Psych 202 1st Edition Lecture 13 Social Psychology Online Day 2-Back to Jane Elliot, institutional processed of discrimination in the classroom, and Milgram:oIndicators of differences are:-Institutionalized-Rules/norms/expectations are formed subjective social reality becomes THE realityoSocial facts/realities establish unwritten normative rules, then people "play their roles," which includes executing/activating all the expected thoughts and feelings, thus integrating persons into a Milgramesque Situationism-People respond to unwritten rules and play their roles-Related ideas on role-playing:oGroupthink: group polarization-Where everybody is on same page and people tend to make an effort to think outside the box and about possible consequences-Lack of self-criticism, group becomes more extreme in their beliefs, tendency to conform, polarized, lose individuality especially in larger groups, everyone becomes anonymous, less knowledge of who is in chargeoConformityoDeindividuation-When people are not "self-aware"; and especially when they are aroused, anonymous, and when there is diffusion of responsibility-Then do things that are outside their morals because they lose their perspectiveoDehumanization processes amplify role-induced dehumanized treatment of others-Dehumanizing labels change our mental constructionsIncrease salience of stereotypesFacilitate derogation of outgroupsUnleash morally unconstrained processes of thought, feeling, speech, and action-Examples of dehumanized labelsMilgram: others are "learners"Bandura: "animals"Zimbardo: "prisoners" are known by numberElliot: "brown eyes"The segregated south: "colored people"Vietnam: "Kill a Gook for God"Rwanda: "Cockroaches"Iraq: "Towelheads"Wisconsin football: "Ohio State fans"Generally: all "outgroups" are derogatedThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.-Lies a benefit to us and we create dehumanization without realizing it-Situations can make us devils or heroesIt is the context of that social circumstance and the power structure thatexists-Bystander intervention studies: the diffusion of responsibilityoThe tragedy and social disgrace of the case of Kitty Genovese (1964)-Raped and stabbed to death-There were 39 people who noticed something happening and nobody did anythingThis phenomenon that was labeled in press accounts as relating to "bystander apathy" led to a series of social psychology experiments examining the phenomenon-These studies and the theoretical discussions about them have led to a reframing of the problem of "apathy" in terms of "diffusion of responsibility"The conclusion: people are not apathetic; instead, the conditions under which people help-the helping "situation"-lead to different rates of helping behavior-Has nothing to do with personality, their values, their religionWhen you are in a group and don’t have a role or identify yourself as having a role, and there is a potential danger going on, people tend to do nothing when there is a bigger groupoFour reasons for bystander intervention effect (following Gazzaniga and Heatherton)-Diffusion of responsibilityWith Mowaka (cartoon)-Fear of making a social blunder in an ambiguous situationWith Mowaka?-AnonymityProbably Mowaka, is Mowaka anonymous?-Implicit cost-benefit calculationsWhat do the bystanders think in Mowaka's case? Doesn’t it depend on their culturally-informed-knowledge of army ants? Depends on the likelihood of death from intervention and/or the value of heroism in the culture, right?oConsider the experiment on bystander effects summarized in the next slide-In this experiment, persons believe they are in groups of 2-5; in each case they "overhear" an experimental confederate having a seizure and begging for helpIV: size of groupWould you help?What are the proportions of subjects in the experiment that helped?-More members of group = less likely to help-Likelihood of helping decreases with bigger group size-Personality does not play a roleoThe Carleton study (Janet Ballenoff and Neil Lutsky): the good news in knowing about our biases-Description of experiment:Likelihood of helping at individual level, no regard to diffusion of responsibilityThey had to come on certain day, certain time, and follow a certain pathAs students arrived, there was a person in a trench coat who slumped tothe ground and moaned-Does person stop and help and assist or not?-IV: creation of 2 distinct groups1: students who never studied social psychology or diffusion of responsibility-SS uninformed group2: students who had studies social psychology and diffusion of responsibility-SS informed group-DV: does somebody help, yes or no?-Results:17% of SS uninformed students helped52% of SS informed students helped-Conclusions: weren't any confounds discoveredoModel of causal processes in "bystander apathy" of "diffusion of responsibility" studies:-Before helping behavior occurs, potential helper must:Notice the eventInterpret it as emergencyAssume responsibilityDecide to intervene (and act on decision)If any of above cognitive processes fails to get activated, no helping occursoA concluding re-examination of the larger context of the social-situational analysis of human behavior-The bottom line: social situations occur in historically-specific cultural contexts-"Systems" circumscribe social situations-"The System" is the engine that sets the stage:Systems yield institutional support, authority, permission, resourcesSystems include networks of people, their expectations, norms, policies, values, lawsEach system has a culture, and contribute to the culture of a society-"Social Situations" develop from systems:Situations create behavioral contextsSituational-contexts integrate with:-Roles-Social expectations-Norms-ScriptsSituations are influenced by:-Conformity-Obedience to authority-Anonymity-deindividuation-Diffusion of responsibility-Dehumanization-Group polarization (groupthink)Situations can make us devils or