Module 5
This is a single, concatenated file, suitable for printing or saving as a PDF for offline viewing. Please note that some animations or images may not work.

Module 5: The Personality and Larger Social Level
Monday, June 10 – Sunday, June 16

Required Reading/Viewing:

Principles of Psychology, Chapters 10–11
(pages 418–437; 441–448; 456-483)

Module 5 online content

Discussions:	
Module 5 Discussion

Initial responses due Thursday, June 13, 9:00 AM ET
Two peer response due Sunday, June 16, 9:00 AM ET
Leader response due Tuesday, June 18, 9:00 AM ET
Assignments:	Research Article Paper Outline due Thursday, June 13, 9:00 AM ET
Live Classrooms:	
Monday, June 10, 7:30–9:00 PM ET

Activity:	Complete Module 5 Review and Reflect, due Monday, June 17, 11:59 PM ET
Welcome to Module 5

cas_ps101_19_su2_mtompson_mod5 video cannot be displayed here. Videos cannot be played from Printable Lectures. Please view media in the module.

Learning Objectives

Compare and contrast social cognition and social influence.
Describe differences in attributional biases, including the fundamental attribution error, actor-observer discrepancy, and self-serving bias.
Explain the ABC model of attitudes.
Describe factors that contribute to the development of prejudice, including social categorization, in-groups and out-groups, out-group homogeneity effect, and in-group bias.
List three attributes of situations that increase the likelihood individuals will obey a destructive authority.
List three factors that increase the likelihood individuals will help others in need of help.
Describe key characteristics of the psychoanalytic approach, including major structures of the mind and defense mechanisms.
Compare and contrast the psychoanalytic, humanistic, and social cognitive approaches to personality, including their perspective on human nature (positive, negative, neutral) and personal choice, and the degree of scientific support.
Describe the difference between self-efficacy and self-esteem and provide examples of each.
List the “Big 5” personality traits.
Personality
Introduction

We probably all have a pretty good colloquial sense of what personality is. But how do psychologists think of personality? Psychologists define personality as each individual’s distinctive and relatively stable patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving. In this part of the course, I’m going to go over several personality theories. A personality theory attempts to describe and explain both similarities and differences between individuals. In so much of psychology we are examining what makes people similar, but personality psychology is also focused on individual differences. We will review four perspectives on the study of personality: the psychoanalytic perspective, the humanistic perspective, the social-cognitive perspective, and the trait perspective.


Who are you, really? The puzzle of personality | Brian Little

Psychoanalytic Perspective

This particular perspective on the study of personality has been around for over 100 years. It is generally NOT well-supported by research and has clearly lost its dominance in influencing current thinking in psychology. However, it continues to reach its tentacles deep into our culture in many ways, influencing language, literature, medicine, sexuality, psychotherapy, on and on. I will talk later in this section about the ways in which it laid some of the ground for the emergence of the MeToo# movement. Freud’s work left a powerful legacy, and for that reason alone it is important to understand.

Sigmund Freud
This psychoanalytic perspective, also referred to as psychoanalysis, was founded by an Austrian neurologist named Sigmund Freud. His psychoanalysis was both a theory of personality and a particular approach to psychotherapy. Freud was Jewish and lived in Austria during a time in which antisemitism was strong, and Freud was an outsider in his time. He puts forth his ideas in the Victorian era, a time when discussion of sexuality was very taboo. Many of his ideas were shocking to people in his day and continue to be to some people now. So let’s talk a little bit about Freud’s personality theory; here are some of its dominant themes.

Dominant Themes in Freud’s Theory

Conflict

Freud’s theory is often referred to as a “dynamic” theory of personality, and that is because it emphasizes conflict between psychological forces within the individual. The internal landscape of the individual is not constant but rather undergoing regular change and upheaval (dynamic rather than stable or static).

Topography

Freud’s theory postulated a topography of the human mind. What do I mean by this? Have you ever seen a topographic map? A topographic map shows different levels of elevation on the Earth’s surface. Using a topographic map, you will notice the height of mountains, the depth of valleys, and even the depth of the ocean trenches. Similarly, Freud’s theory included the idea that our experience occurs at various levels of consciousness.

The first level is what Freud would call the conscious level. At this level are all the sensations, feelings, and thoughts that you are aware of any given time. In terms of topography, we can think of the conscious level as sea level.
The second level is what Freud would call the preconscious level. This is information that, while not readily in consciousness could easily enter consciousness. For example, childhood memories, the sensation of the chair against your back as you are sitting, etc. Perhaps we can think of the preconscious from a topographic standpoint as shallow waters, where one can easily wade in.
The third level is what Freud would call the unconscious level, and this is the level at which Freud posited that wishes, urges, drives, thoughts, and feelings operated out of awareness. Although we are unaware of what is happening at this level, he postulated that it had an enormous impact on everyday behavior and personality. In other words, much of our behavior is driven by unconscious forces. He also thought that the unconscious could be revealed through free association (e.g., when individuals in therapy describe to the therapist whatever happens to drift into their minds), dreams, and slips of the tongue. We can think of the unconscious mind as the deep trenches of the ocean where dark things lurk!
Structure

Freud also described the personality as consisting of three internal structures, which emerge over the course of early-life development and drive behavior for a lifetime.

The first structure he called the id, which is Latin for the it. According to Freud, the id is a completely unconscious and irrational part of the self that is focused exclusively on immediate gratification of primal urges and desires.
It operates on the pleasure principle, which means that it exclusively seeks immediate gratification. The id “wants what it wants when it wants it.” When the baby is born, he or she is pretty much all id—demanding immediate gratification of all needs and desires. Freud further posited that there were two instincts driving the id. The first he called Eros, or the life instinct, which focuses on perpetuating one’s own self and the species. This instinct is fueled by what Freud referred to as libido (we can also think of this as the sex drive but it really described seeking pleasure of many kinds). The second instinctual drive he called Thanatos, or the death instinct, which focuses on aggressive and violent impulses.
The second structure he called the ego, which is Latin for I. According to Freud, the ego is a partly conscious and rational part of the personality. It helps regulate our thoughts and behavior, is in touch with the demands of the outside world, and helps us to meet the needs and desires of the id. The ego operates on what’s called the reality principle, which is the idea that one must get one’s needs met while also responding to environmental demands and postponing gratification at times. The ego is realistic.
The third structure he called the superego, which is a partly conscious, moral part of the personality. The superego forms over time as the individual begins to internalize the rules and values of society and parents.
It’s interesting to consider that these structures may differ in “size” in different people. The “psychopath” has a very large id (strong impulses and desires for pleasure), a somewhat large ego (he/she may be good at finding ways to satisfy the id), and a very small superego (underdeveloped morally). There may be other people who have a smaller id (less motivated by pleasure-seeking), a large ego (able to manage the world to meet needs and desires), and a very large superego (highly driven by morality) — those who seek justice for others even if sacrificing their own needs. Think of some people who have a large superego (big morality) and large id (lots of unacceptable urges and impulses)—their ego is working overtime to figure out how to manage this!

Defense Mechanisms

According to Freud, conflicts often emerge between the id and superego. The id may want what it wants when it wants it, but gratification of the id is not always possible or morally acceptable. Our ego is trying to navigate this conflict. At times when the conflict becomes too “hot” (stressful) and the ego is unable to resolve it in some way, the individual experiences heightened anxiety. The ego may then use a number of what Freud called defense mechanisms to reduce this anxiety. You can see in this table some of the defense mechanisms Freud described. Let me tell you about some of them.

Repression.In this defense mechanism, the individual pushes down the anxiety-inducing urge, thought, or impulse into the unconscious mind and completely out of awareness. This is the ultimate act of “stuffing it”. As an example, an individual may choose to become completely celibate, pushing down any and all threatening sexual impulses. Freud would say these urges/impulses may show themselves in disguised form . . . . more on that later.
Denial. A person in denial will refuse to acknowledge the issue, conflict or concern. This is not as extreme as repression, but it is a way of refusing to see the internal conflict. In modern society we often describe the person who is heavy drinker as “in denial”—the desires of the id (to continue to seek pleasure through drinking excessively) are in conflict with the mounting evidence that this behavior is destructive (e.g., losing one’s driver’s license for driving while under the influence, having conflicts with family members, developing a medical condition related to drinking). So, the person in denial refuses to accept the evidence and continues to deny the problem (e.g., “everyone drinks a little,” “it was just that one time,” “you need to chill out and have some fun”). After all, if they accepted the evidence, that would mean a big change—denying the id what it really wants!
Reaction Formation. In this defense mechanism Freud posited that an individual acts in the extreme opposite of his or her unconscious impulses, desires, or urges. As one example, an individual who has all sorts of socially unacceptable sexual impulses may become a crusader against pornography! As another example, the person who has same-sex attractions but was raised to believe these are immoral becomes very anti-LGBTQ. By acting in the extreme opposite way, the individual pushes back against those “unacceptable” impulses.
Projection. Freud posited that in this defense mechanism the individual manages their unacceptable impulses by putting those impulses off on others. As one example, let’s say your superego says that it is not acceptable to be rageful toward others and yet you unconsciously experience rage and aggressive impulses (id). You can project and think “why is everyone so hostile and angry toward me?!?” (when you are actually the angry one). As another example, let’s say you are heterosexual young lady and you are unconsciously attracted to your best friend’s boyfriend (hard on the superego!). So you project your own attraction onto him and think, “He’s my best friend’s boyfriend, so why is he so flirtatious with me? How inappropriate!” (“It’s not me, it’s him!!”)
Displacement. In this defense mechanism, Freud posited that the individual redirects their unacceptable impulses to a “safer” object. As an example, we can think of “kick the dog” behavior. So, you’re super angry at your awful boss and you'd like to kick him where it hurts, but your superego won’t allow it (besides, you’d lose your job). So you’ve got a conflict between your id and superego. So you displace your anger onto a safer object—you go home and kick the dog instead. I’m not saying this is a nice thing to do, but it’s one of those things that can happen. We can think of this at a societal level—instead of being angry at those powerful and successful business owners who fire them due to automation (after all, we shouldn’t feel angry at successful people), workers feel rage at the lower status immigrants who “take our jobs.”
Sublimation. In this defense mechanism, Freud suggested that the individual channels his/her unacceptable impulses into socially acceptable behaviors. For example, think of the young man who is unconsciously struggling with angry, aggressive impulses, so he joins the football team or begins to train in the boxing ring; he’s channeling that aggression in a socially acceptable way. As another example, think of the individual who has lots of sexual impulses, so she decides to be a painter and paints very sensual nude images; Freud would call this sublimation. Or consider the young man who feels hostile toward his older brother and goes into business and earns millions of bucks—showing up that older brother! Sublimation can result in some good things.
Intellectualization. Freud suggested that in this defense mechanism the individual separates the intellectual and emotional aspects of a situation to manage emotional reactions. This person then focuses exclusively on the intellectual pieces; repressing the associated emotion. This can be helpful for a surgeon or for many of us trying to manage complex situations. But we can overdo the intellectualization (use it too much) and never really acknowledge or deal with our emotions.
In general, these defense mechanisms are hypothesized to be neither bad nor good. However, overuse of one or another can become a problem.

Psychosexual Stages

This the part of Freud’s theory that came later . . .. it is also more problematic.

According to Freud’s theory, over the course of development the individual goes through a series of psychosexual stages in which the experience of pleasure is focused on different regions of the body (“erogenous zones”) and different experiences of navigating these desires and urges. At each of these stages, the individual is also trying to resolve particular conflicts (e.g., to depend or not to depend on others, to take initiative or to remain passive, etc.); this resolution will influence the personality over time. Let’s talk about each of Freud’s psychosexual stages.

The oral stage. During this period of development, lasting from about birth to age 2, the child’s gratification is focused on oral stimulation. I think we can all recognize that children at this age put just about everything into the mouth (some things that are quite horrifying and disgusting actually). They explore the world through licking objects, sucking objects, and holding them in their mouth. Freud would say that one of the major conflicts of the oral stage is dependency. Can I depend on others to take care of (feed) me and give me what I need? Or can I not depend on others?
The anal stage. During this period of development, lasting from about age 2 to 5, the child is focused on controlling elimination. The child is being potty-trained and learning control over their bladder and bowels. Freud would say that one of the major conflicts of the anal stage is about control. Who is in control? Do I allow others to dictate my activities? Do I hold it in or let it out? Parents and child are set into a battle over control of bodily functions.
The phallic stage. During this period of development, lasting from about age 5 to 6, the child is focused on his or her genitals and on his or her own personal pleasure and gratification. It is during this stage that Freud hypothesized that the child undergoes the Oedipal conflict. During the Oedipal conflict, the opposite sex parent becomes an object of desire. Let me back up for a second here and emphasize that Freud was really focusing on male psychosexual development, and admitted later in his life that he did not understand women all that well. So keeping that in mind, let’s move forward. The little boy wishes to possess his mother, but he simultaneously fears his father. Having noticed that girls do not have penises, he fears that his father will remove his (referred to as castration anxiety). I must admit this is where I have some problems with Freud. The Oedipal conflict is ultimately resolved when the boy begins to identify with his father as a man and, when he is old enough, focuses his intentions on ultimately finding an adult woman who is just like “dear old mom.” Now Freud extrapolated this to girls and referred to it as the Electra complex. In that case, the girl would like to possess the father because he has a penis while she does not (referred to as penis envy; I think I can actually hear some young women rolling their eyes!!). So, ultimately, she resolves this by identifying with the mother and, as an adult, finding herself a guy with a penis just like “dear old dad.” Yeah, that’s kinda creepy!
At this point it would be important to mention Freud’s idea of fixation. Freud thought that if a child was either over-gratified or under-gratified in one of these psychosexual stages, he or she could become stuck or what he called fixated at that stage. This individual keeps trying to gratify the needs of that stage (because they didn’t get enough and are still trying or because they got too much and don’t really want to leave). This kind of fixation can have a powerful impact on personality. For example, individuals with a fixation of the oral stage may have been over-gratified and turn out to be dependent on others to fill their needs, optimistic, and lacking in independence. Those who were under-gratified may be pessimistic, resentful, and lack trust. According to Freud, these kinds of folks have been permanently shaped by their experiences during the oral stage. As another example, individuals with a fixation at the anal stage may have been over-gratified, that is they won the battle of control and may be labeled as “anal-retentive.” In this type of personality, the individual is picky, controlling, obstinate, passive-aggressive, and obsessive. On the other hand, fixation of the anal stage where the child has been under-gratified leads to a character that is messy, under controlled, disorganized, and defiant. The idea for parents is that they needed to help their child navigate these conflicts without over-gratifying or under-gratifying the id.

The latency stage. Following the intense conflicts of the phallic stage, the child enters what Freud referred to as latency. This lasts from about age 7 to about age 11. During this period, Freud hypothesized that, due to the overwhelming nature of the phallic stage and associated Oedipal or Elektra conflicts, the child sublimates his or her unconscious urges and desires into socially acceptable activities, which nowadays includes sports, academic pursuits, music, and other learning opportunities. It is during this time that we see boys and girls very segregated by gender in their activities and social pursuits and often thinking that the opposite sex is kind of “gross.”
The genital stage. Following latency, the child enters puberty and emerges into the genital stage, where he or she is able to establish healthy heterosexual relationships. Freud considered homosexuality a sign of being stuck in the phallic stage. Now research since that time has not supported the idea that homosexuality is a sign of a personality problem, mental health problem, or a lack of psychological development. Indeed, research suggests little difference between homosexual (gay or lesbian) and heterosexual individuals in terms of mental health. However, as Freud was raised in a very different time, his attitudes toward homosexuality were more reflective of that time and  not informed by modern science.
Freud’s theory has plenty of detractors, and we will get to that. However, he seems to have been right about some things. Here are three aspects of his theory that have mostly held up.

Three Aspects of Freud's Theory That Have Endured
First, Freud was probably right in noting that much of our mental life is unconscious. Since his theory was developed, we’ve certainly found lots of evidence that many of our thoughts and behaviors are based on unconscious assumptions, ideas, and biases. We will talk a lot more about this in the social psychology domain.
Second, early experiences in childhood do have a critical influence on who we become. These early childhood experiences influence our adult interpersonal relationships and our psychological adjustment. It may be that they have this impact because of attachment and the development of our assumptions and expectations, and not because of the way we traversed Freud’s psychosexual stages.
Third, Freud noted that people differ in how their ability to regulate their emotions, thoughts, and desires. I think we have strong evidence that this is the case. I leave you to think about your own opinion about Freud’s theory.
Let’s talk about some of Freud's detractors. Many folks think it’s a bunch of hogwash. Here are some of the main criticisms.

Primary Criticisms of Freud's Theory
First, what data did Freud use in developing his theory? He based it on his own self-analysis, on observing his children, and on interactions with a relatively small number of patients. Many of his patients were diagnosed with “hysteria”. This was a 19th century diagnosis, primarily of women, that included a range of mostly emotional symptoms (anxiety, emotionality, faintness, etc.) and behaviors thought inappropriate at the time (interest in sex, being troublesome to others). It’s not hard to see that it was a culturally and socially-influenced problem. Both male and female theorists have noted that “hysteria” was likely a function of the highly oppressive role that women were assigned in Victorian society. So the data are on a particular malady in a very particular (and peculiar) cultural context as experienced primarily by upper class, White-European women. How generalizable are such data?
Second, how do you operationalize the constructs that Freud hypothesized? How would you know if someone was engaging in reaction formation? How would you know if someone was sublimating? How can you measure people’s unconscious motives and urges? It’s really hard to study Freud! Many of his concepts are not testable. Sometimes it seems like psychoanalysis is better at explaining past behavior (you make up a story that works) than it is at predicting future behavior.
Third, Freud’s theory has been accused of sexist. This goes beyond the issues raised previously. He has used an understanding or theory based on male development to explain women, and it doesn’t do that very well. Karen Horney was a follower and critic of Freud, and she suggested that rather than women suffering from penis envy MEN suffer from womb envy. Specifically, men have been threatened across millennia by womens’ power and ability to bring new life into the world (to give birth), and so they have pushed women down and sought to control them.
MeToo# and a little Freudian Historical Context:
To place Freud’s theory fully in context, a few historical notes should added:
When Freud was first developing his theory, he noted that many of his patients described early sexual abuse by adults (often fathers). Initially he saw this sexual abuse as a central contributor to mental health problems. He dubbed this the “seduction hypothesis”, and it emphasized the importance of the external environment on development. In this formulation the mind is shaped by experience, specifically sexual abuse. I would argue that even this phrasing (“seduction hypothesis”) is pretty problematic – as if the child was a potentially willing participant in the face of a much more powerful adult.

When Freud described his theory it was harshly criticized by his professional peers who could not believe that such things (sexual abuse) happened.

In response, Freud changed this theory to focus not on the occurrence of sexual abuse but arguing rather that these reports represented “fantasies” on the part of his patients. And he attributed these to the Oedipal (and Elektra) Complex.

Many feminist scholars and researchers consider this “change of heart” an excellent example of “victim blaming” (i.e., “it’s didn’t really happen”, “it’s what they wanted”).  Perhaps the term “gaslighting” is somewhat accurate here! There is a long and well-documented history in medicine of ignoring women’s concerns – particularly related to reproductive health – and communicating that the problems are “all in your head”.  While Freud is not the only cause here, he certainly contributed.

Interestingly and concerningly, Research on childhood sexual abuse makes it clear that

This is not an uncommon experience.  In the USA, one in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys experience child sexual abuse.
Most often – 91% of the time – cases are perpetrated by someone the child knows well – typically a family member or close family friend – rather than a stranger. This is true of most kinds of sexual violence.
There are long term negative impacts on both physical and mental health.
The MeToo# movement has focused on the common and negative impact of sexual violence on women, and individuals in the movement have noted the negative impact of sexual violence across the lifespan.  This movement has pushed back strongly against the some of Freud’s most prominent ideas.

The seven-minute video that follows gives an excellent overview of the main ideas of Sigmund Freud. An added benefit is some fun animation.



So let’s move on.

Humanistic Perspective

During the early part of the last century, Freud’s psychoanalytic perspective and B.F. Skinner’s behavioral perspective were dominant. Freud focused on internal, one could argue unknowable, ideas of the self. On the other hand, the behaviorists emphasized the external environment and its influence on the individual, in some ways negating the whole idea of personality. The humanistic perspective arose in opposition to these two ideas. The humanistic perspective focused on each individual’s conscious and subjective perception of him or herself and on his or her goals and aspirations. It was a very positive approach focusing on healthy adjustment, emphasizing both human potential and the idea that humans are inherently good.

Abraham Maslow was one of the leaders and founders of the humanistic movement. Take a look at the model he developed that emphasized human motivation. This is known as the hierarchy of needs. This model continues to be very influential today!

Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Source:Maslows Hierarchy of Needs by BetterBizIdeas is licensed under CC BY 2.0
At the bottom of the hierarchy are biological needs, including food, water, and shelter. Maslow would argue that human beings who are not able to access these basic requirements are not free to pursue higher-level goals or needs. I think he was correct; as an example, homeless people often are living day to day just trying to find the next meal and a safe place to sleep, and they often don’t have time to pursue a job, the arts, an education, or any higher-level goals. At the second level, individuals are pursuing safety. They want law and order, predictability, etc. At the third level, humans seek love and belongingness. They want to be a part of a family, community, or larger group. At the next level, they want to feel good about themselves and their place in the world. They want esteem from others and acknowledgment for who they are. As you go up the hierarchy of needs from here, you have cognitive needs (to develop knowledge and understanding) and aesthetic needs (to develop art, music, and beauty), and the need for self-actualization (that is, becoming your true best self). At the very top is transcendence, where individuals try to help others become more self-actualized. Maslow would say that those at the top are few in number and we can think of examples like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. as folks in the transcendent stage. I don’t expect you to remember all the stages, but I do want you to recognize that most basic needs have to be met before one can strive for higher-level needs. It’s easy to be critical of very poor people for not having longer-term or more lofty goals (like going to college or starting their own business), but when you’re living day to day just to survive, those goals are a real luxury that you can seldom afford. We start out being motivated by the things at the bottom; when these needs are met, we can move up the hierarchy.

cartoon depicting positive self-regard
Source
Another important humanistic psychologist was Carl Rogers. He developed his own theory on personality and an approach to psychotherapy. Like Maslow he emphasized each person’s inherent worth and tendency to strive to be one’s best self. Carl Rogers referred to this tendency to strive to be the best self as the actualizing tendency. Rogers also posited that over the course of development one develops a self-concept, a set of expectations, beliefs, and perceptions about the self; this self-concept can be overall positive or negative. If a child is raised in conditions of what Rogers called conditional positive regard, they tend to develop a more negative sense of self. What is conditional positive regard? It’s the idea that you are only valued and loved if you fit a certain set of standards and expectations (what he called conditions of worth). Perhaps your family will only love you if you go to medical school. Or perhaps your family will only care about you and value you if you make a lot of money. Those are examples of conditional positive regard.

I remember watching the Winter Olympics once, and a skater had just completed her performance, tripped, and fallen during one of those almost-impossible jumps. She came off the ice, and a television interviewer stuck a microphone in her face and asked how she felt. Her response was, “I just want my family and friends to still love me even though I don’t have a gold medal.” Wow, this young lady really experiences conditional positive regard! Most of us will never have a gold medal, and we all should be loved and valued by our family and friends anyway!

On the other hand, a child who was raised with what Carl Rogers dubbed UNconditional positive regard is one who is valued and loved unconditionally and accepted for who he or she is, regardless of what choices he or she makes. The person who experiences unconditional positive regard develops a positive self-concept—a sense that one is valued and loved for who they are. This is not to say that parents can’t disapprove of a specific childhood behavior! If I throw something at my little sister, my parents would be well within their rights to say, “We don’t throw things at people. It’s very unkind!” But that’s a lot different from saying, “Look at what an awful girl you are. How can you be so mean to your sister? What kind of person are you?” We can approve of and value the person while not accepting specific types of behavior.

The humanistic theory has been criticized on many counts. First, it’s hard to validate or test scientifically any of the predictions from humanistic theory. How do we measure unconditional positive regard? How do we measure an actualizing tendency? This is really hard to examine scientifically. As much influence as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has had on theories of motivation, there is very little evidence for it. Second, many psychologists think that this optimistic view of humanity, with all of its inherent goodness and potential, may be just a wee bit too optimistic. Maybe human nature just isn’t that positive! On the other hand, humanistic theory has had a powerful impact on psychotherapy, education, parenting practices, and business management. It’s also pretty interesting thinking about what motives drive our own behavior.

Social Cognitive Perspective

Now the social cognitive perspective differs a lot from the psychoanalytic perspective, the humanistic perspective, and classical behaviorism. The social cognitive perspective emphasizes conscious and self-regulated behavior and integrates experimental findings. This is one of those perspectives that we really can evaluate scientifically. One of the leading thinkers in the social cognitive perspective was Albert Bandura.

Albert Bandura
"File:Albert Bandura Psychologist.jpg" by bandura@stanford.edu is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
Bandura is known for his research on observational learning, but he is also known for his work on this particular perspective on personality. As we grow up, we engage in observational learning. Observational learning is not just about acquiring new skills, but it’s also about acquiring expectations for social relationships, for understanding social values, and for determining the causes and effects of behavior in our social world. People learn about consequences and social norms, and they learn to regulate their behavior in response to these demands. While children are growing up, their parents and other caregivers are often regulating their behavior (think about bedtimes, mealtimes, inquiries about whether they need to go to the bathroom or have done their homework), but over time the child is increasingly able to regulate his or her own behavior. This regulation occurs as a function of both observational learning (watching others) and direct experience.

As children grow up, they develop their self-system. The self-system includes cognitive skills and abilities, beliefs, and attitudes about the self and others. One important element of the self-system is what Bandura described as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the beliefs people hold about their ability to handle particular kinds of situations. Do they feel competent or do they doubt their ability? Now you probably have high self-efficacy in some situations and not others, as we all do. Self-efficacy is very situation dependent.


Transforming Education: Importance of Self-Efficacy

For example, I have high self-efficacy in the kitchen. I can cook! If you want me to make you a delicious dinner, you come over to my place! On the other hand, I have very low self-efficacy when it comes to fixing any electronic device whatsoever. I just have no confidence in that realm. I still really don’t know how to use the equipment in my basement to watch Netflix! Can you believe that? I actually ask my young adult children to come down and set it up for me every time I want to watch anything! Kind of sad really—I’ve got LOW self-efficacy in this area of my life. Think about yourself. What are areas where you really feel able to handle things—where is your self-efficacy high? Where are some areas where your self-efficacy isn’t quite so high? Some of you may have high self-efficacy when it comes to writing a term paper. Some of you may have high self-efficacy when it comes to doing math problems. Our self-efficacy is very individual and very situation-specific.

This leads me to Bandura’s model of reciprocal determinism.

elements of social Cognitive Perspective
If you look at the corners of this triangular model in the diagram above, you can see his emphasis on cognition (our thoughts), behaviors (what we do), and environments (the settings we find ourselves in or place ourselves in). He referred to this model as reciprocal determinism because each of these pieces influences the other—the environment influences our thoughts and actions; our thoughts influence our actions and the environments we choose; and our thoughts and the environments we choose influence our actions, etc.

So let me give you an example. When I was in college, I had low self-efficacy about math. Unfortunately, I was raised during the time when it was communicated pretty clearly to women that they weren’t good at math and that there was no point in trying. Even more unfortunately, I believed those messages! So I generally avoided math at all costs. You can see that my cognitive factors (that is, self-efficacy about math) influenced my behavior and the environments that I chose—I avoided higher-level math and signed up for other classes. When I became a psychology major, I knew that I would have to take statistics (ugh). I was forced to engage in a different behavior (doing an activity that involved a lot of math) and choose a different environment (stats courses). Interestingly, I did very well in statistics, found that it made lots of sense to me, and got the best grade in the class! Wow, my behavior (and its consequences) now changed the cognitive factor. I was no longer someone with low self-efficacy for math. My self-efficacy changed as a function of my experience.

This is an example of how when you try something new, it can sometimes change your perception of yourself in some pretty radical ways. Try to think of some examples of your own self-efficacy about a particular situation and where it might have changed over time. One of the things I find in trying to understand the material in this section (and throughout the class) is that if you can think of a personal example, you will remember the material a lot better (it makes it more real!).

Self-Efficacy vs. Self-Esteem

I would like to make a distinction between self-efficacy and self-esteem. Self-esteem is your evaluation of your own self-worth and value, and it is influenced by your internalization of how society values you and your attributes. Self-esteem is more of an overall evaluation. Alternatively, self-efficacy is about your ability to handle the demands of a particular situation. You can have low self-efficacy and high self-esteem. For example, I have low self-efficacy about being able to figure out electronic things, but so what? I don’t really care and I like myself anyway. I think I’m a pretty nice and valuable person with lots of skills and many good friends. On the other hand, you can have high self-efficacy and low self-esteem. You may think, “I am very capable of completing a variety of complicated math problems (high self-efficacy), but I really don’t like myself as a person and think I’m kind of a loser (low self-esteem).” So, as you can see, self-efficacy and self-esteem are really very different ideas. Although to be fair, if you have low self-efficacy in just about everything you do, you probably have low self-esteem. Our self-esteem is based partly on viewing ourselves as capable in areas that we value and think are important.

Now in evaluating the social cognitive perspective, one of its key strengths is that it is based squarely on research. Many studies have been done to test predictions of the social cognitive perspective, and that’s a real strength. On the other hand, the social cognitive perspective has also been criticized. Criticisms include its exclusive focus on conscious and rational factors and its lack of emphasis on unconscious, emotional, and irrational aspects of personality.

Trait Perspective

So far we have reviewed psychoanalytic, humanistic, and social-cognitive perspectives. So let’s talk about the trait perspective—although, I’m not sure that the trait perspective is really a theory at all but rather an approach to understanding personality. According to the trait perspective, each individual’s character (personality) is a unique combination of personality traits, which are relatively stable and enduring behavioral predispositions (tendencies to behave/react in a particular way). The trait approach has focused on identifying, measuring, and describing these individual differences/tendencies. More recently the trait approach has been used to uncover potential biological factors impacting personality.

One of the big questions for the trait theorist is, “How many traits are there?” If you are describing yourself or a friend, you might think of a lot of different adjectives (traits)—outgoing or introverted, upbeat or negative, funny or serious, quirky or “mainstream,” risk-taking or risk-averse, etc. However, some of these traits are related! Trait theorists would call these surface traits, but maybe we can boil these down to just a few source traits that underlie all the surface traits—core aspects of personality. How many source traits would there be? A number of investigators have tried to answer this question.

Theories Relating to Source Traits

16 PF

Herman Cattell was born in Great Britain and moved to the United States. He used a statistical method known as factor analysis to identify 16 personality factors that he thought were particularly important. So how does factor analysis work? Well, you input into the program information on tons of self-reported personality tests, and then you “boil them down” using a statistical analysis into a smaller number of core factors. Cattell conducted these analyses and came up with 16 key personality dimensions. He developed a questionnaire called the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16 PF). You can take the 16 PF to learn about your own personality. Each of Cattell’s personality factors are dimensions, that is to say, they are continuous variables and you can fall somewhere along these dimensions for each. So, for example, the first one was reserved/unsociable to outgoing/sociable. Where do you think you might fall on this dimension? Another was trusting to suspicious. Where do you think you might fall on that dimension? Another was undisciplined to controlled. Where do you think you might fall on that dimension? Each of us could be described using these 16 personality factors.

Hans Eysenck's Ideas

Eysenck's theory of personality
Adapted from Research Gate/fig2/
Some theorists thought that 16 was just too many personality factors. One of these people was Hans Eysenck, who was a German-born British psychologist. Eysenck emphasized two personality traits that he thought were particularly important—neuroticism (the degree to which one is influenced by emotions) and extroversion (the degree to which one seeks out and is gratified by social relationships). If you think of these two dimensions and where you fall on each, you get a sense of your personality. So let’s think of them as illustrated in the graph below.

We have one dimension, extroversion, crossing the other dimension, neuroticism. Here are some examples. A person high on neuroticism and low on extroversion might be the painter who perhaps spends a lot of time alone and is strongly impacted by feelings and emotions. A person high on neuroticism and high on extroversion might be the actor who likes to be with people but worries a lot about his or her self-image. A person low on neuroticism and low on extroversion might be the stereotypical computer programmer who likes to spend a lot of time alone working on computer code and has poor social skills. Aperson low on neuroticism and high on extroversion might be the self-confident politician. Now I gave these examples using blatant stereotypes and with humor, so please don’t be offended (we’ll talk about stereotypes later and their negative consequences). I have plenty of friends who are computer programmers with great social skills and lots of artistic people don’t tend to be that neurotic. Stereotypes—ugh.

Although Eysenck’s work strongly influenced thinking about personality traits, many of you might ask, “Is two enough?!?” Many theorists aren’t convinced.

Five Factor Model

Some researchers speculated that those two personality traits (extroversion and neuroticism), while important, don’t tell the whole story. Now the dominant model is the five-factor model of personality or the Big Five, which postulates that there are five basic source traits. These source traits are extroversion, neuroticism (let’s give Eysenck his due), openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. These form the basis, the fundamental building blocks, of personality. Openness to experience is the degree to which one welcomes novel experiences or likes the same old things and also includes inquisitiveness. I think about my mother, who was high in openness to experience. She always wanted to travel, visit new places, try new foods, and read National Geographic! I contrast this to my dear friend’s mother, who is fairly low in openness to experience. She likes the same restaurants over and over again, has a more limited diet, and believes that everything she needs to be happy is right on Long Island! Agreeableness is just what you would think. The agreeable person is easy to get along with, kind, empathic, and sympathetic; where the less agreeable person is, well, less easy to get along with, etc. Conscientiousness is a person’s sense of responsibility and is a big predictor of job performance and success. The highly conscientious person gets the job done, is very reliable, and sees things through. The person low on conscientiousness tends not to show up, is less reliable, and really doesn’t get the thing done. Think of yourself on all of these dimensions. What kind of person are you? Where are you on extroversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness? We are all different.

Criticisms of Trait Theory

Although traits may be remarkably stable over time, there has been a debate about the degree to which they are stable across situations. Is our behavior more a function of situations or personality? This is one of the great debates in psychology. It’s likely that our behavior really is a function of who we are (traits) and the situations in which we find ourselves. Another criticism of trait theory is that it’s not really a theory. How do these traits emerge and what determines them? There has been some research to suggest that some of these trait differences may be due to genetics and to physiological differences between individuals.

So there you have it. These four approaches, or perspectives, have been used to help us understand individual differences among human beings. This is personality psychology—Although there’s a lot more to learn.

 

Do You Remember?

Test your memory by matching the terms to their definitions.


Social
Introduction

Social psychologists study how people think, feel, and behave in social situations. In thinking about social psychology, I’m going to emphasize two broad areas. First, social cognition is the study of the mental processes involved in making sense out of our complex social environment. Second, social influence is the study of the impact of situational factors and the social environment on individual behavior. Let’s get started!


Overview: What is Social Psychology

Social Cognition

Person Perception

One of the first things we have to do when we meet new people is to size them up, form judgments, and draw conclusions about their characteristics, motives, and goals. This is a process known as person perception. Person perception is an active process, where we are collecting new information about people on an ongoing basis. Your perception of another person is going to depend on their characteristics, your characteristics, and the situation in which you find yourself. Here are some of the key principles in person perception.

Person Perception Key Principles
It’s subjective. Your impressions of others are unique to you and are not necessarily a response to their actual characteristics. You and your friends may perceive the same person in very different ways.
Goals will determine the kinds of information you collect about other people. For example, if you are looking for a prom date, you may be looking for certain kinds of information. Perhaps you will want someone who’s attractive, fun to be with, knows how to dance, and might impress your friends. On the other hand, if you are looking for a lab partner in chemistry, you may be looking for very different kinds of information. Perhaps you will want someone who’s really smart, scientifically oriented, collaborative, and well-organized. You may not particularly care about whether they are fun or attractive or able to dance!
Social norms. In most situations we are judging people against our social norms—our expectations for appropriate behavior in particular social situations. These norms differ greatly depending on the situation. For example, a person who behaves in a particular way at a sports game may be judged very harshly for behaving in that same way at a wedding.
Self-perception. How you see yourself influences how you see others. For example, if you’re a very self-confident person, you may develop favorable impressions of other highly self-confident people. If you’re not feeling so good about yourself and have low self-confidence, those kinds of people may not look quite so positive or inviting.
Social Categorization

One of the things that we often do is use mental shortcuts when we are making judgments about other people. Social categorization is the process of placing people into groups based on some kind of shared characteristic (for example, race, gender, sports affiliation, religious background, occupation). One thing to remember is that when we’re perceiving people, we’re taking in a huge amount of information, so we tend to take mental shortcuts. Social categorization is one of the shortcuts. It may be efficient in certain ways, but it can lead to assumptions about others that are quite inaccurate or completely inaccurate!

Related to social categorization are implicit personality theories. An implicit personality theory is a type of schema. Schemas are those sets of knowledge about particular topics. These schemas help us organize information in memory. An implicit personality theory is a schema about what attributes, traits, and characteristics hang together. A common implicit personality theory is about physical attractiveness. People often think that physically attractive people also have many other positive characteristics, like personality and intelligence. Research suggests that those gorgeous people really have few personality differences from the rest of us; so, the physical attractiveness idea is not really borne out.

So, we go around perceiving people in the world around us. What else are we doing when we are perceiving the social world?

Attributions

In addition to perceiving people, we are trying to understand the causes of their behavior, and we are also trying to figure out our own behavior on an ongoing basis. Attribution is the mental process of figuring out the causes of other people’s and our own behavior. Researchers have identified three biases that frequently come up when we are making attributions about the causes of behavior.

First is the fundamental attribution error. This is our tendency to see the behavior of others as due to internal, stable, and personal characteristics; we tend to underplay the role of the situation a person is in when understanding their behavior. So, for example, when you are driving and another person cuts in front of you, you may be more likely to say, “What a selfish person!” rather than, “She must be running late this morning.” We tend to see behavior as evidence of the personality rather than the situation the person is in.
Second is the actor-observer discrepancy. When we are looking at our own behavior, we tend to attribute it to situational causes, whereas when we are looking at the behavior of others, we tend to attribute it to internal personality causes. When we are driving and cut in front of someone else, we may be likely to say, “The traffic today is horrible, I’m running late, and I really needed to get into that lane.” When we see the other person cut in front of us, we tend to think, “That person is a terrible driver with little regard for other people’s needs.” We use one set of rules for understanding our behavior and another for the other person! In some ways this is understandable, as we have much more information on our own situation than that of others.
Third is the self-serving bias. This is when we are judging our own behavior. The self-serving bias is our tendency to attribute our successes to internal causes and our failures to external causes. If I get a bad grade on a test, I am likely to think, “The professor is terrible and this exam was very unfair”; when I get a good grade on a test, I am likely to think, “I’m such a smart person and I really am academically inclined!” I give myself credit for my successes but blame the situation for my failures. Now we may laugh at the self-serving bias in some ways, but it really is a sign of good health. Dr. Dan Gilbert studied these sorts of biases, and he refers to them as part of the “psychological immune system.” Given that we live in a world where we are constantly challenged, we could let these situations make us feel bad about ourselves and damage our mental health. The psychological immune system includes those mental processes that help us maintain a positive image of ourselves, including the self-serving bias.. Think of it this way, you live in a world that’s ready to knock you down, so you do things to keep yourself standing tall. This is the psychological immune system at work. Interestingly, people who have depression do just the opposite. They tend to attribute their successes to situational factors (e.g., “I guess I just got lucky that the professor gave an easy exam”) and their failures to personality characteristics (e.g., “I guess I really am pretty stupid”). One of the things we do in therapy with people with depression is to try to change that negative way of thinking—boosting that psychological immune system.

Attribution Theory
Attitude Formation and Expression

As we go about the social world, we are also tasked with evaluating objects, people, and issues. We are forming attitudes. Our attitudes toward particular objects, people, or issues may be positive, negative, or ambivalent (that is mixed).

Those who study attitudes regard them as having a number of characteristics. We can talk about the ABC model for understanding attitudes.

15 ABC model of attitudes

A is for Affective—how we feel. Our attitudes are influenced by our emotions about the topic at hand. B is for Behavioral—how we act. C is for Cognitive—how we think. So we can think of attitude formation from this ABC model.

Let’s apply the model using the example of attitudes toward gun control. You may all have different attitudes on gun control, and my goal here is not to say whether they are wrong or right! You have your own attitudes and opinions. So, let’s think of both the pro-gun control and anti-gun control position through the ABC model. The person who has anti-gun control attitudes is likely to have certain kinds of affective reactions. She may feel afraid for her family’s safety. She is likely to have certain kinds of behaviors, such as keeping a loaded gun at hand or at home for protection or lobbying her congressperson to vote against gun control measures. She is likely to have certain cognitive reactions or beliefs, for example, “guns make people safer.” Now let’s think about the person who is pro-gun control. He may fear that an accident with a gun could happen—an affective component (fear). He may refuse to have guns in his home and make sure his children only play at houses where the families do not have guns—a behavioral component. He may believe that guns make us less safe—a cognitive or belief component. So, the idea here is that attitudes are not just our thoughts, but they involve feelings, behaviors, and thoughts (affective, behavioral, and cognitive).

Do We Act Out Our Attitudes?

We may have attitues about many things, but we don’t necessarily act on our attitudes. There’s actually research to suggest that people’s attitudes are not necessarily a very good predictor of their behavior. So when do we act in accordance with our attitudes? We are most likely to act on our attitudes in the following situations:

When our attitudes are very extreme. Let’s say that I am very anti-gun control. I have an extreme attitude that there should be no controls on guns, because any controls violate our Second Amendment (of the Constitution) rights. I may be more likely to join the NRA (National Rifle Association) and own guns than someone with a less extreme attitude. Let’s say that I’m a very pro-gun control advocate. I have an extreme attitude that all guns are dangerous and should be strictly limited. I may join organizations that lobby to limit guns, and I may attend marches against guns. I don’t mean to say that either of these attitudes is wrong, but you’re more likely to act out your attitudes when you have a more extreme position. Unfortunately, this means that in the political world, those in the middle are less likely to be involved in the debate! Our debates get framed by the more extreme positions. Those who examine these issues are Political Psychologists.
When our attitudes have been formed through direct personal experience. Let’s say that I defended my family against an intruder by threatening that intruder with a gun. I’ve had an up-close personal experience where guns made me safer; I’m more likely to act on my attitudes in support of guns. Perhaps I contact my congressperson to support gun rights legislation. On the other hand, let’s say that I experienced a terrible tragedy where someone close to me was killed in an accident with a gun. I’ve had an up-close personal experience where guns made me feel a lot less safe. I’m more likely to act on my attitudes against guns. Maybe I contact my congressperson to support legislation limiting guns.
When we are particularly knowledgeable. When we have a lot of knowledge, we are more likely to follow up on it. If I can tell you all about different gun laws in the United States, the history of guns, the different types of guns, rates of violent crime, etc., I’m probably more likely to act on my attitudes about guns, either pro or con.
When we have a particular personal interest in the matter. Let’s say that I’m a gun collector, I am probably more likely to act on my attitudes about guns.
When we expect that other people around us will respond favorably. If I expect others to applaud me for my involvement in movements to either limit guns or to promote access to guns, I am more likely to get involved. We are all influenced by our expectations for how we will be received and either supported or frowned upon by others.
So, we now have an idea of when our attitudes are likely to be expressed, that is, when attitudes influence behavior. But does it ever go the other way around? Are there times when our behavior changes our attitudes? This may seem like a strange question, as we frequently think of attitudes influencing behavior, but not the other way around. However, it can happen. Let’s talk about cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is an unpleasant state of affairs where two different thoughts or ideas are inconsistent. It can also occur when our behavior and our beliefs/ideas don’t match up. Llet’s think of some examples:

Cognitive Dissonance Examples
Let’s say that you have a very strong attitude about cheating on tests—you think that cheating is a terrible, immoral behavior that undermines the value of your college education and your own personal accomplishments. But then you find yourself taking a very hard class, let’s say chemistry, and there is this one girl in the class who is what I will call the curve breaker—while everyone else is getting a C on the exams, she always comes out with an A. It’s hard to like this girl! One day on a particularly difficult exam, you notice that she is sitting right in front of you and you can easily see her exam paper. Almost without thinking, you find yourself looking at her answers and copying them. After the exam you experience that awful uncomfortable state of affairs that is known as cognitive dissonance. You have this conflict inside—“I can’t stand cheaters, but I am one.” So what do you do to resolve this nasty internal state known as cognitive dissonance? You may change your attitude. You begin to think, “Well, in general cheating is pretty bad, but in some situations it’s understandable, particularly in courses that are designed to make people fail.” What’s happened here is that you adjusted your attitude to be more consistent with your behavior. So cognitive dissonance can lead to attitude change. This can happen when our attitude and our behavior are inconsistent or it can happen when two attitudes are inconsistent.

As another example, some years ago same-sex marriage became legal in the state of Massachusetts and was followed across the United States. During that time, many people were still ambivalent about same-sex marriage. For many years of our history, people who were gay were frequently “in the closet.” So, many heterosexual people thought that they didn’t know any gay people! Many of them did not support same-sex marriage, as they knew almost no gay people (or so they thought). As more and more people came out of the closet, heterosexual people were more likely to know a gay person. One of the biggest predictors of support for same-sex marriage was knowing someone who is gay! I think this is an interesting example of cognitive dissonance. If the person said, “Well, I don’t believe in same-sex marriage,” this butted up against the idea of equality of opportunity (or in this case, “my friend has a right to get married just like I do”). To resolve this cognitive dissonance, people changed their attitude about same-sex marriage. I’m not saying this is the only factor that contributed, but I think it may have been an important one.

 

Prejudice

We can define prejudice as negative attitudes toward a particular social group. Research suggests the prejudice is often based on an exaggerated notion that members of that particular social group are very different from members of our own social group. So, what has social psychology told us about the nature of prejudice? Here are some major findings:

Major Findings
Prejudice is based on a type of social categorization known as a stereotype. This stereotype includes characteristics that are associated (at least in the mind of the person holding the stereotype) with all members and that are often unrelated to the actual objective criteria for the group. For example, we may think of particular groups as being “violent,” “sneaky,” or “lazy,” although none of these are objective criteria for defining the group.
Sometimes people think that “positive” stereotypes are fine. I would argue that they are not; and research suggests that they can have many ill effects. Nobody really wants to be stereotyped, as they’d rather be taken as an individual rather than as some representative of a group. For example, I think of a friend of mine who was a tall black man, and it was assumed that he was therefore good at basketball. But he was terrible at basketball, and he did not enjoy people assuming that he was good at it! Being good at basketball is not a negative stereotype, but if it doesn’t fit the person, it feels pretty uncomfortable. Another example is the stereotype that Asian individuals are good at math; these types of “positive” stereotypes can actually have negative effects on performance! Again, better to be evaluated as an individual.
One of the effects of stereotyped thinking is it affects what we do see and what we don’t see. Take a look at the slide below. It illustrates what happens to information when we have prejudice based on stereotypes.
As you can see, when we get information that is consistent with that stereotype, we tend to notice and remember it, and the prejudice grows stronger. On the other hand, when we are presented with information that is inconsistent, we are less likely to notice and remember it, and our prejudice is less likely to be affected by it. Overall, we tend to look for information that confirms the previous bias.
Prejudice and the processing of information
Moving From Stereotype Tendency to Full-on Prejudice—How Does This Happen?

There are a number of tendencies at play.

Categorizing people into in-groups and out-groups. An in-group is the one that you belong to—“us.” An out-group is the one you don’t belong to—“them.” Separating the world into “us” and “them” makes it a lot easier for the “us”es to see the “them”s as very different. This is one of the tendencies we can drift into.

Out-group homogeneity effect. There is also a tendency to see “them” as very similar to one another. “They are all like that,” “we (the in-group members) are different from one another, but they are all the same,” and the extreme “they all look alike.” These are examples of the out-group homogeneity effect. People look less like individuals and more like a threatening homogeneous mob.

In-group bias. This is the tendency to see “us” as superior to “them.” We may be more moral, more creative, more principled, more intelligent, etc. (at least in our own minds). One example of in-group bias is something called ethnocentrism or a belief that our particular ethnic group is superior to others and therefore the standard against which all others are judged. It is not hard to think about times in history when other cultures were conquered because they were seen as “savages”—an extreme example of ethnocentrism.

Ultimately, prejudicial attitudes fit into the ABC model. There are affective (emotional) components, and this usually involves fear of (feeling threatened by) the other group. One feels threatened by the outsiders (the out-group) and fears that one’s way of life is under assault. There are behavioral components: prejudice often leads to discrimination, which can range from mildly demeaning language and behavior all the way to physical threats and worse. There are also cognitive components, including beliefs about the others’ deficits and one’s own superiority.

I think one of the most important things to remember about prejudice is that it is ultimately something that we can all engage in. It is likely that we all do regularly! We have a tendency as human beings to engage in social categorization, leading to the development of stereotypes (type of schema). These stereotypes then guide what we notice and what we remember. So rather than saying, “No, not me, I’m not prejudiced!” we would be better served to look inside of ourselves on a regular basis and think about our social categories, our assumptions, and our biases.

Stereotype Threat

kids of different races in classroom
In thinking about prejudice and stereotypes, we often think about what leads people to develop these, but we might also question what their impact is on individuals. Discrimination is the result of behaviors that others engage in toward out-group members that deny them opportunities and/or rights.

Stereotypes can have more subtle effects as well. Most of us, and I would say all of us, are subject to some stereotypes. Here are some common stereotypes: women are bad at math; African Americans are poor students; Latinos are best at manual labor; white men are not as athletic as some of the groups; Jews are focused on making money. These are all stereotypes that are unfair and extreme. None of us would want to be a victim of this kind of stereotyping! Are you aware of stereotypes that are directed at groups to which you belong? How might people stereotype you? What happens to us when we are the subject of one of these or many of the other nasty stereotypes out there in the world? Does being the object of the stereotype impact us? Research suggests that it does. I’d like for you to watch the following video about something we call stereotype threat.


Escaping the Threat...
When Does Stereotype Threat Occur?

Stereotype threat occurs when individuals are cued or prompted to remember their group identification and associated stereotypes and then to conform to these stereotypes. Experiments by Katz (United States) and Watson (London) found that when Black students were given tests, they performed lower when they were told the tests were a measure of intelligence. The particular term “stereotype threat” was first utilized by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1995) when they conducted a series of experiments showing that Black college students performed more poorly than white students on standardized tests when their race was emphasized, but performed better and equivalent with whites when race was not emphasized. The cue may be as simple as noticing that you are the only one of your group in the room (e.g., the only African American, the only woman, the only person of color, the only international student, the only elderly person, etc.) or being asked to note your age, gender, or ethnic/racial background on the test before you begin taking it. This may activate the negative stereotype in your head and change your performance.

group of students from HBO's show Dear White PeopleFrom HBO's show, Dear White People
What are Some Impacts of Stereotype Threat?

Decreased performance. This is one I’ve already mentioned. Although IQ is fluid and can vary from test to test, it can certainly be impacted by stereotype threat.
Attributing failure to the self. As an example, women under stereotype threat have been shown to attribute their failure to individual factors more so than men. They may tend to assume something that they’ve done was wrong.
Reactance. As I noted previously, individuals performed worse when stereotypes were “primed”—where they were cued to attend to these stereotypes at the outset. This may be especially true for high-achieving individuals.
Ironic effects. Sadly, stereotype threat results in individuals behaving in a manner opposite to what they may have intended. For example, whites who were told that they were going to discuss race with Black students chose to sit further away.
Self-handicapping. Stereotype threat may lead individuals to create barriers to which they can attribute their possible failure, including not preparing or not using a lot of effort in completing the tasks and thus leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Task discounting or questioning the validity of the task or trait being assessed. Women who are good in math were likely to say that the test was an inaccurate measure of their ability when under stereotype threat.
Distancing the self from the stereotyped group. Individuals may express less interest in activities stereotypically associated with their group or stay away from a group member who might confirm a stereotype.
Changing professional identities and aspirations.
Not expressing interest in fields of study or careers where they face stereotype threat (even though such fields might come with greater monetary reward or be associated with higher social status). Women are less likely than men to go into computer science, for example.
Contemplating switching career paths because they face stereotype threat in their area. For example, undergraduate females in majors dominated by men reported higher levels of stereotype threat and were more likely to think about changing their majors.
Combating Stereotype Threats

Think Back to the Video
Remember the video from the previous page? (If not, go back and take a look.) What were some of the examples of stereotypes that the young people reported had impacted their behavior via stereotype threat?

One young man noted how being the only white athlete in a competition reminded him of stereotypes of white men not being as athletic, and how he had to fight that stereotype and still do his best. Another student in the video noted how she was the only Black woman in many of her courses at Stanford and this made her more anxious about her performance. Stereotype threat can actually increase the likelihood that one will confirm that stereotype!

Who’s Vulnerable to Stereotype Threat?

Everyone!! Although this may happen more frequently to groups about whom there are many stereotypes, most of us belong to some groups that are stereotyped, so we may all be vulnerable to the effects of stereotype threat. Think about the stereotypes for your own group(s). The following factors can also influence one’s vulnerability.

Membership in a group
Caring about doing well in the stereotyped area*
Extent to which you identify with the group*
Awareness of the stigma affiliated with one’s group
Belief that one will be judged based on stereotypes
How to Combat Stereotype Threat

black girl dreaming
A number of approaches can be used to counter stereotype threats. Actions such as the following meet that requirement:

Self-affirmation – remind yourself of your characteristics, skills and strengths; view yourself as an individual.
Find role models/mentors.
Surround yourself with a diverse group of individuals so that you reduce your likelihood of being the only representative of a group.
Remember that there are common difficulties that everyone might experience while completing a task.
View skills/intelligence as growing and changeable, not fixed. We call this a growth mindset!!
Positive Stereotypes

We’ve talked a lot about negative stereotypes, but what if there is a positive stereotype about your group? Interestingly, having a positive stereotype about your group can also have an impact on you, but this time in a positive direction. This is known as stereotype boost. For example, some research has shown that Asian students may benefit when asked their race/ethnicity prior to taking an exam. There are many stereotypes of Asian students as particularly smart and capable academically, and they may benefit from this stereotype in an academic situation. However, how much you identify with the group may impact how much of the stereotype threat or stereotype boost you may experience. If you have high identity with the group, you can experience more of each—more stereotype threat from being reminded of the negative stereotype and more stereotype boost when reminded of the positive stereotype. All in all, stereotypes can have a big impact on all of us.

 

Social Influence

Social cognition focuses on the mental processes involved in helping people understand the social world. In social influence we are interested in the impact of situations and other people on individual behavior. We are going to spend the rest of module five focused on social influence.

Let's think about a little history. Social psychology research began to rise in prominence following World War II. During this period, the atrocities committed by human beings against others who were perceived of as different made many people wonder how human beings could behave in this way toward one another. Social psychologists sought to understand some of the factors involved.

Conformity

Solomon Asch
Solomon Asch
D-janous [CC BY-SA 4.0]
One construct that psychologist became interested in studying was that of conformity. How could people conform to ideas and behaviors that were blatantly wrong or false? One of the people who began to study conformity, was Solomon Asch. He was an American social psychologist who did pioneering work. What do we mean by conformity? Conformity is when one adjusts one’s behavior, beliefs, and attitudes to fit with others' expectations and group norms. Conformity can be in response to real group pressure or imagined group pressure.

So what did Solomon Asch do?

He used a very simple task to try to study conformity. I think his study designs are an interesting example of how social psychologists work. Asch had participants come to his lab and told them that they would be working with a group of other participants on a perceptual task where they would judge the length of some lines. The participants were told that they would be shown a target line and were to indicate which of three lines was the same length. It was a relatively simple task. Interestingly enough only one of the “participants” in the group was an actual subject in the experiment, and all the other participants were “confederates” (people who were actually on the researcher's team). The confederates all gave their responses first, and then the actual subject gave his last (note that all Asch’s subjects were male. So what would the actual subject do when everyone else in the group said something blatantly wrong? If the subject could clearly see that the two lines were of different length and the other members of the group insisted that they were the same, would he “conform” to the group opinion? Or would the subject disagree with the group? It was an interesting way to study conformity. Asch also included a control group who did not experience this social situation but responded to the items alone. There were 12 total trials (the participants made 12 judgments).

So what did Ash find?

He found that 75% of participants went with the wrong group decision at least once (they conformed to perceived group pressure) and 25% never did so; overall, across 12 trials, 36% of responses conformed to the wrong answer. Those in the control condition gave a wrong answer about 1% of the time. Based on his post-experiment interviews with participants, he concluded that there were two main reasons that people conformed:
The first is what we call normative social influences. People conform because they want to be accepted by others. In other words, we conform because we want people like us!
The second is what he we call informational social influence. Particularly when we are not sure of our perceptions, we rely on others to provide us additional information. How many of you have ever been unsure of what you were saying and so asked someone else to confirm it? Probably most of us. So the idea of informational social influence is that we conform because we want to be correct.
Conclusions and Limitations

Now one thing that is important is that there may be powerful cultural factors that impact conformity. For one thing, conformity has decreased in our society since the 1950s, which is when Solomon Asch did a lot of his work. People may be less likely to conform now.

That said, it is important to point out that even in the Asch experiment most people did not conform most of the time – there were 12 trials for each participant, and only 5% conformed regularly (on all trials); a little over 36% conformed in the majority of trials; 25% never did and the rest conformed on some trials only. There are likely to be BIG individual differences in conformity.  Indeed, although Asch’s studies appeared to underscore the power of conformity, one could also argue that 95% of participants refused to conform on at least one occasion!  Perhaps we could say that lack of conformity was the norm!

There is also a lot of research to suggest that the degree of conformity may vary greatly by culture. Our culture in the United States is a very individualistic culture. We value the individual, independence, self-expression, and nonconformity. Think of the image of the cowboy riding out onto the range, doing his own thing, being his own man (or let’s say person, or, well, in the Asch experiments and many others, man). Other cultures are more collectivistic and place a higher value on the group; Japan is a good example. In collectivistic cultures, individuals emphasize the importance of getting along, working with others, and fitting in. The group is highly valued and respected. Japan is more of a “we” culture than a “me” culture; the USA is a “me” rather than a “we” culture for sure. You can imagine that there are differences in conformity between these different cultures. This is not to say that people in collectivistic cultures don’t have their own opinions, but they may be more likely to publicly conform while still privately maintaining their own attitude/belief/perception. Collectivistic cultures may value tact more than individualistic cultures. So conformity may differ by culture and be influenced by specific cultural goals and values.

Further of interest is that individuals in more diverse groups may conform less. Asch’s research with all White men in a particular time frame.  People are more likely to conform when the real or imagined pressure is from people they see as similar to themselves.  Diverse groups on average yield less conformity. In addition to the make up of the group, many other factors also are associated with conformity, including fear of negative evaluation, position in the social hierarachy, and numerous other factors.

Obedience

Flowing from work on conformity came the work of Stanley Milgram.

Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist and his work was highly controversial. He was interested in understanding why individuals would obey a destructive authority. He did a series of very controversial studies to examine this. So let me spend a few minutes telling you about Stanley Milgram’s experimental strategy (or what we call paradigm) for studying obedience.

Solomon Asch
Paulr [CC BY-SA 3.0]
Milgram advertised for participants on a study of the “impact of punishment on learning.”
The participant arrived at his lab at the university, where Milgram (a tall imposing fellow) was wearing a white lab coat over his shirt and tie. Another subject (oops, actually a confederate, who was on Milgram’s team) was also there.
The two subjects drew straws to see who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner”—but the drawing was rigged so that the actual subject always had the “teacher” role.
The teacher was then informed that he/she would be engaged in a simple word-pair memory task where the learner had to learn the pairs, and when provided the first word would then have to remember the second in the pair. The teacher was supposed to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity for wrong answers.
In his original experiments, Milgram placed the learner behind a barrier where the teacher could not see the learner. As the experiment commenced, the learner was shocked with an electric current of increasing magnitude for wrong answers. If the teacher expressed reservations about the procedures, Milgram would say “you have no choice, you must continue.”
The real question here is would the participants in the teacher role refuse to continue or would they go all the way to 450 volts, which was the top of Milgram’s shock machine. Now please know that no actual shocks were ever administered to the learner, but the teacher thought that they were really administering shocks. The behavior of the learner was very clearly laid out in the experimental method—at first the learner would register discomfort, then complain of increasing pain, then scream in an agonized fashion, and finally fall silent.
Now, prior to the original experiments, Milgram asked psychiatrists and other professionals and college students what they thought would happen. All predicted that Milgram subjects would refuse to obey. So what did happen? In his original study fully two thirds of the subjects went all the way to 450 volts! His subjects obeyed a destructive order to willfully inflict pain on a complete stranger. One of the reasons that these experiments were so controversial, is that participants were exposed to a horrible ethical dilemma, and some found it deeply disturbing. How do you think you would feel participating in such an experience?  Indeed, experiments like the Milgram one have contributed to changes in our research ethics and oversight.

If you want to learn more about Milgram, take a look at this video:


Milgram Obedience Study


Let’s look at some of Milgram’s later adaptations of his paradigm to look at additional questions. In this table you can see that the percentage of people who went all the way to the maximum shock varied depending on the conditions. When the experiment was moved from the university to a regular office building (a decrease in status), the percentage decreased; when the learner was in the same room as the teacher, the percentage decreased; when the teacher had to force the learner’s hands down onto a shock plate, the percentage decreased; when the experimenter left and gave instructions by phone, the percentage decreased; when the experimenter left and asked his graduate student to take over his role, the percentage decreased; importantly, when the teacher saw others in an adjacent room refusing to continue, the percentage decreased a lot; and then there were always a few who went all the way even when they had a choice (you’ve got to wonder about those people).

Based on his work Milgram was able to make numerous conclusions about factors that impacted the likelihood that individuals would obey a destructive authority. I’d like you all to think about some atrocities that have occurred since that time. Let’s focus for a moment on events at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This is a horrible prison where Saddam Hussein took prisoners and tortured them; unfortunately, it appears our troops also did some torturing of their own. How might Milgram’s conclusions apply in that situation? Here are some conclusions:

A previously established framework to obey. In Milgram’s experiments the participants had agreed to participate/cooperate with the experimental procedures. Think about how that previously established framework to obey might impact soldiers working in a prison. Remember you need to obey your commanders. That’s basic.
The situation or context in which the obedience occurred. In Milgram’s experiments, participants were often familiar with scientific investigations and the experimenter wore a lab coat emphasizing his authority and expertise. In the case of Abu Ghraib prison, the individuals who are imprisoned were expected to be pretty bad folk.
Gradual repetitive escalation. In the case of Milgram’s experiments, participants were not asked to start at 450 V; they started a much lower level and gradually increased over time. When you gradually increase, when is the level too much? Where do you draw the line? When dealing with the prisoners, when does setting firm limits become aggressive, become torture? Where you draw the line?
Behavior/reassurance for authority. In the case of Milgram’s experiments, some participants said that they could no longer be responsible for what happened and that it was his responsibility; however, they were the one administering the shocks! The experimenter said you must go on, you must continue. This kind of pressure from an authority figure can be difficult. In the case of the Abu Ghraib prison, some soldiers said they were “just following orders.” Soldiers are required to carry out lawful orders, but not unlawful ones.
Physical/psychological separation between the teacher and the learner (or the torture and the one being tortured). In the case of Milgram’s experiments, the closer the teacher and the learner were the less likely the teacher was able to escalate the shocks. Having to look at and see the humanity of the person makes it hard to continue. In the case of Abu Ghraib prison and many other sad atrocities, the dehumanization of the other person is a central feature. Would you be able to torture someone who you saw as equally human as you? If that person can be dehumanized and seen as less than a person, it’s a lot easier to torture them.
So how do we reduce the likelihood that people will obey a destructive authority? Here’s what Milgram would say:

Reduce the buffers between the teacher (the one doing the harming) and the learner (the one being harmed).
Increase the distance of the experimenter (the destructive authority figure) and the teacher (the one who is supposed to obey).
Finally, seeing others willing to put themselves out there and refuse to obey destructive authority gives other people the strength to also resist. We can probably all think of examples of this across the course of history.
Helping Behavior

Next let’s talk about something a bit more upbeat—helping behavior! First, and unfortunately, I’d like to tell you a sad story, so take a look at this video.

cas_ps101_19_su2_mtompson_mod5_social_psychology video cannot be displayed here. Videos cannot be played from Printable Lectures. Please view media in the module.

One of the things Darley and Latane pointed out was that in many situations people do help. People help in big and small ways all the time—helping an elderly person who was having trouble crossing a street, giving money to a stranger who was in desperate need—the list goes on! If you want to feel better about humanity, see this story about acts of kindness.

Bystanders are those people who observe a situation where help is needed. Do they help or not? What Latane and Darley were really interested in are the factors that contribute to bystanders helping and not helping. What are some factors that make it more likely someone will help? Here are a few:

Factors that contribute to helping behavior
“Feel good, do good” effect. Let’s say something positive just happened in your life, for example you got a promotion at work that day. If you’re walking home through Central Park and you see someone who’s just fallen down, you might be more likely to help than you would if you hadn’t gotten that promotion. You feel good and you’re going to do good.
Feeling guilty. On the other hand, feeling something not so fun like guilt can spur us to help others.
Seeing others who are willing to help. Maybe this is partly that informational social influence. We see others stepping up to help and this lets us know that help really is needed. It could also be normative social influence—we don’t want others to think we are uncaring!
Perceptions of deserving help. Sometimes homeless people aren’t perceived as deserving help—some people think they created their own situation; I don’t agree. People are much more likely to give money to help someone who they think is deserving.
Knowing how to help. EMTs are more likely to volunteer in a medical situation on the street than those of us who know nothing about emergency medicine!
A personalized relationship. Now, of course, you’d help your own mother (at least I do hope so)! But you’d also be more likely to help someone you smiled at a minute or two earlier as you passed in the park than someone you hadn’t smiled at. Even a small personal connection can make us more likely to help.
So we know some factors that increase helping. What factors decrease helping?? Here are some:

We’ve talked about helping behavior, how it can be increased and decreased. Let’s move to another topic—What are some other ways that the presence of others can influence individual behavior?

Factors that decrease helping behavior
Other people! The bystander effect is the fact that the more people there are present, the less anyone in particular will help! Seems counterintuitive, but it is real. A few factors may be at play here: Diffusion of responsibility—the responsibility for helping is divided by the number of people who observe it, and if there are many people observing, any one person has a very small piece of the overall responsibility pie. Also, we don’t want to look silly (normative social influence) and we want to make sure we are behaving correctly (informational social influence).
Being in a big city (plenty of evidence) or very small town (less evidence, but some).
Unclear, ambiguous situations. People often note a lack of interest in becoming involved in spousal abuse situations. It’s not clear that one’s help is wanted.
High personal costs. Let’s say you think getting involved will take a lot of time or money—maybe you just look away.
So, let’s move on to a more cheerful topic—Well, maybe. What are some other ways that the presence of others can influence individual behavior?

Other Factors Influencing Individual Behavior

Social Loafing

Have you ever noticed that folks seem to work less hard on a group project than an individual one? This is called social loafing; it is particularly strong when the project is one where individual contributions cannot be distinguished. However, social loafing can be reduced when:

The members of the group are people we know well. We tend not to loaf then!
We highly value the group. My sons work hard with their church youth group!!
The task is meaningful. Folks who volunteer for Habitat for Humanity are building a home for a needy person—they work hard on that task!
Social Facilitation

Sometimes the presence of other people can enhance individual performance. The sprinter may get a personal record on the day of the meet—faster in front of the crowd than when in practice. However, this facilitation only happens on simple tasks (e.g., if I asked you to count by 2s—a very easy task—in front of your peers) or on very well-rehearsed tasks. If you are doing a very complex or not well-rehearsed task in front of others, anxiety is likely to LOWER your performance—think of young children’s music performances.

Deindividuation

When individuals are part of a larger group and they feel anonymous, they may engage in more irresponsible or antisocial acts. Inhibitions are reduced and the individual is spurred on by others. For example, individuals may engage in violent behavior in a crowd. Or, think Halloween night when, traditionally, youth come together in costumes and engage in antisocial pranks. Increasing self-awareness can reduce deindividuation.

So, we’ve finished our tour of social psychology! There is so much more to learn about the individual in context! Enjoy!

 

Review and Reflect