Emergence of Social Psychology; between 1908 and 1924 Muzafer Sherif as one of the founders of this field during 1930s

• Emergence of Social Psychology; between 1908 and 1924

• Muzafer Sherif as one of the founders of this field during 1930s

• Contemporary researchers still give reference to his work: social norms, reference groups, intergroup relations, ego-involvement and also his work on attitudes and judgment.

A Short Biography: Education

• A Short Biography: Education

• Born in İzmir

• B.A., Izmir International American College, 1927

• M.A., Istanbul University (Psychology), 1929

• M.A., Harvard University, 1932

• *Went to Berlin for lectures under Kohler

• PhD, Columbia University, 1935 (Thesis: Some Social Factors in Perception)

A Short Biography: Academics

• A Short Biography: Academics

• Teaching at Ankara University,

• -Translation of important works of Psychology

• -Adaptation of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test into Turkish language

A Short Biography: Academics

• A Short Biography: Academics

• Fellow at Yale University (Psychology Dept.)

• Professor at Oklahoma University.

• University of Washington, Visiting professor

• Pennsylvania State University, Visiting professor

• -Becomes a professor at Sociology

• “Professor Emeritus”

• Besides his conceptual and theoretical contributions to social psychology, he revealed new techniques and approaches to the field.

• Although those methodologies were new or contradictory to the main methodology of his time, they received attention, eventually.

Firstly, Sherif, had an approach which took psychology and sociology as two fields of study informing each other. Thus, he highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary work; He took psychology and socio-cultural aspects into consideration in his analyses.

• Firstly, Sherif, had an approach which took psychology and sociology as two fields of study informing each other. Thus, he highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary work; He took psychology and socio-cultural aspects into consideration in his analyses.

Secondly, besides his laboratory experiments as a psychologist, he put emphasis on real life settings and field work. Thus, he conducted various real life experiments to make observations in natural settings such as the Robber’s Cave experiment, in addition to his regular laboratory experiments (Sarup, 1991).

• Secondly, besides his laboratory experiments as a psychologist, he put emphasis on real life settings and field work. Thus, he conducted various real life experiments to make observations in natural settings such as the Robber’s Cave experiment, in addition to his regular laboratory experiments (Sarup, 1991).

Thirdly, he included time dimension in his works, consistently. The underlying rationale was his “human behavior takes time to change” proposal, because concepts of social norms, attitude formation, attitude change take place in the course of time.

• Thirdly, he included time dimension in his works, consistently. The underlying rationale was his “human behavior takes time to change” proposal, because concepts of social norms, attitude formation, attitude change take place in the course of time.

• His most popular experiments e.g. Robber’s Cave experiment (behaviors & attitudes)

Groups are formed naturally, in order to take advantage of life.

• Groups are formed naturally, in order to take advantage of life.

• Members of those groups are surrounded by the values, standards and norms of the group.

• People are influenced by their environment which sets the social standards or norms of it.

• Members of a group act according to the values, standards and norms of that group.

In-group Interaction Process:

• In-group Interaction Process:

• For forming social values and norms of a group, the members of the group need to interact over time through joint goals and problems.

• The norms of a group stem from interactions, one individual cannot form group norms on his own.

The Autokinetic Experiment is a laboratory experiment that informs the formation of group norms.

• The Autokinetic Experiment is a laboratory experiment that informs the formation of group norms.

• There were three phases of the experiment.

• 1st- Formation of internal standards

• 2nd- Formation of group norms

• 3rd- Conformity to group norms

Individuals were separately shown a stationary point of light in total darkness, repetitively.

• Individuals were separately shown a stationary point of light in total darkness, repetitively.

• Track of judgments for amount of move of light (how far the light moved)

• Each individual had a consistent range for reported light movement amount.

• Thus; every participant set an internal standard for the range of movement.

The individuals were exposed to stationary point of light together with groups.

• The individuals were exposed to stationary point of light together with groups.

• Those participants reported a different range of amount for move of light, but they reported a range of amount close to the others in the same group.

• Thus, the individual changed his judgment for move amount according to the others’ report. (Influence of the group norm that was established in exposure with group session)

The same individuals saw the light separately after exposure to light with the group.

• The same individuals saw the light separately after exposure to light with the group.

• Individual reports showed a shift towards the group’s reported range of move.

• Thus, the exposure to group influenced the report of the individuals.

• Group norms are implicit in individuals’ changing their reports according to the group norm.

• Conclusion:

• Groups have their shared norms that members of that group conform, and evaluate themselves accordingly.

In a plant;

• In a plant;

• The workers paid per item they produced, the more production, the more gain.

• If one attempts to produce more than the worker group’s standard, he will be warned (negative feedback), even in harsh ways.

• Violation of group norm: limits of production set previously.

If the worker violates this informal norm, it means that he does not take the group norm as a reference point and the group as a reference group.

• If the worker violates this informal norm, it means that he does not take the group norm as a reference point and the group as a reference group.

• This results in inability of being a member of that group and difficulty in increasing the status within the group.

As members interact and function in their groups, they gain some status and new roles. This creates identification of group members with the norms and joint goals of the group.

• As members interact and function in their groups, they gain some status and new roles. This creates identification of group members with the norms and joint goals of the group.

• The development of such ties in groups indicates that a reference group was formed.

• Individuals can identify with the norms of other groups rather than their own groups.

• When a member of a group (in-group) is changing his attitudes according to the social norms of another group (out-group), the outgroup is called the reference group.

Both the member’s group (in-group) and the other groups (out-group) can be reference groups of the individual.

• Both the member’s group (in-group) and the other groups (out-group) can be reference groups of the individual.

• Thus, attitudes can change because individuals form their attitudes based on the norms they adopt.

• In modern life, individuals are members of multiple groups at the same time. Therefore, there are conflicting norms in one’s life.

• Hungry child is waiting for the appropriate time for eating. The eating time was set before. Hence, he is ignoring the self need that is hunger but conforming to the norms of the out-group which indicates a proper eating time (reference group).

Together with the assumption that family is a kind of group in which the child can function, feedback coming from parents is essential for the child to internalize the values and norms of his family. Out of parenting styles, the democratic parenting which reasons the child through mostly verbal feedbacks about the expected behavior –the range of tolerable behavior in social psychology-, provides a ground for the child to conform to the rules by internalization via frequent feedbacks. Therefore, the prominent working principle of democratic parenting in helping the child adopt rules can be understood better. Thus, reference groups theory help explain child’s –the member- internalization and development of autonomous self with referencing to his family –the group- values via feedbacks.

• Together with the assumption that family is a kind of group in which the child can function, feedback coming from parents is essential for the child to internalize the values and norms of his family. Out of parenting styles, the democratic parenting which reasons the child through mostly verbal feedbacks about the expected behavior –the range of tolerable behavior in social psychology-, provides a ground for the child to conform to the rules by internalization via frequent feedbacks. Therefore, the prominent working principle of democratic parenting in helping the child adopt rules can be understood better. Thus, reference groups theory help explain child’s –the member- internalization and development of autonomous self with referencing to his family –the group- values via feedbacks.

Formation of groups occurs as the members of a group forms their norms through continuous interaction and internalize those norms (Sherif &Sherif, 1956). As Harlock indicates (cited in Sherif & Cantril, 1947), the adolescent to be a member of groups provides him with a context in which the adolescent can feel the sense of achievement which is not possible for him in the context of adult life characterized with adult characteristics.

• Formation of groups occurs as the members of a group forms their norms through continuous interaction and internalize those norms (Sherif &Sherif, 1956). As Harlock indicates (cited in Sherif & Cantril, 1947), the adolescent to be a member of groups provides him with a context in which the adolescent can feel the sense of achievement which is not possible for him in the context of adult life characterized with adult characteristics.

Detailed study of group structure and intergroup relations

• Detailed study of group structure and intergroup relations

• Demonstrated Realistic Group Conflict Theory with regard to prejudice & stereotypes

• Argued that prejudice is a group phenomenon: Dynamics between whole groups

Participant Observation study

• Participant Observation study

• Researchers were camp counselors

• Hidden microphone and cameras

• Participants: 22, 11 year -old boys

• Homogenous background

• Equal in athletic ability and camping experience

• Parents gave permission, boys unaware they were participating in experiment

Stage 1: INTRAGROUP INTERACTION (in-group formation)

• Stage 1: INTRAGROUP INTERACTION (in-group formation)

• Stage 2: INTERGROUP COMPETITIVE INTERACTION (Intergroup conflict)

• Stage 3: INTERGROUP NON-COMPETITIVE INTERACTION (Intergroup cooperation)

Two groups of boys were brought separately to the campsite

• Two groups of boys were brought separately to the campsite

• Housed separately in different areas

• did not know the other's existence

• Developed its own inhabitant

Time spent in group activities

• Time spent in group activities

• such as preparing meals, hiking and treasure hunts

• Developed its own rules and leadership

• Names- ‘Rattlers’ vs ‘Eagles’

• Flags, emblems, jargon

• Nicknames

became aware of the other's presence

• became aware of the other's presence

• Involved in camp games & competitions

• Sports & athletic competitions: Tug of war, baseball

• Winners were rewarded: pocket knife, trophy

• Initially there was good sportsmanship

As competition grew “sportsmanship” declined

• As competition grew “sportsmanship” declined

• A division between "us" and "them” emerged

• Negative outgroup attitudes: hostility & prejudice

• Competition for limited resources began

Verbal aggression and then aggressive behaviors occurred

• Verbal aggression and then aggressive behaviors occurred

• Not speaking to each other, Accusations of “cheating”, “unfairness’’

• Name-calling, burning flags, raiding dorms

• When Eagles won, Rattlers blamed the leader Wanted leaders who were warlike and aggressive They attacked the Eagle's cabin and stole the prized knives and medals, provoked fighting

Goal: to eliminate prejudice & resolve conflict

• Goal: to eliminate prejudice & resolve conflict

• Initially, non competitive activities were attempted

• but hostility & conflict carried on

• By use of Superordinate goals:

• presenting challenging problems for both groups that could only be solved if the boys worked together (necessary to cooperate and work on shared goals, neither group by itself had the resources to achieve)

Repeated intergroup cooperation

• Repeated intergroup cooperation

• Increased friendliness toward outgroup:

• Name calling disappeared

• Stereotypes reduced

• Intergroup conflict could be overcome

• Trip home: Sat together and sharing of prizes won

When peer groups interact

• When peer groups interact

• (In group members)

• create a sense of belongingness,

• develop their own cultures,

• formulate their own norms,

• develop status structures,

• establish group boundaries

Real conflict of group interests causes intergroup conflict (Realistic Group Conflict Theory)

• Real conflict of group interests causes intergroup conflict (Realistic Group Conflict Theory)

• opposed group interests in obtaining limited resources promote inter group competition & enhances intra-group cooperation

• Intergroup contact in competitive situations, leads to develop hostility, aggression and prejudice

• When groups interact in common goals peace can be developed

(SJT) assumes that people are aware of their attitudes and changes in them

• (SJT) assumes that people are aware of their attitudes and changes in them

• People use their current attitudes as a judgmental standard (reference point/anchor) when evaluating other new information in making judgments

Individuals have three latitudes in which they accept or reject specific messages or attitudes

• Individuals have three latitudes in which they accept or reject specific messages or attitudes

• Latitudes of Acceptance: positions which individuals consider as acceptable

• Latitudes of Rejection: positions which are objectionable

• Latitutes of Noncommitment: positions which are neither accepted nor rejected (feels undecided about or has no opinion)

An individual who supports an extreme position on an issue typically have large latitudes of rejection

• An individual who supports an extreme position on an issue typically have large latitudes of rejection

• Thus, individuals who have a strong position on an issue reject almost all opposing positions and only accept statements that are close to their own position

Prior attitudes produce jugmental distortions in the way they perceive messages

• Prior attitudes produce jugmental distortions in the way they perceive messages

• Assimilation and contrast effects mediate changes in attitudes

• Assimilation: the displacement of the judgment toward the anchor

• Contrast: the displacement of the judgment away from the anchor

first demonstrated with a psychophysical experiment

• first demonstrated with a psychophysical experiment

• asked participants to lift a set of six objects (ranged from 55 to 141 grams)

• then asked to rate their perceptions of weight ranged from lightest to heaviest

• When participants were not provided an anchor (a reference point about what heavy means) they rated approximately the same weights to objects.

When participants first lifted a heavy object (the extreme anchor, 347 gr), they judged most other objects in a lower weight than objectively they were (the contrast effect).

• When participants first lifted a heavy object (the extreme anchor, 347 gr), they judged most other objects in a lower weight than objectively they were (the contrast effect).

• When the anchor was equal to the heaviest weight (141 gr), participants judged a greater number of objects in higher weights than they objectively are (the assimilation effect).

when an anchor stimulus is far from the range of possible judgments, there is a contrast effect, but when the anchor is close to this range, there is an assimilation effect.

• when an anchor stimulus is far from the range of possible judgments, there is a contrast effect, but when the anchor is close to this range, there is an assimilation effect.

judgmental distortions also occur when individuals evaluate social objects

• judgmental distortions also occur when individuals evaluate social objects

• Positions that fall in the latitude of acceptance are assimilated (judged to be more similar to the ind’s own position than they are actually are) -- >attitude change

• Communications that fall in the latitude of rejection are contrasted (judged to be more discrepant to the ind’s own position than they are actually are) -- >not produce attitude change

to the arousal of the individual’s commitments or stands in the context of appropriate situations

• to the arousal of the individual’s commitments or stands in the context of appropriate situations

• personal significance

• strong values

• self-system

• committed to the position

• issue-specific or situationally aroused

highly ego-involved in an issue

• highly ego-involved in an issue

• -- > have narrow latitude of acceptance and wide latitude of rejection

• -- > more likely to be intolerant to opposing positions

a study of prohibition attitudes

• a study of prohibition attitudes

• in terms of participants’ responses to messages on the prohibition of the sale of alcohol

• involved participants

• dry subjects who favored prohibition

• wet subjects who opposed prohibition

• uninvolved participants (who were neither pro-wet nor pro-dry)

asked to read nine statements about prohibition that ranged from extremely dry to extremely wet

• asked to read nine statements about prohibition that ranged from extremely dry to extremely wet

• asked to judge the position that they found most acceptable, as well as the other acceptable positions and the position they found the most objectionable, as well as the other objectionable positions

1*since alcohol is the curse of mankind, the sale and use of alcohol, including light beer, should be completely abolished.

• 1*since alcohol is the curse of mankind, the sale and use of alcohol, including light beer, should be completely abolished.

• 2*since alcohol is the main cause of corruption in public life, lawlessness, and immoral acts, its sale and use should be prohibited.

• 5*the arguments in favor and against the sale and use of alcohol are nearly the same.

• 6* the sale of alcohol should be so regulated that it is available in limited quantities for special occasions

• 7*the sale and use should be permitted with proper state controls, so that revenue from taxation may be used for betterment of schools, highways

• 8*Since prohibition is a major cause of corruption in public life, lawlessness, immoral acts, the sale and use of alcohol should be legalized.

• 9*It has become evident that man cannot get along with alcohol, therefore, there should be no restriction whatsoever on its sale and use.

A couple of weeks later

• A couple of weeks later

• the dry-participants listened to extremely wet-message that argued the law should be repealed or moderately wet message.

• wet-participants listened to extremely dry-message that opposed cancellation of the prohibition law or a moderately dry message

• uninvolved participants listened to all messages

• Then participants asked to judge their opinions on the prohibition issue.

Participants’ own positions on the issue had a strong influence on their evaluations of the message

• Participants’ own positions on the issue had a strong influence on their evaluations of the message

• Participants with favorable attitudes toward the prohibition tend to judge extreme dry messages as more fair.

• Participants who strongly opposed prohibition evaluated the extreme wet messages as fair and viewed the other messages as more biased and propagandistic.

When individuals hold strong views, they perceive messages close to their own as even closer (assimilation effect) that leads to regard the message as fair, unbiased

• When individuals hold strong views, they perceive messages close to their own as even closer (assimilation effect) that leads to regard the message as fair, unbiased

• When they perceive relatively discrepant messages as even farther away (contrast effect) than they objectively are that leads to regard the message as unfair, biased or propagandistic

As the more the social experiences vary, the more the social judgments vary.

• As the more the social experiences vary, the more the social judgments vary.

• Social Judgement Theory explains how individuals judge the messages they receive and how they adjust their attitude, accept or reject the message

Social judgment theory enables to understand the origins of opposition and resistance in orientations and leads to examine how to promote an attitude change and then hopefully lead to change in behavior.

• Social judgment theory enables to understand the origins of opposition and resistance in orientations and leads to examine how to promote an attitude change and then hopefully lead to change in behavior.