Robert P. Abelson, Kurt P. Frey, Aiden P. Gregg
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM A550CIATE5, PUBLISHERS
Mahwah, hew Jersey London
 |
| Experiments With People: Revelations From Social Psychology |
The fact that we are aware of our own beliefs, feelings, and desires
does not automatically make us experts on where they come from. Introspection
is therefore an unreliable guide to how the mind works, reflecting
cultural truisms rather than providing infallible insights.
Our intuitive theories about how things are subtly shape our memories
for what has been. Thus, we unknowingly reconstruct the past in terms of
the present rather than simply remembering the past in its original form.
Although we are fairly adept at predicting how events will make us feel,
we overestimate how long those feelings, especially when unpleasant,
will last. One reason for this is that we possess a psychological immune
system that, over time and without our knowledge, softens the
impact of life's trials and tribulations.
Our group loyalties and preconceptions cause us to perceive events
and other stimuli in a biased manner. One consequence of this is that
partisans on both sides of an issue tend to overestimate bias in media reports.
People avoid risks when they stand to gain, but take risks when they
stand to lose. Consequently, how a choice is framed, in terms of loss
or gain, can influence how people choose, over and above the objective
consequences of choosing one way or the other.
If you wish to change somebody's opinion, subtly induce them to act
at odds with it while letting them think they did so of their own free
will. This tactic works because people readily rationalize objectionable
actions for which they feel responsible by adjusting their attitudes to match them.
When people voluntarily undergo an unpleasant experience to
achieve something, they come to value that something more, not
less. This helps explain why people become committed members
of groups even when membership entails considerable initial sacrifice
and offers scant subsequent reward.
Receiving a reward for doing something makes people want to do it
more. However, when the reward is withdrawn, people want to do it
even less than they did before receiving the reward.
People deceive themselves by acting so as to create signs that everything
is well even when they cannot make everything well. They then
deny that they have acted in this way because admitting as much
would imply that those signs are bogus.
Attempts to bring about a desired mental state tend to backfire if people
are distracted or preoccupied. Under such circumstances, they would be
well advised to abandon the attempt, or, even better, to try not to bring
about that the mental state, as this will ironically tend to bring it about.
How we feel about a person (or any other stimulus) is influenced by a
host of factors, but most basically, it is governed by mere exposure.
We tend to like people more the more often we encounter them.
Social psychologists use technical tools, not subjective interpretation,
to tell more about people than they are willing or able to say about
themselves. Using such tools, they can detect underlying prejudice in
people who explicitly deny it, and predict subtle forms of discrimination.
Although the hidden persuaders are the stuff of fiction, stimuli presented
outside of awareness can nonetheless have surprisingly profound
effects on thoughts, feelings, and behavior. In particular, merely
calling to mind thoughts about social groups can improve or worsen
intellectual performance.
Although our expectations of people are based on their behavior, it is likewise
true that their behavior is the result of our expectations. Simply believing
that someone is attractive will lead to their actually being attractive.
We make sense of ambiguous novel situations by using superficially
similar past experiences as a guide, often making unwarranted inferences
as a result. For example, belief in personal telepathic ability can
be mistakenly engendered by a recent experience of close rapport
(good vibes) with others.
Although commonsense suggests that we suspend belief or disbelief
until after we have understood a message, research shows that, initially,
belief accompanies understanding, and that doubt follows later
only if mental resources and motivation are sufficient.
Gbiquitous and hard-to-resist norms shape social life. As a result,
groups exert tremendous normative influence over their members
that only a few brave souls can defy.
Small, subtle, seemingly trivial situational variables often have a greater
impact on behavior than do the personality variables that we more
readily, but often mistakenly, regard as influential. Something as simple
as time pressure can impact something as vital as compassionate behavior.
The more witnesses there are to an emergency, the less likely it is that
any one of them will help. This is because individuals are often not
privy to others' reactions, or because they do not feel uniquely responsible
for preventing tragic outcomes.
When moved by empathy, people help not because they are motivated
to avoid the guilt that would result from not helping, nor, it
seems, for any other selfish reason. Rather, they help with the ultimate
goal of benefitting other people.
The power of the situation can incline people to willingly obey authority
figures, with the result that they sometimes commit the most
abominable and appalling of acts.
Being immersed in a group can lead to heightened arousal, a sense
of anonymity, reduced self-awareness, and the automatic modeling
of others' behaviors. Such a state of deindividuation can result in unrestrained—
often aggressive and destructive—behavior.
We assume that a person's behaviors reflect fixed traits and underlying
attitudes, when we should perhaps pay more attention to factors in
the physical and social environment. In the case of our own behavior,
we are more apt to recognize situational pressures.
The mere presence of others enhances performance on simple tasks
but impairs performance on complex tasks. This can occur even in
the absence of complex mediating cognitions.
People, as well as groups and institutions we are socially connected
to, are part of our identity and impact our self-esteem. We personalize
their successes and failures, trumpeting the former and distancing
ourselves from the latter.
Gender stereotypes do not only arise from perceptions of actual gender
differences. They also arise as ways of rationalizing the different
social roles that men and women occupy.
To love another person means, among other things, to include that
person in one's self. This involves perceiving, characterizing, and, critically,
allocating resources to that person in much the same way one
does one's self.
Social exclusion causes aggression. People ostracized by others are
mor likely to hurt those who offend them, and even those who do not.
Introduction
Welcome! This book provides an opportunity to explore the fascinating,
underpublicized, and sometimes misunderstood subject of social psychology.
In it, twenty-eight intriguing studies that throw light on human social
thinking and behavior are reviewed. These studies, mostly laboratory experiments,
address topics such as people's unawareness of why they do
what they do, the tenacity with which they maintain beliefs despite contrary
evidence, and the surprising extent to which they are influenced by the social
groups to which they belong. The results of these studies help the
reader understand many social phenomena that would otherwise remain
deeply puzzling, such as the operation of unconscious prejudices, belief in
mental telepathy, intense loyalty to questionable groups, the occasional
cruelty and indifference of ordinary people, and the nature of love relationships.
We chose to include each study because, in addition to being ingeniously
designed and carefully executed, it raised a question of theoretical
significance or addressed a problem of practical importance.
This volume is not a reader—we do not reproduce (lawyers take note!) any
of the original journal articles. Rather, each chapter offers a detailed exposition
of, and commentary on, a single study (though often citing closely related research).
We first introduce the problem that the researchers sought to solve
("Background"). We then describe how the study was conducted ("What They
Did") and what its findings were ("What They Found"). Next comes a "So
What?" section, the purpose of which is to persuade anyone inclined to view
the study as trivial that his or her misgivings are unfounded. We continue with
an "Afterthoughts" section, in which we discuss some of the broader issues
that the study raises, of a conceptual, practical, or ethical nature. Finally, each
chapter concludes with an explicit statement of the unique "Revelation" that
each study affords, often a profound and counterintuitive truth.
One of our goals in writing this volume was to make a convincing case
for the use of experiments in social psychological research. Colloquially,
the word experiment refers to the trying out of some new idea or technique.
Our usage is more technical: It refers to the random assignment of
many subjects—here human participants—to different groups (condixi
underpublicized, and sometimes misunderstood subject of social psychology.
In it, twenty-eight intriguing studies that throw light on human social
thinking and behavior are reviewed. These studies, mostly laboratory experiments,
address topics such as people's unawareness of why they do
what they do, the tenacity with which they maintain beliefs despite contrary
evidence, and the surprising extent to which they are influenced by the social
groups to which they belong. The results of these studies help the
reader understand many social phenomena that would otherwise remain
deeply puzzling, such as the operation of unconscious prejudices, belief in
mental telepathy, intense loyalty to questionable groups, the occasional
cruelty and indifference of ordinary people, and the nature of love relationships.
We chose to include each study because, in addition to being ingeniously
designed and carefully executed, it raised a question of theoretical
significance or addressed a problem of practical importance.
This volume is not a reader—we do not reproduce (lawyers take note!) any
of the original journal articles. Rather, each chapter offers a detailed exposition
of, and commentary on, a single study (though often citing closely related research).
We first introduce the problem that the researchers sought to solve
("Background"). We then describe how the study was conducted ("What They
Did") and what its findings were ("What They Found"). Next comes a "So
What?" section, the purpose of which is to persuade anyone inclined to view
the study as trivial that his or her misgivings are unfounded. We continue with
an "Afterthoughts" section, in which we discuss some of the broader issues
that the study raises, of a conceptual, practical, or ethical nature. Finally, each
chapter concludes with an explicit statement of the unique "Revelation" that
each study affords, often a profound and counterintuitive truth.
One of our goals in writing this volume was to make a convincing case
for the use of experiments in social psychological research. Colloquially,
the word experiment refers to the trying out of some new idea or technique.
Our usage is more technical: It refers to the random assignment of
many subjects—here human participants—to different groups (condixi
tions) where these groups are treated identically except in one or a few
crucial respects (the independent variable[s]). The impact of these independent
variables on how participants think or act (the dependent variables)
is then assessed—did the manipulation have an effect?
Experiments have a unique advantage in that they allow causal inferences
(i.e.,Xcauses Y) to be made with confidence. They also permit alternative
explanations for a phenomenon to be efficiently ruled out. Although we
do not claim that experimentation provides absolute knowledge, we do
claim that it enables researchers to better distinguish between viable and
untenable theories about the mind and behavior. Indeed, when the findings
of social psychological studies come in, the pitfalls of commonsense
are often shockingly exposed.
Two issues seem to cling to any discussion of psychological experimentation:
ethics and artificiality. First, ethics. Social psychologists are often
depicted as monsters in lab coats who do not scruple to take advantage of
unsuspecting participants. (Indeed, perhaps the very title of this volume,
"Experiments With People," sends a shiver down some spines!) This depiction
is a perversion of the truth. Social psychologists are, in fact, acutely
sensitive to the impact of their procedures on participants. It is common
practice, for example, to tell participants in advance what will happen in a
study, and to obtain their informed consent. Moreover, before any study
can be carried out, an independent ethics committee must first approve it.
Such precautions are all to the good, but it should be noted that the majority
of social psychological studies, even those that involve deception, rarely
raise ethical concerns. Most participants regard them as interesting and informative
ways to spend half an hour, and are often found afterwards chatting
amiably with the experimenter. This gives the experimenter the chance
to debrief participants thoroughly (let them in on the purpose of the study),
as well as to obtain feedback from them. Human participants are the lifeblood
of social psychology, so researchers are understandably keen to
make participation as appealing as possible.
Second, artificiality. Criticism of the experimental method has centered
on the claim that, because laboratory settings do not, for the most part, resemble
the real world, they do not tell us anything about it. This criticism is
specious for several reasons (see Mook, 1980). Primary among them is
that artificiality is necessary if ever one is to clear up what causes what, because
the only way to get rid of confounds (extraneous factors that might
complicate interpretation) is to strip phenomena down to their bare essentials.
For example, suppose you wish to test whether the metallic element
potassium burns brightly (as it does). Unfortunately, because of potassium's
chemical reactivity, it is always found in nature as a salt. Consequently,
to test the hypothesis that potassium per se burns brightly, you
must first artificially purify potassium salts by electrolysis, in case the other
elements with which potassium is combined obscure its incandescence, or
turn out to be misleadingly incandescent themselves. In a similar manner,
to test any hypothesis about social thinking or behavior, you must first purify
the phenomenon of interest in an experimental laboratory, in case the
ebb and flow of everyday life obscure its true nature, or misleadingly create
the impression that its true nature is other than it actually is.
Artificiality is only a drawback if researchers are seeking to generalize their
findings immediately to a specific setting or group of people (as is done in
applied research). However, researchers spend much of their time testing
general theories or demonstrating classes of effects. This is a worthwhile enterprise
because our knowledge of what generally causes what enriches our
understanding of specific problems and suggests more effective solutions to
them. In any case, social psychological experiments are not always artificial,
nor is everyday life always real. The studies featured in this volume, for example,
have participants doing a variety of interesting things: they lie to others,
submerge their hands in ice water, recall their menstrual symptoms, try to
send telepathic messages, contemplate the personalities of the fictional inhabitants
of a faraway planet, offer assistance to epileptics, and prepare to
deliver a sermon. We daresay that such artificial activities are no less real than
many everyday activities, such as flipping hamburgers, driving cars, or
watching television (Aronson, Wilson, & Brewer, 1998).
What would happen if social psychologists were to study only everyday experiences
in people's lives? Years ago, Barker (1965) pioneered what he called
the ecological approach to human behavior. He and his colleagues had the
goal of recording the activities of people in a small Kansas town using large
numbers of observers stationed in various strategic locations. Much data was
collected in grocery stores, on park benches, near soda fountains, and so on.
Although the observations collected added up to a number of curious factoids
about what really went on in this small town, almost none of these contributed
significantly to our general knowledge of human nature. The laboratory is the
place to create conditions that put theoretical positions to the test.
On a more personal note, the writing of this book has been, by turns,
challenging and gratifying, frustrating and exhilarating. It began when fate,
and a common passion for chess, brought the three of us together at Yale
University; it has ended, years later, with us living and working continents
apart. The process has had its fair share of ups and downs. We sometimes
clashed over which studies to include, which issues to address, and which
conclusions to draw—hardly unexpected, given the differences in our
ages, areas of expertise, and perspectives on life. Yet, through mutual
openness, a willingness to compromise, and a principled commitment to
democratic decision making, we ultimately succeeded in turning into a reality
a wild idea that struck one of us while out for a jog. (Little did that jogger,
KPF, realize what he was letting himself or the rest of us in for!)
Moreover, we believe that this book distills our common wisdom and insight,
for, as we collaborated, we could not help enriching each others'
knowledge and understanding and curtailing each others' biases and oversights.
We are consequently confident that the following pages present an
enlightened and evenhanded account of experimental social psychology,
past and present. Although our book may well have featured different or
additional studies—we preemptively apologize to any researchers who feel
unjustly sidelined—we nonetheless flatter ourselves that the studies we do
showcase make a prize package. Enjoy!
Please visit our website at: http://www.experimentswithpeople.com
Screenshot
Purchase Now !
Just with Paypal
Just with Paypal
Product details
Price
|
|
|---|---|
File Size
| 20,885 KB |
Pages
|
373 p |
File Type
|
PDF format |
ISBN
| 0-8058-2896-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 0-8058-2897-4 (pbk. : alk. paper) |
Copyright
| 2004 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc |
Table of Contents
Introduction xi
1 Strangers to Ourselves: The Shortcomings
of Introspection
Nisbett, R. E., & Bellows, N. (1977). Verbal reports about causal
influences on social judgments: Private access versus public theories.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 613-624.
2 Mythical Memories: Reconstructing the Past in the Present
McFarland, C, Ross, M., & DeCourville, N. (1993). Women's theories
of menstruation and biases in recall of menstrual symptoms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1093-1104.
3 Tahing the Edge Off Adversity: The Psychological
Immune System
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., &
Wheatley, T P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in
affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617-638.
4 Believing Is Seeing: Partisan Perceptions of Media Bias
Vallone, R. P., Ross, L, & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media
phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias
coverage of the "Beirut Massacre." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
5 Frames of Mind: Taking Risks or Playing Safe?
Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T, Detweiler, J. B.,
& Salovey, R (1999). The systematic influence of gain- and loss- framed
messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1355-1369.
6 Clashing Cognitions: When Actions Prompt Attitudes
Festinger, L, & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of
forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-10.
7 Baptism of Fire: When Suffering Leads to Liking
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation
on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
8 Taking the Magic Out of the Markers: The Hidden Cost
of Rewards
Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining
children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the
'overjustification' hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.
9 The Calvinisms Conundrum: Unconsciously Engineering
Good Omens
Quattrone, G. A., & Tversky, A. (1980). Causal versus diagnostic
reasoning: On self-deception and the voter's illusion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 237-248.
10 Pitfalls of Purpose: Ironic Processes in Mood Control
Wegner, D., Erber, R., &Zanakos, S. (1993). Ironic Processes in
the mental control of mood and mood-related thought. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1093-1104.
11 Familiarity Breeds Liking: The Positive Effects of Mere
Exposure
Mita, T. H., Dermer, M., & Knight, J. (1977). Reversed facial images
and the mere-exposure hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 597-601.
12 Beneath the Mask: Tools for Detecting Hidden Prejudice
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C, Johnson, B., & Howard,
A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled
processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510-540.
13 I Think, Therefore I Act: Priming Intelligence
With Social Stereotypes
Dijksterhuis, A., &van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between
perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865-877.
14 What Did You Expect?: The Behavioral Confirmation
of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
15 Good Vibes: Insights Into Belief in Mental Telepathy
Ayeroff, F., & Abelson, R. P. (1976). ESP and ESB: Belief in personal
success at mental telepathy. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36, 240-247.
16 The Eye Is Quicker Than the Mind: Believing Precedes
Unbelieving
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W, &Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not
believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 221-233.
17 Going Along to Get Along: Conformity to Group Morms
Asch, S. E. (1955, November). Opinions and social pressure.
Scientific American, 31-35.
18 The Unhurried Samaritan: When Context Determines
Character
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A
study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
19 Who, Me?: The Failure of Bystanders to Intervene
in Emergencies
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in
emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
20 Love Thy Neighbor or Thyself?: Empathy as a Source
of Altruism
Batson, C., Dyck, J., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J., Powell, A., McMaster,
M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic
alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52-77.
21 Just Following Orders: A Shocking Demonstration
of Obedience to Authority
Milgram, S. (1963). The behavioral study of obedience. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
22 Hooded Hoodlums: The Role of Deindividuation
in Antisocial Behavior
Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L, & Kelem, R. T. (1976).
Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween
trick- or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.
23 The Burglar's Situation: Actor-Observer Differences
in Explaining Behavior
West, S. G., Gunn, S. R, & Chernicky, P. (1975). Ubiquitous
Watergate: An attributional analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 55-65.
24 Of Cockroaches and Men: Social Enhancement
and Inhibition of Performance
Zajonc, R. B., Heingarter, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social
enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 83-92.
25 "We're Number One!": Basking in Others' Glory
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thome, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S.,
& Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football)
field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
26 Ackmians Are From Mars, Orinthians Are From Venus:
Gender Stereotypes as Role Rationalizations
Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or
rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197-208.
27 When Two Become One: Expanding the Self to Include
the Other
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close
relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.
28 The Wrath of the Rejected: Being Shut Out Makes One
Lash Out
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001).
If you can't join them, beat them: The effects of social exclusions on
aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.
Revelations 339
Author Index 343
Subject Index 353
●▬▬▬▬▬❂❂❂▬▬▬▬▬●
●▬▬❂❂▬▬●
●▬❂▬●
●❂●
═════● ●═════
