often try to get you to agree to a simple request before asking for a bigger one).
In one classic experiment by Freedman and Fraser (1966), researchers posing as safe-driving volunteers asked homeowners if they could place large “DRIVE SAFELY” signs in their front yards. Only 17% consented. However, when researchers first asked homeowners to display small signs and then later requested the larger signs, 76% agreed. This demonstrates how small initial actions can pave the way for larger commitments.
❓ Ask Yourself? Have you ever been manipuated by the foot-in-the-door phenomenon or you have used this approach to manipulate others?
Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) example of behaviors shaping attitudes is the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment conduted by Philip Zimbardo Participants were randomly assigned to be either prison guards or prisoners and were asked to role-play these positions in a mock prison over several days. After just a few days, participants began to embody their roles: the guards became disparaging and devised cruel and degrading punishments, while the prisoners broke down, became passive, or rebelled. The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most controversial studies in the history of psychology; it has been criticized as both unethical and unscientific. Still, its main conclusions about the power of social roles in shaping attitudes and behavior are widely regarded as significant insights into human psychology.
🌐 Watch this! OPTIONAL
Follow this link to a National Geographic video about the Stanford Prison Experiment. This documentary segment explains how Philip Zimbardo’s 1971 study simulated prison conditions and demonstrated how quickly people can adopt abusive or submissive roles under situational pressures. It also highlights the ethical controversies from the perspective of the participants themselves.
5 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Do people come to internalize attitudes that are consistent with their behaviors? Before trying to answer this, consider this question: have you ever behaved in a way that made you feel wrong or guilty because your actions went against your moral code? The answer is almost certainly yes. Entire religions and philosophies have been built around the idea that people often behave in ways they later regret—not just because they were punished for the behavior, but because the behavior itself made them feel, for lack of a better word, gross. However, instead of feeling bad about your behavior, what if you simply changed your attitude and began to see your actions as good and correct, rather than bad and wrong?
Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we often bring our attitudes into line with our actions in order to alleviate discomfort and distress. The more discomfort or distress we feel about a particular action, the more likely we are to adjust our internal attitudes to relieve that dissonance.
An example of this is Festinger and Carlsmith’s classic 1959 experiment. In this study, college students were asked to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, such as turning pegs repeatedly, or moving spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, and refilling it over and over. Participants rated these tasks as very boring and unenjoyable.
After completing the tasks, participants were told the experiment was over and that they could leave. However, the experimenter then asked them for a small favor: they were told that a research assistant hadn’t shown up and were asked to persuade another participant (who was actually a confederate) that the tasks were interesting and engaging.
Participants were divided into groups: some were paid $20 for delivering this lie, while others were paid only $1. A control group was not asked to convince anyone at all. Pariticipants were then asked to rate the study. The results are shown in the table below.
| Experimental Condition |
Control (N = 20) |
One Dollar (N = 20) |
Twenty Dollars (N = 20) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
How enjoyable tasks were (rated from -5 to +5) |
-0.45 | +1.35 | -0.05 |
|
How much they learned (rated from 0 to 10) |
3.08 | 2.80 | 3.15 |
|
Scientific importance (rated from 0 to 10) |
5.60 | 6.45 | 5.18 |
|
Participate in similar exp. (rated from -5 to +5) |
-0.62 | +1.20 | -0.25 |
The most notable finding was that, when asked afterward to rate how enjoyable the tasks were, those in the $1 group rated the tasks significantly more positively than those in the $20 group or the control group. Festinger and Carlsmith explained this as evidence for cognitive dissonance. They theorized that participants experienced dissonance between the thoughts, “I told someone the task was interesting” and “I actually found it boring.” For the $1 group, there was insufficient external justification for lying, so they resolved the dissonance by convincing themselves that the task wasn’t so bad after all. Meanwhile, those paid $20 had an obvious external reason for lying and thus experienced less dissonance—and felt no need to change their attitudes.
Some examples of cognitive dissonance theory:
- “I just bought an expensive car. I must really like it to have spent this much money, and it was a good investment.”
- “I just made a sexist comment around my friends. It must be because the comment was really true.”
- “I skipped volunteering at the shelter again. Honestly, they probably don’t need my help that badly anyway.”
While cognitive dissonance theory can sometimes help us feel better about our decisions and behaviors without causing significant harm, it also has troubling implications for the stability of our values and moral beliefs.
❓ Test Yourself!: Can you come up with 3 real-world example of cognitive dissonance in your own life?
6 Social Influence and Conformity
🌐 Watch this!
Follow this link to a YouTube video explaining Solomon Asch’s classic conformity experiments.
It is very difficult to resist social conformity. Even groups that appear dedicated to non-conformity often end up conforming to the norms of their own non-conformist circles, and this irony is frequently parodied in movies and television shows.
In Solomon Asch’s classic 1955 experiment, groups of people were asked to judge the length of lines—an easy task. However, when five confederates deliberately gave incorrect answers, the real participant often went along with the group’s errors. Asch found that 75% of participants conformed to at least one incorrect choice, and overall, participants gave wrong answers on 37% of the critical trials, highlighting just how powerful the pressure to conform can be.
Social influence shows up in countless ways. When one person yawns, coughs, laughs, or giggles, others tend to follow suit. Bartenders and musicians often “seed” their tip jars so that others will feel compelled to contribute as well. People also mimic each other’s behaviors unconsciously, like shaking a foot or rubbing their nose, and something as simple as standing on the street looking up will prompt strangers to do the same.
Why Do We Conform? People conform for several reasons, including a desire for social approval, the belief that the group possesses better information, and the wish to avoid conflict or rejection. In short, life often feels easier when we go along with the group. In many everyday situations, conformity can be helpful and adaptive—for example, knowing where to stand in line, following traffic rules, or observing social customs. However, conformity can also lead groups and societies to accept unethical or problematic behavior, as individuals may remain silent or go along with the majority even when they know something is wrong.
One of the more interesting results from Asch’s experiment was the finding that participants were more likely to resist conforming if another person in the room also disagreed with the group. These so-called allies or dissenters have important implications for understanding how and why people speak out when they see wrongs in society. It often takes just a single voice to point out when something is wrong.
However, for that voice to help others resist conformity, there often needs to be either psychological proximity or strong leadership. In other words, people are more likely to resist conforming when the person setting the example is either close to them personally or perceived as a leader or credible authority.
6.1 Milgram’s Experiment
People also conform because they are being obedient. In a striking example of this, Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) conducted an experiment in which “teachers” were instructed to administer electric shocks to a “learner” whenever the learner gave an incorrect answer. The researchers encouraged the teachers to continue delivering shocks even as the learner cried out in pain or begged for the experiment to stop. Remarkably, a full 63% of participants obediently administered shocks all the way to the maximum voltage of the device.
Milgram’s results are often cited as evidence for why seemingly ordinary people might be willing to go along with horrendous behaviors. A common example used to illustrate this point is the Holocaust, perpetrated by the Nazis and generally supported—or at least tolerated—by many in the German public. However, this argument has been criticized because the Milgram experiment differs from real-life genocide in several significant ways. For example, participants in Milgram’s study were assured that the “learner” would not suffer permanent harm, and many Germans either resisted Nazi rule or were unaware of the full extent of the regime’s actions. Still, although there’s a gray area between laboratory research and real-world events, Milgram’s work provides valuable insights into why people might carry out terrible actions under pressure and authority.
🌐 Watch this!
Follow this link to a YouTube video that explores Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment.
Milgram’s experiments revealed that obedience is strongest when several conditions are met: the person giving orders is physically close and seen as a legitimate authority figure; the authority is connected to a prestigious institution, such as Yale rather than a lesser-known school; the victim is depersonalized and kept at a greater distance; and there are no role models present who demonstrate disobedience.
7 Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
Do you enjoy performing skills in front of others? How do you feel about group projects? Opinions are mixed, and research reflects this ambiguity. On one hand, we see social facilitation, where we tend to become aroused and perform faster, try harder, and exert more effort in the presence of others—even cockroaches show this effect! However, our ability to perform a skill in front of others depends on how well we’ve mastered it. People who shoot basketballs poorly are likely to perform worse in front of a crowd, while those who shoot well often perform even better when others are watching.
We also see social loafing. While people may try harder in the presence of others on individual tasks, they tend to slack off on group tasks. For example, French engineer Maximilien Ringelmann asked individuals and groups to pull on a rope and measured their force output. He found that as group size increased, each person exerted less effort, a phenomenon now called the Ringelmann effect, illustrating early evidence of social loafing.
8 Deindividuation
Deindividuation is a psychological state where individuals lose their sense of personal identity and self-awareness due to being part of a group, often leading to impulsive or uninhibited behavior. This often results in individuals becoming less self-conscious and less restrained in their behavior, which helps explain why mobs can be so dangerous.
Why do people wear Ku Klux Klan hoods and similar disguises? One reason is that anonymity and group identity can strip away personal inhibitions, making individuals more susceptible to the group’s influence and power.
🚗 Note: Deindividuation doesn’t just happen in extreme groups—it can occur in everyday situations like driving. When people are behind the wheel, they’re physically separated from others and feel anonymous, which can reduce self-awareness and lead to aggressive behaviors like road rage. The anonymity of being inside a car can make people act in ways they wouldn’t if they were face-to-face.
9 Group Polarization and Groupthink
Have you ever noticed that when you get into a group of like-minded people, you tend to become much more sure of yourself and your position? Psychologists call this effect group polarization—the tendency for people to adopt more extreme views in the presence of others who share their opinions.
This tendency to seek out only like-minded voices can also pose dangers when making important decisions. It’s often said that “two heads are better than one,” but research suggests that “too many heads” can cause problems. This is where groupthink comes in—a phenomenon where individuals suppress dissenting opinions in order to maintain harmony with the prevailing views of the group.
Famous events that are often cited as examples of groupthink include:
- President Kennedy’s decision to support a guerrilla invasion of Cuba (the Bay of Pigs)
- The failure of the CIA and FBI to take terrorist threats seriously before the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York.
This doesn’t mean that making decisions by committee is inherently bad. It means that groups must remain open to dissenting opinions. For instance, it’s often recommended that a designated devil’s advocate-a person who deliberately takes an opposing viewpoint in a discussion or decision-be appointed to ensure alternative perspectives are heard and considered.
11 Summary
🎥 Watch this before ending!
2 Social Psychology
Living in a group can be hard. And yet we do it anyway because the benefits of living in a society generally outweigh the costs. But Nietzsche’s quote suggests that we often lose ourselves in the group. And sometimes losing one’s identity in the group can have dire consequences.
Social psychology explores how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. It examines how social contexts shape our behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes, revealing the powerful effects of the social world on individual actions.