Social Pyschology

Social PSycholoGy TENTh EDITION David G. Myers

10e Social Psychology David G. Myers Hope College Holland, Michigan TM

TM Published by McGraw-Hill, an imprint of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020. Copyright © 2010, 2008, 2005, 2002, 1999, 1996, 1993, 1990, 1987, 1983. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning. This book is printed on acid-free paper. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 WCK/WCK 0 9 ISBN: 978-0-07-337066-8 MHID: 0-07-337066-5 Vice President Editorial: Michael Ryan Editorial Director: Beth Mejia Publisher: Mike Sugarman Executive Marketing Manager: James Headley Director of Development: Dawn Groundwater Editorial Coordinator: AJ Laferrera Supplements Editor: Sarah Colwell Production Editor: Holly Paulsen Manuscript Editor: Janet Tilden Art Director: Preston Thomas Design Manager: Allister Fein Text Designer: Amanda Cavanaugh Cover Designer: Allister Fein Senior Photo Research Coordinator: Nora Agbayani Photo Research: Toni Michaels/PhotoFind, LLC Media Project Manager: Thomas Brierly Production Supervisor: Louis Swaim Composition: 10/12 Palatino by Laserwords Private Limited Printing: 45# New Era Matte Plus, World Color Press, Inc. Front cover (left to right): Nicole Hill/Getty Images; Radius Images/MasterFile/Veer; CMCD/ Getty Images Back cover (left to right): UpperCut Images/Getty Images; Image Source/Corbis; Rubberball/Getty Images; Shuji Kobayashi/Getty Images Credits: The credits section for this book begins on page C-1 and is considered an extension of the copyright page. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data has been applied for. The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a Web site does not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill, and McGraw-Hill does not guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites. www.mhhe.com

About the Author Since receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa, David Myers has spent his career at Michigan’s Hope College, where he is the John Dirk Werkman Professor of Psychology and has taught dozens of social-psychology sections. Hope College students have invited him to be their commencement speaker and voted him “outstanding professor.” Myers’ scientific articles have appeared in some three dozen scientific books and periodicals, including Science, the American Scientist, Psychological Science, and the American Psychologist. In addition to his scholarly writing and his text- books, he communicates psychological science to the general public. His writings have appeared in three dozen magazines, from Today’s Education to Scientific American. He also has published general audience books, including The Pursuit of Happiness and Intuition: Its Powers and Perils. David Myers has chaired his city’s Human Relations Commission, helped found a thriving assistance cen- ter for families in poverty, and spoken to hundreds of college and community groups. Drawing on his own experience, he also has written articles and a book (A Quiet World) about hearing loss, and he is advocat- ing a revolution in American hearing-assistance tech- nology (hearingloop.org). He bikes to work year-round and still plays daily pick-up basketball. David and Carol Myers are parents of two sons and a daughter.



Brief Contents chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology 2 Part One Social Thinking chapter 2 The Self in a Social World 34 chapter 3 Social Beliefs and Judgments 78 chapter 4 Behavior and Attitudes 122 Part Two Social Influence chapter 5 Genes, Culture, and Gender 156 chapter 6 Conformity and Obedience 190 chapter 7 Persuasion 228 chapter 8 Group Influence 266 Part Three Social Relations chapter 9 Prejudice: Disliking Others 306 chapter 10 Aggression: Hurting Others 352 chapter 11 Attraction and Intimacy: Liking and Loving Others 392 chapter 12 Helping 440 chapter 13 Conflict and Peacemaking 482 Part Four Applying Social Psychology chapter 14 Social Psychology in the Clinic 524 chapter 15 Social Psychology in Court 532 chapter 16 Social Psychology and the Sustainable Future 590 Epilogue 610 References R-1 Credits C-1 Name Index N-1 Subject Index/Glossary S-1

Table of Contents chapter 1 Research Methods: How We Do Social Psychology 17 Introducing Social Psychology 2 Forming and Testing Hypotheses 17 What Is Social Psychology? 4 Correlational Research: Detecting Natural Social Psychology’s Big Ideas 5 Associations 18 Experimental Research: Searching for Cause and We Construct Our Social Reality 5 Our Social Intuitions Are Often Powerful but Effect 24 Generalizing from Laboratory to Life 28 Sometimes Perilous 6 Social Influences Shape Our Behavior 7 Postscript: Why I Wrote This Book 30 Personal Attitudes and Dispositions Also Shape Part One: Social Thinking Behavior 8 Social Behavior is Biologically Rooted 8 chapter 2 Social Psychology’s Principles Are Applicable in The Self in a Social World 34 Everyday Life 9 Spotlights and Illusions 36 Social Psychology and Human Values 10 Research Close-Up: On Being Nervous Obvious Ways Values Enter Psychology 10 about Looking Nervous 36 Not-So-Obvious Ways Values Enter Psychology 10 Self-Concept: Who Am I? 39 I Knew It All Along: Is Social Psychology Simply Common Sense? 13 At the Center of Our Worlds: Our Sense of Self 39 Development of the Social Self 40 Focus On: I Knew It All Along 15 Self and Culture 42 The Inside Story: Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama on Cultural Psychology 46 Self-Knowledge 47 Self-Esteem 52 Self-Esteem Motivation 52 The “Dark Side” of Self-Esteem 53 Perceived Self-Control 56 Self-Efficacy 57 Locus of Control 58 Learned Helplessness versus Self-Determination 59 The Inside Story: Daniel Gilbert on the Benefits of Irrevocable Commitments 62 Self-Serving Bias 63 Explaining Positive and Negative Events 63 Can We All Be Better than Average? 64 Focus On: Self-Serving Bias—How Do I Love Me? Let Me Count the Ways 65 Unrealistic Optimism 66 False Consensus and Uniqueness 68 Explaining Self-Serving Bias 69 Reflections on Self-Esteem and Self-Serving Bias 70 Self-Presentation 72 Self-Handicapping 73 Impression Management 73 Postscript: Twin Truths—The Perils of Pride, the Powers of Positive Thinking 76

Contents vii chapter 3 Focus On: Saying Becomes Believing 134 The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon 134 Social Beliefs and Judgments 78 Evil and Moral Acts 136 Interracial Behavior and Racial Attitudes 138 Perceiving Our Social Worlds 80 Social Movements 138 Priming 80 Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Perceiving and Interpreting Events 81 Attitudes? 140 Belief Perseverance 84 Constructing Memories of Ourselves and Self-Presentation: Impression Management 140 Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance 141 Our Worlds 85 The Inside Story: Leon Festinger on Dissonance Reduction 144 Judging Our Social Worlds 88 Self-Perception 145 Comparing the Theories 150 Intuitive Judgments 88 Overconfidence 90 Postscript: Changing Ourselves through Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts 94 Action 152 Counterfactual Thinking 97 Illusory Thinking 98 Part Two: Social Influence Moods and Judgments 100 chapter 5 Explaining Our Social Worlds 102 Genes, Culture, and Gender 156 Attributing Causality: To the Person or the How Are We Influenced by Human Nature Situation 102 and Cultural Diversity? 158 The Fundamental Attribution Error 105 Genes, Evolution, and Behavior 158 Culture and Behavior 160 Expectations of Our Social Worlds 112 Focus On: The Cultural Animal 161 Research Close-Up: Passing Encounters, Focus On: The Self-Fulfilling Psychology of the Stock Market 113 East and West 164 Teacher Expectations and Student Performance 113 How Are Gender Similarities and Differences Getting from Others What We Expect 115 Explained? 168 Conclusions 117 Independence versus Connectedness 169 Social Dominance 171 Postscript: Reflecting on Illusory Aggression 173 Thinking 119 Sexuality 173 chapter 4 Evolution and Gender: Doing What Comes Naturally? 175 Behavior and Attitudes 122 Gender and Mating Preferences 176 How Well Do Our Attitudes Predict Our Reflections on Evolutionary Psychology 178 Behavior? 124 Focus On: Evolutionary Science and When Attitudes Predict Behavior 125 Religion 179 The Inside Story: Mahzarin R. Banaji on Gender and Hormones 180 Discovering Experimental Social Culture and Gender: Doing as the Culture Psychology 126 Says? 181 Research Close-Up: You’ve Not Got Mail: Prejudicial Attitudes Predict Discriminatory Gender Roles Vary with Culture 182 Behavior 130 Gender Roles Vary over Time 183 Peer-Transmitted Culture 184 When Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes? 131 What Can We Conclude about Genes, Culture, and Gender? 186 Role Playing 132 Saying Becomes Believing 133 Biology and Culture 186 The Inside Story: Alice Eagly on Gender Similarities and Differences 187 The power of the Situation and the Person 187 Postscript: Should We View Ourselves as Products or Architects of Our Social Worlds? 189

viii Contents chapter 6 Postscript: On Being an Individual within Conformity and Obedience 190 Community 225 What Is Conformity? 192 chapter 7 Persuasion 228 What Are the Classic Conformity and Obedience Studies? 193 What Paths Lead to Persuasion? 231 Sherif’s Studies of Norm Formation 193 The Central Route 232 Research Close-Up: Contagious The Peripheral Route 232 Different Paths for Different Purposes 233 Yawning 195 Focus On: Mass Delusions 197 What Are the Elements of Persuasion? 234 Asch’s Studies of Group Pressure 197 Who Says? The Communicator 234 246 Milgram’s Obedience Experiments 199 Research Close-Up: Experimenting with a The Ethics of Milgram’s Experiments 200 What Breeds Obedience? 201 Virtual Social Reality 238 Focus On: Personalizing the Victims 203 What Is Said? The Message Content 239 The Inside Story: Stanley Milgram on How Is It Said? The Channel of Communication To Whom Is It Said? The Audience 250 Obedience 205 Reflections on the Classic Studies 205 Extreme Persuasion: How Do Cults Indoctrinate? 254 What Predicts Conformity? 210 Attitudes Follow Behavior 256 Group Size 211 Persuasive Elements 256 Unanimity 211 Group Effects 258 Cohesion 213 Status 213 How Can Persuasion Be Resisted? 259 Public Response 214 Prior Commitment 214 Strengthening Personal Commitment 260 The Inside Story: William McGuire on Why Conform? 215 Attitude Inoculation 261 Who Conforms? 218 Real-Life Applications: Inoculation Programs 261 Implications of Attitude Inoculation 264 Personality 218 Culture 219 Postscript: Being Open but Not Naive 265 Social Roles 220 Do We Ever Want to Be Different? 222 chapter 8 Group Influence 266 Reactance 222 Asserting Uniqueness 223 What Is a Group? 268 Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others? 268 The Mere Presence of Others 269 Crowding: The Presence of Many Others 270 Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others? 271 Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group? 273 Many Hands Make Light Work 274 Social Loafing in Everyday Life 276 Deindividuation: When Do People Lose Their Sense of Self in Groups? 278 Doing Together What We Would Not Do Alone 278 Diminished Self-Awareness 281 Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions? 282 The Case of the “Risky Shift” 283 Do Groups Intensify Opinions? 284 Focus On: Group Polarization 287 Explaining Polarization 288

Contents ix What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice? 324 Frustration and Aggression: The Scapegoat Theory 325 Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior to Others 325 Motivation to Avoid Prejudice 330 What Are the Cognitive Sources of 332 Prejudice? 331 Categorization: Classifying People into Groups Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out 335 Attribution: Is It a Just World? 339 Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist What Are the Consequences of Good Decisions? 290 Prejudice? 342 The Inside Story: Irving Janis on Self-Perpetuating Stereotypes 342 Groupthink 291 Discrimination’s Impact: The Self-Fulfilling Symptoms of Groupthink 292 Prophecy 344 Critiquing Groupthink 294 Stereotype Threat 345 Preventing Groupthink 295 The Inside Story: Claude Steele on Group Problem Solving 295 The Inside Story: Behind a Nobel Prize: Stereotype Threat 347 Do stereotypes Bias Judgments Of Two Minds Are Better Than One 297 Individuals? 348 The Influence of the Minority: How Do Individuals Influence the Group? 299 Postscript: Can We Reduce Prejudice? 350 Consistency 299 chapter 10 Self-Confidence 300 Aggression: Hurting Others 352 Defections from the Majority 300 Is Leadership Minority Influence? 301 What Is Aggression? 355 Focus On: Transformational Community What Are Some Theories of Aggression? 356 Leadership 303 Aggression as a Biological Phenomenon 356 Postscript: Are Groups Bad for Us? 304 Aggression as a Response to Frustration 359 Aggression as Learned Social Behavior 362 Part Three: Social Relations What Are Some Influences on Aggression? 365 chapter 9 Prejudice: Disliking Others 306 Aversive Incidents 365 Arousal 368 What Is the Nature and Power of Aggression Cues 368 Prejudice? 308 Media Influences: Pornography and Sexual Defining Prejudice 308 310 Violence 370 Prejudice: Subtle and Overt Media Influences: Television 374 Racial Prejudice 310 Media Influences: Video Games 379 Gender Prejudice 315 The Inside Story: Craig Anderson on Video- What Are the Social Sources of Game Violence 382 Prejudice? 319 Group Influences 382 Research Close-Up: When Provoked, Are Social Inequalities: Unequal Status and Prejudice 319 Groups More Aggressive Than Individuals? 384 Socialization 320 Institutional Supports 322 How Can Aggression Be Reduced? 385 Catharsis? 385 A Social Learning Approach 387 Postscript: Reforming a Violent Culture 389

x Contents chapter 11 Attraction and Intimacy: Liking and Loving Others 392 What Leads to Friendship and Attraction? 396 Proximity 397 Focus On: Liking Things Associated with Oneself 400 Physical Attractiveness 402 The Inside Story: Ellen Berscheid on Attractiveness 407 Similarity versus Complementarity 412 The Inside Story: James Jones on Cultural Diversity 414 Liking Those Who Like Us 415 Focus On: Bad Is Stronger Than Good 416 Relationship Rewards 418 What Is Love? 420 Passionate Love 421 Companionate Love 424 What Enables Close Relationships? 426 Gender 470 Religious Faith 470 Attachment 426 Equity 428 How Can We Increase Helping? 473 Self-Disclosure 430 Focus On: Does the Internet Create Reduce Ambiguity, Increase responsibility 473 Guilt and Concern for Self-Image 474 Intimacy or Isolation? 432 Socializing Altruism 475 Focus On: Behavior and Attitudes among How Do Relationships End? 434 Rescuers of Jews 478 Divorce 434 The Detachment Process 435 Postscript: Taking Social Psychology into Life 480 Postscript: Making Love 438 chapter 12 chapter 13 Helping 440 Conflict and Peacemaking 482 Why Do We Help? 443 What Creates Conflict? 484 498 Social Exchange and Social Norms 443 Social Dilemmas 484 The Inside Story: Dennis Krebs on Life Competition 491 Perceived Injustice 493 Experience and Professional Interests 445 Misperception 493 Evolutionary Psychology 452 Research Close-Up: Misperception and War Comparing and Evaluating Theories of Helping 454 Genuine Altruism 454 How Can Peace Be Achieved? 499 Focus On: The Benefits—and the Costs— Contact 499 of Empathy-Induced Altruism 458 Research Close-Up: Relationships That When Will We Help? 459 Might Have Been 502 The Inside Story: Nicole Shelton and Jennifer Number of Bystanders 460 The Inside Story: John M. Darley on Richeson on Cross-Racial Friendships 503 Cooperation 504 Bystander Reactions 462 Focus On: Why Do We Care Who Wins? 506 Helping When Someone Else Does 464 Focus On: Branch Rickey, Jackie Robinson, Time Pressures 465 Similarity 466 and the Integration Of Baseball 512 Research Close-Up: Ingroup Similarity and Communication 514 Conciliation 519 Helping 467 Postscript: The Conflict between Individual Who Will Help? 469 and Communal Rights 521 Personality Traits 469

Contents xi Part Four: Applying Social How Do Group Influences Affect Juries? 583 Psychology Minority Influence 584 chapter 14 Group Polarization 584 Social Psychology in the Clinic 524 Research Close-Up: Group Polarization What Influences the Accuracy of Clinical in a Natural Court Setting 585 Judgments? 526 Leniency 586 Are Twelve Heads Better Than One? 586 Illusory Correlations 527 Are Six Heads as Good as Twelve? 586 Hindsight and Overconfidence 528 From Lab to Life: Simulated and Real Juries 587 Self-Confirming Diagnoses 529 Clinical versus Statistical Prediction 529 Postscript: Thinking Smart with Implications for Better Clinical Practice 531 Psychological Science 589 Focus On: A Physician’s View 531 chapter 16 What Cognitive Processes Accompany Behavior Problems? 532 Social Psychology and the Sustainable Future 590 Depression 532 The Inside Story: Shelley Taylor on An Environmental Call to Action 592 Positive Illusions 534 Enabling Sustainable Living 595 Loneliness 536 Anxiety and Shyness 538 New Technologies 595 Health, Illness, and Death 540 Reducing Consumption 596 What Are Some Social-Psychological The Social Psychology of Materialism Approaches to Treatment? 544 and Wealth 598 Inducing Internal Change through External Increased Materialism 598 Behavior 544 Wealth and Well-Being 598 Materialism Fails to Satisfy 602 Breaking Vicious Circles 545 Focus On: Social Comparison, Belonging, Maintaining Change through Internal and Happiness 604 Attributions for Success 547 Toward Sustainability and Survival 605 Using Therapy as Social Influence 547 Research Close-Up: Measuring National How Do Social Relationships Support Health Well-Being 607 and Well-Being? 549 Postscript: How Does One Live Responsibly Close Relationships and Health 549 in the Modern World? 608 Close Relationships and Happiness 552 Epilogue 610 Postscript: Enhancing Happiness 555 References R-1 Credits C-1 chapter 15 Name Index N-1 S-1 Social Psychology in Court 558 Subject Index/Glossary How Reliable Is Eyewitness Testimony? 561 The Power of Persuasive Eyewitnesses 561 568 When Eyes Deceive 562 The Misinformation Effect 564 Focus On: Eyewitness Testimony 565 Retelling 567 Reducing Error 567 Research Close-Up: Feedback to Witnesses What Other Factors Influence Juror Judgments? 572 The Defendant’s Characteristics 572 The Judge’s Instructions 575 Additional Factors 577 What Influences the Individual Juror? 578 Juror Comprehension 578 Jury Selection 580 “Death-Qualified” Jurors 582

Preface Regardless of background or major, students will see their world reflected in Social Psychology Students will see themselves, their families, or their workplaces within the pages of this text. In barely a century of formal study, significant insight has been gained into belief and illusion, love and hate, conformity and independence— social behaviors that we encounter virtually every day in all walks of life. In these pages students will see themselves and the world in which they live and love, work and play. Like the study of Social Psychology, I continue to envision this text as solidly scientific and warmly human, factually rigorous and intellectually provocative. In this edition, social phenomena that are important and relevant to today’s students are revealed throughout the narrative, and in enriching elements such as margin notes and chapter-ending Postscripts.

Understanding that students majoring in psychology, business, law, teaching, or many other areas may be drawn to the study of Social Psychology, this text is written in the intellectual tradition of the liberal arts. As with great literature, philosophy, and science, liberal arts education seeks to expand our thinking and awareness beyond the confines of the present. By focusing on humanly significant issues I offer the core content in ways that appeal to, and draw on applications from, a wide array of behaviors and experiences. Social Psychology can now offer partial answers to many questions we face in our homes, communities, and societies: ■ How does our thinking—both conscious and unconscious— drive our behavior? ■ What leads people sometimes to hurt and sometimes to help one another? ■ What kindles social conflict, and how can we transform closed fists into helping hands?

Engaging research reflects students’ interests and their environment As we see in the research literature as well as popular blogs (and, more recently, “tweets”), social psychology remains a compelling and dynamic area of study. Readers of this text from around the world have reached out to me, affirming that this richness is captured in the narrative as well as hallmark features in each chapter. In addition to part openers, chapter outlines, and summaries, each chapter includes the following features. gg The Inside Story essays capture compel- 126 Part One Social Thinking ling stories of famous researchers in their own THE inside words, highlighting the interests and questions STORY Mahzarin R. that guided—and sometimes misguided—their Psychology Banaji on Discovering Experimental findings. For example, Chapter 4 offers an Social essay by Mahzarin R. Banaji on her journey cwETwoIsulhoo(iovothhihzmaiutfnaemlfaromaatDneasdykfaisrhaedSbGmvltdeeeeoyoiesaoTeeeG2mswcdrtaetetctrhtictaotd4irhwnnitrmol,ohietwittedl-ioeneaogdenhhdhIstieuheLurllrntanlvoeaoioba,reodvakiPntstrtottnyccudle.oheientwf.wsaghlidmitarl,evruayrecniulaaMoteenkecsltoIgwgIheolsalreeasdphlddwplhoaeomsftllalfoieow—ersitaottrpwrmtnlaooplheoigeodiioutsovtttlcetrahmmyetokrhhnlgiaoisieaidntreOeen—dtetoneyfansgdbslhidedbdoethsrnrfhtUfbiolsikce.oahgiiueftvuathdonafuoclstPveranyohmboebiftnstmervvbttroerSoelmmvo’slheaeiwoletlxmrtnceoc.omofneeraanpoealihgsklaaccJyiltpuelr,meretinoyesikrutdfeoafmeeswIiqrkyeo,otsebttifonahymlueetctdoleroatlmoetapwoahoilirasrntftvlnbetbndal-hwooharhdaaeWaanoediotaIaoeyrntslndptffyeeeutthCaessaogNdjyomfnxltdetersuialtirrlhppliepftlhahoiemayasrieozmcmeissslulioit,nmnayisonnheaeecodedfywym1gogelteadsisilneant9nfametpycrtdaepseea6aco(Cs)igdgacciSx.elybhr8mnnnoaetooooc,sethnBedlhdn.feoip,eHynrllwocftyrll1.Aeseepmeaidssasealone.5cspilect,tregr,deng,hneameiIIecYaroeaowdaIreetsnudnpaageflhdeuyhubhitcridnlfieveirwisssaeeaeoeiantdedotce).-nrodd,cmorgo:fnehlndoiMae-erpk’dbcedfmtdye,usa-tmamdaittpmWwoituatni(coteistiaddnthipomtmhnetwtfnuonadiieiurlwaocfcddiyfponesikscdtahWteetefed,arnlaisuleeitdfdkkxlnclsttoteyi-desonnuhitt,tsiatlm,wwbteihilioofdatet.fi“etmwnayhnuettwpweeTvIsitsndamgdteeehnnlpoabciuidrnesetcnxatrintevpedhekskgdhsipctayo(tHhlMnaonee,asioaaercsiapGt(aottsrldtctbtnunarudieivtr,ltwosi.hwhvreeidntobeiretptearoAazloealcusfnolacdiarndeeItarvenotoddocshu.riuatwdnobiemfeittnefieMralnsr)Utywfpdotosse.uets,tppiwuan,Blcrocauh)drebaaisnlieicbaialvmsilaootedenticdedsnaetlhnlticufiedsdocpanrtoabsas”tsssojptwnltnitiphruh)iarsbvtthumacrardyhheetatcefeeyeiodsiiotietdhnle-i-cBiiumnryt-rrkhhmresIawfniimeucioaslcmtslioo?cinthtrpt.ohiwhinpevtMtlHNn.ihslillyaceteisceFoeicyigdtiacsoriosotnohicergefAtfueeamtnakesatssnxont,teusgrthItct(soaenblshrhititylsxcaaawtseae,eppinlwaavotrIaarthleatcaeesriwndpuokroootseeeernrgsntoinoo,nybncidnofjptpadao,eTriewntedoneewyeistodhdesse-tsre.ha)anutsdsle.te, from being a secretarial assistant in India to being a Harvard professor. 400 Part Three Social Relations tiemspt l(iIcAitTa)ssociation coptaaeeTtpornilhi(rIethnaltnH&duAcheephFdhsugplarsA’aoioesaTeiossrnenocnEernaAfrxpe,stdtbemrshtxptdaeheeastwee’iraprndllis,idiaevtxehoietcvnteeicrnucaipaavitntaiegerswitaohcntntdlvteieu,wetintmrcwtaeecaiiisd&2We(otoorislt,oSur0eortsehtrr,neefparni0ohfdrssetstaaxvne2ehtttuibtmeuafcnphatileh,ndaoedmaecinlaadeloeac2thhrtiedblwSrreecrlfem0eassaooeiidesa0xWrvi,&tjmcfuecundso3,pt2rtiesidhtooo)deoehpoa0letTs.iahlrquamnlg0.illcomye.tfOinuo5gPimcAe-gawtmaFrs)ueeihnsr1i.tvep(ceeovnanylse0sa(rpyneeroseectseaSr0torlooutdeecfhnelteyeisasfstarpnrlnoesx-aigartstaend(rtldlsuaetteGe“tueo1l,miaeh,tlmid,avTp2dgaiftrtdf2otareiaeei6hoetoyepu0ecewi,mrketrres.omsr0ldgs”otnseteon7t)eIhe)aeeuqm,owusnc)lsnxa,neuco.midmodhsawnatmadhnibin.eiimycldidepegideslspokataeeststuepihfltlst,sm&iyro.Smleou(cm2ieirgTrttmmirp4pra,oooeteooeplcearrmtpptwirr,wairhyochaeablltesmieeip:iiehlcltesdtcctearMrilhoehhiiaiasaeisstctcct,a-anulpairetataSiamnv2odiohraxratscts0eietftprtuzsh2sopire0tgd.otalod.oiwirl8ui5etimprciccwecu;anidcieiiomsntaapNdnitdnnesttbtldebsisReieioilato&etsocerloi.soscsiltivnheofBfhhstoua-Ftesakiontanarepnrhavtecwnvnamcip&dIzeiipteceaAoauoilobieipoojpcrtoairrdTesairat,tdltuoiopsstesbthn2efusnecsanre(oce0gd,cetrGwtorr0tDteetdtithsimea6remsdhiptii,eetstr)uscseohtp.2etpfctbdipul0tnbtlFo(lpiByheeui0IaltweovceltsilAad7rtye-arteiot-na)thedbcTri.-lcs-ekyd)i,- A computer-driven focus praaeetsatosictpeutlsiedos’ensmsat.eiuTmnthteoeosmfttaeiomtsimtcpuleiscaeistsure ON ut(woaaanbksnocejsdroendoncfscastt.oiscsaEtiaitoeaninoursddnisriecseearasbvsptpaeesaoltouiwsnrcatisernitaeoiegvtsnnsie)ogaanetrsrte.itude Liking Things Associated with Oneself We humans love to feel good about ourselves, and gen- numbers of people whose last names overlap with the mye70665_ch04_122-154.indd 0126 erally we do. Not only are we prone to self-serving bias city names. Toronto has a marked excess of people (Chapter 2), we also exhibit what Brett Pelham, Matthew whose names begin with Tor. 10/10/09 8:02:44 PM Mirenberg, and John Jones (2002) call implicit egotism: We like what we associate with ourselves. Moreover, women named “Georgia” are dispropor- Focus On features give students an in-depth explora- tionately likely to move to Georgia, as do Virginias to That includes the letters of our name, but also the Virginia. Such mobility could help explain why St. Louis tion of a topic presented in the text. The “Focus On” in people, places, and things that we unconsciously con- has a 49 percent excess (relative to the national propor- Chapter 11, for example, describes what Brett Pelham nect with ourselves (Jones & others, 2002; Koole & others, tion) of men named Louis, and why people named Hill, and colleagues call implicit egotism, which is the pre- 2001). If a stranger’s or politician’s face is morphed to Park, Beach, Lake, or Rock are disproportionately likely to disposition that we like what we associate ourselves include features of our own, we like the new face better live in cities with names (such as Park City) that include with. (Bailenson & others, 2009; DeBruine, 2004). We are also their names. “People are attracted to places that resem- more attracted to people whose arbitrary experimental ble their names,” surmise Pelham, Mirenberg, and Jones. code number resembles our birth date, and we are even disproportionately likely to marry someone whose first or Weirder yet—I am not making this up—people seem last name resembles our own, such as by starting with to prefer careers related to their names. Across the the same letter (Jones & others, 2004). United States, Jerry, Dennis, and Walter are equally pop- ular names (0.42 percent of people carry each of these Such preferences appear to subtly influence other names). Yet America’s dentists are almost twice as likely major life decisions as well, including our locations and to be named Dennis as Jerry or Walter. There also are careers, report Pelham and his colleagues. Philadelphia, 2.5 times as many dentists named Denise as there are being larger than Jacksonville, has 2.2 times as many with the equally popular name Beverly or Tammy. People men named Jack. But it has 10.4 times as many people named George or Geoffrey are overrepresented among named Philip. Likewise, Virginia Beach has a dispropor- geoscientists (geologists, geophysicists, and geochem- tionate number of people named Virginia. ists). And in the 2000 presidential campaign, people with last names beginning with B and G were disproportion- Does this merely reflect the influence of one’s place ately likely to contribute to the campaigns of Bush and when naming one’s baby? Are people in Georgia, for Gore, respectively. example, more likely to name their babies George or Georgia? That may be so, but it doesn’t explain why Reading about implicit egotism–based preferences states tend to have a relative excess of people whose gives me pause: Has this anything to do with why I last names are similar to the state names. California, enjoyed that trip to Fort Myers? Why I’ve written about for example, has a disproportionate number of people moods, the media, and marriage? Why I collaborated whose names begin with Cali (as in Califano). Likewise, with Professor Murdoch? If so, does this also explain why major Canadian cities tend to have larger-than-expected it was Suzie who sold seashells by the seashore? How much do you like your prefer not only letters from their names but also numbers corresponding to their name? In six studies, Jochen birth dates. This “name letter effect” reflects more than mere exposure, however— Gebauer and his colleagues see “Focus On: Liking Things Associated with Oneself.” (2008) report that liking of one’s own name is a reliable The mere-exposure effect violates the commonsense prediction of boredom— indicator of both implicit and decreased interest—regarding repeatedly heard music or tasted foods (Kahneman explicit self-esteem. & Snell, 1992). Unless the repetitions are incessant (“Even the best song becomes tiresome if heard too often,” says a Korean proverb), familiarity usually doesn’t breed contempt, it increases liking. When completed in 1889, the Eiffel Tower in Paris was mocked as grotesque (Harrison, 1977). Today it is the beloved symbol of Paris. So, do visitors to the Louvre in Paris really adore the Mona Lisa for the artistry it displays, or are they simply delighted to find a familiar face? It might be both: To know her is to like her. Eddie Harmon-Jones and John Allen (2001) explored this phenomenon experimentally. When they showed people a woman’s face, their

Helping Chapter 12 467 research Ingroup Similarity and Helping CLOSE-UP Likeness breeds liking, and liking elicits helping. So, do who scorn football fans as violent hooligans? So they people offer more help to others who display similarities to repeated the experiment, but with one difference: Before themselves? To explore the similarity-helping relationship, participants witnessed the jogger’s fall, the researcher Mark Levine, Amy Prosser, and David Evans at Lancaster explained that the study concerned the positive aspects University joined with Stephen Reicher at St. Andrews of being a football fan. Given that only a small minority University (2005) to study the behavior of some Lancaster of fans are troublemakers, this research aimed to explore students who earlier had identified themselves as fans of what fans get out of their love for “the beautiful game.” the nearby Manchester United soccer football team. Tak- Now a jogger wearing a football club shirt, whether for ing their cue from John Darley and Daniel Batson’s (1973) Manchester or Liverpool, became one of “us fans.” And famous Good Samaritan experiment, they directed each as Figure 12.9 shows, the grimacing jogger was helped newly arrived participant to the laboratory in an adja- regardless of which team he supported—and more so cent building. En route, a confederate jogger—wearing than if wearing a plain shirt. a shirt from either Manchester United or rival Liverpool— seemingly slipped on a grass bank just in front of them, The principle in the two cases is the same, notes the grasped his ankle, and groaned in apparent pain. As Lancaster research team: People are predisposed to help Figure 12.8 shows, the Manchester fans routinely paused to their fellow group members, whether those are defined offer help to their fellow Manchester supporter but usually more narrowly (as “us Manchester fans”) or more inclu- did not offer such help to a supposed Liverpool supporter. sively (as “us football fans”). If even rival fans can be per- suaded to help one another if they think about what unites But, the researchers wondered, what if we remind them, then surely other antagonists can as well. One way to Manchester fans of the identity they share with Liverpool increase people’s willingness to help others is to promote supporters—as football fans rather than as detractors social identities that are inclusive rather than exclusive. 100% 100% Research Close-Up boxes offer in-depth looks at sci- 80% 80% 60% 60% entific exploration of a fascinating variety of topics, ranging 40% 40% from when people yawn to how pedestrians in different 20% 20% 0% Liverpool 0% Liverpool Plain cultures interact. “Research Close-Ups” provide students Manchester shirt Manchester shirt shirt shirt shirt FIGURE :: 12.8 FIGURE :: 12.9 with a detailed, yet highly accessible understanding of Percent of Manchester United Fans Who Common Fan Identity Condition: Percent of Manchester how social psychologists use various research methods, Helped Victim Wearing Manchester or United Fans Who Helped Victim Wearing Manchester or Liverpool Shirt Liverpool Shirt from laboratory studies, • Some studies found a same-race bias (Benson & others, 1976; Clark, 1974; 304 Part Two Social Influence Internet experiments, Franklin, 1974; Gaertner, 1973; Gaertner & Bickman, 1971; Sissons, 1981). and creating virtual When an apt combination of intelligence, skill, determination, self-confidence, and realities to naturalistic • Others found no bias (Gaertner, 1975; Lerner & Frank, 1974; Wilson & social charisma meets a rare opportunity, the result is sometimes a championship, a Donnerstein, 1979; Wispe & Freshley, 1971). Nobel Prize, or a social revolution. • Still others—especially those involving face-to-face situations—found a bias toward helping those of a different race (Dutton, 1971, 1973; Dutton & Lake, 1973; Katz & others, 1975). mye70665_ch12_440-481.indd 0467 Summin10/6g/09 Up: The9:55:57 PM Influence of the Minority: observation and har- How Do Individuals Influence the Group? vesting archival data. Chapter 12’s “Research • Although a majority opinion often prevails, some- actions convey self-confidence, and after it begins Close-up” explores the times a minority can influence and even overturn to elicit some defections from the majority. ingroup similarities and a majority position. Even if the majority does not helping behaviors of adopt the minority’s views, the minority’s speak- • Through their task and social leadership, formal ing up can increase the majority’s self-doubts and and informal group leaders exert disproportion- prompt it to consider other alternatives, often lead- ate influence. Those who consistently press toward ing to better, more creative decisions. their goals and exude a self-confident charisma often engender trust and inspire others to follow. • In experiments, a minority is most influential when it is consistent and persistent in its views, when its Postscripts are chapter-ending P.S. POSTSCRIPT: Are Groups Bad for Us? individuals under certain conditions—one of many vignettes that engage students A selective reading of this chapter could, I must admit, leave readers with the “Research Close-Up” with thought-provoking questions impression that, on balance, groups are bad. In groups we become more aroused, topics that generate and insights from the chapter. For more stressed, more tense, more error-prone on complex tasks. Submerged in rich student discourse in example, Chapter 8 (“Group Influ- a group that gives us anonymity, we have a tendency to loaf or have our worst classrooms, dorm rooms, ence”) explores the question, “Are impulses unleashed by deindividuation. Police brutality, lynchings, gang destruc- or virtual chat rooms. Groups Bad for Us?” tion, and terrorism are all group phenomena. Discussion in groups often polarizes our views, enhancing mutual racism or hostility. It may also suppress dissent, cre- ating a homogenized groupthink that produces disastrous decisions. No wonder we celebrate those individuals—minorities of one—who, alone against a group, have stood up for truth and justice. Groups, it seems, are ba-a-a-d. All that is true, but it’s only half the truth. The other half is that, as social ani- mals, we are group-dwelling creatures. Like our distant ancestors, we depend on one another for sustenance, support, and security. Moreover, when our individual tendencies are positive, group interaction accentuates our best. In groups, runners run faster, audiences laugh louder, and givers become more generous. In self-help groups, people strengthen their resolve to stop drinking, lose weight, and study harder. In kindred-spirited groups, people expand their spiritual consciousness. “A devout communing on spiritual things sometimes greatly helps the health of the soul,” observed fifteenth-century cleric Thomas à Kempis, especially when people of faith “meet and speak and commune together.” Depending on which tendency a group is magnifying or disinhibiting, groups can be very, very bad or very, very good. So we had best choose our groups wisely and intentionally. Making the Social Connection In this chapter we discussed group polarization and whether groups intensify opinions. This phenomenon will also be covered in Chapter 15 when we look at juries and how they make decisions. Can you think of other situa- tions where group polarization might be in effect? Go to the Online Learning Cen- ter for this book to view a clip about cliques and the influence of the group. mye70665_ch08_266-304.indd 0304 10/1/09 8:06:02 PM When I first set out to write this text I engaged the services of Jack Ridl, a poet in residence at Hope College. Little did I know that his guidance, my continual work- ing and re-working of the narrative, and the Liberal Arts foundation upon which it is all built, would lead to a text that continues to be so widely accepted, beyond my wildest dreams. Whether the Internet promotes or hinders social interaction may still be debat- able (see the “Focus On” in Chapter 11!), but it has allowed me to enjoy messages from students around the globe, many expressing genuine surprise at their enjoy- ment in reading a textbook!

Updated material in the tenth edition With some 650 new bibliographic citations, David Myers, who subscribes to nearly all English-language social psychology periodicals (including those from Europe), has comprehensively updated Social Psychology. In addition to new margin quotes, photos, and cartoons, new content includes: Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology • Hindsight bias and the world financial crisis • 2008 U.S. presidential election examples • Framing and nudging organ donation and retirement savings Chapter 2 The Self in a Social World • Chapter opening example • Section on narcissism • Research on self-esteem and self-serving bias Chapter 3 Social Beliefs and Judgments • Constructed memories and biased perceptions in politics • Research on unconscious information processing • Data on “probability neglect” in judgments of risk Chapter 4 Behavior and Attitudes • Enhanced coverage of implicit attitudes and Implicit Association Test • Recent studies and examples of behavior feeding attitudes • Updated coverage of dissonance research Chapter 5 Genes, Culture, and Gender • Research on social norms and rule-breaking • Group conflict and preference for male leader • International data on gender and sexuality, and gender and social roles Chapter 6 Conformity and Obedience • Examples of suggestibility, conformity, and obedience • Replication of Milgram obedience experiment • Research on cohesion, conformity, and genocide Chapter 7 Persuasion • Research on effective anti-smoking ads • Examples of political persuasion • Two-step flow of medical information Chapter 8 Group Influence • Deindividuation effects on the Internet • Group polarization in liberal and conservative communities • The wisdom of crowds, prediction markets, and “the crowd within”

Chapter 9 Prejudice: Disliking Others • Contemporary examples and data regarding various forms of prejudice • Recent studies of implicit prejudice • Research on prejudice phenomena, including infrahumanization, own-age bias, just-world thinking Chapter 10 Aggression: Hurting Others • Updated information on human aggression, including the Congo and Iraq • Studies of testosterone and aggression • Recent research on media influences Chapter 11 Attraction and Intimacy: Liking and Loving Others • Studies of social exclusion and social pain • Speed dating experiments • Recent evolutionary psychology-based studies of fertility and attraction Chapter 12 Helping • Examples of heroic altruism • Research on generosity and happiness • Experiments on priming on materialistic versus spiritual concepts Chapter 13 Conflict and Peacemaking • Experiments on counterproductive effects of punishment • “The Inside Story” (Nicole Shelton and Jennifer Richeson) on cross-racial friendships • Cross-cultural and political examples of common enemies and superordi- nate goals Chapter 14 Social Psychology in the Clinic • The social construction of mental illness • Trends in close relationships, and implications for health • Neuroscience of supportive friends and partners Chapter 15 Social Psychology in Court • Fresh examples of eyewitness misidentification • The post-identification feedback effect • Juror expectations of forensic evidence in the CSI generation Chapter 16 Social Psychology and the Sustainable Future • IPCC consensus on global climate change • Data on public opinion about effects of climate change • Prospects for a “new consciousness” that fosters sustainability For a more detailed list of chapter-by-chapter changes, please contact your local McGraw-Hill sales representative.

Supplements For the Student SocialSense Videos Now available at the Online Learning Center, the SocialSense videos are organized according to the text chapters. There is also a video library available containing all of the videos alphabetically. Taking advantage of McGraw-Hill’s exclusive Dis- covery Channel® licensing arrangement, the video segments chosen illustrate core concepts of social psychology and contemporary applications. Each video includes a pre-test, a post-test, and Web resources. Online Learning Center for Students The official website for the text (www.mhhe.com/myers10e) contains chapter out- lines, practice quizzes, a practice midterm and final, and Internet Connections and Internet Exercises updated by Jill Cohen of Los Angeles Community College. Also available are Scenarios, Interactivities, and “What Do You Think?” exercises for each chapter. For the Instructor Online Learning Center for Instructors The password-protected instructor side of the Online Learning Center www.mhhe .com/myers10e contains the Instructor’s Manual, PowerPoint presentations, Web links, image gallery, and other teaching resources. Ask your McGraw-Hill repre- sentative for your password. xviii

Supplements xix Instructor’s Manual Jonathan Mueller, North Central College This manual provides many useful tools to enhance your teaching. For each chap- ter you will find lecture ideas, assignment ideas, suggested class discussion top- ics, classroom demonstrations and demonstration materials, suggested films, and more. Test Bank Donna Walsh, Beaufort Community College The test bank includes over 100 questions per chapter, including factual, concep- tual, and applied questions. The test bank can be used with McGraw-Hill’s EZ Test, a flexible and easy-to-use electronic testing program allowing instructors to create tests from the test bank as well as their own questions. PowerPoint Presentations Kim Foreman Available on the instructor side of the Online Learning Center, these presentations cover the key points of each chapter and include charts and graphs from the text. They can be used as is or modified to meet your needs. Classroom Performance System (CPS) by eInstruction Alisha Janowsky, University of Central Florida CPS, or “clickers,” is a superb way to give interactive quizzes, maximize student participation in class discussions, and take attendance. The CPS content may be used as is or modified to suit your needs. Image Gallery These files include all the figures from the Myers textbook for which McGraw-Hill holds copyright. Annual Editions: Social Psychology Karen Duffy of SUNY–Geneseo This annually updated reader is a compilation of current, carefully selected arti- cles from respected journals, magazines, and newspapers. Additional support for the readings can be found on our student website, www.mhcls.com/online. An Instructor’s Manual and the guide Using Annual Editions in the Classroom are avail- able as support materials for instructors. Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Social Psychology Jason A. Nier, Connecticut College This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversial view- points on the field’s most crucial issues. Each issue is carefully framed for the stu- dent, and the pro and con essays represent the arguments of leading scholars and commentators in their fields. Film Clips from Films for the Humanities and Social Sciences Depending on adoption size, you may qualify for FREE videos from this resource. View more than 700 psychology-related videos at www.films.com.

xx Supplements As a full-service publisher of quality educational products, McGraw-Hill does much more than just sell textbooks to your students. We create and publish an extensive array of print, video, and digital supplements to support instruction on your campus. Orders of new (rather than used) textbooks help us to defray the cost of developing such supplements, which is substantial. We have a broad range of other supplements in psychology that you may wish to tap for your introductory psychology course. Ask your local McGraw-Hill representative about the availabil- ity of these and other supplements that may help you with your course design.

In Appreciation Although only one person’s name appears on this book’s cover, the truth is that a whole community of scholars has invested itself in it. Although none of these people should be held responsible for what I have written—nor do any of them fully agree with everything said—their suggestions made this a better book than it could otherwise have been. A special “thank you” goes to Jean Twenge, San Diego State University, for her contribution to Chapter 2, “The Self in a Social World.” Drawing on her extensive knowledge of and research on the self and cultural changes, Professor Twenge updated and revised this chapter. This new edition retains many of the improvements contributed by consul- tants and reviewers on the first nine editions. To these esteemed colleagues I therefore remain indebted. I have also benefited from the input of instructors who reviewed the ninth edition in preparation for this revision, rescuing me from occasional mistakes and offering constructive suggestions (and encour- agement). I am indebted to each of these many colleagues: Mike Aamodt, Radford University Fred B. Bryant, Loyola University Chicago Robert Arkin, Ohio State University Jeff Bryson, San Diego State University Robert Armenta, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Shawn Meghan Burn, California Poly- technic State University Jahna Ashlyn, San Diego State University David Buss, University of Texas Nancy L. Ashton, Richard Stockton Thomas Cafferty, University of South College of New Jersey Carolina Steven H. Baron, Montgomery County Jerome M. Chertkoff, Indiana Community College University Charles Daniel Batson, University of Nicholas Christenfeld, University of Kansas California at San Diego Steve Baumgardner, University of Russell Clark, University of North Wisconsin—Eau Claire Texas Susan Beers, Sweet Briar College Diana I. Cordova, Yale University George Bishop, National University of Karen A. Couture, New Hampshire Singapore College Galen V. Bodenhausen, Northwestern Traci Craig, University of Idaho University Cynthia Crown, Xavier University Martin Bolt, Calvin College Jack Croxton, State University of New Kurt Boniecki, University of Central York at Fredonia Arkansas Jennifer Daniels, University of Amy Bradfield, Iowa State University Connecticut Dorothea Braginsky, Fairfield Anthony Doob, University of Toronto University David Dunning, Cornell University Timothy C. Brock, Ohio State University Alice H. Eagly, Northwestern University Jonathon D. Brown, University of Washington Jason Eggerman, Palomar College xxi

xxii In Appreciation Leandre Fabrigar, Queen’s University Deana Julka, University of Portland Philip Finney, Southeast Missouri State Martin Kaplan, Northern Illinois University University Carie Forden, Clarion University Timothy J. Kasser, Knox College Kenneth Foster, City University of Janice Kelly, Purdue University New York Douglas Kenrick, Arizona State Dennis Fox, University of Illinois at University Springfield Jared Kenworthy, University of Texas Robin Franck, Southwestern College at Arlington Carrie B. Fried, Winona State Norbert Kerr, Michigan State University University William Froming, Pacific Graduate Suzanne Kieffer, University of School of Psychology Houston Madeleine Fugere, Eastern Connecticut Charles Kiesler, University of Missouri State University Steve Kilianski, Rutgers University– Stephen Fugita, Santa Clara University New Brunswick David A. Gershaw, Arizona Western Robin Kowalski, Clemson University College Marjorie Krebs, Gannon University Tom Gilovich, Cornell University Joachim Krueger, Brown University Mary Alice Gordon, Southern Method- ist University Travis Langley, Henderson State University Tresmaine Grimes, Iona College Dianne Leader, Georgia Institute of Rosanna Guadagno, University of Technology Alabama Juliana Leding, University of North Ranald Hansen, Oakland University Florida Allen Hart, Amherst College Maurice J. Levesque, Elon University Elaine Hatfield, University of Hawaii Helen E. Linkey, Marshall University James L. Hilton, University of Deborah Long, East Carolina Michigan University Bert Hodges, Gordon College Karsten Look, Columbus State Com- munity College William Ickes, University of Texas at Arlington Amy Lyndon, East Carolina University Marita Inglehart, University of Kim MacLin, University of Northern Michigan Iowa Chester Insko, University of North Diane Martichuski, University of Carolina Colorado Jonathan Iuzzini, Texas A&M John W. McHoskey, Eastern Michigan University University Miles Jackson, Portland State Daniel N. McIntosh, University of University Denver Bethany Johnsin, University of Rusty McIntyre, Amherst College Nebraska–Lincoln Annie McManus, Parkland College Meighan Johnson, Shorter College David McMillen, Mississippi State Edward Jones, Princeton University University [deceased] Robert Millard, Vassar College Judi Jones, Georgia Southern College Arthur Miller, Miami University

In Appreciation xxiii Daniel Molden, Northwestern Vann Scott, Armstrong Atlantic State University University Teru Morton, Vanderbilt University John Seta, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Todd D. Nelson, California State University Robert Short, Arizona State University K. Paul Nesselroade, Jr., Simpson Linda Silka, University of College Massachusetts–Lowell Darren Newtson, University of Royce Singleton, Jr., College of the Virginia Holy Cross Cindy Nordstrom, Southern Illinois Stephen Slane, Cleveland State University, Edwardsville University Michael Olson, University of Tennes- Christopher Sletten, University of see at Knoxville North Florida Stuart Oskamp, Claremont Graduate Christine M. Smith, Grand Valley State University University Chris O’Sullivan, Bucknell University Richard A. Smith, University of Kentucky Ellen E. Pastorino, Valencia Commu- nity College C. R. Snyder, University of Kansas Sandra Sims Patterson, Spelman Mark Snyder, University of Minnesota College Sheldon Solomon, Skidmore College Paul Paulus, University of Texas at Arlington Matthew Spackman, Brigham Young University Terry F. Pettijohn, Mercyhurst College Charles Stangor, University of Scott Plous, Wesleyan University Maryland at College Park Greg Pool, St. Mary’s University Garold Stasser, Miami University Jennifer Pratt-Hyatt, Michigan State Homer Stavely, Keene State College University Mark Stewart, American River College Michelle R. Rainey, Indiana Universi- ty–Purdue University at Indianapolis JoNell Strough, West Virginia University Cynthia Reed, Tarrant County College Eric Sykes, Indiana University Kokomo Nicholas Reuterman, Southern Illinois University of Edwardsville Elizabeth Tanke, University of Santa Clara Robert D. Ridge, Brigham Young University Cheryl Terrance, University of North Dakota Judith Rogers, American River College William Titus, Arkansas Tech Hilliard Rogers, American River University College Christopher Trego, Florida Commu- Paul Rose, Southern Illinois University, nity College at Jacksonville Edwardsville Tom Tyler, New York University Gretchen Sechrist, University at Buffalo, the State University of Rhoda Unger, Montclair State New York University Nicole Schnopp-Wyatt, Pikeville Billy Van Jones, Abilene Christian College College Wesley Schultz, California State Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Eastern University, San Marcos College

xxiv In Appreciation Ann L. Weber, University of North David Wilder, Rutgers University– Carolina at Asheville New Brunswick Daniel M. Wegner, Harvard University Kipling Williams, Purdue University Gary Wells, Iowa State University Midge Wilson, DePaul University Mike Wessells, Randolph-Macon Doug Woody, University of Northern College Colorado Bernard Whitley, Ball State University Elissa Wurf, Muhlenberg College. Carolyn Whitney, Saint Michael’s University Hope College, Michigan, has been wonderfully supportive of these successive editions. Both the people and the environment have helped make the gestation of ten editions of Social Psychology a pleasure. At Hope College, poet Jack Ridl helped shape the voice you will hear in these pages. Kathy Adamski has again contributed her good cheer and secretarial support. And Kathryn Brownson did library research, edited and prepared the manuscript, managed the paper flow, proofed the pages and art, and prepared the bibliography. All in all, she midwifed this book. Were it not for the inspiration of Nelson Black of McGraw-Hill, writing a textbook never would have occurred to me. Alison Meersschaert guided and encouraged the formative first edition. Publisher Mike Sugarman helped envision the execution of the ninth and tenth editions and their teaching supplements. Augustine Laferrera ably served as editorial coordinator. Sarah Colwell managed the supplements, and production editor Holly Paulsen patiently guided the process of converting the man- uscript into the finished book, assisted by copyeditor Janet Tilden’s fine-tuning. After hearing countless dozens of people say that this book’s supplements have taken their teaching to a new level, I also pay tribute to Martin Bolt (Calvin College), both for his writing the study guide and for his pioneering the extensive instruc- tor’s resources, with their countless ready-to-use demonstration activities. How fortunate we are to have as part of our team Jonathan Mueller (North Cen- tral College) as author of the instructor’s resources for the eighth, ninth, and tenth editions. Jon is able to draw on his acclaimed online resources for the teaching of social psychology and his monthly listserv offering resources to social psychology instructors (see jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow). Kudos also go to Donna Walsh for her gift to the teaching of Social Psychology by authoring the testing resources. To all in this supporting cast, I am indebted. Working with all these people has made the creation of this book a stimulating, gratifying experience. David G. Myers davidmyers.org

Social Psychology

CHAPTER Introducing 1 Social Psychology

What is social psychology? Social psychology’s big ideas Social psychology and human values I knew it all along: Is social psychol- ogy simply common sense? Research methods: How we do social psychology Postscript: Why I wrote this book There once was a man whose second wife was a vain and selfish woman. This woman’s two daughters were similarly vain and selfish. The man’s own daughter, however, was meek and unselfish. This sweet, kind daughter, whom we all know as Cinderella, learned early on that she should do as she was told, accept ill treatment and insults, and avoid doing anything to upstage her stepsisters and their mother. But then, thanks to her fairy godmother, Cinderella was able to escape her situation for an evening and attend a grand ball, where she attracted the attention of a handsome prince. When the love-struck prince later encountered Cinderella back in her degrading home, he failed to recognize her. Implausible? The folktale demands that we accept the power of the situation. In the presence of her oppressive stepmother, Cinderella was humble and unattractive. At the ball, Cinderella felt more beautiful— and walked and talked and smiled as if she were. In one situation, she cowered. In the other, she charmed. The French philosopher-novelist Jean-Paul Sartre (1946) would have had no problem accepting the Cinderella premise. We humans are “first of all beings in a situation,” he wrote. “We cannot be distin- guished from our situations, for they form us and decide our possibili- ties” (pp. 59–60, paraphrased).

4 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology social psychology What Is Social Psychology? The scientific study of how people think about, influence, Social psychology is a science that studies the influences of our situations, with and relate to one another. special attention to how we view and affect one another. More precisely, it is the sci- entific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another (Figure 1.1). Throughout this book, sources for information are Social psychology lies at psychology’s boundary with sociology. Compared with cited parenthetically. The sociology (the study of people in groups and societies), social psychology focuses complete source is provided more on individuals and uses more experimentation. Compared with personality in the reference section that psychology, social psychology focuses less on individuals’ differences and more on begins on page R-1. how individuals, in general, view and affect one another. Social psychology is still a young science. The first social psychology experi- ments were reported barely more than a century ago (1898), and the first social psychology texts did not appear until just before and after 1900 (Smith, 2005). Not until the 1930s did social psychology assume its current form. And not until World War II did it begin to emerge as the vibrant field it is today. Social psychology studies our thinking, influence, and relationships by asking questions that have intrigued us all. Here are some examples: How Much of Our Social World Is Just in Our Heads? As we will see in later chapters, our social behavior varies not just with the objective situation but also with how we construe it. Social beliefs can be self-fulfilling. For example, happily married people will attribute their spouse’s acid remark (“Can’t you ever put that where it belongs?”) to something external (“He must have had a frustrating day”). Unhappily married people will attribute the same remark to a mean disposition (“Is he ever hostile!”) and may respond with a coun- terattack. Moreover, expecting hostility from their spouse, they may behave resentfully, thereby eliciting the hostility they expect. Would People Be Cruel If Ordered? How did Nazi Germany conceive and implement the unconscionable slaughter of 6 million Jews? Those evil acts occurred partly because thousands of people followed orders. They put the prisoners on trains, herded them into crowded “showers,” and poisoned them with gas. How could people engage in such horrific actions? Were those individuals normal human beings? Stanley Milgram (1974) wondered. So he set up a situation where people were ordered to administer increasing FIGURE :: 1.1 Social psychology is the scientific study of . . . Social Psychology Is . . . Social thinking Social influence Social relations • Culture • Prejudice • How we perceive • Pressures to conform • Aggression ourselves and others • Persuasion • Attraction and intimacy • Groups of people • Helping • What we believe • Judgments we make • Our attitudes

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 5 levels of electric shock to someone who was having difficulty learning a series of words. As we will see in Chapter 6, nearly two-thirds of the participants fully complied. To Help? Or to Help Oneself? As bags of cash tumbled from an armored truck one fall day, $2 million was scattered along a Columbus, Ohio, street. Some motorists stopped to help, returning $100,000. Judging from the $1,900,000 that disap- peared, many more stopped to help themselves. (What would you have done?) When similar incidents occurred several months later in San Francisco and Toronto, the results were the same: Passersby grabbed most of the money (Bowen, 1988). What situations trigger people to be helpful or greedy? Do some cultural contexts—perhaps villages and small towns— breed greater helpfulness? A common thread runs through these questions: They all deal with how people view and affect one another. And that is what social psychology is all about. Social psychologists study attitudes and beliefs, conformity and independence, love and hate. Social Psychology’s Big Ideas Tired of looking at the stars, Professor Mueller takes up What are social psychology’s big lessons—its overarching themes? In many aca- social psychology. demic fields, the results of tens of thousands of studies, the conclusions of thou- sands of investigators, and the insights of hundreds of theorists can be boiled down Reprinted with permission of Jason Love to a few central ideas. Biology offers us principles such as natural selection and at www.jasonlove.com. adaptation. Sociology builds on concepts such as social structure and organization. Music harnesses our ideas of rhythm, melody, and harmony. What concepts are on social psychology’s short list of big ideas? What themes, or fundamental principles, will be worth remembering long after you have forgotten most of the details? My short list of “great ideas we ought never to forget” includes these, each of which we will explore further in chapters to come (Figure 1.2). We Construct Our Social Reality We humans have an irresistible urge to explain behavior, to attribute it to some cause, and therefore to make it seem orderly, predictable, and controllable. You and I may react differently to similar situations because we think differently. How we react to a friend’s insult depends on whether we attribute it to hostility or to a bad day. A 1951 Princeton-Dartmouth football game provided a classic demonstration of how we construct reality (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954; see also Loy & Andrews, 1981). The game lived up to its billing as a grudge match; it turned out to be one of the roughest and dirtiest games in the history of either school. A Princeton All- American was gang-tackled, piled on, and finally forced out of the game with a broken nose. Fistfights erupted, and there were further injuries on both sides. The whole performance hardly fit the Ivy League image of upper-class gentility. Not long afterward, two psychologists, one from each school, showed films of the game to students on each campus. The students played the role of scientist- observer, noting each infraction as they watched and who was responsible for it. But they could not set aside their loyalties. The Princeton students, for example, saw twice as many Dartmouth violations as the Dartmouth students saw. The con- clusion: There is an objective reality out there, but we always view it through the lens of our beliefs and values.

6 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology Some Big Ideas in Social Psychology 1. We construct our social 4. Social influences shape 6. Social behavior is also reality behavior biological behavior 2. Our social intuitions are 5. Dispositions shape 7. Feelings and actions toward powerful, sometimes behavior people are sometimes perilous negative and sometimes Social influences positive 3. Attitudes shape, and are shaped by, behavior Social relations Social thinking Social psychology‘s principles are applicable Applyintgo seovecriyadl apyslyifcehology FIGURE :: 1.2 Some Big Ideas in Social Psychology We are all intuitive scientists. We explain people’s behavior, usually with enough speed and accuracy to suit our daily needs. When someone’s behavior is consistent and distinctive, we attribute that behavior to his or her personality. For example, if you observe someone who makes repeated snide comments, you may infer that this person has a nasty disposition, and then you might try to avoid the person. Our beliefs about ourselves also matter. Do we have an optimistic outlook? Do we see ourselves as in control of things? Do we view ourselves as relatively supe- rior or inferior? Our answers influence our emotions and actions. How we construe the world, and ourselves, matters. Our Social Intuitions Are Often Powerful but Sometimes Perilous Our instant intuitions shape our fears (is flying dangerous?), impressions (can I trust him?), and relationships (does she like me?). Intuitions influence presi- dents in times of crisis, gamblers at the table, jurors assessing guilt, and person- nel directors screening applicants. Such intuitions are commonplace. Indeed, psychological science reveals a fascinating unconscious mind—an intuitive backstage mind—that Freud never told us about. More than psychologists realized until recently, thinking occurs offstage, out of sight. Our intuitive capaci- ties are revealed by studies of what later chapters will explain: “automatic pro- cessing,” “implicit memory,” “heuristics,” “spontaneous trait inference,” instant emotions, and nonverbal communication. Thinking, memory, and attitudes all operate on two levels—one conscious and deliberate, the other unconscious and automatic. “Dual processing,” today’s researchers call it. We know more than we know we know.

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 7 Intuition is huge, but intuition is also perilous. An example: As we cruise through life, mostly on automatic pilot, we intuitively judge the likeli- hood of things by how easily various instances come to mind. Especially since September 11, 2001, we carry readily available mental images of plane crashes. Thus, most people fear flying more than driving, and many will drive great distances to avoid risking the skies. Actually, we’re many times safer (per mile traveled) in a commercial plane than in a motor vehicle (in the United States, air travel was 230 times safer between 2002 and 2005, reports the National Safety Council [2008]). Even our intuitions about ourselves often err. We intuitively trust our memories more than we should. We misread our own minds; in ex- periments, we deny being affected by things that do influence us. We mispredict our own feelings—how bad we’ll feel a year from now if Social cognition matters. Our behavior is influenced not just by the we lose our job or our romance breaks up, and objective situation, but also by how we construe it. how good we’ll feel a year from now, or even a week from now, if we win our state’s lottery. © The New Yorker Collection, 2005, Lee Lorenz, from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved. And we often mispredict our own future. For example, when selecting clothes, people approaching middle age will still buy snug (“I anticipate shedding a few pounds”); rarely does anyone say, more real- istically, “I’d better buy a relatively loose fit; people my age tend to put on pounds.” Our social intuitions, then, are noteworthy for both their powers and their perils. By reminding us of intuition’s gifts and alerting us to its pitfalls, social psy- chologists aim to fortify our thinking. In most situations, “fast and frugal” snap judgments serve us well enough. But in others, where accuracy matters—as when needing to fear the right things and spend our resources accordingly—we had best restrain our impulsive intuitions with critical thinking. Our intuitions and uncon- scious information processing are routinely powerful and sometimes perilous. Social Influences Shape Our Behavior We are, as Aristotle long ago observed, social animals. We speak and think in words we learned from others. We long to connect, to belong, and to be well thought of. Matthias Mehl and James Pennebaker (2003) quantified their University of Texas students’ social behavior by inviting them to wear microcassette recorders and microphones. Once every 12 minutes during their waking hours, the computer- operated recorder would imperceptibly record for 30 seconds. Although the obser- vation period covered only weekdays (including class time), almost 30 percent of the students’ time was spent in conversation. Relationships are a large part of being human. As social creatures, we respond to our immediate contexts. Sometimes the power of a social situation leads us to act contrary to our expressed attitudes. Indeed, powerfully evil situations sometimes overwhelm good intentions, induc- ing people to agree with falsehoods or comply with cruelty. Under Nazi influence, many decent-seeming people became instruments of the Holocaust. Other situa- tions may elicit great generosity and compassion. After the 9/11 catastrophe, New York City was overwhelmed with donations of food, clothing, and help from eager volunteers.

8 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology The power of the situation was also dramatically evident in varying attitudes toward the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Opinion polls revealed that Americans and Israelis overwhelmingly favored the war. Their distant cousins elsewhere in the world overwhelmingly opposed it. Tell me where you live and I’ll make a reason- able guess as to what your attitudes were as the war began. Tell me your edu- cational level and what media you watch and read, and I’ll make an even more confident guess. Our situations matter. Our cultures help define our situations. For example, our standards regarding promptness, frankness, and clothing vary with our culture. • Whether you prefer a slim or voluptuous body depends on when and where in the world you live. • Whether you define social justice as equality (all receive the same) or as equity (those who earn more receive more) depends on whether your ideology has been shaped more by socialism or by capitalism. • Whether you tend to be expressive or reserved, casual or formal, hinges partly on your culture and your ethnicity. • Whether you focus primarily on yourself—your personal needs, desires, and morality—or on your family, clan, and communal groups depends on how much you are a product of modern Western individualism. Social psychologist Hazel Markus (2005) sums it up: “People are, above all, mal- leable.” Said differently, we adapt to our social context. Our attitudes and behavior are shaped by external social forces. Personal Attitudes and Dispositions Also Shape Behavior Internal forces also matter. We are not passive tumbleweeds, merely blown this way and that by the social winds. Our inner attitudes affect our behavior. Our polit- ical attitudes influence our voting behavior. Our smoking attitudes influence our susceptibility to peer pressures to smoke. Our attitudes toward the poor influence our willingness to help them. (As we will see, our attitudes also follow our behav- ior, which leads us to believe strongly in those things we have committed ourselves to or suffered for.) Personality dispositions also affect behavior. Facing the same situation, differ- ent people may react differently. Emerging from years of political imprisonment, one person exudes bitterness and seeks revenge. Another, such as South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, seeks reconciliation and unity with his former enemies. Attitudes and personality influence behavior. Social Behavior Is Biologically Rooted Twenty-first-century social psychology is providing us with ever-growing insights into our behavior’s biological foundations. Many of our social behaviors reflect a deep biological wisdom. Everyone who has taken introductory psychology has learned that nature and nurture together form who we are. As the area of a rectangle is determined by both its length and its width, so do biology and experience together create us. As evolutionary psychologists remind us (see Chapter 5), our inherited human nature predisposes us to behave in ways that helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. We carry the genes of those whose traits enabled them and their children to survive and reproduce. Thus, evolutionary psychologists ask how natural selection might predispose our actions and reactions when dating and mating, hating and hurting, caring and sharing. Nature also endows us with an

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 9 enormous capacity to learn and to adapt to varied environments. We are sensi- social neuroscience tive and responsive to our social context. An integration of biological and social perspectives If every psychological event (every thought, every emotion, every behavior) is that explores the neural and simultaneously a biological event, then we can also examine the neurobiology that psychological bases of social underlies social behavior. What brain areas enable our experiences of love and con- and emotional behaviors. tempt, helping and aggression, perception and belief? How do brain, mind, and behavior function together as one coordinated system? What does the timing of brain events reveal about how we process information? Such questions are asked by those in social neuroscience (Cacioppo & others, 2007). Social neuroscientists do not reduce complex social behaviors, such as helping and hurting, to simple neural or molecular mechanisms. Their point is this: To understand social behavior, we must consider both under-the-skin (biological) and between-skins (social) influences. Mind and body are one grand system. Stress hor- mones affect how we feel and act. Social ostracism elevates blood pressure. Social support strengthens the disease-fighting immune system. We are bio-psycho-social organisms. We reflect the interplay of our biological, psychological, and social influ- ences. And that is why today’s psychologists study behavior from these different levels of analysis. Social Psychology’s Principles Are Applicable in Everyday Life Social psychology has the potential to illuminate your life, to make visible the sub- tle influences that guide your thinking and acting. And, as we will see, it offers many ideas about how to know ourselves better, how to win friends and influence people, how to transform closed fists into open arms. Scholars are also applying social psychological insights. Principles of social thinking, social influence, and social relations have implications for human health and well-being, for judicial procedures and juror decisions in courtrooms, and for influencing behaviors that will enable an environmentally sustainable human future. As but one perspective on human existence, psychological science does not seek to engage life’s ultimate questions: What is the meaning of human life? What should be our purpose? What is our ultimate destiny? But social psychology does give us a method for asking and answering some exceedingly interesting and important questions. Social psychology is all about life—your life: your beliefs, your attitudes, your relationships. The rest of this chapter takes us inside social psychology. Let’s first consider how Throughout this book, a brief social psychologists’ own values influence their work in obvious and subtle ways. summary will conclude each And then let’s focus on this chapter’s biggest task: glimpsing how we do social psy- major section. I hope these chology. How do social psychologists search for explanations of social thinking, summaries will help you social influence, and social relations? And how might you and I use these analytical assess how well you have tools to think smarter? learned the material in each section. Summing Up: Social Psychology’s Big Ideas Social psychology is the scientific study of how peo- • How our social behavior is shaped by other peo- ple think about, influence, and relate to one another. ple, by our attitudes and personalities, and by our Its central themes include the following: biology • How we construe our social worlds • How social psychology’s principles apply to our everyday lives and to various other fields of study • How our social intuitions guide and sometimes deceive us

10 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology Different sciences offer Social Psychology different perspectives. and Human Values ScienceCartoonsPlus.com Social psychologists’ values penetrate their work in ways both obvious and subtle. What are such ways? Social psychology is less a collection of findings than a set of strategies for answering questions. In science, as in courts of law, personal opinions are inadmis- sible. When ideas are put on trial, evidence determines the verdict. But are social psychologists really that objective? Because they are human beings, don’t their values—their personal convictions about what is desirable and how people ought to behave—seep into their work? If so, can social psychology really be scientific? Obvious Ways Values Enter Psychology Values enter the picture when social psychologists choose research topics. It was no accident that the study of prejudice flourished during the 1940s as fascism raged in Europe; that the 1950s, a time of look-alike fashions and intolerance of differ- ing views, gave us studies of conformity; that the 1960s saw interest in aggression increase with riots and rising crime rates; that the feminist movement of the 1970s helped stimulate a wave of research on gender and sexism; that the 1980s offered a resurgence of attention to psychological aspects of the arms race; and that the 1990s and the early twenty-first century were marked by heightened interest in how peo- ple respond to diversity in culture, race, and sexual orientation. Social psychology reflects social history (Kagan, 2009). Values differ not only across time but also across cultures. In Europe, people take pride in their nationalities. The Scots are more self-consciously distinct from the English, and the Austrians from the Germans, than are similarly adjacent Michiganders from Ohioans. Conse- quently, Europe has given us a major theory of “social iden- tity,” whereas American social psychologists have focused more on individuals—how one person thinks about oth- ers, is influenced by them, and relates to them (Fiske, 2004; Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1984). Australian social psychologists have drawn theories and methods from both Europe and North America (Feather, 2005). Values also influence the types of people who are attracted to various disciplines (Campbell, 1975a; Moynihan, 1979). At your school, do the students majoring in the humanities, the arts, the natural sciences, and the social sciences differ noticeably from one another? Do social psychology and sociology attract people who are—for example—relatively eager to challenge tradition, people more inclined to shape the future than preserve the past? Finally, values obviously enter the picture as the object of social-psychological analysis. Social psychologists inves- tigate how values form, why they change, and how they in- fluence attitudes and actions. None of that, however, tells us which values are “right.” Not-So-Obvious Ways Values Enter Psychology We less often recognize the subtler ways in which value commitments masquerade as objective truth. Consider three not-so-obvious ways values enter psychology.

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 11 THE SUBJECTIVE ASPECTS OF SCIENCE “Science does not simply describe and explain nature; Scientists and philosophers now agree: Science is not purely objective. Scientists do it is part of the interplay not simply read the book of nature. Rather, they interpret nature, using their own between nature and our- mental categories. In our daily lives, too, we view the world through the lens of selves; it describes nature as our preconceptions. Pause a moment: What do you see in Figure 1.3? Can you see exposed to our method of a Dalmatian sniffing the ground at the picture’s center? Without that preconcep- questioning.” tion, most people are blind to the Dalmatian. Once your mind grasps the concept, it informs your interpretation of the picture—so much so that it becomes difficult not —WERNER HEISENBERG, to see the dog. PHYSICS AND This is the way our minds work. While reading these words, you have been PHILOSOPHY, 1958 unaware that you are also looking at your nose. Your mind blocks from awareness something that is there, if only you were predisposed to perceive it. This tendency culture to prejudge reality based on our expectations is a basic fact about the human mind. The enduring behaviors, ideas, attitudes, and Because scholars at work in any given area often share a common viewpoint or traditions shared by a come from the same culture, their assumptions may go unchallenged. What we large group of people take for granted—the shared beliefs that some European social psychologists call and transmitted from one our social representations (Augoustinos & Innes, 1990; Moscovici, 1988, 2001)—are generation to the next. often our most important yet most unexamined convictions. Sometimes, however, someone from outside the camp will call attention to those assumptions. During social representations the 1980s feminists and Marxists exposed some of social psychology’s unexam- Socially shared beliefs— ined assumptions. Feminist critics called attention to subtle biases—for example, widely held ideas and values, the political conservatism of some scientists who favored a biological interpreta- including our assumptions tion of gender differences in social behavior (Unger, 1985). Marxist critics called and cultural ideologies. Our attention to competitive, individualist biases—for example, the assumption that social representations help conformity is bad and that individual rewards are good. Marxists and feminists, of us make sense of our world. course, make their own assumptions, as critics of academic “political correctness” are fond of noting. Social psychologist Lee Jussim (2005), for example, argues that progressive social psychologists sometimes feel compelled to deny group differ- ences and to assume that stereotypes of group difference are never rooted in reality but always in racism. FIGURE :: 1.3 What Do You See?

12 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology Hidden (and not-so-hidden) In Chapter 3 we will see more ways in which our preconceptions guide our values seep into psycho- interpretations. As those Princeton and Dartmouth football fans remind us, logical advice. They permeate what guides our behavior is less the situation-as-it-is than the situation-as-we- popular psychology books construe-it. that offer guidance on living and loving. PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS CONTAIN HIDDEN VALUES Implicit in our understanding that psychology is not objective is the realization that psychologists’ own values may play an important part in the theories and judgments they support. Psychologists may refer to people as mature or immature, as well adjusted or poorly adjusted, as mentally healthy or mentally ill. They may talk as if they were stating facts, when they are really making value judgments. Here are some examples: Defining the Good Life. Values influence our idea of the best way to live our lives. The personality psychologist Abraham Maslow, for example, was known for his sensitive descriptions of “self-actualized” people—people who, with their needs for survival, safety, belonging, and self-esteem satis- fied, go on to fulfill their human potential. Few readers noticed that Maslow himself, guided by his own values, selected the sample of self-actualized people he described. The resulting description of self-actualized person- alities—as spontaneous, autonomous, mystical, and so forth—reflected Maslow’s personal values. Had he begun with someone else’s heroes—say, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and John D. Rockefeller—his resulting description of self-actualization would have differed (Smith, 1978). Professional Advice. Psychological advice also reflects the advice giver’s personal values. When mental health professionals advise us how to get along with our spouse or our co-workers, when child-rearing experts tell us how to handle our children, and when some psychologists advocate living free of concern for others’ expectations, they are expressing their personal values. (In Western cultures, those val- ues usually will be individualistic—encouraging what feels best for “me.” Non-Western cultures more often encourage what’s best for “we.”) Many people, unaware of those hidden values, defer to the “professional.” But professional psychologists cannot answer questions of ultimate moral obligation, of purpose and direction, and of life’s meaning. Forming Concepts. Hidden values even seep into psychology’s research-based concepts. Pretend you have taken a personality test and the psychologist, after scoring your answers, announces: “You scored high in self-esteem. You are low in anxiety. And you have exceptional ego-strength.” “Ah,” you think, “I sus- pected as much, but it feels good to know that.” Now another psychologist gives you a similar test. For some peculiar reason, this test asks some of the same questions. Afterward, the psy- chologist informs you that you seem defensive, for you scored high in “repressiveness.” “How could this be?” you wonder. “The other psychologist said such nice things about me.” It could be because all these labels describe the same set of responses (a tendency to say nice things about oneself and not to acknowl- edge problems). Shall we call it high self-esteem or defensive- ness? The label reflects the judgment. Labeling. Value judgments, then, are often hidden within our social- psychological language—but that is also true of everyday language: • Whether we label a quiet child as “bashful” on “cautious,” as “holding back” or as “an observer,” conveys a judgment.

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 13 • Whether we label someone engaged in guerrilla warfare a “terrorist” or a “freedom fighter” depends on our view of the cause. • Whether we view wartime civilian deaths as “the loss of innocent lives” or as “collateral damage” affects our acceptance of such. • Whether we call public assistance “welfare” or “aid to the needy” reflects our political views. • When “they” exalt their country and people, it’s nationalism; when “we” do it, it’s patriotism. • Whether someone involved in an extramarital affair is practicing “open marriage” or “adultery” depends on one’s personal values. • “Brainwashing” is social influence we do not approve of. • “Perversions” are sex acts we do not practice. • Remarks about “ambitious” men and “aggressive” women convey a hidden message. As these examples indicate, values lie hidden within our cultural definitions of mental health, our psychological advice for living, our concepts, and our psycho- logical labels. Throughout this book I will call your attention to additional examples of hidden values. The point is never that the implicit values are necessarily bad. The point is that scientific interpretation, even at the level of labeling phenomena, is a human activity. It is therefore natural and inevitable that prior beliefs and values will influence what social psychologists think and write. Should we dismiss science because it has its subjective side? Quite the contrary: The realization that human thinking always involves interpretation is precisely why we need researchers with varying biases to undertake scientific analysis. By constantly checking our beliefs against the facts, as best we know them, we check and restrain our biases. Systematic observation and experimentation help us clean the lens through which we see reality. Summing Up: Social Psychology and Human Values • Social psychologists’ values penetrate their work • This penetration of values into science is not a rea- in obvious ways, such as their choice of research son to fault social psychology or any other science. topics and the types of people who are attracted to That human thinking is seldom dispassionate is various fields of study. precisely why we need systematic observation and experimentation if we are to check our cherished • They also do this in subtler ways, such as their hid- ideas against reality. den assumptions when forming concepts, choosing labels, and giving advice. I Knew It All Along: Is Social Psychology Simply Common Sense? Do social psychology’s theories provide new insight into the human condition? Or do they only describe the obvious? Many of the conclusions presented in this book may have already occurred to you, for social psychological phenomena are all around you. We constantly observe people thinking about, influencing, and relating to one another. It pays to discern what a facial expression predicts, how to get someone to do something, or whether to regard another as friend or foe. For centuries, philosophers, novelists, and poets have observed and commented on social behavior.

14 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology hindsight bias Does this mean that social psychology is just common sense in fancy words? The tendency to exaggerate, Social psychology faces two contradictory criticisms: first, that it is trivial because after learning an outcome, it documents the obvious; second, that it is dangerous because its findings could be one’s ability to have foreseen used to manipulate people. how something turned out. Also known as the I-knew-it- We will explore the second criticism in Chapter 7. For the moment, let’s examine all-along phenomenon. the first objection. Do social psychology and the other social sciences simply formalize what any amateur already knows intuitively? Writer Cullen Murphy (1990) took that view: “Day after day social scientists go out into the world. Day after day they discover that people’s behavior is pretty much what you’d expect.” Nearly a half-century earlier, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (1949), reacted with similar scorn to social scientists’ studies of American World War II soldiers. Sociologist Paul Lazarsfeld (1949) reviewed those studies and offered a sample with interpretive comments, a few of which I paraphrase: 1. Better-educated soldiers suffered more adjustment problems than did less- educated soldiers. (Intellectuals were less prepared for battle stresses than street-smart people.) 2. Southern soldiers coped better with the hot South Sea Island climate than did Northern soldiers. (Southerners are more accustomed to hot weather.) 3. White privates were more eager for promotion than were Black privates. (Years of oppression take a toll on achievement motivation.) 4. Southern Blacks preferred Southern to Northern White officers. (Southern officers were more experienced and skilled in interacting with Blacks.) As you read those findings, did you agree that they were basically common sense? If so, you may be surprised to learn that Lazarsfeld went on to say, “Every one of these statements is the direct opposite of what was actually found.” In reality, the studies found that less-educated soldiers adapted more poorly. Southerners were not more likely than northerners to adjust to a tropical climate. Blacks were more eager than Whites for promotion, and so forth. “If we had mentioned the actual results of the investigation first [as Schlesinger experienced], the reader would have labeled these ‘obvious’ also.” One problem with common sense is that we invoke it after we know the facts. Events are far more “obvious” and predictable in hindsight than beforehand. Exper- iments reveal that when people learn the outcome of an experiment, that outcome suddenly seems unsurprising—certainly less surprising than it is to people who are simply told about the experimental procedure and the possible outcomes (Slovic & Fischhoff, 1977). Likewise, in everyday life we often do not expect something to happen until it does. Then we suddenly see clearly the forces that brought the event about and feel unsurprised. Moreover, we may also misremember our earlier view (Blank & others, 2008). Errors in judging the future’s foreseeability and in remember- ing our past combine to create hindsight bias (also called the I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon). Thus, after elections or stock market shifts, most commentators find the turn of events unsurprising: “The market was due for a correction.” After the widespread flooding in New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it seemed obvi- ous that public officials should have anticipated the situation: Studies of the levees’ vulnerability had been done. Many residents did not own cars and were too poor to afford transportation and lodging out of town. Meteorologic assessment of the storm’s severity clearly predicted an urgent need to put security and relief supplies in place. As the Danish philosopher-theologian Søren Kierkegaard put it, “Life is lived forwards, but understood backwards.” If hindsight bias is pervasive, you may now be feeling that you already knew about this phenomenon. Indeed, almost any conceivable result of a psychological experiment can seem like common sense—after you know the result.

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 15 You can demonstrate the phenomenon yourself. Take a group of people and tell half of them one psychological finding and the other half the opposite result. For example, tell half as follows: Social psychologists have found that, whether choosing friends or falling in love, we are most attracted to people whose traits are different from our own. There seems to be wisdom in the old saying “Opposites attract.” Tell the other half: Social psychologists have found that, whether choosing friends or falling in love, we are most attracted to people whose traits are similar to our own. There seems to be wisdom in the old saying “Birds of a feather flock together.” In hindsight, events seem Ask the people first to explain the result. Then ask them to say whether it is “sur- obvious and predictable. prising” or “not surprising.” Virtually all will find a good explanation for which- ScienceCartoonsPlus.com ever result they were given and will say it is “not surprising.” Indeed, we can draw on our stockpile of proverbs to make almost any result seem to make sense. If a social psychologist reports that separation intensifies romantic attraction, John Q. Public responds, “You get paid for this? Everybody knows that ‘absence makes the heart grow fonder.’” Should it turn out that separation weakens attraction, John will say, “My grandmother could have told you, ‘Out of sight, out of mind.’” Karl Teigen (1986) must have had a few chuckles when he asked University of Leicester (England) students to evaluate actual proverbs and their opposites. When given the proverb “Fear is stronger than love,” most rated it as true. But so did stu- dents who were given its reversed form, “Love is stronger than fear.” Likewise, the genuine proverb “He that is fallen cannot help him who is down” was rated highly; but so too was “He that is fallen can help him who is down.” My favorites, however, were two highly rated proverbs: “Wise men make proverbs and fools repeat them” (authentic) and its made-up counterpart, “Fools make proverbs and wise men repeat them.” For more dueling proverbs, see “Focus On: I Knew It All Along.” The hindsight bias cre- focus ates a problem for many psychology students. Some- times results are genuinely ON I Knew It All Along surprising (for example, that Olympic bronze medal- ists take more joy in their Cullen Murphy (1990), managing editor of the Atlantic, faulted “sociology, psychol- achievement than do sil- ogy, and other social sciences for too often merely discerning the obvious or confirm- ver medalists). More often, ing the commonplace.” His own casual survey of social science findings “turned up when you read the results no ideas or conclusions that can’t be found in Bartlett’s or any other encyclopedia of experiments in your text- of quotations.” Nevertheless, to sift through competing sayings, we need research. books, the material seems Consider some dueling proverbs: easy, even obvious. When you later take a multiple- choice test on which you Is it more true that . . . Or that . . . must choose among sev- Too many cooks spoil the broth. Two heads are better than one. eral plausible conclusions, The pen is mightier than the sword. Actions speak louder than words. the task may become sur- You can’t teach an old dog new You’re never too old to learn. prisingly difficult. “I don’t tricks. know what happened,” Blood is thicker than water. Many kinfolk, few friends. the befuddled student later He who hesitates is lost. Look before you leap. moans. “I thought I knew Forewarned is forearmed. Don’t cross the bridge until you the material.” come to it.

16 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology “It is easy to be wise after the The I-knew-it-all-along phenomenon can have unfortunate consequences. It is event.” conducive to arrogance—an overestimation of our own intellectual powers. More- over, because outcomes seem as if they should have been foreseeable, we are more —SHERLOCK HOLMES, IN likely to blame decision makers for what are in retrospect “obvious” bad choices ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE’S than to praise them for good choices, which also seem “obvious.” STORY “THE PROBLEM OF Starting after the morning of 9/11 and working backward, signals pointing to THOR BRIDGE” the impending disaster seemed obvious. A U.S. Senate investigative report listed the missed or misinterpreted clues (Gladwell, 2003), which included the follow- “Everything important has ing. The CIA knew that al Qaeda operatives had entered the country. An FBI agent been said before.” sent a memo to headquarters that began by warning “the Bureau and New York of the possibility of a coordinated effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to —PHILOSOPHER ALFRED the United States to attend civilian aviation universities and colleges.” The FBI NORTH WHITEHEAD ignored that accurate warning and failed to relate it to other reports that terrorists (1861–1947) were planning to use planes as weapons. The president received a daily briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States” and stayed on holiday. “The dumb fools!” it seemed to hindsight critics. “Why couldn’t they con- nect the dots?” But what seems clear in hindsight is seldom clear on the front side of history. The intelligence community is overwhelmed with “noise”—piles of useless infor- mation surrounding the rare shreds of useful information. Analysts must therefore be selective in deciding which to pursue, and only when a lead is pursued does it stand a chance of being connected to another lead. In the six years before 9/11, the FBI’s counterterrorism unit could never have pursued all 68,000 uninvestigated leads. In hindsight, the few useful ones are now obvious. In the aftermath of the 2008 world financial crisis, it seemed obvious that govern- ment regulators should have placed safeguards against the ill-fated bank lending practices. But what was obvious in hindsight was unforeseen by the chief American regulator, Alan Greenspan, who found himself “in a state of shocked disbelief” at the economic collapse. We sometimes blame ourselves for “stupid mistakes”—perhaps for not having handled a person or a situation better. Looking back, we see how we should have handled it. “I should have known how busy I would be at the semester’s end and started that paper earlier.” But sometimes we are too hard on ourselves. We forget that what is obvious to us now was not nearly so obvious at the time. Physicians who are told both a patient’s symptoms and the cause of death (as determined by autopsy) sometimes wonder how an incorrect diagnosis could have been made. Other physicians, given only the symptoms, don’t find the di- agnosis nearly so obvious (Dawson & others, 1988). Would juries be slower to as- sume malpractice if they were forced to take a foresight rather than a hindsight perspective? What do we conclude—that common sense is usually wrong? Sometimes it is. At other times, conventional wisdom is right—or it falls on both sides of an issue: Does happiness come from knowing the truth, or from preserving illusions? From being with others, or from living in peaceful solitude? Opinions are a dime a dozen. No matter what we find, there will be someone who foresaw it. (Mark Twain jested that Adam was the only person who, when saying a good thing, knew that nobody had said it before.) But which of the many competing ideas best fit reality? Research can specify the circumstances under which a common-sense truism is valid. The point is not that common sense is predictably wrong. Rather, common sense usually is right—after the fact. We therefore easily deceive ourselves into thinking that we know and knew more than we do and did. And that is precisely why we need science to help us sift reality from illusion and genuine predictions from easy hindsight.

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 17 Summing Up: I Knew It All Along: Is Social Psychology Simply Common Sense? • Social psychology is criticized for being trivial • This hindsight bias (the I-knew-it-all-along phenom- because it documents things that seem obvious. enon) often makes people overconfident about the validity of their judgments and predictions. • Experiments, however, reveal that outcomes are more “obvious” after the facts are known. Research Methods: How We Do “Nothing has such power to broaden the mind as the abil- Social Psychology ity to investigate systemati- cally and truly all that comes We have considered some of the intriguing questions social psychology seeks to under thy observation in life.” answer. We have also seen how subjective, often unconscious, processes influence social psychologists’ work. Now let’s consider the scientific methods that make —MARCUS AURELIUS, social psychology a science. MEDITATIONS In their quest for insight, social psychologists propose theories that organize theory their observations and imply testable hypotheses and practical predictions. To test a An integrated set of hypothesis, social psychologists may do research that predicts behavior using cor- principles that explain and relational studies, often conducted in natural settings. Or they may seek to explain predict observed events. behavior by conducting experiments that manipulate one or more factors under con- trolled conditions. Once they have conducted a research study, they explore ways to apply their findings to improve people’s everyday lives. We are all amateur social psychologists. People-watching is a universal hobby. As we observe people, we form ideas about how human beings think about, influ- ence, and relate to one another. Professional social psychologists do the same, only more systematically (by forming theories) and painstakingly (often with experi- ments that create miniature social dramas that pin down cause and effect). And they have done it extensively, in 25,000 studies of 8 million people by one count (Richard & others, 2003). Forming and Testing Hypotheses We social psychologists have a hard time thinking of anything more fascinat- ing than human existence. As we wrestle with human nature to pin down its secrets, we organize our ideas and findings into theories. A theory is an integrated set of principles that explain and predict observed events. Theories are a scientific shorthand. In everyday conversation, “theory” often means “less than fact”—a middle rung on a confidence ladder from guess to theory to fact. Thus, people may, for example, dismiss Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as “just a theory.” Indeed, notes Alan Leshner (2005), chief officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Evolution is only a theory, but so is gravity.” Peo- ple often respond that gravity is a fact—but the fact is that your keys fall to the ground when dropped. Gravity is the theoretical explanation that accounts for such observed facts. To a scientist, facts and theories are apples and oranges. Facts are agreed-upon statements about what we observe. Theories are ideas that summarize and explain facts. “Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones,” wrote the French scientist Jules Henri Poincaré, “but a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.”

18 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology hypothesis Theories not only summarize but A testable proposition that also imply testable predictions, called describes a relationship that hypotheses. Hypotheses serve several may exist between events. purposes. First, they allow us to test a theory by suggesting how we might For humans, the most try to falsify it. Second, predictions fascinating subject is people. give direction to research and some- times send investigators looking for © The New Yorker Collection, 1987, things they might never have thought Warren Miller, from cartoonbank.com. of. Third, the predictive feature of good All rights reserved. theories can also make them practical. A complete theory of aggression, for example, would predict when to expect aggression and how to control it. As the pioneering social psychologist Kurt Lewin declared, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory.” Consider how this works. Say we observe that people who loot, taunt, or attack often do so in groups or crowds. We might therefore theorize that being part of a crowd, or group, makes individ- uals feel anonymous and lowers their inhibitions. How could we test this theory? Perhaps (I’m playing with this theory) we could devise a laboratory experiment simulating aspects of execution by electric chair. What if we asked individuals in groups to administer punishing shocks to a hapless victim without knowing which member of the group was actually shocking the victim? Would these indi- viduals administer stronger shocks than individuals acting alone, as our theory predicts? We might also manipulate anonymity: Would people deliver stronger shocks if they were wearing masks? If the results confirm our hypothesis, they might suggest some practical applications. Perhaps police brutality could be reduced by having officers wear large name tags and drive cars identified with large numbers, or by videotaping their arrests—all of which have, in fact, become common practice in many cities. But how do we conclude that one theory is better than another? A good theory • effectively summarizes many observations, and • makes clear predictions that we can use to • confirm or modify the theory, • generate new exploration, and • suggest practical applications. When we discard theories, usually it’s not because they have been proved false. Rather, like old cars, they are replaced by newer, better models. field research Correlational Research: Detecting Research done in natural, Natural Associations real-life settings outside the laboratory. Most of what you will learn about social-psychological research methods you will absorb as you read later chapters. But let’s now go backstage and see how social psychology is done. This glimpse behind the scenes should be just enough for you to appreciate findings discussed later. Understanding the logic of research can also help you think critically about everyday social events. Social-psychological research varies by location. It can take place in the labora- tory (a controlled situation) or in the field (everyday situations). And it varies by

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 19 Age at death Men FIGURE :: 1.4 66 Women 65 Correlating Status 64 and Longevity Tall grave pillars commemorated people who also tended to live longer. 63 62 61 60 59 58 Medium High Low Height of grave pillars method—whether correlational (asking whether two or more factors are naturally correlational research associated) or experimental (manipulating some factor to see its effect on another). The study of the naturally If you want to be a critical reader of psychological research reported in newspapers occurring relationships and magazines, it will pay you to understand the difference between correlational among variables. and experimental research. experimental research Using some real examples, let’s first consider the advantages of correlational Studies that seek clues to research (often involving important variables in natural settings) and its major cause-effect relationships disadvantage (ambiguous interpretation of cause and effect). As we will see in by manipulating one or Chapter 14, today’s psychologists relate personal and social factors to human more factors (independent health. Among the researchers have been Douglas Carroll at Glasgow Caledonian variables) while controlling University and his colleagues, George Davey Smith and Paul Bennett (1994). In others (holding them search of possible links between socioeconomic status and health, the researchers constant). ventured into Glasgow’s old graveyards. As a measure of health, they noted from grave markers the life spans of 843 individuals. As an indication of status, they measured the height of the pillars over the graves, reasoning that height reflected cost and therefore affluence. As Figure 1.4 shows, taller grave markers were related to longer lives, for both men and women. Carroll and his colleagues report that other researchers, using contempo- rary data, have confirmed the status-longevity correlation. Scottish postal-code regions having the least overcrowding and unemployment also have the great- est longevity. In the United States, income correlates with longevity (poor and lower-status people are more at risk for premature death). In today’s Britain, occupational status correlates with longevity. One study followed 17,350 Brit- ish civil service workers over 10 years. Compared with top-grade administra- tors, those at the professional-executive grade were 1.6 times more likely to have died. Clerical workers were 2.2 times and laborers 2.7 times more likely to have died (Adler & others, 1993, 1994). Across times and places, the status-health cor- relation seems reliable. CORRELATION AND CAUSATION The status-longevity question illustrates the most irresistible thinking error made by both amateur and professional social psychologists: When two factors such as sta- tus and health go together, it is terribly tempting to conclude that one is causing the

20 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology Commemorative markers other. Status, we might presume, some- in Glasgow Cathedral how protects a person from health risks. graveyard. But might it be the other way around? Could it be that health promotes vigor and success? Perhaps people who live longer simply have more time to accu- mulate wealth (enabling them to have more expensive grave markers). Or might a third variable, such as diet, be involved (did wealthy and working- class people tend to eat differently)? Correlations indicate a relationship, but that relationship is not necessarily one of cause and effect. Correlational research allows us to predict, but it cannot tell us whether changing one variable (such as social status) will cause changes in another (such as health). An amusing correlation-causation confusion surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign when the Asso- ciated Press reported a survey show- ing that most dog owners favored John McCain (who had two dogs) over Barack Obama (who didn’t own a pet), while those without a dog favored Obama. “The pet owning public seems to have noticed,” noted the writer, inferring that McCain’s dog ownership drew support from fellow dog owners (Schmid, 2008). But had the public noticed and cared who had pets? Or was the pet-preference cor- relation merely a reflection of some “confounded” third factors? For example, the survey also found dog ownership rates much higher among White and married people (who are more often Republicans and therefore McCain’s natural constitu- ency) than among Black and single people. The correlation-causation confusion is behind much muddled thinking in popu- lar psychology. Consider another very real correlation—between self-esteem and academic achievement. Children with high self-esteem tend also to have high aca- demic achievement. (As with any correlation, we can also state this the other way around: High achievers tend to have high self-esteem.) Why do you suppose that is true (Figure 1.5)? FIGURE :: 1.5 Correlation Correlation X Y and Causations Social status Health When two variables correlate, Self-esteem Academic any combination of three expla- achievement nations is possible. Either one may cause the other, or both Possible explanations may be affected by an underlying “third factor.” X Y XY XY Z (1) (2) (3)

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 21 Some people believe a “healthy self-concept” contributes to achievement. Thus, boosting a child’s self-image may also boost school achievement. Believing so, 30 U.S. states have enacted more than 170 self-esteem-promoting statutes. But other people, including psychologists William Damon (1995), Robyn Dawes (1994), Mark Leary (1999), Martin Seligman (1994, 2002), and Roy Baumeister and colleagues (2003, 2005), doubt that self-esteem is really “the armor that pro- tects kids” from underachievement (or drug abuse and delinquency). Perhaps it’s the other way around: Perhaps problems and failures cause low self-esteem. Perhaps self-esteem often reflects the reality of how things are going for us. Perhaps self-esteem grows from hard-won achievements. Do well and you will feel good about yourself; goof off and fail and you will feel like a dolt. A study of 635 Norwegian schoolchildren showed that a (legitimately earned) string of gold stars by one’s name on the spelling chart and accompanying praise from the admiring teacher can boost a child’s self-esteem (Skaalvik & Hagtvet, 1990). Or perhaps, as in a study of nearly 6,000 German seventh-graders, the traffic between self-esteem and academic achievements runs both ways (Trautwein & Lüdtke, 2006). It’s also possible that self-esteem and achievement correlate because both are linked to underlying intelligence and family social status. That possibility was raised in two studies—one a nationwide sample of 1,600 young American men, another of 715 Minnesota youngsters (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Maruyama & others, 1981). When the researchers mathematically removed the predictive power of intelligence and family status, the relationship between self-esteem and achieve- ment evaporated. Correlations quantify, with a coefficient known as r, the degree of relationship between two factors—from –1.0 (as one factor score goes up, the other goes down) through 0 to +1.0 (the two factors’ scores rise and fall together). Scores on self- esteem and depression tests correlate negatively (about –.6). Identical twins’ intel- ligence scores correlate positively (above +.8). The great strength of correlational research is that it tends to occur in real-world settings where we can examine fac- tors such as race, gender, and social status (factors that we cannot manipulate in the laboratory). Its great disadvantage lies in the ambiguity of the results. This point is so important that even if it fails to impress people the first 25 times they hear it, it is worth repeating a twenty-sixth time: Knowing that two variables change together (correlate) enables us to predict one when we know the other, but correlation does not specify cause and effect. Advanced correlational techniques can, however, suggest cause-effect rela- tionships. Time-lagged correlations reveal the sequence of events (for example, by indicating whether changed achievement more often precedes or follows changed self-esteem). Researchers can also use statistical techniques that extract the influ- ence of “confounded” variables, as when the correlation between self-esteem and achievement evaporated after extracting intelligence and family status. Recall our earlier mention of a third variable, such as diet. Thus, the Scottish research team wondered whether the status-longevity relationship would survive their remov- ing the effect of cigarette smoking, which is now much less common among those of higher status. It did, which suggested that some other factors, such as increased stress and decreased feelings of control, may also account for poorer people’s ear- lier mortality. SURVEY RESEARCH random sample Survey procedure in How do we measure variables such as status and health? One way is by sur- which every person in the veying representative samples of people. If survey researchers want to describe population being studied has a whole population (which for many psychology surveys is not the aim), then an equal chance of inclusion. they will obtain a representative group by taking a random sample—one in which every person in the population being studied has an equal chance of inclusion. With

22 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology Even exit polls require a random (and therefore representative) sample of voters. this procedure any subgroup of people—blondes, joggers, liberals—will tend to be represented in the survey to the extent that they are represented in the total population. It is an amazing fact that whether we survey people in a city or in a whole coun- try, 1,200 randomly selected participants will enable us to be 95 percent confident of describing the entire population with an error margin of 3 percentage points or less. Imagine a huge jar filled with beans, 50 percent red and 50 percent white. Randomly sample 1,200 of these, and you will be 95 percent certain to draw out between 47 percent and 53 percent red beans—regardless of whether the jar con- tains 10,000 beans or 100 million beans. If we think of the red beans as supporters of one presidential candidate and the white beans as supporters of the other can- didate, we can understand why, since 1950, the Gallup polls taken just before U.S. national elections have diverged from election results by an average of less than 2 percent. As a few drops of blood can speak for the whole body, so can a random sample speak for a population. Bear in mind that polls do not literally predict voting; they only describe public opinion at the moment they are taken. Public opinion can shift. To evaluate sur- veys, we must also bear in mind four potentially biasing influences: unrepresenta- tive samples, question order, response options, and question wording. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES How closely the sample represents the popu- lation under study greatly matters. In 1984 columnist Ann Landers accepted a letter writer’s challenge to poll her readers on the question of whether women find affec- tion more important than sex. Her question: “Would you be content to be held close and treated tenderly and forget about ‘the act’?” Of the more than 100,000 women who replied, 72 percent said yes. An avalanche of worldwide publicity followed. In response to critics, Landers (1985, p. 45) granted that “the sampling may not be rep- resentative of all American women. But it does provide honest—valuable—insights from a cross section of the public. This is because my column is read by people from every walk of life, approximately 70 million of them.” Still, one wonders, are the 70 million readers representative of the entire population? And are the 1 in 700 readers who took the trouble to reply to the survey representative of the 699 in 700 who did not? The importance of representativeness was effectively demonstrated in 1936, when a weekly newsmagazine, Literary Digest, mailed a postcard presidential elec- tion poll to 10 million Americans. Among the more than 2 million returns, Alf

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 23 SRC’s Survey Services Laboratory at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research has interviewing carrels with monitoring stations. Staff and visitors must sign a pledge to honor the strict confidentiality of all interviews. Landon won by a landslide over Franklin D. Roosevelt. When the actual votes were framing counted a few days later, Landon carried only two states. The magazine had sent The way a question or an the poll only to people whose names it had obtained from telephone books and issue is posed; framing can automobile registrations—thus ignoring the millions of voters who could afford influence people’s decisions neither a telephone nor a car (Cleghorn, 1980). and expressed opinions. ORDER OF QUESTIONS Given a representative sample, we must also contend with other sources of bias, such as the order of questions in a survey. Americans’ support for civil unions of gays and lesbians rises if they are first asked their opin- ion of gay marriage, compared with which civil unions seem a more acceptable alternative (Moore, 2004a, 2004b). RESPONSE OPTIONS Consider, too, the dramatic effects of the response op- tions. When Joop van der Plight and his co-workers (1987) asked English voters what percentage of Britain’s energy they wished came from nuclear power, the average preference was 41 percent. They asked other voters what percentage they wished came from (1) nuclear, (2) coal, and (3) other sources. The average prefer- ence for nuclear power among these respondents was 21 percent. WORDING OF QUESTIONS The precise wording of questions may also influ- ence answers. One poll found that only 23 percent of Americans thought their gov- ernment was spending too much “on assistance to the poor.” Yet 53 percent thought the government was spending too much “on welfare” (Time, 1994). Likewise, most people favor cutting “foreign aid” and increasing spending “to help hungry people in other nations” (Simon, 1996). Survey questioning is a very delicate matter. Even subtle changes in the tone of a question can have marked effects (Krosnick & Schuman, 1988; Schuman & Kalton, 1985). “Forbidding” something may be the same as “not allowing” it. But in 1940, 54 percent of Americans said the United States should “forbid” speeches against democracy, and 75 percent said the United States should “not allow” them. Even when people say they feel strongly about an issue, a question’s form and wording may affect their answer. Order, response, and wording effects enable political manipulators to use sur- veys to show public support for their views. Consultants, advertisers, and physi- cians can have similar disconcerting influences upon our decisions by how they frame our choices. No wonder the meat lobby in 1994 objected to a new U.S. food labeling law that required declaring ground beef, for example, as “30 percent fat,” rather than “70 percent lean, 30 percent fat.” To 9 in 10 college students, a condom

24 Chapter 1 Introducing Social Psychology A young monk was once Survey researchers must be sensitive to subtle and not-so-subtle biases. rebuffed when asking if he could smoke while he prayed. DOONESBURY © G. B. Trudeau. Reprinted with permission of Universal Press Syndicate. All rights reserved. Ask a different question, advised a friend: Ask if you seems effective if its protection against the AIDS virus has a “95 percent success can pray while you smoke rate.” Told that it has a “5 percent failure rate,” only 4 in 10 students say they find it (Crossen, 1993). effective (Linville & others, 1992). Framing research also has applications in the definition of everyday default options: • Opting in or opting out of organ donation. In many countries, people decide, when renewing their drivers’ license, whether they want to make their body available for organ donation. In countries where the default option is yes, but one can “opt out,” nearly 100 percent of people choose to be donors. In the United States, Britain, and Germany, where the default option is no but one can “opt in,” about 1 in 4 choose to be donors (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). • Opting in or opting out of retirement savings. For many years, American employees who wanted to defer part of their compensation to a 401(k) retirement plan had to elect to lower their take-home pay. Most chose not to do so. A 2006 pension law, influenced by framing research, reframed the choice. Now companies are given an incentive to enroll their employ- ees automatically in the plan, and to allow them to opt out (and to raise their take-home pay). The choice was preserved. But one study found that with the “opt out” framing, enrollments soared from 49 to 86 percent (Madrian & Shea, 2001). The lesson of framing research is told in the story of a sultan who dreamed he had lost all his teeth. Summoned to interpret the dream, the first interpreter said, “Alas! The lost teeth mean you will see your family members die.” Enraged, the sul- tan ordered 50 lashes for this bearer of bad news. When a second dream interpreter heard the dream, he explained the sultan’s good fortune: “You will outlive your whole clan!” Reassured, the sultan ordered his treasurer to go and fetch 50 pieces of gold for this bearer of good news. On the way, the bewildered treasurer observed to the second interpreter, “Your interpretation was no different from that of the first interpreter.” “Ah yes,” the wise interpreter replied, “but remember: What matters is not only what you say, but how you say it.” Experimental Research: Searching for Cause and Effect The difficulty of discerning cause and effect among naturally correlated events prompts most social psychologists to create laboratory simulations of everyday processes whenever this is feasible and ethical. These simulations are akin to

Introducing Social Psychology Chapter 1 25 aeronautical wind tunnels. Aeronautical engineers don’t begin by observing how independent variable flying objects perform in various natural environments. The variations in both atmo- The experimental factor that spheric conditions and flying objects are too complex. Instead, they construct a simu- a researcher manipulates. lated reality in which they can manipulate wind conditions and wing structures. Future chapters will offer CONTROL: MANIPULATING VARIABLES many research-based insights, a few of which will Like aeronautical engineers, social psychologists experiment by constructing social be highlighted in “Research situations that simulate important features of our daily lives. By varying just one or Close-Up” boxes that describe two factors at a time—called independent variables—the experimenter pinpoints a sample study in depth. their influence. As the wind tunnel helps the aeronautical engineer discover princi- ples of aerodynamics, so the experiment enables the social psychologist to discover Note: Obesity correlated principles of social thinking, social influence, and social relations. with marital status and income. Historically, social psychologists have used the experimental method in about three-fourths of their research studies (Higbee & others, 1982), and in two out of Whom the men were three studies the setting has been a research laboratory (Adair & others, 1985). To shown—a normal or an illustrate the laboratory experiment, consider two experiments that typify research overweight woman—was the from upcoming chapters on prejudice and aggression. Each suggests possible cause- independent variable. effect explanations of correlational findings. CORRELATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF PREJUDICE AGAINST THE OBESE The first experiment concerns prejudice against people who are obese. People often perceive the obese as slow, lazy, and sloppy (Roehling & others, 2007; Ryckman & others, 1989). Do such attitudes spawn discrimination? In hopes of finding out, Steven Gortmaker and his colleagues (1993) studied 370 obese 16- to 24-year-old women. When they restudied them seven years later, two-thirds of the women were still obese and were less likely to be married and earning high salaries than a comparison group of some 5,000 other women. Even after correcting for any differences in aptitude test scores, race, and parental income, the obese women’s incomes were $7,000 a year below average. Correcting for certain other factors makes it look as though discrimination might explain the correlation between obesity and lower status. But we can’t be sure. (Can you think of other possibilities?) Enter social psychologists Mark Snyder and Julie Haugen (1994, 1995). They asked 76 University of Minnesota male students to have a get-acquainted phone conversation with 1 of 76 female students. Unknown to the women, each man was shown a photo said to picture his conversational partner. Half were shown an obese woman (not the actual partner); the other half a normal-weight woman. Later analysis of just the women’s side of the conversation revealed that they spoke less warmly and happily if they were pre- sumed obese. Clearly, something in the men’s tone of voice and conversational con- tent induced the supposedly obese women to speak in a way that confirmed the idea that obese women are undesirable. Prejudice and discrimination were having an effect. Recalling the effect of the stepmother’s behavior, perhaps we should call this the “Cinderella effect.” CORRELATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF TV VIOLENCE VIEWING As a second example of how experiments clarify causation, consider the correlation between television viewing and children’s behavior. The more vio- lent television children watch, the more aggressive they tend to be. Are children learning and reenacting what they see on the screen? As I hope you now recognize, this is a correlational finding. Figure 1.5 reminds us that there are two other cause-effect interpretations. (What are they?) Social psychologists have therefore brought television viewing into the labora- tory, where they control the amount of violence the children see. By exposing chil- dren to violent and nonviolent programs, researchers can observe how the amount of violence affects behavior. Chris Boyatzis and his colleagues (1995) showed some elementary school children, but not others, an episode of the most popular—and violent—children’s television program of the 1990s, Power Rangers. Immediately