Social Psychology, Why is this problematic for social Psychologists

Social Psychology

Author

Institution

Date

A. What is the A-B problem? Why is this problematic for social Psychologists?

Knowing the thought pattern of individuals is of importance not only to social psychologists but also to every person. Social psychology is concerned with the causes and nature of behavior, as well as mental processes in social situations. In essence, social psychologists examine the way in which social influences can goad people into doing things that are not in line with their personalities. By definition, attitude means that we act according to our cognitions when we have the freedom to do so. However, scholars show a weak link between Attitudes (A) and behaviors (B). In most cases, we do not act according to our consciences. The A-B problem refers to the research finding that indicates that people’s actions are not always in line with their attitudes. This raises a problem for social psychologists since it implies that individual behavior is unpredictable.

B. Describe Attrition theory. Review some of the attribution biases we make. Why is the fundamental attribution error so important to consider in Social Psychology.

Attribution refers to the belief or assumption as to why individuals behave in a certain manner. In essence, the attribution process refers to the process by which individuals make inferences pertaining to the traits and motives through observation. The attribution theory, therefore, refers to the processes by which people make conclusions about the factors influencing other people’s behavior (Weiner, 1986). The theory is crucial since attributions allow us to perceive others as either victims of circumstances or purposeful actors. According to the theory, individuals can make internal or external attributions. Internal attributions refer to inferences made that an individual’s behavior results from his personality, character or attitude. External attributions indicate that an individual’s behavior is influenced by the circumstances he is in. The theory outlines that our attributions are significantly influenced by our motivational and emotional drives. We blame victims for their fate while distancing ourselves from the thought of suffering the same fate. We also view ourselves as less predictable and more multifaceted than others, while ascribing less variability to others (Weiner, 1986).

Incorrect attributions come as a result of systematic biases, which include the self-serving bias, the just world hypothesis and the fundamental error. The self-serving bias refers to the tendency of individuals to attribute failures to situational factors and successes to internal factors. The further an event is in the past the higher the likelihood that individuals will blame circumstances for their failures, and congratulate themselves on successes. In self-effacing bias, individuals blame themselves for failure and attribute their success to situational factors and not personal attributes. In the just-world bias, individuals believe in a fair world where what people get is what they deserve. This helps them to understand difficult circumstances. It is noteworthy hat individuals are more generous to themselves than to others. They will blame other people’s failures to internal factors, and their success to situational factors (Weiner, 1986).

The fundamental attribution error, also known as the correspondence bias, refers to the tendency for individuals to attribute other individual’s behavior to internal factors like feelings, personal traits and abilities. In this case, they will assume that there is correspondence between other people’s behavior and their personal attributes. However, they will attribute their own behavior to situational factors. The fundamental attribution error explains that people focus on other people’s behavior rather than the circumstances surrounding their behavior (Weiner, 1986).

C. Describe the Milgram study. Why was it conducted? What did Milgram conclude? Why did the participants behave the way they did? Ethics?The Stanley Milgram study examined the effect of authority on obedience. Milgram concluded that people obey out of a desire to appear co-operative or out of fear, even when the actions are not in line with their desires or better judgment. The study illustrated the reluctance that people have in confronting those who misuse power (Milgram, 1974). Milgram study involved 40 men who were to participate in an experiment as teachers. In this experiment, the participants were to deliver a “shock” to a “student” in case he answered the questions incorrectly. The participants believe that the shocks administered were real, whereas the student was a confederate in that study. Milgram had come up with an intimidating shock generator that had shock levels from 30 volts with 15-volts increment up to 450 volts. In addition, the switches had labels such as slight shock, danger, severe shock and intense shock, with the final two switches carrying an ominous XXX. If the participants faltered in administering the maximum shocks, the experimenter would prod them along using commands such as “you have no other choice but to continue” and “the experiment requires that you continue”.

65% of the participants delivered maximum shocks to the student. 26 participants delivered maximum shocks while the rest stopped prior to administering the maximum shocks. It is noteworthy, that most of the participants were extremely distraught, agitated and angry with the experimenter, but they went ahead to follow the orders to the end. The experiments showed that, on average, all people are good and would only obey under coercion especially when a higher authority was in proximity (Milgram, 1974). Milgram concluded that, ordinary people who have no hostility on their part can carry out terrible destruction in the course of their jobs. In addition, even with the clarity of their work’s destructive nature, few people have the necessary resources to resist authority, even when the orders do not conform to basic standards of morality.

The participants complied due to the physical presence of the authority figure, the fact that Yale (a competitive academic institution) was sponsoring the study and because they assumed that the experimenter was competent. In addition, they assumed that the learner and teacher status was selected randomly, and the shocks had only been said to be painful not dangerous (Milgram, 1974).

D. What is groupthink? Why does it occur? Give real examples

Groupthink refers to a problem that arises when a group makes faulty decisions due to group pressures rather than realities of the situation. Group pressures result in deterioration of moral judgment, mental efficiency and reality testing (Janis, 1982). It mostly happens when groups are cohesive and isolated from conflicting opinions, especially where leaders are directive and open. Group think occurs due to feelings of vulnerability, pressures on group members to conform, and stereotyping members of the out-group. It may also occur when the group believes in its own rightness thereby discrediting information that is against the group’s decision (Janis, 1982).

The most-quoted example of groupthink is the invasion of Iraq, where the Bush administration and the Congress decided to invade Iraq without building a broad-based allies coalition. Other examples include the escalation of the Vietnam war, hostage rescue in Iran and the Bay Pigs invasion.

References

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. HarpercollinsWeiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

(Weiner, 1986)