Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian 4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian
4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Visit to Download in Full: https://testbankdeal.com/download/psychology-fourth-canad
ian-canadian-4th-edition-wade-solutions-manual/
08_wade_ch08.qxd 4/2/12 3:56 PM Page 278
Chapter 8: Behaviour in Social

and Cultural Context
Learning Objectives 279

Chapter Outline 280
Lecture Suggestions and Discussion Topics 293
8.1: Suggestions for Reducing Racism
8.2: Explaining Correspondence Bias
8.3: Bad Guys Wear Black
8.4: What Do You Think You’re Doing?
8.5: Jonestown: A Study in Social Psychology Change
Classroom Activities, Demonstrations, and Exercises 298
8.1: What Constitutes a Group?
8.2: Reactions Speak Louder Than Lectures
8.3: Self-Serving Bias
8.4: Identify the Bias
8.5: From Roommates to World Peace
8.6: Identifying Persuasion Techniques
8.7: Deindividuation
8.8: Self-Awareness and Cultural Identity
8.9: Demonstrating Group Polarization
8.10: Is This Sexual Harassment?
8.11: Guest Lectures on Diversity
Out-of-Class Assignments and Projects 303
8.1: Stanford Prison Study on the Web
8.2: Experiences of Prejudice
8.3: Celebrating Cultural Similarities
8.4: Sometimes You Have to Break the Rules
8.5: Social Psychology in Film
8.6: Ethnicity and Subculture in Film: Boyz n the Hood
Assignments—Additional PH Supplements 305
APS Reader: Current Directions in Introductory Psychology 305
8.7: Autobiographical Memory and Conceptions of Self
8.8: Citizens’ Sense of Justice and the Legal System
8.9: Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment
8.10: Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup Biases
Debate 306
8.1: Was Stanley Milgram’s Study of Obedience Unethical?
Multimedia Resources 307
Video Classics CD-ROM 307
8.1: Obedience to Authority
8.2: The Bystander Effect
278 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Live!Psych 307
8.3: Attributions
8.4: Conformity
8.5: Prejudice
Lecture Launcher 307
8.6: Understanding Riots
8.7: Prejudice and Discrimination
Web Resources 308
Video Resources 309
Transparencies with Lecture Notes 315
Handouts 320
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, students should be able to do the following:
1. What are the distinctions among a norm, a role, and a culture? How does each shape social behaviour?
2. What are four reasons why people obey the commands of an authority figure?
3. What is the difference between a situational attribution and a dispositional attribution, and how does
the fundamental attribution error highlight this distinction?
4. What are six conditions under which coercive persuasion should be effective?
5. Under what circumstances is groupthink likely to occur?
6. How do diffusion of responsibility and deindividuation each predict antisocial behaviour by individu-
als in a group?
7. What are six situational factors that predict acting courageously in the face of opposition?
8. What is ethnic identity, and how might it contribute to ethnocentrism?
9. How do stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination differ from one another?
10. What are three broad origins of prejudice?
11. What are four ways of measuring prejudicial attitudes?
12. What are four conditions that promote the reduction of prejudice and intergroup conflict?
Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 279

I. Introduction to the Chapter

A. Social psychology and cultural psychology—
fields that examine the influence of social
and cultural environment on individuals
and groups
B. Norms—rules about how we are supposed
to act
C. Roles—positions in society that are
regulated by norms about how people in
those positions should behave
D. Culture—program of shared rules for people’s
behaviour in a society (e.g., expected gender
roles, rules for conversational distance)
II. Roles and Rules
A. The Obedience Study by Milgram
1. Design and findings
a. Question—would people obey an
authority and violate their own
ethical standards
b. Participants thought they were in
an experiment about learning and
were instructed to shock another
participant [confederate] when an
error was made
c. No one received shocks, but the
subjects did not know this
d. All participants gave some shock;
two-thirds obeyed the experimenter
and gave all the shocks despite cries
of pain
e.
Subsequent studies found
disobedience occurs when:
i. The experimenter left the room
ii. The victim was right there in
the room
iii. Two experimenters issued
conflicting demands
iv. An ordinary man, not authority
figure, issued commands
v. Peers refused to go further
2. Conclusions
a. Obedience is a function of the
situation, not of personalities
b. The nature of the relationship to
authority influences obedience
3. Evaluating the obedience study
a. Criticisms—unethical because
subjects felt great distress
afterwards
b. The conclusions have been
questioned—some personality traits
do increase obedience, invalid
parallel with Naziism
c. It increased awareness of the
dangers of uncritical obedience
B. The Prison Study by Zimbardo
1. Design and findings
a. College students randomly assigned
to be prisoners or guards

b. Given no further instructions on

how to behave
c. “Prisoners” quickly became
distressed, helpless, and panicky
and begged to be let out of the
study
d. Guards acted like guards; one-third
became tyrannical
e. Researchers terminated the study
early
3. Evaluating the prison study
a. Critics said students knew how to
behave from the media
b. Researchers say that is their point—
people’s behaviour depends, in
part, on their roles which can
overrule personality and values
c. Results are similar to events at
Abu Ghraib prison
C. Why People Obey
1. People obey because they believe in the
authority’s legitimacy and to avoid
negative outcomes and gain positive
ones
2. Why people obey when it’s not in their
interest or violates their values
a. Allocating responsibility to the
authority—investing the authority,
not themselves, with responsibility

b. Routinizing the task—the activity as

routine; normalizing it
c. Wanting to be polite—people lack
the words to disobey
d. Becoming entrapped—commitment
to course of action is escalated
III. Social Influences on Beliefs
A. Social Cognition
1. How the social environment influences
thoughts, beliefs, and memories
2. How people’s perceptions of themselves
and others affect their relationships
B. Attributions
1. Attribution theory—the explanations
we make of our behaviour and the
behaviour of others
2. Two types of attributions:
a. Situational attributions—identify
the cause of an action as something
in the environment or situation
b. Dispositional attributions—identify
the cause of an action as something
in the person, such as a trait or
motive
c. Fundamental attribution error
i. Tendency to overestimate
dispositional factors and
underestimate the influence of
the situation when explaining
someone else’s behaviour
ii. More prevalent in Western

nations related to notions of
individual responsibility
d. Self-serving bias
i. When explaining one’s own
behaviour, people take credit
for good actions and attribute
the bad ones to the situation
ii. Also affected by culture
e. Just-world hypothesis
i. The need to believe the world is
fair and that good people are
rewarded and bad people are
punished
ii. This can lead to blaming the
victim
3. Attributions, whether accurate or not,
influence emotions, actions, decisions
C. Attitudes
1. Relatively stable opinions containing a
cognitive element and an emotional
element
a. Explicit attitudes—attitudes we are
consciously aware of
b. Implicit attitudes—attitudes we are
unaware of, yet they influence our
behaviour
2. Not always based on reason; can be
based on conformity, habit,

rationalization, economic self-interest,

generational events
3. Attitudes change
a. Attitudes change due to new
experiences
b. Attitudes can change to achieve
consistency; to reduce cognitive
dissonance (when two attitudes or
an attitude and a behaviour conflict)
4. Attitudes are also influenced by other
people trying to persuade us
a. Friendly persuasion—what works
and what doesn’t
i. Validity effect—repetition
increases positive feelings about
a subject and the likelihood that
a statement will be believed
ii. Exposure to an argument from
someone admired
iii. Linking message to good
feelings
iv. Fear, in contrast, often causes
people to resist arguments that
are in their own best interest
(e.g., campaigns against drugs)
D. Persuasion or “Brainwashing”?
1. 1994-1997: 70 members of the Order of
the Solar Temple involved in murder-
suicide

Methods of persuasion are neither

2.
sudden nor mysterious
a. Coercive persuasion
b. The person is subjected to
entrapment
c. The person’s problems are
explained by one simple attribution
d. The person is offered a new identity
and is promised salvation
e. The person’s access to disconforming
(dissonant) information is severely
controlled
IV. Individuals in Groups
A. Conformity
1. Asch’s conformity study—replications
of this study have found that:
a. Conformity has declined since the
1950s
b. People in individual-oriented
cultures conform less than people in
group-oriented cultures
c. Regardless of culture, conformity
increases under certain conditions
2. People conform for a variety of reasons
including identification with group
members, popularity, self-interest, and
to avoid punishment
3. Conformity has good and bad sides, but
it can suppress critical thinking

B. Groupthink
1. Tendency for all members of the group
to think alike and suppress dissent
2. Occurs when a group’s need for total
agreement overwhelms its need to make
the wisest decision
3. Symptoms of groupthink
a. Group has an illusion of
invulnerability
b. Group self-censors
c. Group pressures dissenters to
conform
d. Group creates an illusion of
unanimity
4. Groupthink can result in faulty, even
disastrous, decisions
C. The Wisdom and Madness of Crowds
1. Diffusion of responsibility
a. The more people who are around
when a problem occurs, the less
likely one of them will offer
assistance
b. Individuals fail to act because they
believe someone else will do so
c. May explain why crowds of people
fail to respond to an emergency
which is often interpreted as
bystander apathy

Deindividuation
2.
a. Losing all awareness of
individuality and sense of self; long
considered a prime reason for mob
violence
b. Increases a person’s willingness to
do harm, to cheat, break the law
c. Eliminates gender differences in
aggressiveness
d. Can also increase friendliness and
self-disclosure
e. Current explanation—people are
more likely to conform to the norms
of the specific situation
3. Anonymity and responsibility
a. Deindividuation has psychological
and legal implications
b. Are individuals responsible for
“deindividuated” crowd behaviour
D. Altruism and Dissent
1. Altruism—the willingness to take
selfless or dangerous action for others
2. Reasons for altruistic action include a
combination of conscience and
conviction and situational influences
3. Steps involved in disobedience, dissent,
and altruism
a. Perceive the need for intervention
or help; this is influenced by

attentional demands, community

needs, cultural rules
b. You have an ally
c. You become entrapped
V. Us versus Them: Group Identity
A. Ethnic Identity
1. We all have personal identity based on
particular traits and unique history and
a social identity based on the groups we
belong to
B. Ethnocentrism
1. People tend to hold the belief that their
own culture is superior
2. Influence of social identities
a. Social identities give us a place and
position in the world
b. They also create “us” or ingroup,
versus “them” categories
c. Us-Them identities are strengthened
when the groups compete
d. Competition can have positive and
negative results
i. Can lead to better services,
products, inventions
ii. Can decrease motivation,
increase insecurity and anxiety,
anger and frustration, jealousy
and hostility

iii. Interdependence in reaching

mutual goals (cooperation) can
reduce competitiveness and
hostility
C. Stereotypes
1. Summary impression of a group in
which all members of that group are
viewed as sharing common traits that
may be positive, negative, or neutral
2. Help us process new information,
retrieve memories, organize experience,
make sense of differences, and predict
how people will behave
3. Stereotypes can distort reality in three
ways:
a. Exaggerate differences between
groups
b. Produce selective perception
c. Underestimate differences within
other groups
4. Can stem from cultural values and
influence how an action is evaluated
VI. Group Conflict and Prejudice
A. Prejudice
1. A negative stereotype and a strong,
unreasonable dislike or hatred of a
group or its individual members
2. Resists rational argument and evidence;
resistant to change

B. The origins of prejudice

1. Psychological causes (e.g.,
scapegoating—the projection of fears
and problems onto one group)
2. Social causes (e.g., some acquired
through groupthink and pressures to
conform)
3. Economic causes (e.g., justify the
majority group’s dominance)
4. Cultural and national causes
(e.g., ethnocentrism)
C. Defining and measuring prejudice
1. Implicit prejudices
a. Measures of social distance
b. Measures of what people do when
they are stressed or angry
c. Measures of brain activity
d. Measures of implicit attitudes
D. Reducing conflict and prejudice
1. Both sides must have equal status,
economic opportunities, and power
2. Authorities and community institutions
must endorse egalitarian norms and
provide moral support and legitimacy
for both sides
3. Both sides must have opportunities to
work and socialize together
4. Both sides must cooperate, working
together toward a common goal

VII. The Question of Human Nature

A. What Is Human Nature and Its Role in
Behaviour?
1. History is full of both heroism and
atrocities
2. From standpoint of social and cultural
psychology, all humans have the
potential for good and bad
B. Banality of Evil
1. Often behaviour depends more on
social organization than human nature
2. No culture is wholly virtuous or
villainous
VIII. Taking Psychology with You
A. Dealing with Culture Differences
1. Be sure to understand the other
culture’s social rules, manners, and
customs
2. When in Rome, do as the Romans do—
as much as possible!
3. Avoid stereotyping

LECTURE SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS
Lecture/Discussion 8.1: Suggestions for Reducing Racism
According to some writers, the difference between prejudice and racism (broadly defined) is the differ-
ence between individuals and systems. While prejudice is carried in the minds and actions of individuals,
racism is perpetuated across generations by laws and treaties, group norms, and customs. It is present in news-
papers, textbooks, and other communication media.
A prevailing cultural racist ideology constantly provides the “informational” support and social
endorsement for discrimination, despite personal evidence of its invalidity and injustice. Such ideas become
unquestioned assumptions that are seen not as biased opinions or distorted values but as self-evident truths.
They are a major contributor to racial differences in the quality of employment, housing, schooling, health
care, and nutrition. They also contribute to crime and violence and, in other cultures and other times, have
led to “holy wars.”
Overt Racism Under the banner of the “white man’s burden,” colonialists exploited the resources of black
Africa. In addition, American Indians were deprived of their land, liberty, and ecological niche in the United
States by newly arrived European immigrants whose desires for wealth, homesteads, and new frontiers were
in conflict with the “menace of the red savages.” The “yellow peril” was another slogan to set people’s think-
ing against Americans of Asian ancestry. After exhausting their usefulness as laborers on the railroads, in
mines, and in other manual jobs, the labour groups mounted campaigns to deport the Chinese, to deprive
both them and Japanese immigrants of the rights and privileges of American citizenship. Over 100,000
Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps in the Western states at the start of World War II.
Their property was sold at small return, and millions of dollars of their money were held by the government
and used by American bankers for thirty years without any interest. Nothing comparable was done to those
of German or Italian ancestry.
When a group becomes the target of prejudice and discrimination, it is socially segregated, preventing
normal interchange and destroying or blocking channels of communication. This isolation, in turn, allows
rumors and stereotypes to go unchecked, fantasies to surface and grow, and the perceived “strangeness” of
the group to increase over time. The isolation of Native Americans on reservations and the racially segre-
gated housing patterns in our cities increase the alienation between groups and prevent both reality-checks
and casual interaction.
Covert Racism The public opinion poll is one way of assessing the extent of racism in a society. If you can
believe what people say, negative stereotyping and hostile attitudes of whites toward blacks in the United
States are decreasing. Americans seem to be changing their attitudes about racial integration.
Many Americans of all races, while almost wholly opposed to busing to achieve integration, favor the
changing of school boundaries to achieve a more heterogeneous racial mix (31 percent) or the creation of
housing for low-income people in middle-class neighborhoods (18 percent). However, nearly one in five of
those surveyed did not endorse any plan for desegregation. Attitudes often are not readily translated into
behaviour.
Are overt expressions of prejudice diminishing or merely being suppressed? Measures of covert racial
prejudice use content analysis of public media to discern if the same old attitudes are still present, but under
wraps. One study deserves to be highlighted for the subtle form of covert racism it reveals, so subtle that you
have probably been exposed to it and never realized its impact on your thinking.
A blind psychology professor, Raymond Rainville, found that while listening to live broadcasts
of professional football games, he was able to identify the race of the players even though it was
never mentioned. Rainville reasoned that the white announcers were communicating messages
about basic racial differences, perhaps at an unconscious level.
Transcripts of the televised commentaries of sixteen NFL games were analyzed according to a
variety of content categories. The researchers compared descriptions of a black and a white play-
er of the same position who had comparable performance statistics, such as running backs O. J.
Simpson and Larry Csonka. Players were designated as “Smith” or “Jones,” and names of teams,
teammates, and cities were disguised. Three independent raters were able to identify each player
correctly as black or white on eleven of twenty-five rating categories.

All differences found were favorable to whites and unfavorable to blacks. Whites were sig-
nificantly more often:
a. recipients of sympathy, positive focus, and play-related praise,
b. described as perpetrators of aggression, and
c. credited with positive cognitive and physical attributes.
Blacks were more often described as:

a. being the recipients of aggression and
b. having a negative, nonprofessional record, such as problems in college or with police.
All of these players were exceptional athletes. Yet, the white players were described as active
causal agents on the field and the black players as passive objects moved by external forces.
Reducing Racism Once established, prejudice and racism are relatively resistant to extinction because of
the several needs they may serve for the individuals and the group and the many conditions that may encour-
age and maintain existing attitudes. We have a few clues, but have been woefully ineffective so far in over-
coming this serious social problem.
1. Change actions. Research has shown that contact between antagonistic groups can promote better
intergroup relations and lessen existing hostilities if, but only if, many other factors are favorable. Mere
exposure does not help and is more likely to intensify existing attitudes. Positive changes as a result of
contact are most likely to occur when the contact is rewarding rather than thwarting, when a mutual
interest or goal is served, when status is equal, and when the participants perceive that the contact was
the result of their own choice.
2. Change the rules and the reinforcements. Although “righteousness cannot be legislated,” a new law or
regulation provides a new system of rewards and punishments and can thereby create a new social
norm, which then becomes a powerful influence on individuals to conform to the new pattern. The same
results may be achieved by more informal agreements to change “ground rules.”
3. Change the self-image of victims of prejudice. Young people who are targets of prejudice may be “inoc-
ulated” against its crippling psychological effects. Young people can be helped to develop and demon-
strate their real potentials if they establish a sense of pride in their origins, history, and group identity.
The “Black is beautiful” slogan represents an effective, nonviolent application of this approach, as do
“Gray Power” and “Gay Power.”
4. Change competitive encounters to cooperative ones. Environments that foster interpersonal competition
are often breeding grounds for envy, jealousy, hostility, and self-derogation. By creating conditions in which
students must depend on one another to learn required material, teachers can help overcome some inter-
racial conflicts that exist in traditional classrooms. When every member’s contribution is equally valuable,
students feel like partners rather than competitors, and those in desegregated settings can discover the
advantages of sharing knowledge and friendship with “equal and interdependent” peers regardless of race,
creed, or sex.
Lecture/Discussion 8.2: Explaining Correspondence Bias

The correspondence bias, sometimes called the fundamental attribution error, has intrigued social psycholo-
gists for decades. It refers to the tendency of social perceivers to overestimate the dispositional causes of an
actor’s behaviour, or, conversely, to fail to adequately take the effects of the situation into account. That the
correspondence bias can take place has been established; why this uneven assignment of causality takes place
has not. Although several explanations have been offered, no satisfactory explanation of correspondence bias
has been agreed upon.
Dan Gilbert, at Harvard University, has addressed this question and offers a compelling explanation for
the correspondence bias. Rather than being a unitary process, the act of inferring another’s traits, attitudes,
or attributes is a multi-stage process. First, some categorization of the behaviour takes place (“Nick is yelling
at Reggie”), followed by a characterization of the behaviour (“Nick is a hostile fellow”), and then a correc-
tion of the inference that takes into account information about situational constraints (“But Reggie just
punched and insulted Nick”). When these processes are allowed to run to completion, people ought not to

commit the correspondence bias; their initial characterizations (trait inferences) of behaviour can be cor-
rected by the application of situational information. The problem is that the three stages do not involve the
same amount of mental work. Categorization and characterization are relatively automatic, effortless tasks,
but the process of correction is a more controlled, effortful process. Disruptions to this sequence of events,
then, are more likely to affect the correction stage, because disruptions will usurp the cognitive resources
needed to adequately correct for the effects of the situation. Specifically, when made cognitively busy (doing
simultaneous mental tasks) social perceivers should be unable to adequately correct their initial characteri-
zations, and so be left with attributions heavily weighted toward the actor’s dispositions.
To test this process Gilbert and his colleagues showed research participants videotapes of a very anxious
woman. The viewers were told that the woman was discussing anxiety-provoking topics, such as her sexual fan-
tasies and public embarrassments she had endured. Most participants categorized the behaviour as anxious-
ness, characterized the woman as suffering from manifest anxiety, but then corrected their attribution to
account for the situation. However, when subjects were asked to simultaneously perform another, resource-
consuming task (i.e., memorizing the discussion topics prompting the woman’s anxiety as they scrolled across
the bottom of the video screen) they were unable to correct their initial attributions, and were left committing
the correspondence bias. These cognitively busy participants believed that the woman actually was disposi-
tionally anxious. Ironically, the information that could have been used to correct that judgment (memorizing
the discussion topics) was the very information that limited their ability to correct their judgments.
These effects of cognitive busyness have been demonstrated in a number of domains. For example, the
cognitively busy act of trying to ingratiate oneself to someone leads a misbegotten perception of the individ-
ual. Hearing either a pro-choice or anti-abortion speech while simultaneously trying to think of a reply usurps
resources vital to correction. And when the process is disrupted earlier (by making the categorization or char-
acterization stages effortful) similar results obtain. Moving from the lab to the real world, the explanation
offered for the correspondence bias is clear. Social perception is a cognitively demanding task; without the
resources needed for correction, we may be left with mistaken, trait-based ascriptions about the individual.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet per-
sons perceived, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740.
Gilbert, D. T., McNulty, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., & Benson, E. J. (1992). Blurry words and fuzzy deeds: The attri-
bution of obscure behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 18–25.
Lecture/Discussion 8.3: Bad Guys Wear Black

Tom Gilovich, at Cornell University, has distinguished himself as a creative researcher in both social and cog-
nitive psychology, and as an avid sports fan. He has combined these interests in a set of multimethod studies
examining some causes of aggression.
Mark Frank and Gilovich started with the observation that almost universally black is seen as a colour
of evil and death. From mourning rituals to cowboy hats to heavy-metal music to being “blacklisted,” “black-
mailed,” or “blackballed,” cultures as diverse as the U.S., Germany, Hong Kong, Denmark, India, and tribes
of Central Africa agree that it is not a colour to be trifled with. So, too, in the sports world. Frank and Gilovich
looked at the association between black and badness among teams in the National Football League (NFL)
and National Hockey League (NHL).
Using archival records for the period between 1970 and 1986, the researchers calculated the number of
yards penalized among the NFL teams and the number of minutes spent in the penalty box among the NHL
teams as a measure of aggressiveness. These penalties were then compared between teams whose uniforms
were primarily black (in the NFL: Pittsburgh Steelers, Oakland Raiders, New Orleans Saints, Cincinnati
Bengals, and Chicago Bears, although the Bears actually wear dark blue uniforms; in the NHL: Pittsburgh
Penguins, Vancouver Canucks, Philadelphia Flyers, Boston Bruins, and Chicago Blackhawks) and teams
whose uniforms were not. Frank and Gilovich found that the black-clad teams reliably were more aggressive.
As a further test, the researchers also identified two NHL teams (Pittsburgh and Vancouver) who had
switched uniform colours from nonblack to black sometime during their history. Following the switch, penal-
ty minutes increased for these teams. However, this was not a mere effect of new fabric; when the New Jersey
Devils moved from Colourado their uniforms changed from blue and gold to red and green, although there
was no reliable change in the number of penalty minutes after the switch.
To explain these findings, Frank and Gilovich suggest that both self-perception and social perception
are at work. When donning a black uniform, one may see oneself as tougher, meaner, and more aggressive,
and so act in ways consistent with that self-perception. However, referees may also perceive players in dark
uniforms as tougher, meaner, and more aggressive than they actually are (given the strong cultural association

between black and badness), and so assess more penalties. To explore these explanations the researchers per-
formed laboratory experiments. In one study college students and referees watched staged football games
between teams wearing black or white uniforms. Both the students and the referees awarded more penalties
to a team when it wore black. In a second experiment, students wore either white or black uniforms before
participating in an athletic competition. Given their choice between aggressive and nonaggressive games, stu-
dents wearing black reliably chose aggressive activities.
Frank, M. G., & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of self- and social perception: Black uniforms and aggres-
sion in professional sports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 74–85.
Lecture/Discussion 8.4: What Do You Think You’re Doing?

A large part of social behaviour involves asking the simple question, “What is that person doing?” A large
part of self-perception relies on being able to answer the question, “What am I doing?” Dan Wegner and
Robin Vallacher have proposed the theory of action identification to address how people might answer both
these questions.
Actions are fundamentally ambiguous, in that they can be described in any number of ways. My actions
in composing this paragraph, for example, could be identified as “writing,” “assembling words,” “offering sug-
gestions,” “doing what’s necessary to get paid,” “describing an idea,” “typing letters of the alphabet,” or
“changing thoughts into pixels.” Action identification theory starts with this observation, and the related idea
that act identities can be arranged in a hierarchy. For any given action there are higher-level and lower-level
explanations, although “high” and “low” are comparative terms defined by their relation to one another; thus
“writing” is a higher-level identification than “typing letters of the alphabet,” but lower than “offering sug-
gestions.” The theory goes on to state that when more than one act identity is available to a person, people
tend to describe their behaviour at relatively higher levels. However, when an action is performed poorly
under one identity, the individual will adopt a lower-level identification for the action. When “offering sug-
gestions” leads to incoherent writing, I might re-identify my actions as “typing actual English-language
words.” Tasks that are novel, difficult, or complex often prompt this retreat to a lower-level identification
(Wegner, Vallacher, Macomber, Wood, & Arps, 1984).
From these simple postulates come two very intriguing predictions. First, the theory predicts the con-
trol of action. Adjusting between higher- and lower-level identities for the same action promotes the efficient
execution of the task. Identifying at too high a level (“Finish this chapter”) provides an inadequate guide for
controlling behaviour, whereas identifying at too low a level (“spell everything correctly”) leads to prema-
ture disintegration of the action. Second, the theory predicts the emergence of new action. When people are
forced to move from a higher-level to a lower-level of identification, there comes with the switch a revised
understanding of their behaviour and the establishment of new courses of action. When actions are main-
tained at a high-level of identification, the emergence of new action is unlikely.
Action identification theory has been applied in a number of domains and empirical tests have sup-
ported its propositions. For example, Wegner, Vallacher, and Dizadji (1983) constructed a hierarchy of 50
identifications for the act of “drinking alcoholic beverages,” along with instructions to rate each identification
on a 1–7 scale according to how well it described the act. The survey was administered to a group of under-
graduates (whose experiences with drinking varied widely) and to a group of inpatients at the Chicago
Alcohol Treatment Center (who had a great deal of experience with alcohol consumption). A factor analysis
revealed six factors that characterized the identifications: “rewarding myself,” “getting drunk,” “overcoming
boredom,” “relieving tension,” “hurting myself,” and a collection of relatively low-level identities, such as lift-
ing a glass, swallowing liquid, or experiencing a taste. Further analyses revealed that the inpatient sample
tended to identify this action at higher-levels, such as “relieving tension” or “hurting myself,” whereas the col-
lege sample opted for lower-level identifications. In other words, people who have performed the act infre-
quently tend to identify it in terms of its details, whereas those who are proficient skip the details and rush
headlong toward more encompassing identities. It is precisely these higher-level identities that may make
suppression of the act difficult.
In another case, however, lower-level identities sometimes were called for to successfully complete the
task at hand. Participants delivered a speech to either an easy-to-persuade audience or a difficult-to-persuade
audience, while thinking about their actions in either high-level (effects and implications) or low-level
(mechanical details of the action) terms. Speakers made fewer speech errors when the task was identified at
a high-level and was personally easy, and when the task was personally difficult and identified at a low-level.
Identifying the action at the appropriate level produced better performance of the action.

Finally, the emergence of action can be seen in a study by Wegner, Vallacher, Macomber, Wood, and
Arps (1984). Participants were invited to the laboratory to drink coffee (which was decaffeinated, unbe-
knownst to them). Some participants drank from a regular coffee cup, whereas others drank from a contrap-
tion meant to spur them to lower-level identifications. When the coffee cup was mounted on a tin can weight-
ed with rocks, participants indeed had to retreat to identifications such as “moving my arm” or “bringing the
cup to my lips.” All participants then completed a questionnaire designed to bring them to a higher-level
identification of the act. Some participants completed items suggesting coffee drinking could be seen as
“making myself seek stimulation” whereas others had the identity of coffee drinking as “making myself avoid
stimulation.” The researchers predicted that those participants who drank from the disruptive cups (and con-
sequently identified at a lower-level) would emerge with the new high-level identification suggested by their
questionnaire. This prediction was confirmed. Participants listened to music for an 8-minute period and were
told to adjust the headphone volume knob to whatever level suited them. Those low-level identifiers who
received the “seek stimulation” act identification reliably turned the volume up, just as their counterparts in
the “avoid stimulation” condition reduced the volume. Those participants who had already identified “drink-
ing coffee” at a high-level showed no such tendencies. In short, the level of action identification predicted the
emergence of new action.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1985). A theory of action identification, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and
human behaviour. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.
Vallacher, R. R., Wegner, D. M., & Somoza, M. P. (1989). That’s easy for you to say: Action identification and
speech fluency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 199–208.
Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., & Dizadji, D. (1989). Do alcoholics know what they’re doing? Identifications
of the act of drinking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 197–210.
Wegner, D. M., Vallacher, R. R., Macomber, G., Wood, R., & Arps, K. (1984). The emergence of action. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 269–279.
Lecture/Discussion 8.5: Jonestown: A Study in Social Psychology Change

In 1978 over 900 people died at the People’s Temple of Jonestown in Guyana. At the urging of Jim Jones, the
founder of the church who had led his followers from the United States to this isolated settlement in South
America, parents poisoned their children and then themselves. Afterward one question was voiced repeat-
edly: How could 900 people be induced to commit suicide? As Neal Osherow points out, the events at
Jonestown can be understood in terms of basic social-psychological concepts.
As Stanley Milgram’s research has shown, people will perform extreme acts under the instructions of
an authority figure, particularly when no one else rebels. In Jonestown dissent was severely punished, both
physically and through public humiliation. Because of informers, no one felt free to voice complaints to any-
one else. This served to isolate people and to promote the feeling that no one else had doubts. Also, the mem-
bers had been asked to commit less extreme acts in the past, followed by demands that were gradually
increased. This “foot-in-the-door” technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966) contributes to compliance and to
self-justification of that compliance.
Jim Jones also utilized excellent techniques of persuasion. Members were gradually indoctrinated
through long sermons and taught to distrust contradictory views, while at the same time outside information
was reduced. Moreover, a jargon developed that masked the true meaning of statements. These factors, cou-
pled with the prohibition of dissent, resulted in members blaming apparent discrepancies on their own inad-
equacy rather than on that of the church or Jim Jones.
One of the most puzzling aspects of this case was that many of the church members had no desire to
leave, believed in Jim Jones to the end, and committed suicide quite willingly. As Jeanne Mills, a defector from
the Temple, writes, “I am faced with an unanswerable question: ‘If the church was so bad, why did you and
your family stay so long?’” This possibility can be answered through the concept of cognitive dissonance. As
their participation expanded, members were required to sacrifice personal property and family relationships
and to experience a host of undesirable events. Making such sacrifices would be irrational if the church and
Jim Jones were bad. To reconcile the dissonance between the sacrifice and the worth of the church, members
maintained the attitude that the church was good. As the sacrifices increased, so did their belief in the church.
By the time Jim Jones called for mass suicide, many members were totally committed to him and the church,
so their obedience was not too surprising.

Although the events of Jonestown provide a wealth of examples of conformity, compliance, and obedi-
ence, they may seem somewhat remote to your students. After all, many of the people in your classes may
have been only recently born when the 1978 events took place. To bring the principles behind the events to
the present, discuss how groups such as the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, the religious cultists who met
their deaths in Switzerland in 1995, or the members of the Japanese sect Aum Shinrikyo might have operat-
ed under similar conditions.
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195–202.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Mills, J. (1979). Six years with God. New York: A & W Publishers.
Osherow, N. (1984). Making sense of the nonsensical: An analysis of Jonestown. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Reading
about the Social Animal, (4th ed.) New York: Freeman.
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EXERCISES
Activity 8.1: What Constitutes a Group?

Agans’s demonstration provides a great introduction to better understand how difficult it is for researchers
to agree on one definition of a group. However, four characteristics that distinguish groups from nongroups
are considered: interdependence; patterns of behaviour; common goals; perceived groupness.
Provide Handout 8.1 to students at the beginning of class and ask students to read each statement and
check the statement if they believe it constitutes a group, based on their personal beliefs. Calculate the num-
ber of students who checked each statement and record the numbers on the chalkboard or on an overhead.
You should find that items 4, 7, 12, 15, and 18 should yield a high number of checks, whereas items 1, 5,
10, and 19 should yield a low number of checks. Discuss some of these items with the class in terms of the
four characteristics of groups described above. To further the discussion, ask students about some of the other
items on the questionnaire. Items 8, 9, 16, and 20 relate most to interdependence of groups. Items 2, 3, 6, and
13 describe structured or patterned behaviour, although Item 13 may not constitute a group, because there is
no interdependence among “members.” Items 11, 14, and 17 may describe psychological groups that may dis-
play common goals or a sense of groupness. Be sure to note that one characteristic does not a group make!
Agans, R. P. (1999). The nature of groups: An exercise for classroom discussion. In L. T. Benjamin, B. F.
Nodine, R. M. Ernst, & Broeker, C. B. (Eds.) Activities Handbook for the Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 4 (pp.
311–313). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Activity 8.2: Reactions Speak Louder Than Lectures

There is probably no better way to demonstrate some of the principles of social psychology than to give stu-
dents the opportunity to experience the consequences of nonconformity. The student handout for this exer-
cise, which is included as Handout 8.2, assigns students to either violate a norm or enlist the compliance of
another person. The reports on the students’ experiences in completing this assignment will no doubt create
the opportunity to discuss most of the concepts within social psychology.
I. Norms: Our behaviour is controlled by unwritten standards of what is socially acceptable in given situ-
ations. Often it is only by behaving in a way that violates the normative standard that we become aware
of its existence or potency.
II. Compliance: Fundamental to social life is the necessity for individuals to comply with the requests,
needs, or demands of other individuals at least some of the time. A community where everyone did his
or her own thing, oblivious or indifferent to what others wanted, would at first seem to promote indi-
vidual freedom but might be more likely to create social anarchy and widespread frustration. “Optimal”
individual freedom often involves some measure of altruistic sacrifice in a community where others can
be counted on to do likewise. This balance between doing for others and doing what is best for oneself
is indeed a tenuous one, since we know too well that it is easy for some people to be excessively com-
pliant, to diminish their own independence by doing what they are told or, more subtly, what they are
expected to do. Part of the tragedy of Watergate involved the perversion of normal, acceptable processes

of social compliance into unquestioning compliance, which appeared in the guise of loyalty but was
more like blind obedience to authority.
Activity 8.3: Self-Serving Bias

The text describes “defensive attribution” as the tendency to attribute our successes to internal or personal
factors but to attribute our failures to situational factors beyond our control. Also known as the “self-serving
bias,” this bias accounts for the consistent human tendency to take credit for success but to deny responsibil-
ity for failure (e.g., doing well on an exam because of innate brilliance or studying hard versus failing an exam
because it was unfair or tricky; winning a game because of athletic prowess versus losing a game because “the
referees were blind”). Dunn (1989) notes that students often have trouble recognizing the self-serving attri-
butional bias in their own behaviour, especially when it extends beyond the internal-external dimension
related to success and failure on a particular task. To illustrate this bias to your students in a context other
than task success or failure, try the following exercise suggested by Dunn. At the end of the class period prior
to the one in which you’ll introduce the self-serving bias, tell students that during the next class you will be
talking about the self-concept and that you want to collect some data to use in that discussion. Ask them to
take out a sheet of paper and to draw a line down the middle. Tell them to label one column “strengths” and
the other “weaknesses” and then to list their personal strengths and weaknesses. Emphasize that their
responses are anonymous and that they should not put their name on the sheet. Collect the sheets and before
the next class compute the mean number of strengths and weaknesses listed. Your students should consis-
tently list more strengths than weaknesses. You can then use these results to generate a discussion of the self-
serving bias, including the processes that might contribute to its occurrence and its potential positive and/or
negative effects on behaviour. Dunn also suggested that you could perform this exercise simply by having stu-
dents verbally volunteer strengths and weaknesses and recording their responses on the board. If you use this
public method, Dunn cautioned to be sure to point out that the variety of responses may be limited by which
students participated and self-presentational concerns present in a public setting.
Dunn, D. S. (1989). Demonstrating a self-serving bias. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 21–22.
Activity 8.4: Identify the Bias

Students are asked to identify which type of attribution bias is evident in other students’ comments about
grades. The student handout for this exercise is included as Handout 8.5. Answers are listed below.
Answers:
1. Dispositional attribution
2. Just-world hypothesis
3. Situational attribution
4. Self-serving bias and situational attribution
5. Self-serving bias and dispositional attribution
Activity 8.5: From Roommates to World Peace

Students apply the principles of social psychology to real-world examples. The student handout for this exer-
cise is included as Handout 8.6. Suggested answers are listed below.
1. Points students might be expected to make include:

• Rachel has not examined the evidence. There is no support for her belief that heavy people are lazy
and dishonest. A few personal experiences are not evidence. Rachel is probably guilty of selective
perception, attending to (and remembering) incidents that support her stereotype while ignoring
(and forgetting) incidents that do not (when, for example, a thin person is lazy or dishonest, or a heavy
person is industrious and honest).
• Rachel has not analyzed her biases and assumptions. She has probably mindlessly accepted negative
attitudes toward heavy people, and mindlessly accepted the culture’s message that “you can’t be too
rich or too thin.”

• Rachel may be reasoning emotionally, as prejudiced people often do. Her gut-level feelings are like-
ly to take precedence over any logical argument another person might make.
• Rachel is oversimplifying by ignoring the differences among heavy people. She may have generalized
from one or two heavy people she disliked to all heavy people.
• Rachel probably attributes heaviness to a lack of will power (“laziness”). If she considered other
explanations, she would learn that genetic factors play a large role in determining our “set point.”
Also, it may be that Rachel is “projecting” some of her own problems onto heavy people. Perhaps she
has a fear of being fat, or perhaps she is not the most industrious or honest person herself.
2. You might begin by recalling that although attitudes influence behaviour, behaviour also influences
attitudes. Therefore, it may be important to get the teachers to interact more with colleagues of differ-
ent ethnicities even before their attitudes have changed. For example, you could first change the seat-
ing arrangements. However, research shows that contact with other groups is not always sufficient to
reduce hostility and suspicion. What’s important is cooperation on mutual goals, which causes people to
think of themselves as members of one big group instead of smaller opposing ones. Accordingly, you
might seat people using a “jigsaw method” and have them work on various hands-on exercises togeth-
er, designing the exercises so that each person’s contribution is necessary for a good outcome.
Opportunities for informal socializing could also be helpful.
To promote multicultural sensitivity, you might speak to the teachers about cultural differences in
body language, emotional display rules, concepts of time, etc. You might also include an exercise that
deals with how the same trait can be perceived differently depending on whether you think you like a
group or not. You could talk about how different values and rules determine how people “see” the same
social event, such as a student arriving late for class or a student showing reluctance about speaking up
in class.
You could also discuss some of the findings from psychological research on ethnic and racial preju-
dice. For example, you could talk about some of the hidden psychological and social payoffs for main-
taining a prejudice.
As a seminar leader, you would want to be aware of the phenomenon of reactance. You would not want to
arouse reactance by scolding the teachers for their self-segregation or trying to dictate their behaviour. It
would probably be a better strategy to present information and let the teachers come up with some reasons
of their own for improving multicultural understanding in their classrooms and among themselves, and some
ideas for doing so.
Activity 8.6: Identifying Persuasion Techniques

Makosky (1985) argued that most introductory textbooks tend to focus on persuasion issues such as com-
municator attributes, whether the message is one- or two-sided, and aspects of the audience like attention and
prior opinions concerning the message. She noted, however, that advertising makes use of additional persua-
sion techniques that may not be included in the textbook. Therefore, she proposed an exercise designed to
expose the student to common techniques used in advertising. The techniques suggested for discussion and
analysis by Makosky (1985) were:
1. An appeal to or creation of needs—Makosky suggested describing this technique through reference to

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (biological, safety and security, belonging and love, self-esteem and status,
cognitive, aesthetic, and self-actualization).
2. Social and prestige suggestion—these are techniques based on the premise that you should buy or do
something because many others do so (social suggestion) or some well-known person makes a recom-
mendation (prestige suggestion).
3. Loaded words and images—Makosky noted that these tend to be more subtle techniques, including the
use of attractive people in the advertisement, images of positive social situations associated with a prod-
uct, or incorporating “buzzwords” such as “natural” for food and beauty products.
Using the techniques of persuasion described above, you need to find a set of advertisements that illus-
trate one or more of the types. The advertisements can either be recorded television commercials, print
advertisements made into slides (or photocopied and made into packets), or both. After reviewing the types

of persuasion techniques using several sample advertisements, hand out an answer sheet numbered 1 to 20
with the three types of persuasion listed next to each number. Tell the students that you are going to show
them a series of 20 advertisements, and they are to indicate which types of persuasion, if any, are depicted in
each by circling the name of the stereotype. After showing the advertisements, go over and discuss the stu-
dents’ responses to each. Makosky also suggested several variations such as examining the types of persua-
sion techniques used as a function of the cost of the magazine (expensive versus cheap) and the intended
audience (male or female).
Makosky, V. P. (1985). Identifying major techniques of persuasion. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 42–43.
Activity 8.7: Deindividuation

David Dodd describes a highly effective and entertaining exercise that illustrates the concept of deindividu-
ation discussed in the text. According to Dodd, the object of this exercise is to demonstrate that even normal,
well-adjusted college students are capable of deviant, antisocial behaviour given the right situational condi-
tions (e.g., feelings of anonymity and nonresponsibility). Have your students respond anonymously to the fol-
lowing question:
If you could be totally invisible for 24 hours and were completely assured that you would not be detect-
ed or held responsible for your actions, what would you do?
Ask students to record their responses on a blank sheet of paper (they should disguise their handwrit-
ing by printing neatly) and to fold their papers before turning them in. Collect students’ answers and ran-
domly select several to read aloud. At this point, students will react excitedly in anticipation of the results.
Indeed, laughter usually erupts as common themes emerge, including criminal acts (“rob a bank” is often the
single most popular response), sexual acts, and spying or eavesdropping. Although occasional charitable
responses (e.g., resolving wars, ending world hunger) are revealed, antisocial acts typically outnumber proso-
cial ones. Dodd also likes to point out to his classes that the average number of antisocial responses given by
his college students (36 percent) is no different than the number of antisocial responses given by inmates at
a maximum security prison where he once taught.
Dodd, D. (1985). Robbers in the classroom: A deindividuation exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 89–91.
Activity 8.8: Self-Awareness and Cultural Identity

Despite its broad influence on our behaviour many of us are not terribly aware of aspects of our own culture.
Carolyn Enns (1994) suggests two exercises that may be helpful in increasing students’ self-awareness.
In one exercise, Enns suggests dividing students into small groups and having them discuss the follow-
ing questions: (a) What is your own cultural/ethnic/racial background? (b) How did your family describe this
identity to you as you were growing up? (c) How did this ethnic identity influence the way you and your fam-
ily related to your community and friends? (d) What is the impact of your racial/ethnic identity on your self-
definition, personality style, and/or relationships with others? (Enns reports that even in fairly homogenous
groups, students are able to discover diversity.) After students have had approximately 15 minutes for dis-
cussion, she suggests conducting a full group discussion to identify themes and commonalties discovered in
the smaller groups. According to Enns, students may be less likely to develop faulty stereotypes when they
have an increased awareness of the unique life experiences of others.
In another exercise, Enns attempts to help students understand and describe their own culture through
the use of symbols rather than words (because much of culture is implicit and difficult to describe). Students
are first asked to draw pictures of their culture by using crayons, markers, and symbols. Then, in small groups,
students take turns labeling certain aspects of their culture (as depicted) and describing it to the others.
According to Enns, students not only gain a better understanding of cultural influences on their own pictures
and symbols, but also gain (by comparison with others’ pictures) an understanding of how individualistic and
collectivist cultures can shape world views in vastly different ways. As an example, Enns reports that white
American students typically depict separate symbols representing specific aspects of culture such as home,
religion, and family values, whereas international students from more collectivist cultures create more uni-
fied images with a central theme of interdependence.
Enns, C. Z. (1994). On teaching about the cultural relativism of psychological constructs. Teaching of
Psychology, 4, 205–211.

Activity 8.9: Demonstrating Group Polarization

Peter Gray suggests a simple exercise that readily demonstrates the group polarization effect (the tendency
for groups to make more extreme decisions than individuals would). Before lecturing on group decision mak-
ing, have your students declare on a Likert scale how strongly they agree or disagree with some statement or
idea (Gray suggests the idea that the next exam should be essay rather than multiple-choice). Collect the
responses and divide students into like-minded groups for a short, 5-minute discussion. After the group dis-
cussion, have students rate their agreement with the proposition again on the same Likert scale. The results
should be consistent with group polarization: those who initially agreed should agree more strongly after
group discussion, and those who initially disagreed should disagree even more strongly after group discus-
sion. According to Gray, asking your students to speculate about the causes of the effect should generate the
same explanations generated by psychologists over the years (i.e., that members are exposed to new, persua-
sive arguments, and that members gradually take a more extreme position in order to be viewed positively
by others). An added benefit is that, in addition to learning the group polarization effect in a memorable way,
students learn that they can successfully “think like psychologists” in generating plausible explanations for
observed events.
Gray, P. (1993). Engaging students’ intellects: The immersion approach to critical thinking in psychological
instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 20, 68-74.
Activity 8.10: Is This Sexual Harassment?

Robin Warshaw, writing in Exec magazine, presents several cases of questionable behaviour brought before
public hearing examiners. Share these with your students and use them as a basis for discussing the definition
and identification of sexual harassment.
Case 1: Several employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including supervisors, were
having romantic affairs with one another. This included holding frequent parties and leaving the office dur-
ing the day to go drinking. A female attorney who did not participate in these activities claimed that she was
harassed by the environment in which she had to work, and additionally charged that women who had affairs
with male supervisors were rewarded with promotions and bonuses. The woman admitted that no one had
pressured her for sex, nor had she been denied any promotions because she didn’t participate in the activi-
ties of the others.
Ruling and Analysis: A judge ruled that although the woman was not harassed on a quid pro quo basis,
the SEC office was nonetheless an offensive work environment. She was awarded back pay, a promotion, and
her choice of two jobs. Although socializing at the office routinely takes place, the Carnival of the Senses set
up in the SEC office went beyond the bounds of typical social interaction.
Case 2: A severe snowstorm sent workers at a Virginia corporation home early. A female word-pro-
cessing technician needed a ride, and a male engineer (for whom she’d done some work) readily offered to
take her in his four-wheel drive vehicle. When they arrived at her apartment the man entered with her and,
according to him, only kissed her. The woman charged that he tried to kiss and fondle her, despite her protes-
tations. She complained to her employer, who reprimanded the man and warned him that he would be fired
if he did anything like that in the future.
Ruling and Analysis: Was this simply a case of a clumsy but mild-intentioned man looking for compan-
ionship? Doubtful. The woman’s attorneys demonstrated in court that the corporation had received similar
complaints about similar behaviour involving this man. The employer made an out-of-court settlement after
the court ruled that the company had a legal responsibility to prevent such actions from happening.
According to Louise Fitzgerald of the University of Illinois at Champaign, this type of predatory unwanted
attention is common; fifteen percent of working women in one of Fitzgerald’s research studies had been the
object of unwanted kissing, grabbing, touching, or fondling.
Case 3: Obscene cartoons depicting a female coworker (by name) engaged in various sex acts were
posted in the men’s room of her office building. These remained in the public bathroom for a week, even after
the company’s chief executive had seen them. They were removed only after he learned that the woman was
upset about the cartoons.
Ruling and Analysis: The court determined that the cartoons were “highly offensive” and an impedi-
ment to the woman’s dealing “with fellow employees and clients in a professional manner.” The matter could
have been helped had the cartoons been taken down immediately, but male allies of women are often rare in
work settings. Men may feel they are breaking ranks or not being “one of the boys.” This particular situation

was made worse by the company’s chief executive’s ignorance and inaction. The employer paid the woman’s
full salary and psychiatric bills until she found a new job.
Warshaw, R. (1993). Is this sexual harassment? Exec, Summer, 62–65.
Activity: 8.11: Guest Lectures on Diversity

The textbook provides an excellent context for memorable guest lectures on controversial or important
issues related to gender and ethnic diversity.
Gender Diversity. To explore issues in gender diversity, you might invite several women who are
employed in a traditionally male occupation (e.g., female executives, construction workers, truck drivers,
physicians, sportscasters) and ask them to discuss their experiences in the workplace as they relate to gender
stereotypes, discrimination, and inequality. Similarly, you might explore the increasingly important topic of
sexual harassment by assembling a panel discussion of people with expertise in this area, such as lawyers who
have represented clients in sexual harassment lawsuits, personnel in large organizations who are in charge of
investigating and preventing sexual harassment, and perhaps even victims of harassment who are willing to
share their experiences.
Ethnic Diversity. To explore issues related to ethnic diversity, ask an affirmative action officer to discuss
current guidelines, policies, and procedures in effect at your college or university. This person can discuss the
importance of (and strategies for) increasing the enrollment and retention of minority students as well as
increasing efforts to recruit minority faculty members. Students often have very negative attitudes about
these policies that are based on misinformation rather than fact, and learning about them from an official
source would do much to promote an open, informed dialogue on the issue of affirmative action.
OUT-OF-CLASS ASSIGNMENTS AND PROJECTS
Assignment 8.1: Stanford Prison Study on the Web

For this assignment, instruct students to go online to the following Web page:
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Once there, instruct students to take a tour through the slide show, which shows actual footage of the
Stanford Prison study. When finished, they should click on <Discussion Questions> and answer the following
questions in a written report:
#2, #4, #11 [focus on only one of the sub-options], and #13.
You may choose other questions at your discretion. This is a great homework assignment, and students tend
to respond well to the experience.
Assignment 8.2: Experiences of Prejudice

Ask students to write a two- to three-page paper in which they identify and analyze an instance of prejudice.
Discuss the results in class. Tell students to choose an instance in which they themselves were the target of
prejudice based on sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, age, body size, sexual orientation, disability, or any other
characteristic. If they can’t think of an incident, they may describe the experience of a friend or relative.
In the paper, students should: 1) describe the experience—who was involved, what was the setting, and
exactly what transpired; 2) explain why they consider the incident to be an example of either outright bigotry
or of a more subtle/indirect prejudice; 3) describe the emotional and psychological consequences of the expe-
rience; 4) speculate on what might be done to overcome the effects of the incident they have described AND
to reduce the prejudice of the other person or persons involved.

Assignment 8.3: Celebrating Cultural Similarities

To counterbalance what may become an excessive emphasis on the differences between cultures and ethnic
groups, have students explore one of the many cultural practices found in all cultures. Among such practices
are the rituals that mark significant life transitions: birth, puberty, marriage, and death. For example, have stu-
dents choose a cultural group, then research and write a two- to three-page paper describing either:
a. a traditional naming ceremony in which infants are declared members of the social group by being
given a name
OR
b. a traditional funeral custom (with its rules of mourning) whereby members are formally removed from
the group of the living.
During a class discussion of their findings, ask students to identify any similarities they notice. While the
discussion will surely lead to a recognition that social customs vary enormously, similarities in the human
response to birth and death will also emerge.
Assignment 8.4: Sometimes You Have to Break the Rules

Social norms are the invisible glue that keeps societies together. As implicit rules for social behaviour, norms
are really only noticed when they are violated. This assignment asks your students to do just that: Break a
social norm that everyone typically obeys.
Explain to students that they should observe a variety of social norms in action for a few days, then
choose one to violate. They should break the norm several times, rather than once, and in a variety of settings
involving different people. Examples of some norm violations are: sitting right next to a stranger in an oth-
erwise empty movie theater; violating gender roles, such as a man wearing a dress; raising both hands simul-
taneously to ask a professor a question; looking at other riders rather than the floor numbers in an elevator;
singing out loud in public; conspicuously taking more than the maximum number of items to the grocery
express check-out lane; impinging on someone’s personal space; asking a stranger to take her or his seat on
the bus; being excessively helpful or excessively disclosive in response to a stranger’s simple request.
Be clear about some ground rules. First, students should not do anything illegal, unethical, dangerous,
or obnoxious; pointless antics that waste other people’s time or money, or that might be threatening to oth-
ers, are not allowed. Second, students should give a clear definition of what the norm is, and how their behav-
iour would violate it; there are lots of bizarre behaviours students could perform, but many of them would
not violate any implicit social rule. Third, students may want to run their ideas by you before they engage in
the behaviour, to get an objective opinion about the first two points. In their written reports on this project
students should address these questions: What were the reactions of other people as you broke the norm?
How did you feel as you broke the norm? What function does the norm serve in society? How does it keep
interaction flowing smoothly? What might have happened if you violated this norm in a different culture or
subculture?
Assignment 8.5: Social Psychology in Film

There are a number of films, that contain many of the major social psychological themes covered in the text-
book. As a fun and enlightening paper assignment, ask students to apply social psychological concepts from
the text and lecture to any one of the terrific films suggested below.
o Defending Your Life (1991). Meryl Streep and Albert Brooks star in this hilarious comedy as two
recently deceased souls who are called upon to defend their lives in order to be sent to heaven. Attribution
theory, social comparison, and interpersonal attraction are central social psychological principles in this film
(Paramount; 112 min).
o Europa, Europa (1983). A foreign film (based on a true story) about a 13-year-old Jewish boy’s fight to
escape from the Nazis during World War II. Highly acclaimed, and highly engrossing. Prejudice and discrimi-
nation, attitude change, and cognitive dissonance are a few of the many relevant concepts (Orion; 115 min).
o Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (1967). Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Sidney Poitier, and
Katherine Houghton star in this Academy Award-winning film about interracial dating. When an African-
American man is invited by an upper-class white woman to her politically liberal family home, her parents

discover that it isn’t always easy to “practice what you preach.” Impression formation, attitude change, and
stereotypes and prejudice play a central role in this excellent film. A must see (Columbia/TriStar; 108 min).
o Lords of Discipline (1986). Davis Keith stars in this engaging drama that chronicles the operations of
a secret society within a young men’s military academy. Conformity and obedience, hostility and aggression,
and intergroup conflict are central social psychological principles in this film, among others (Paramount;
116 min).
o Twelve Angry Men (1957). Henry Fonda stars in this tense, compelling courtroom drama in which
jurors must decide the fate of a boy accused of murdering his father. As the lone not guilty vote in a seem-
ingly cut-and-dried case, he gradually and methodically builds a case to win over the other jurors. This
engrossing film provides excellent coverage of conformity, attitude change, and group decision making
(MGM/UA; 93 min).
Assignment 8.6: Ethnicity and Subculture in Film: Boyz n the Hood

John Singleton (1991) directed Cuba Gooding Jr. and Laurence Fishburne in this emotionally charged por-
trayal of a father’s attempt to keep his oldest son out of trouble in South Central Los Angeles. This insight-
ful film painfully yet clearly depicts the poverty, crime, and gangs that come with living in the inner city, and
in doing so humanizes for the rest of us the struggle faced by the young urban poor. It also effectively shows
diversity within the tough African-American neighborhood, as we see examples of people trying, with honor
and dignity, to make a better life for themselves. As a thought-provoking assignment, ask your students to
watch this film (perhaps again; many will have already seen it) and to write a paper relating it to the concepts
discussed in Chapter 14. In addition, students should try to make some kind of larger statement about the
societal-level factors influencing this community. What kind of attributions do students make for the strug-
gles of the urban poor? Can they identify any of the structural conditions that may prevent young Black
males from “making it” (e.g., a long history of discrimination; living in constant fear of the threat of violence;
lack of economic opportunities)? Would they describe these young men’s sense of ethnic identity as positive
or negative? What kind of role models are available in this subculture? (Columbia/TriStar; 112 min)
ASSIGNMENTS—ADDITIONAL PH SUPPLEMENTS
APS Reader: Current Directions in Introductory Psychology
Assignment/APS Reader 8.7: Autobiographical Memory and Conceptions of Self

By Michael Ross and Anne E. Wilson
We examine links between self-assessment and autobiographical memory. People generally view themselves
as improving over time, relative to their peers. We suggest that this sense of improvement is sometimes illu-
sory, and motivated by the desire to enhance the current self. Our research focuses on people’s subjective
feeling of temporal distance between an earlier period and the present, and feeling that is only modestly asso-
ciated with actual time. Research participants praise or criticize the same former self, depending on how far
away it feels. An equally distant episode feels close or remote, depending on whether it has favorable or dam-
aging implications for evaluations of the current self. The identical achievement boosts evaluations of the cur-
rent self or has little impact, depending on how far away it feels. The same failure does or does not harm
appraisals of the current self, depending on how far away it feels.
Assignment/APS Reader 8.8: Citizens’ Sense of Justice and the Legal System
By John M. Darley
When an actor commits a wrong action, citizens have perceptions of the kind of responsibility the actor
incurs, the degree to which the act was mitigated or justified, and the appropriate punishment for the actor.
The legislatively mandated law of criminal courts, statutes, and criminal codes deals with the same issues.
Experimental evidence shows that there are important discrepancies between the principles that people and
legal codes use to assign responsibility. That is, the moral retributive-justice principles that people use are
sometimes in conflict with the directions in which modern code drafters are taking criminal law. These

discrepancies may cause citizens to feel alienated from authority, and to reduce their voluntary compliance
with legal codes.
Assignment/APS Reader 8.9: Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment

By Robert B. Cialdini
It is widely recognized that communications that activate social norms can be effective in producing societally
beneficial conduct. Not so well recognized are the circumstances under which normative information can
backfire to product the opposite of what a communicator intends. There is an understandable, but misguid-
ed, tendency to try to mobilize action against a problem by depicting it as regrettably frequent. Information
campaigns emphasize that alcohol and drug use is intolerably high, that adolescent suicide rates are alarm-
ing, and—most relevant to this article—that rampant polluters are spoiling the environment. Although these
claims may be both true and well intentioned, the campaigns’ creators have missed something critically
important: Within the statement “Many people are doing this undesirable thing” lurks the powerful and
undercutting normative message “Many people are doing this.” Only by aligning descriptive norms (what
people typically do) with injunctive norms (what people typically approve or disapprove) can one optimize
the power of normative appeals. Communicators who fail to recognize the distinction between these two
types of norms imperil their persuasive efforts.
Assigment/APS Reader 8.10: Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup Biases

By John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner
Strategies for reducing prejudice may be directed at the traditional, intentional form of prejudice or at more
subtle and perhaps less conscious contemporary forms. Whereas the traditional form of prejudice may be
reduced by direct educational and attitude-change techniques, contemporary forms may require alternative
strategies oriented toward the individual or involving intergoup contact. Individual-oriented techniques can
involve leading people who possess contemporary prejudices to discover inconsistencies among their self-
images, values, and behaviours; such inconsistencies can arouse negative emotional states (e.g., guilt), which
motivate the development of more favorable attitudes. Intergroup strategies can involve structuring inter-
group contact to produce more individualized perceptions of the members of the other group, foster person-
alized interactions between members of the different groups, or redefine group boundaries to create more
inclusive, subordinate representations of the groups. Understanding the nature and bases of prejudice can
thus guide, theoretically and pragmatically, interventions that can effectively reduce both traditional and con-
temporary forms of prejudice.
DEBATE
Debate 8.1: Was Stanley Milgram’s Study of Obedience Unethical?

A mainstay of social psychology (and introductory psychology, for that matter) are the obedience experiments
conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. Milgram demonstrated convincingly that situational influences
can lead most people to obey the commands of an authority. Although this finding is well known, the contro-
versy surrounding the Milgram experiments is equally well known. For this debate topic, ask your students to
discuss the pros and cons of Milgram’s studies. We learned, for example, a compelling and undeniable lesson
about human behaviour; however, the participants in those studies learned an undeniable (and not altogether
flattering) lesson about themselves. Although Milgram followed standard experimental protocols, should the
experiments have been conducted at all, or the research participants placed in that position? Several com-
mentators over the years have addressed the ethical considerations surrounding this set of experiments. Ask
your students to read some of the concerns and rebuttals voiced when the experiments were still new.
Slife, B. (2002). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial psychological issues (12th ed.). Guilford, CT:
Dushkin Publishing Group.

MULTIMEDIA RESOURCES
VIDEO CLASSICS CD-ROM
Video Classics 8.1: Obedience to Authority

SYNOPSIS: This video segment is taken from Milgram’s original footage of his experiments on obedience.
The camera focuses on a “teacher” delivering shocks to a “learner,” and shows the teacher’s growing agita-
tion as the shock intensity increases.
Video Classics 8.2: The Bystander Effect

SYNOPSIS: A very young John Darley and Bibb Latane recreate their “smoke-filled room” experiment to
illustrate people’s responses during an emergency. This video segment shows what happens when one person
versus three people are in the presence of a presumed emergency, and also includes narration from Latane
regarding the origin and interpretation of the bystander effect.
LIVE!PSYCH
Live!Psych 8.3: Attributions

Live!Psych 8.4: Conformity
Live!Psych 8.5: Prejudice
SYNOPSIS: Three stalwarts of social psychology are the focus of this collection of modules. Prejudice high-
lights the many possible sources of prejudicial attitudes, including personal, social, and economic factors.
Conformity revisits the classic studies of how and why people will go along with a group. Attributions looks
at the fundamentals of the attribution process, focusing on how people take in information about those
around them.
LECTURE LAUNCHER
Lecture Launcher 8.6: Understanding Riots

This clip presents footage from the aftermath of the 1992 acquittal of the officers involved in the Rodney
King beating in Los Angeles. Rioters who were present at the fateful intersection of Florence and Normandy
talk about their emotions and actions that day, and an expert introduces the idea of deindividuation to
explain the rioters’ behaviour. This segment is useful when discussing group behaviour, especially the dark
side of behaviour in a group. Deindividuation helps explain why otherwise-respectable citizens would turn
violent by being an anonymous member of a group, and unfortunately you should be able to provide many
examples: the Watts riots, the New York City blackout riots of the early 1970s, soccer hooliganism, political
protests and riots, the student deaths at Tiananmen Square, and so on.
Lecture Launcher 8.7: Prejudice and Discrimination

The forms of prejudice and discrimination are highlighted in this montage of several people with several
views. ACLU members, young and middle-aged Blacks, a member of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, a deaf
person, an embittered white male, a sociologist, and the late William Pierce, former chairperson of the
National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries express their views on modern prejudice. This video seg-
ment is a handy way to introduce the topic of prejudice and discrimination. Each speaker presents a brief
opinion on a major area of discrimination: race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and so on.
Unfortunately, you might use this clip to highlight the many forms of prejudice that exist. Also, some of the
views expressed are sure to spark comment and debate among your students.

WEB RESOURCES
Super Sites and Tutorials

Psychology Centre: Social and Cultural Psychology
http://psych.athabascau.ca/html/aupr/social.shtml
Social Psychology Network
http://www.socialpsychology.org/
This could easily be the only resource you’ll ever need for information about social psychology on the
Internet. Scott Plous has done an incredible job of assembling more resources than you can visit in a week.
Highly recommended.
Implicit Association Test
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/canada/
Your students may find a visit here worthwhile as they learn about their own implicit attitudes.
Social Roles and Social Rules

An Introduction to Social Influence
http://www.workingpsychology.com/intro.html
A resource on varieties of social influence.
Description of the Milgram experiment
http://www.cba.uri.edu/DellaBitta/mr415s98/EthicEtcLinks/Milgram2.htm
Persuasion and Influence
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/notes/pnotes.htm
A web book on influence.
Obedience, Compliance with Authority
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/notes/obedience/index.htm
Extensive PowerPoint presentation on this topic, with sequences on Milgram’s experiment and related phe-
nomena. Presented by Steve Booth-Butterfield at West Virginia University.
Stanford Prison Experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Detailed account, with pictures, of the Prison Experiment.
Stanley Milgram Website
http://www.stanleymilgram.com/
Social Influences on Beliefs

Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/index.htm
A reprint of the classic (1959) paper by Leon Festinger and James M. Carlsmith, originally published in the
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–210, presented on the Web as part of the “Classics in the
History of Psychology” series maintained by Christopher D. Green.
Propaganda Analysis Home Page
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
Information about propaganda.
Fundamental Attribution Error
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/fundamental_attribution_error.htm
Information about the fundamental attribution error with examples.

Individuals in Groups
Altruism and Prosocial Behaviour
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfd0/Prosocial.html
A website with a number of links related to this topic.
Groupthink
http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~fulmer/groupthink.htm
A nice summary of major issues relate to groupthink.
Group Conflict and Prejudice

Implicit Association Test
http://psychexps.olemiss.edu/InstrOnly_Page/IATRace.htm
Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers’ Cave Experiment.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/
A reprint of the book by Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif (1954/1961) presented on the Web as part
of the “Classics in the History of Psychology” series maintained by Christopher D. Green.
Prejudice and Discrimination
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/
Website of the International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict, with links to information
about specific conflicts.
The Prejudice Institute
http://www.prejudiceinstitute.org/
A resource for information on prejudice, discrimination, and ethnoviolence.
Sexual Prejudice: Understanding Homophobia and Heterosexism
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html
Stereotype-Breaking Actions
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/stereobk.htm
This Web page, created by the International Online Training Program on Intractable Conflict, discusses ways
to break stereotypes.
Why Did Heaven’s Gate Make the Mistake They Made?
http://college.cengage.com/psychology/shared/exercises/tc/heavens_gate.html
Web page that discusses the potential role of groupthink in the mass suicide of members of the Heaven’s
Gate cult.
VIDEO RESOURCES
Prentice Hall / Films for the Humanities and Sciences Video Series
Brother of Mine: Youth Violence and Society (1993, 52 min, FHS). This compelling documentary takes a
penetrating look at why children are becoming more violent at home, at school, and on the streets.
Interviews with educators, police personnel, psychologists, and the youths themselves—both perpetrators
and victims—reveal that violence, accepted as an everyday occurrence, has become a reflection of culture,
not a contradiction of it.

Healthy Relationships (2000, 33 min, FHS). What makes a relationship unhealthy? What are the signs of an
unhealthy relationship? How do you get out of an unhealthy relationship? Are some of your behaviours
unhealthy? These are just a few of the questions this video addresses while exploring the different relation-
ship issues evident in young people’s lives today.
Understanding Prejudice (1996, 50 min, FHS). This thought-provoking program discusses the nature of prej-
udice and the effect it has on individuals and society as a whole. Begins with a historical overview and
defines key terms such as prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. Interviews provide insight into different
kinds of prejudices and stereotypes. Some topics discussed include multiculturalism, homosexuality, politi-
cally correct language, the role of the media, and religion.
Other Videos
The Adult Years: Continuity and Change Series—Love and Marriage (28 min, PENN). Describes “six inte-
gral elements of love” and examines how they change during the lifespan.
Are You a Racist? (1986, 50 min, IM). Four self-confessed racists and four victims of racism spent five days
together in a house. This BBC production presents the results of that encounter, including thought provok-
ing discussions of racism and the difficulties associated with changing someone’s attitudes.
Aspects of Behaviour (1971, 31 min, IM). Describes subdivisions of psychology. Includes discussion by
Stanley Milgram, John Darley, and Bibb Latane.
Attribution of Motives (1978, 22 min, UFC). The nature of causality and attributional concepts are
discussed.
Attitudes (2001, 30 min, IM). Prejudicial attitudes are the focus of this video, which examines the develop-
ment and prevention of prejudice.
Beyond Macho (26 min, HUMSCI). Examines men’s changing roles in society, with emphasis on the
“suburban househusband.” Looks generally at sex roles in transition.
Biculturalism and Acculturation Among Latinos (28 min, FHS). Conflict over retaining traditional Latino
cultural values versus assimilating into U.S. culture is presented. Common misperceptions about Latinos in
the United States are examined.
Blue-Eyed (1995, 86 min, CN). Based on the famous elementary school demonstration of “blue-eyed
children,” Jane Elliott now transforms 40 teachers, police, school administrators, and social workers into
despondent and distracted adults. Prejudice and discrimination are discussed, particularly sexism, homo-
phobia, and ageism. See also Eye of the Storm, A Class Divided, or The College Eye, described below.
The Brain, Part 3: Gender Development: Social Influences (1997, 4 min, ANN/CPB). This segment focuses
on social factors affect gender-specific behaviours. Includes footage of mother-child interactions, illustrating
different ways in which males and females are treated, and how this treatment influences gender identity,
gender roles, and expectations about their gender.
The Brain, Part 24: Aggression, Violence, and the Brain (1997, 7 min, ANN/CPB). This module describes the
link between human aggressive behaviour and specific brain areas. The first half describes animal research
on brain lesions and aggression, and the latter half focuses on the case of Mark Larribus whose cyst on his
temporal lobe is removed, and his aggressive outbursts are reduced.
Can You See the Colour Gray? (1997, 54 min, UCMEDIA). Award-winning documentary that traces sever-
al individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds and their exploration into their own attitudes and
feelings about their ethnicity. The video is divided logically into two 27-minute segments.
Captive Minds: Hypnosis and Beyond (IM, 1985, 55 min, colour). Explores cults and military organizations
and how they retain their members.

A Class Divided (1985, 54 min, PBS). Looks at the long-term effects of a 1968 experiment discriminating
between blue-eyed children and brown-eyed children. Updates the classic Eye of the Storm and predates
The College Eye, described below.
The College Eye (2001, 35 min, IM). Jane Elliott presents her latest foray into helping people understand
others. Young adults from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds are called upon to explore racism in
modern society.
Conditions for Helping (1973, 27 min, TELS). Examines the conditions under which people will offer help.
Conformity and Independence (1975, 23 min, IM). Presents the work of Sherif, Asch, Moscovici, and Milgram
in an exploration of the basic principles of social influence.
Conformity, Obedience, and Dissent (1990, 30 min, IM). Explores research on why people conform, obey,
and dissent, including Milgram’s obedience study, the Asch studies, studies on styles of leadership and dis-
sent, and studies on the Groupthink phenomenon.
Crimes of Hate (1990, 30 min, ADL). Explores the mindset of perpetrators of hate crimes, and the effects
such crimes have on the victims. Examines the strategies used by law enforcement officials, community
organizations, and individuals to address these crimes.
Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Gender Roles (1994, 2 parts, 60 min each, IM). Hindu, Chinese, and Islamic
gender roles are examined, as are political policies in China and Sweden designed to address gender
inequalities.
Crowd Behaviour: Controlling Carnival Crowds? (1997, 50 min, IM). The carnival crowds in question are
not the performers, but rather the pack of people attending the Notting Hill carnival. Issues such as the
group mind, individualism, and collective behaviour are examined.
Discovering Psychology, Part 17: Sex and Gender (1990, 30 min, ANN/CPB). Examines psychological differ-
ences between men and women and how societal values impact sex roles.
Discovering Psychology, Part 19: The Power of the Situation (1990, 30 min, ANN/CPB). Examines the role
of situational factors in influencing our beliefs and behaviour.
Discovering Psychology, Part 20: Constructing Social Reality (1990, 30 min, ANN/CPB). Explores how men-
tal processes affect our interpretation of reality and interactions with society.
Eye of the Storm (1971, 29 min, CHU). A third-grade all-white class is divided on the basis of eye colour.
Discrimination is practiced against each group on alternate days. A compelling film. (Also see A Class
Divided and The College Eye.)
Face Value: Perceptions of Beauty (26 min, FHS). Sociobiological explanations take centre stage in this dis-
cussion of universals in perceptions of beauty. Novel tests of this idea are presented, and opposing view-
points are considered.
Foundational Ideas in Social Construction (2000, 40 min, IM). Kenneth Gergen promotes his views about
social construction. The relational nature of everything and the slipperiness of “truth” are considered.
The Gay Gene (1998, 29 min, FHS). Examines the controversial genetic research that seeks to find a “gay
gene” and the society implications of the discovery of such a gene.
Gender and Relationships (1990, 30 min, IM). Love, sex, and everything in between are discussed in this
film. Examines the forces that conspire to produce attraction, liking, and love.
Gender Socialization (1993, 60 min, IM). The impact of gender roles on self-esteem, behaviour, and world
views is considered.
Group Dynamics: Why Good People Make Bad Decisions (1994, 17 min, LS). A group of high school stu-
dents team up to complete a class project. Along the way they discover the dynamics of Groupthink,

social roles, and interpersonal expectations. An accompanying booklet includes summaries of the key
points on the tape and suggestions for further activities. This video is very well produced, although the
pacing and level of presentation may make it more appropriate for use in a high school or community
college course.
Group Influence (2001, 30 min, IM). Groupthink, deindividuation, and individuality are some of the topics
considered in this presentation on group behaviour.
Groups and Group Dynamics (1991, 30 min, IM). Groups from A to Z: how they function, how they fail,
how they interact with one another, and everything in between is the focus of this video.
Groupthink (Revised Edition) (22 min, PENN). Discusses the symptoms of Groupthink proposed by Irving
Janis, provides illustrations of group decision making, and explains the role of effective leadership in avoid-
ing Groupthink.
Helping and Prosocial Behaviour (1989, 30 min, IM). Discusses reciprocity, social responsibility, and the
variables that moderate altruistic behaviour.
History of Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred (150 min, FHS). Traces anti-Semitism from its earliest mani-
festations in antiquity to the recent ominous outbreaks in Germany, Russia, and elsewhere.
How Social Organizations Define a Culture (1997, 22 min, IM). Family, work, religious, and educational
groups shape the ways in which we think, act, believe, and value objects in our environment. A look at how
large-scale systems impart the elements of a culture to its members is the focus of this presentation.
Human Aggression (1975, 24 min, IM). Stanley Milgram is the host of this look at aggressive behaviour.
Bandura’s Bobo doll makes an appearance, as do some young toughs from a street gang.
The Human Face (2001, 2 parts, 210 min total, IM). Emotional expressions, definitions of beauty, communi-
cation; if the face can do it, it’s on this video. Also available on DVD.
The Idea of Gender (1995, 60 min, IM). The evolution of notions of gender in Europe and America during
the past 200 years is discussed by Stanford professor James Sheehan.
Invisible Persuaders: The Battle for Your Mind (1994, 22 min, LS). This video explores unrecognized aspects
of persuasion, such as why vacuum cleaners are noisy (people think they are more powerful than quieter
models) or how packaging affects purchase (movie theater candy yields the same volume as store-bought,
yet comes in a much bigger container). The scarcity principle, mere exposure, and other social psychological
concepts are discussed in an intuitive way. An accompanying booklet includes summaries of the key points
on the tape and suggestions for further activities.
Invitation to Social Psychology (1975, 25 min, IM). Stanley Milgram, he who loved film dearly, takes us on a
tour of some of the high points of social psychology. The Stanford Prison simulation, bystander interven-
tion, social learning of aggression, and Milgram’s own obedience research take a bow in this video.
Killing Us Softly: Advertising’s Image of Women (1988, 30 min, CAM). How advertising mimics and reflects
cultural stereotypes of women. Very intriguing, well done.
Killing Us Softly III: Advertising’s Image of Women (1999, 30 min, MEF). Jean Kilbourne continues the
examination she started in Killing Us Softly and Still Killing Us Softly with this look at the portrayal of
women in advertising.
Leadership and People Skills (1996, 22 min, IM). The qualities that define a successful leader and the differ-
ences between being a leader versus being a manager are explored in this presentation.
Love on the Internet (1999, 50 min, IM). E-mail love letters? Clandestine relationships with people
you’ve never seen? Aliases and anonymity and false identities? Oh, the humanity! This video explores
love in the internet age, focusing on what’s changed and what’s remained the same about interpersonal
communication.

Obedience (45 min, PENN). Documentary film of Stanley Milgram’s classical study on obedience to
authority using original footage and interviews.
Obedience: A Reenactment (1996, 11 min, IM). This short presentation depicts a reenactment of Milgram’s
obedience studies.
Overcoming Prejudice (1996, 59 min, IM). The origins of prejudice—how it is learned, from whom, and
under what circumstances—are examined in an effort to understand how to reduce prejudice.
The People of the People’s Temple (1979, 24 min). This film explores the causes of the Jonestown tragedy.
Survivors’ reports and footage taken of Jonestown over a period of several years are included.
Pink Triangles (1982, 35 min, CAM). Presents a history of prejudice against gays and lesbians. Reasons for
and causes of homophobia are considered.
The Pinks and the Blues (1980, 58 min, TIMLI). How the socialization process modifies a child’s behaviour
based on assumptions of masculinity and femininity.
The Power of the Situation (1990, 30 min, IM). This installment of the Discovering Psychology series pres-
ents research on leadership styles, conformity, obedience, and the simulation of a prison environment.
Prejudice (1989, 30 min, IM). Explores stereotypes and emotions underlying prejudice, and considers possi-
ble methods for reducing discrimination.
Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures (1974, 23 min, MGHT). Racial, sexual, economic, and educa-
tional prejudice are explored.
Productivity and the Self-fulfilling Prophecy (1974, 28 min, CRM). Rosenthal’s studies of the Pygmalion
effect; useful for discussing how circumstances are altered by expectation.
Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment (1990, 50 min, IM). This update of Zimbardo’s well known
study mixes recent hindsights with footage from the original event. A slick production, worth seeing.
Race and Ethnicity (1991, 30 min, IM). This presentation draws on sociological, anthropological, and histori-
cal material to define and identify concepts such as minority, race, and racism.
Race and Racism (2001, 60 min, IM). Knowing what “race” is affects how one deals with races and racism.
The historical, economic, and psychological forces driving racism are examined, as are the assumptions
inherent in census data and people’s treatment of multiracial individuals.
Sexual Stereotypes in the Media: Superman and the Bride (37 min, FHS). Using examples from films, TV,
and the print media, this program illustrates the pervasive nature of sex stereotypes.
Silent Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Murder (1999, 50 min, IM). This recent video revisits the events of
1954, when New Yorker Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered as 38 bystanders apathetically did nothing.
Skin Deep: Building Diverse Campus Communities (1995, 53 min, IRIS). Film producer Frances Reid fol-
lows several college students through their eye-opening and personal journeys from various diverse back-
grounds through racial awareness workshops and beyond.
Social Cognition (2001, 30 min, IM). Impression formation and attitude formation are the types of social
cognition addressed here.
Social Cognitions and Attributions (1989, 30 min, IM). Self-handicapping, self-esteem, and belief persever-
ance are examined in this look at how we size up ourselves and others in our social world.
Social Interaction Model interact in culturally diverse settings. Person perception, attribution, and role
expectations underlie the discussion.
Social Psychology (1971, 33 min, MGHT). Sears, Clark, Pettigrew, and Cottle discuss busing, bias, and dis-
crimination.

Social Psychology (1990, 30 min, IM). A broad overview of social psychology, including attitudes and preju-
dice, group behaviour, and the power of social roles.
Social Psychology Series: Aggression (30 min, PENN). Presents research that emphasizes the role of learn-
ing in the occurrence of aggression and describes possible methods for controlling aggression.
Social Psychology Series: Communication—Social Cognition and Attributions (30 min, PENN). Discusses
research on how we perceive others, wish to be perceived by others, interpret communications, and attrib-
ute causes to behaviour. Also includes an overview of research methods used by social psychologists.
Social Psychology Series: Communication—Negotiation and Persuasion (30 min, PENN). Describes and
demonstrates verbal and nonverbal factors that influence the behaviours and attitudes of others.
Social Psychology Series: Conformity (30 min, PENN). Examines the advantages and disadvantages of con-
forming in various situations, as well as factors that influence the likelihood of conformity.
Social Psychology Series: Friendship (30 min, PENN). Examines the factors that contribute to the forma-
tion of friendships and the characteristics of friendships, including differences between male and female
friendships.
Social Psychology Series: Group Decision Making and Leadership (30 min, PENN). Describes the strategies
and interpersonal interactions, including the function of leadership, that impact group decision making in
various situations.
Social Psychology Series: Helping and Prosocial Behaviour (30 min, PENN). Explores why people help oth-
ers, including the roles of reciprocity and social responsibility.
Social Psychology Series: Prejudice (30 min, PENN). Using dramatizations, the relationship of stereotypes
and emotions to prejudice are examined. Methods of reducing discrimination are also discussed.
Tough Guise: Media Images and the Crisis in Masculinity (1999, 40 min, MEF). A look at how popular cul-
ture portrays men and shapes the images men adopt for themselves. Focuses on how guises such as rugged
individualism may be detrimental to women and male-female relations.
Tragedy of the Commons (1971, 25 min). Issues of population, crowding, and ecology are discussed within
the framework of the commons dilemma.
Voices (1991, 35 min, CSU). Individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds discuss their self-images, how
they are perceived in our society, and how these interact to affect relationships. This film contains valuable
lessons about intercultural relationships.
When Will People Help? (1976, 25 min, GA). Daryl Bem discusses bystander apathy and presents empirical
findings on helping behaviour.
Why Riots Happen (1999, 51 min, FHS). If you’ve wondered why riots happen—well, this video seems to
explain it! This Discovery Channel production takes a cue from history (such as the Rodney King court
decision that unleashed riots in Los Angeles) and presents opinions from experts (such as researchers
studying hooliganism, crowd violence, mob mentalities, and Daryl Gates, former LAPD chief).
Why We Lie (2000, 51 min, FHS). This Discovery Channel presentation examines research by Paul Ekman,
Bella DePaulo, and other social psychologists in an attempt to understand the frequency with which we lie,
the reasons we give for lying, and the benefits that might accrue. Psychiatrists and polygraphers also offer
commentary from their perspectives.
Why You Buy: How Ads Persuade (1988, 33 min, LS). Vignettes and actual commercials are used to illus-
trate principles of involvement, emotional appeals, association, fear appeals, and product segmentation.
Although different terminology is used, the viewer should recognize familiar concepts of attitude change
and compliance. An accompanying booklet includes summaries of the key points on the tape and sugges-
tions for further activities. This video is very well produced, although the pacing and level of presentation
may make it more appropriate for use in a high school or community college course.

TRANSPARENCIES WITH LECTURE NOTES
T94: Kelley’s Attribution Model

T94 Kelley’s Attribution Model ◊ Kelley proposed that people make attributions, or give rea-
sons for someone else’s or their own behaviour by believing
that behaviour is caused by either an outside stimulus or an
Consensus Distinctiveness Consistency internal (personal) factor. That is, the behaviour is attributed
Low Low High Personal
Other persons The stranger raves The stranger

attribution
Something about
to something extrinsic to the person (stimulus) or intrinsic to
do not rave about about many always raves about the stranger caused
The stranger raves

about the film.
the film. other films. this film. the behavior.
the person (personal).
High High High Stimulus
Other persons The stranger does The stranger

attribution
Something about
the film caused
◊ In this example, the behaviour is a stranger raving about a
rave about not rave about always raves about
the film. many other films. this film. the behavior.
film. A person hearing this stranger rave about the film will
rely on three types of information about his behaviour.
o consensus (to what degree do others agree about the
merits of the film?);
o distinctiveness (how often does this stranger rave about
films?);
o and consistency (how regularly or how often has this
stranger raved about the film?).
◊ If a person does not hear anyone else rave about the film (low
consensus), hears the stranger rave about many films (low
distinctiveness), and hears him mention it often (high consis-
tency), that person may attribute the stranger’s behaviour to
something about the stranger.
◊ Now if that person hears other people raving about the film
(high consensus), doesn’t hear the stranger mention any
other films as enthusiastically (high distinctiveness), and
hears the stranger continually raving, that person may attrib-
ute this behaviour to the fact that the film is indeed good.
T95: The Behavioural-Confirmation Process

◊ The behavioural-confirmation process is the way in which we
T95 The Behavioral-Confirmation Process
confirm our expectations about someone else’s behaviour.
We start by expecting someone to behave a certain way based
on our behaviour toward him or her. For example, a man and
Perceiver’s Perceiver’s behavior
expectations Step 1 toward the target a woman are out on a date, the man opens the door for the
woman, he expects that she will step over the threshold
Step 2
Step 3 because he has opened the door. He (the perceiver) opens
Target’s behavior
toward the perceiver the door and she steps through—she (the target) has con-
firmed his expectation.

T96: Conformity: Sherif’s Investigation of the Autokinetic Effect

T96 Conformity: Sherif’s Investigation of
the Autokinetic Effect
◊ In some early work on conformity, Muzafer Sherif looked at
how norms develop in small groups. Initially the participants
sat alone in a dark room and made a judgment about how
8 much a beam of light had moved (when in fact, the beam of
7
light had never moved). As you can see here, initial estimates
Perceived movement (inches)
5
varied greatly. In the days to follow, the participants would
4 return in groups of three and would estimate the movement.
3 Initial estimates soon started to become closer and closer
2
until they converged on a norm or a common perception.
1
◊ This study showed us that people are influenced by the
Pregroup Group Group Group
session 1 session 2 session 3 behaviour of others and that they want to conform because
Time of judgment
Subject A
Subject B
they feel the others are correct.
Subject C
T97: Conformity: Asch’s Investigation of Line Judgments

◊ Conformity is when people want to align their own behaviour
T97 Conformity: Asch’s Investigation of Line Judgements
with group norms. Solomon Asch studied the factors that pro-
50 mote and the reasons for human beings’ tendency to con-
Percentage of conforming responses
40 form. In his study, participants in a group were shown cards

with lines of varying lengths and asked to identify the card
30
with the lines most similar to the line on the comparison card.
20
◊ He found that a participant would go along with the rest of
10
the group’s answers, even if the participant knew the others
answers were incorrect, just about 37 percent of the time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Number of people in the majority Then, normative influence leads participants to agree with
the judgments of others.
◊ He found two motivating factors of conformity—characteris-
tics of the situation which included:
o Group size—the likelihood of conformity increased with
group size, but only up to a point. As you can see depict-
ed on this graph 15 had no more impact than did four.
o Degree of consensus in the group—if just one person
broke from the agreement of the majority, the conform-
ity fell to about an average of 25 percent.
o Ambiguity of the task—the more ambiguous the task
directions were, the more likely for conformity.
And characteristics of the person, which included:
o Fear of social rejection,
o Power status within the group, and
o Feelings of acceptance
T98: Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition

◊ In his study of social facilitation and social inhibition, Robert
T98 Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition Zajonc looked at how the presence of others affected behav-
iour. What he found was that the presence of others speeds up
and improves our performance on various tasks when the
Simple task
Improved
task was considered simple. However, when the task was
performance
more complex, he found that the presence of others impaired
Presence of Increased Dominant
others arousal response one’s performance.
Complex task
Impaired
performance
◊ In short, social facilitation helps to have people present when
we are working on a task we know we’re good at, but it does-
n’t help to have people around when we are working on a task
we find difficult.

T99: When Will Bystanders Help?

◊ Many helping experiments have been conducted and the
results are summarized on this graph. Basically, in a group, a
person will fail to take action because he or she assumes that
others in the group will. As we see here, participants who
thought they were the only bystander helped the most, and
those that thought there was only one other bystander also
tended to help but not as much as if they thought they were
alone.
◊ Interesting enough, participants who believed there were
many other bystanders, in this case four, besides themselves
were least likely to help the person having the seizure. This
tendency to hang back because of the assumption that others
in the group will take action is known as diffusion of respon-
sibility. It is not that the bystander doesn’t know that the per-
son needs help—because when the bystander is the only one,
she or he gives the help needed, it is just that the bystander
will hesitate to give it when he or she thinks someone else
(another bystander) will act.
T100: Influencing Attitudes

T100 Influencing Attitudes
◊ Studies have indicated that there are three effective ways to
influence a person’s attitudes:
Effective Ways to
Influence Attitudes
o repetition of an idea or assertion, also known as the
validity effect—when you start to hear the same thing
over and over, you begin to believe it;
Repetition of
an idea or
Endorsement Association o endorsement by an admired or attractive person—as we
by an admired of the message
assertion
(the validity
or attractive with a often see in advertisements using sports heroes, celebri-
person good feeling
effect) ties, and beautiful models; and
o association of the message with a good feeling—in
advertisement, background cues such as the use of
colour, tone, music is carefully selected to put the con-
sumer in the mood to buy.
T101: Two Routes to Persuasion

T101 Two Routes to Persuasion
◊ In their study of persuasion, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) found
that our powers of persuading someone can take two routes,
a central route and a peripheral route. As depicted here, the
Input Processing strategy Output central route is marked by our high ability to motivate where-
High ability
and motivation Central route as the peripheral route is marked by our low ability to moti-
Source
message
Audience Persuasion vate our audience.
Low ability Peripheral
or motivation route
◊ Certain conditions exist and factor into change on one route
or the other. They are the:
o source—how credible is the source and how likable?
o audience—are some individuals easier to persuade than
others?
o message—what is being said and to what degree does the
message differ from what the audience wants to hear? To
what degree does it vary from that of the audience?
◊ This two-track model helps us understand how different peo-
ple can be motivated to do the same but what factored into
their reasons for doing are different. “Different strokes for
different folks”

o Some deciding factors may seem perfectly logical and

normal for one but may seem illogical and not normal
to another.
T102: Social Role Theory and Gender Stereotypes

T102 Social Role Theory and Gender Stereotypes ◊ This flow chart depicts social role theory as it relates to gen-
der stereotypes. Here we see how a person’s perception of sex
differences is endured because of the unequal social roles
occupied by men and women. In this example, we see that
Biological,
social,
Social roles
(division
Role-
consistent
Gender-
stereotyped various biological social, economic, and political influences
economic, and skills and social
political factors
of labor) behaviors perceptions factor in to the way in which we feel the division of labour in
a household should be distributed. For example, Who washes
the dishes? Who manages the finances? We rely on the vari-
ous factors to help shape our expectations about these social
roles.
◊ Then we compare the way we think the division of labour in
the house should be divided up and how it is actually divided
up. To what degree are the actual roles consistent with the
expected roles? If it is a high degree of consistency, then we
have supported the social perception and gender stereotyped
notion of the social roles men and women should hold in
regards to the division of labour in their households.
T103: Guidelines for Nonsexist Language

T103 Guidelines for Nonsexist Language ◊ Psychologists studying our use of language have examined
the use of generic masculine nouns and pronouns to see if
they elicit images of men to the exclusion of women. On this
GUIDELINES FOR NONSEXIST LANGUAGE
Common Sexist Terms Nonsexaist Alternatives table, we see examples of sexist language and their nonsexist
Man, mankind People, humanity, human beings
Manpower
Freshman
Work force, personnel
First-year student, frosh
alternatives. For example, it is suggested to use “first-year stu-
Chairman
Foreman
Policeman
Head, chair, chairperson
Supervisor
Police officer
dent” instead of “freshman,” or “police officer” instead of
He, his, him
Mothering
He or she, his or her, him or her, or they, their, them
Parenting, nurturing, caregiving
“policeman.”
Female doctor Doctor
Male nurse Nurse
◊ Our use of language has a very powerful effect on the way in
which we and others listening to us view the world. However,
more research that examines the link between language and
thought is needed.
T104: Female-Male Comparisons

◊ On this table we see similarities and differences between
women and men on a variety of psychological dimensions.
Namely, the dimensions of intelligence, verbal ability, mathe-
matical ability, visual-spatial ability, communication, and
aggression are compared.
◊ Overall, there are no differences in the intelligence of males
and females. Females have an edge over males in verbal abil-
ity while the opposite holds true for mathematical ability. We
see the gap on both these dimensions lessening between the
sexes.
◊ Males consistently outscore females on visual-spatial ability
tasks. This may be due to different opportunities to practice
the skills and or to prenatal hormonal influences.
◊ Contrary to popular belief, men talk more than women. And
finally, interesting enough, while the majority of aggressive

crimes are committed by males, research bears out that there

is little difference between the sexes in aggression in unpro-
voked conditions.
T105: Ethnic Identity

T105 Ethnic Identity ◊ Here we see the relationship between ethnic identity and
acculturation explained. Recall, a person’s ethnic identity is
how they identify with a racial, religious, or ethnic group.
Ethnic identity
Strong Weak And, acculturate refers to the process by which a minority
member of a culture starts to feel part of the mainstream or
host culture.
Strong
Bicultural Assimilated
◊ As this chart indicates, when a person strongly identifies with
Acculturation
their own culture and with the larger mainstream, they are
said to be bicultural or integrated.
◊ When a person strongly identifies with the mainstream cul-
Weak
Separatist Marginal
ture but has weak ties to their ethnicity, they are said to be
assimilated into the larger culture.
◊ When a person has weak feelings of acculturation but strong
ties to their ethnicity, they are said to be separatists—do not
want to “sell out.”
◊ When a person has weak feelings of acculturation, as well
as weak ties to their ethnic identity they are said to be
marginal—feel they don’t belong anywhere.
◊ A person’s feelings of acculturation can change over their
lifetime. It really depends on their life experiences and events
that occur in society.
T106: Where in the World People Live

T106 Where in the World People Live ◊ Looking at this table, we can see that out of every 100 people,
21 live in China and 16 live in India.
WHERE IN THE WORLD PEOPLE LIVE
Of Every 100 People Live in
o That means that 37 percent of the world population
21 China lives in those two countries alone. This is an interesting
16 India
5 United States fact to ponder, particularly when we get too engrossed
5 Former Soviet Union
4 Indonesia in our own cultures and think that our culture or anoth-
3 Brazil
2 Bangladesh er dominates the world. As you can see, there really is
2
2
Japan
Mexico
not a dominant world culture.
2 Nigeria
2 Pakistan
36 All remaining countries
T107: Acculturation Strategies

T107 Acculturation Strategies Notes from T105:
◊ Here we see the relationship between ethnic identity and
acculturation explained. Recall, a person’s ethnic identity is
how they identify with a racial, religious, or ethnic group.
Identification with ethnic group
And, acculturate refers to the process by which a minority

Strong Separation Integration
member of a culture starts to feel part of the mainstream or
host culture.
Weak Marginalization Assimilation
◊ As this chart indicates, when a person strongly identifies with
their own culture and with the larger mainstream, they are
Weak Strong
said to be bicultural or integrated.
Identification with host culture

◊ When a person strongly identifies with the mainstream cul-

ture but has weak ties to their ethnicity, they are said to be
assimilated into the larger culture.
◊ When a person has weak feelings of acculturation but strong
ties to their ethnicity, they are said to be separatists—do not
want to “sell out.”
◊ When a person has weak feelings of acculturation, as well
as weak ties to their ethnic identity they are said to be
marginal—feel they don’t belong anywhere.
◊ A person’s feelings of acculturation can change over their
lifetime. It really depends on their life experiences and events
that occur in society.
T108: Sources of Prejudice

◊ Prejudice is not unique to one culture—it is universal.
Prejudice has many psychological, social, economic, and cul-
tural sources. Some examples of each are listed here.
◊ While prejudice may have its base in psychological factors,
like low self-esteem or insecurity, it also can have social influ-
ence, like conformity or groupthink—it is what everyone else
around you thinks.
◊ Economics can also be a source, such as when a majority
wants to preserve its higher status. They rationalize that the
other groups are inferior—those women can’t handle the
pressure of running a company—and discriminate against
them. This helps them justify their prejudice.
◊ Finally, the fourth source of prejudice can be cultural, such as
ethnocentrism—we have to be loyal to who we are and pro-
tect ourselves against outside influences. The conflict in the
Middle East is a good example of this.
T109: Median Household Incomes by Race

T109 Median Household Incomes by Race ◊ Here we see the annual household income for members of
different racial groups. As you can see, the highest group is
$50,000 Asians with an annual income of close to $50,000, and the
Annual household income
$40,000
lowest being African Americans with an average annual
$30,000
income of $28,000. The average annual income for all races is
$20,000
close to $40,000, with whites coming closest to the average
$10,000
with an average annual income of $42,000.
0
All races White Black Native
American
Asian Hispanic
◊ Critical thinking question you may want to ask: Which of
Race
these races contains the largest single-parent household
group?
HANDOUTS
8.1—What Constitutes a Group? (p. 321)
8.2—Violate Those Norms! (p. 322)
8.3—Identify the Bias (p. 323)
8.4—From Roommates to World Peace (p. 324)

Handout 8.1
What Constitutes a Group?

Check each statement you believe represents a group.
1. _____ three people sitting in separate rooms
2. _____ students in a college class
3. _____ sorority sisters attending a lecture together
4. _____ an army defending its borders
5. _____ all people on planet Earth
6. _____ a mob of angry protesters marching in Washington D.C.
7. _____ a family
8. _____ Jenna and Bob out on a first date
9. _____ two strangers speaking over the telephone
10. _____ newborns in the maternity ward
11. _____ three rival gang members on a desert island
12. _____ colleagues assigned the task of writing a final report
13. _____ friends standing in line to purchase concert tickets
14. _____ members of Greenpeace
15. _____ the Dallas Cowboys
16. _____ natives entertaining a foreign visitor for the evening
17. _____ people from the Republic of China
18. _____ a construction crew building a bridge
19. _____ pedestrians on the corner of Fifth and Main Streets
20. _____ lunch with a Mytonian

Handout 8.2
Violate Those Norms!

Complete one of the following tasks, either violating a norm or enlisting someone else’s compliance.
Norms: Put yourself in the role of a norm violator in situations such as those listed below. Turn in a paper
noting the reactions of others to your actions, as well as your own feelings while you are acting as the deviant.
a. Enter the school cafeteria, coffee shop, snack bar, local ice-cream parlor, and inconspicuously observe
the interaction between two people seated at a small (four-place) table. Then sit down in the third seat
at their table or booth. Sometimes you might say, “Pardon me, is this seat taken?” or “Is it OK if I sit
here?” before sitting down; at other times, just sit down and begin to study or eat without acknowledg-
ing the couple’s presence. Is your act taken as a violation of their “intimacy,” their “property”? Does it
matter if you excuse yourself or get permission first? Make systematic variations and record the results.
See if you can work out a way of recording the reactions so that they can be compared across several
experimental variations.
b. Enter a restaurant with a friend and sit at a table or counter seat recently vacated (perhaps by a con-
federate). While you wait for new service to be brought to the table and the old removed, proceed to
eat some of the food left over from the previous diner. In order to make it clear that health-and-disease
concerns are not really the major ones operating, eat some packaged crackers or bread sticks that obvi-
ously have not been touched. You might also have a confederate leave an uneaten piece of pie or
doughnut, etc. How do your unsuspecting friend and the waitress react? If the pie was paid for and left
(by your confederate) are you not allowed to eat it? Why not?
c. Eat a banana by holding it horizontally, peeling back only the top strips of peel while holding it in both
hands like a watermelon. Any reactions?
d. For a week, whenever someone says, “Hi, how ya feeling?” or some similar greeting, give a substantive
answer describing in detail how you are feeling or what you’ve been doing or thinking. You might try to
be perfectly honest or else to emphasize negative things to some selected greeters and positive ones to
others. How can you characterize their reactions while you are talking, and the next time(s) you meet?
e. When talking to another person, either stand very close (within a foot) or else maintain a distance of near-
ly three feet. Does your proximity affect the other person’s conversation and other reactions to you? Is
there an “ideal” distance within which you are expected to approach a close friend? An acquaintance? A
stranger? Does violating the personal space of others disturb you? If so, why? You might precede this
experiment by first establishing through observation the personal space or “buffer zones” that character-
ize certain people you know or people in particular situations. Do older people like more space than those
your age?
f. Dress in a fashion that is atypical for you (in a dress or suit if you usually wear jeans, or in sweat shirt
and jeans if you usually dress up). Note reactions of friends to your violation of their expectancy about
how you will dress.
g. To test for the operation of other pervasive, subtle norms that exist in your college, simply walk across
the campus or into class holding hands with a friend of the same sex.
Compliance: For the following scenarios, which factors appeared to increase or decrease compliance?
Include the characteristic of the situation, the source of the compliant request or the person who receives the
request that appears to influence the rate of compliance.
a. You are allegedly making a long-distance phone call and you need change to continue the call, so you
ask someone nearby to get change for you.
b. As you drop your notebook and the pages fly out, you request help from one or more strangers near-
by. You can do the same with a shopping bag with a bottom that easily opens up. Another variation is
accidentally spilling a box of paper clips and then asking for help collecting them.
c. Pass out leaflets on a corner and try to get a passerby to help you distribute them. Record how many
people refuse you. For those who agree to help, record either how many leaflets they pass out or for
how long they help. Or, when someone else is distributing leaflets, try to get passersby to help you pick
up discarded leaflets in an antilitter effort.
d. Take a camera to a shopping centre and ask randomly selected individuals if they will do you a favor
by letting you take their picture as they make a funny face, jump in the air, skip a rope, etc.
e. Park a car by an expired meter and then ask passersby for money for the meter (you have no change).

Handout 8.3
Identify the Bias

Attribution theory and the just-world hypothesis provide insight into the nature of the relationship between
social factors and individual explanatory processes.
Assume that when students were asked to explain the source of a person’s grades, they provided the
explanations below. Examine each explanation and identify the explanatory device it relies upon. Two of the
items reflect two types of bias. The choices are:
Just-world hypothesis
Self-serving bias
Dispositional attribution
Situational attribution
1. Grades result from a person’s intelligence and self-discipline. When these are high, grades are good and
vice versa.
2. Grades depend on doing the right things. A person earns good grades for following the rules and bad
grades for slipping up.
3. Grades depend on quality teaching and educational materials. A person does well when quality is high
and vice versa.
4. I got a bad grade because the teacher wrote tricky questions that had nothing to do with what we talked
about in class.
5. I got a good grade because I am smart and I tend to do well on exams.

Handout 8.4
From Roommates to World Peace

1. Rachel refuses to share a room with a heavy roommate and she voted against inviting a heavy person
to join a group she belongs to. She says she would not hire an overweight person or trust one, because
heavy people tend to be lazy and dishonest. Name at least two ways in which Rachel’s prejudice vio-
lates the requirements of critical thinking and explain your answers.
2. Imagine that you are hired to lead a seminar to promote multicultural sensitivity among the faculty of
a school district. You walk in and find that all the teachers have grouped themselves by ethnicity. Based
on information and principles in Chapter 8, what should you do to optimize the interactions among the
teachers during the next few hours and to promote an understanding of ethnic and racial prejudice?

Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian 4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian 4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian 4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychology Fourth Canadian Canadian

4th Edition Wade Solutions Manual

Chapter 8: Behaviour in Social

Learning Objectives 279

278 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

After studying this chapter, students should be able to do the following:

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 279

I. Introduction to the Chapter

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 281

b. Given no further instructions on

282 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

b. Routinizing the task—the activity as

ii. More prevalent in Western

284 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

rationalization, economic self-interest,

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 285

Methods of persuasion are neither

286 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 287

288 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

attentional demands, community

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 289

iii. Interdependence in reaching

290 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

B. The origins of prejudice

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 291

VII. The Question of Human Nature

292 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

LECTURE SUGGESTIONS AND DISCUSSION TOPICS

Lecture/Discussion 8.1: Suggestions for Reducing Racism

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 293

Blacks were more often described as:

Lecture/Discussion 8.2: Explaining Correspondence Bias

294 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Lecture/Discussion 8.3: Bad Guys Wear Black

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 295

Lecture/Discussion 8.4: What Do You Think You’re Doing?

296 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Lecture/Discussion 8.5: Jonestown: A Study in Social Psychology Change

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 297

CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND EXERCISES

Activity 8.1: What Constitutes a Group?

Activity 8.2: Reactions Speak Louder Than Lectures

298 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Activity 8.3: Self-Serving Bias

Activity 8.4: Identify the Bias

Activity 8.5: From Roommates to World Peace

1. Points students might be expected to make include:

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 299

Activity 8.6: Identifying Persuasion Techniques

1. An appeal to or creation of needs—Makosky suggested describing this technique through reference to

300 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Activity 8.7: Deindividuation

Activity 8.8: Self-Awareness and Cultural Identity

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc. 301

Activity 8.9: Demonstrating Group Polarization

Activity 8.10: Is This Sexual Harassment?

302 Copyright © 2013 Pearson Canada Inc.

Activity: 8.11: Guest Lectures on Diversity