# 02 - 12_Social_Psychology

# 01 - 1. Attitudes

# 1. Attitudes

# 02 - Functions of attitudes (Katz)

# Functions of attitudes: (Katz)

# 03 - Why do attitudes change

# Why do attitudes change?

© SPMM Course 
1. Attitudes 
Attitudes are “learned predispositions to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable 
way towards a given object, person or event” (Fishbein & Ajzen,1975). 
An attitude is a combination of beliefs and values. 
 Beliefs are based on our knowledge of the world and link an object to an attribute. They 
are non-evaluative and objective e.g. ‘USA is a nation built on capitalism’. 
 Values relate to the importance or desirability of the object. It is largely subjective and has 
preferential patterns attached e.g. ‘I do not like capitalism’. Values can turn beliefs to 
attitudes – ‘I dislike American people’. 
Three-component model of attitudes: 
1. Affective component: what the person feels about the object (favourable/ unfavourable 
evaluations) – e.g. I love chocolate 
2. Cognitive component: thoughts, beliefs, knowledge about the object – e.g. Chocolate 
keeps me active 
3. Behavioural component: actual or intended responses to the object e.g. I eat chocolate 
every day 
Functions of attitudes: (Katz) 
 Knowledge function: attitudes are frames of reference that simplify the world, help make 
quick appraisals of situations 
 Value expressive function: reflect fundamental self-concepts – self-expressive and 
maintains personal integrity e.g. vegetarianism 
 Social adjustment function: help to function in a group setting, social acceptance 
 Ego-defensive function protects from character or personal deficiencies – this function 
makes attitudes very resistant to change 
Why do attitudes change? 
1. Cognitive dissonance theory: (Festinger) 
People strive for consistency between thoughts, feelings and actions. If there is a discrepancy 
between different attitudes (cognitive dissonance) or between attitudes and behaviours 
(attitude-behaviour discrepancy), then this initiates and drives either a change in attitudes (more 
common) or a change in behaviours.

# 04 - Measuring Attitudes

# Measuring Attitudes

© SPMM Course 
For example, in smokers, discrepancy between cognitions (‘smoking is injurious’) and behaviour 
(repeated smoking) may influence behaviour leading to a cut down, or alternatively, may alter 
the cognitions (‘there is too little evidence available to link smoking to poor health’). 
1-Dollar 20-Dollar experiment: All subjects in an experiment were asked to do a very boring 
repetitive task for 30 minutes. The first group was a control group; the second group (called 1dollar group) was paid $1 to say that the task was fun and interesting, the third group (called 20dollar group) was paid $20 to say that the task was fun and interesting. All participants were 
asked to rate how enjoyable they had found the task. Contrary to popular belief, the group, 
which was paid more, did not appreciate the boring task. As they obtained a good incentive, they 
did not develop a dissonance. They lied about its usefulness but in fact they did not change their 
belief about the boring nature of this task. In contrast, the lowly paid group did experience a 
cognitive dissonance between the two facts - ‘This task is boring’ and ‘I am doing this task 
without much incentive’, hence they changed their initial attitude towards the task and, in fact, 
started liking the task. This highlights the processes relating to counter-attitudinal behaviours. 
How to reduce dissonance? Apart from modifying attitudes or behaviours, one can have 
selective exposure to information to avoid or prevent dissonance; to reduce a dissonance one can 
make a commitment after which primary attitudes get stronger e.g. after betting on a horse, the 
belief that the horse will win strengthens! 
Other methods are 
1. Removal or denial of the dissonant cognition 
2. Trivialising the dissonant cognition 
3.Adding a new consonant cognition to counterbalance the dissonance 
 
Self-perception theory: According to Bem, self-report of attitude after a behaviour is usually an 
inference of one’s own behaviour and context. Dissonance cannot explain this adequately. In the 
1 dollar/20 dollar experiment, the 20 dollar group made situational attribution (‘I did it for money, 
it was boring) while 1 dollar group made dispositional attribution (‘There is not much incentive, 
but I really liked it’). Hence, while cognitive dissonance explains both counter-attitudinal 
behaviour and attitude-attitude discrepancy; self-perception applies better when attitude 
congruent behaviour occurs, but it cannot explain attitude-attitude discrepancy. 
Measuring Attitudes 
Attitudes are largely subjective and so cannot be measured directly. Attitude measures usually 
rely on self-report, assume that the same statement has the same meaning for all respondents and

# 05 - Attitude behaviour correlation

# Attitude behaviour correlation

© SPMM Course 
assume that subjective attitudes can be quantified meaningfully. An alternative method of 
measurement is to observe behaviours, but behaviours do not always reflect attitude. 
 Thurstone scale: While constructing a Thurstone scale, hundreds of statements are 
initially produced pertaining to a particular topic. These statements are presented to a 
sample (similar to a panel of judges) who is asked to score the statements on an 11 point 
scale. A set number of statements e.g. 10 each on both extremes (positive and negative 
attitude) are chosen based on the consistency of scores given by the judges. Each of these 
statements will carry a value, which is the average of 100 judgments on the 11 points scale. 
These 20 statements are clubbed together in producing an attitude scale, which is 
administered to the subject. The subject will then indicate what statements he agrees to. It 
is not often used because the method is too tedious. The 11 points (used to rate each 
statement) are assumed to be intervals and averages are used to obtain the value scores. 
This is not entirely accurate as the 11 points scale is, in fact, ordinal. 
 Likert scale includes graded ‘agree’ to ‘disagree’ measures. This is one of the most popular 
and statistically more reliable measures. It is easy to construct, and no assumptions are 
made about the equality of intervals. 
 Sociometry is used to measure interpersonal attitudes in a repertory grid-like fashion i.e. 
who like whom tables. These are called sociograms. 
 Guttman introduced scalograms that include cumulative statements where accepting a 
statement usually means accepting all that comes below a statement, in a step-wise 
fashion. 
 Osgood’s semantic differential scale is used to measure verbally expressed attitudes. It 
allows different attitudes about a particular topic to be measured on the same scale. It 
includes various factors constituting an attitude; e.g. while expressing one’s attitudes 
regarding a politician, one can rate him using an evaluative component (good ---- bad), 
activity component (active ----- inactive) and potency component (powerful ---- weak) etc. 
With these bipolar adjectives being the two extremes, a 7 points scale is designed, and the 
subject is asked to indicate a score for each factor. Osgood’s semantic differential assumes 
that every concept can be represented in a hypothetical semantic space with two extremes. 
 
Attitude behaviour correlation 
Attitudes and behaviours are not correlated in simple linear fashion. Attitudes are only 
predispositions; actual behaviours depend on: 
1. Perceived consequences. 
2. Social desirability.

© SPMM Course 
3. Habitual behaviours. 
4. Situational factors 
 
If attitudes are measured with specified assessment of target, action, context and time element, 
however, then measured attitudes will be closer to actual behaviour e.g. if one wants to measure 
public attitude on the issue of abortion, simply eliciting attitudes on abortion may not be 
appropriate. Instead if we measure attitudes on legal abortion in a married woman after 3 months 
of marriage, it may provide a more accurate measure of the actual behavior of the respondents 
when the issue arises in their personal or family life. Single instances of behaviours are unreliable 
indicators of attitudes. Various attitudes aggregate to result in behaviour; also the strength of an 
attitude is proportional to its influence on behaviour.

# 06 - 2. Self psychology

# 2. Self psychology

© SPMM Course 
2. Self psychology 
In self-psychology, various concepts are often used to describe the nature of self. 
 Self-consciousness: Awareness of distinct self, compared to other objects in the 
environment. Only humans are thought to possess full self-consciousness. 
 Self-image: This refers to an answer one might give for the question ‘who are you?’ It 
includes one’s description of social roles (social self), personality traits and physical 
characters (bodily self). 
 Self-esteem: This refers to a personal judgment of worthiness expressed in the attitudes 
one holds towards oneself. Self-image is descriptive, but self-esteem is evaluative. 
 Ideal self: This represents ‘what we would like ourselves to be’. One’s self-esteem 
depends on the discrepancy between one’s ideal self and self-image. 
We develop self-concept depending upon: 
1. Reaction of others (Theory of looking glass self by Cooley suggests that like a mirror, 
others around us reflect our self-image) 
2. Comparison with others 
3. Social roles we play 
4. Identification with role models 
Self-recognition could be demonstrated in a growing infant by using a mirror. Gallup conducted 
the famous ‘touching the dot’ experiments to demonstrate self-recognition. It is noted that only 
higher primates and humans older than 20 months successfully demonstrate ‘touching the dot’. 
When a red dot is unknowingly placed on the face of a child, the child starts touching its face to 
explore the dot when a mirror is shown. This ‘touching the dot’ phenomenon does not occur less 
than 15 months of age. 5 to 25% infants touch the dot by 18 months while nearly 75% touch the 
dot by age 20 months. It is thus concluded that self-recognition rapidly develops between 18 to 20 
months. Object permanence is necessary for self-recognition. Mirror recognition by primates 
may be a reflection of behavioural recognition i.e. ‘the one in the mirror is same as me’ rather 
than self-recognition i.e. ‘the one in the mirror is me’. 
Autobiographical memory in humans develops around age 3 ½ to 4 ½ yrs.

# 07 - 3. Interpersonal issues

# 3. Interpersonal issues

# 08 - Attribution

# Attribution

© SPMM Course 
3. Interpersonal issues 
Attribution 
This is the process by which we make judgments about causes of behaviour. Heider (1958) was 
the first to propose a psychological theory of attribution - he called this “naïve” or 
“commonsense” psychology. In his view, people act like amateur scientists, trying to understand 
other people’s behaviours by piecing together information until they arrive at a reasonable 
explanation or cause. During this process, we make a distinction between intentional vs. 
unintentional behaviours in others and make internal vs. external attribution of the cause of the 
observed behaviour. 
We tend to attribute behaviours to events that co-vary with those behaviours over time. e.g. if A 
is an event that occurs when the behaviour B is observed, then we often assume A causes B 
(Kelly’s co-variation model). When making such covariant related observations, three elements 
are important to ensure validity of the inference. 
Consider a student X, who arrives late for a physiology lecture. Another student wants to infer 
the cause behind this. To make an appropriate attribution, he/she needs to consider 
1. Consensus: Does everyone come late or is it only student X? 
2. Distinctiveness: Does student X come late to other classes too? 
3. Consistency: Does student X come late to physiology lecture every time? 
Consistency is most used in attribution; consensus is least used. 
Generally speaking if consensus is low, dispositional attribution is made (student X has a 
problem). If consistency is low, situational attribution is made (something must have happened 
to him today, perhaps, he missed his train). If distinctiveness is high, stimulus or target is 
considered to be at fault (the physiology class is so boring that X always comes late). 
Weiner developed a systematic attributional theory. Accordingly there are 3 dimensions 
identified in the process of attributions 
1. Locus: external/internal 
2. Stability: transient/permanent 
3. Controllability: controllable/uncontrollable 
External stable and uncontrollable cause attributed to a negative event generates a sense of 
failure with anger.

© SPMM Course 
Some consistent errors (attribution bias) are noted in making attributions. 
 
 First impression effect: (primacy effect). Generally first impressions on people count more 
unless specific instruction is given to attend or repeatedly observe. A positive first 
impression is more likely to change than a negative first impression. Primacy is more 
important in strangers; recency effect plays more in evaluating friends and others who will 
come into repeated contacts. 
 Halo effect is the tendency to perceive other persons as wholly good or bad based on few 
observed traits (e.g. physical attractiveness); i.e.making inferences about people using 
limited, superficial information. Thus a person's positive or negative traits "spill over" 
from one area to influence the total perception of their personality. Investigators 
evaluating crime suspects are susceptible to halo effect (to be accurate – reversed halo 
effect or devil effect or association fallacy). For example, a policeman may conclude 
someone is guilty by association with attributes he has previously seen in other criminals. 
Mere similarity of a person to a suspect often causes the police to associate the innocent 
wrongly with a guilty act. 
Actor-observer effect: When one is involved as an agent in a specific behaviour then he/she attributes 
external causality to the behaviour. For the same behaviour, others who are merely observers without 
direct participation may invoke internal causality (intentional and dispositional). 
Just world hypothesis refers to the idea that ‘I am a just person living in a just world; everyone here gets 
what they really deserve’. ‘Bad things happen to bad people’, leading to blaming-the-victim culture. 
Fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias: This refers to overestimating dispositional 
factors and not situational factors while attributing causes for other’s behaviours. This allows a sense of 
predictability to be developed about the other person. It is more pronounced if the attributed behaviour is 
negative and undesirable. 
Self-serving bias (SSB): the actor observer effect is most pronounced when judging negative behaviours 
This may be absent or reversed for positive behaviours. Hence such self-serving bias offers selfenhancement and defense. In depression, an exception to SSB is seen - The patient takes excessive selfblame for personal failures.
False consensus effect and illusion of in group homogeneity: This refers to the tendency to view other 
person’s behaviour to be representative of a group’s behaviour (culture or racial stereotypes are thus 
formed).

# 09 - Theory of Mind

# Theory of Mind

© SPMM Course 
 The term Barnum effect or Forer effect refers to the widespread predisposition to believe 
that general and vague personality descriptions or predictions (often given by astrologers, 
horoscopes, and palmistry) have specific relevance to certain individuals. This effect has 
frequently contaminated research on personality assessment. 
 Hawthorne effect refers to a short-term improvement caused by observing worker 
performance. 
 Pygmalion effect or Rosenthal effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy wherein students 
with poor expectations from their teachers internalize their negative label and perform 
poorly, and those with positive expectations internalise their positive labels and succeed 
academically. 
Theory of Mind 
Theory of Mind (ToM) develops around age 3 ½ to 4 years. ToM refers to the understanding that 
other persons do have mental processes similar to self; in this context it forms an essential part of 
the social attribution process. Lack of development of the theory of mind (trait related) could 
explain the apparent lack of empathy seen in autism. In acute psychosis, state related deficits in 
ToM are noted i.e. the deficit is not pervasive but seen only when relapsing into positive 
symptoms. Poor ToM in association with reduced empathic ability is also demonstrated in 
conduct disorder and in antisocial personality disorder. 
First-order false belief tasks 
These tasks relate to the understanding that other people can have their own thoughts about a 
given situation. First-order tests involve inferring one person’s mental state e.g. What Jim thinks. 
 Wimmer and Perner (1983) noted that three-year-olds tend to fail whereas four-year-olds tend to 
succeed a false-belief task called Sally-Anne Test. Children are first shown the picture of Sally, 
leaving a chocolate on the counter before departing the scene. Anne later comes in and moves the 
object from the counter to a box. The children are then asked to predict where Sally will look for 
the chocolate when she returns to the room. Children aged 4 and above generally grasp the 
notion that Sally will hold a false belief and look at the place where she left the chocolate initially. 
3-year-olds fail to ascribe this false belief to Sally. 
In the deceptive container task, a child is shown a closed candy container and is asked, “What’s 
in here?” When the child answers ‘candy’, the container is opened, revealing a pencil. Later when 
the child is asked what she originally thought was in the container when she was first asked, 
Three-year-olds incorrectly answer “a pencil,” demonstrating a lack of false belief whereas 4year-olds correctly say “candy.”

# 10 - Interpersonal relationships

# Interpersonal relationships

© SPMM Course 
Flavell et al. (1986) noted that children older than 4 years old distinguish appearance from reality 
and show an ability to discuss objects that have misleading appearances (‘it looks like an apple 
but it is really a ball’). 
Note that when task demands are reduced, even 15-month old show some signs of ToM. 
Furthermore, many children with autism and Asperger’s syndrome, can pass first order tests 
albeit at a developmentally later age (average 5.5 years according to Happe et al., 1995) 
 
Second-order false belief tasks 
These tasks relate to the understanding that other people (a second person) can have their own 
thoughts about another (third) person’s state of mind. Second-order tests involve inferring one 
person’s thoughts about another person’s mental state e.g. What Jim thinks that Varun thinks. 
These tests are usually passed by the age of 6 years in typically developing children. Children 
with autistic spectrum disorders may never pass second-order false belief tasks or pass only by 
teenagers. 
Key neural regions for normal ToM are considered to be the amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex, 
inferior parietal and medial frontal cortex. 
 
Interpersonal relationships 
Following factors influence relationships: 
1. Proximity: minimal requirement for most relationships. 
2. Exposure refers to reciprocal disclosure – this may enhance the relationship. Females 
do more self-disclosure than males. 
3. Similarity – may increase self-esteem in a relationship as one gets validation for similar 
interests. 
4. Complementarity – not so important initially but increases in importance as a longterm relationship develops. 
5. Compatibility is proportional to both similarity and complementarity. 
Types of love: 
 Companionate love: True or conjugal love where intimacy and commitment seen; passion 
is not high. 
 Passionate love: intimate and passionate but not much commitment – obsessive, romantic 
and infatuated. 
 Consummate love: intimacy, passion and commitment all well mixed.

# 11 - Linguistics of interpersonal communication

# Linguistics of interpersonal communication

# 12 - Persuasive communication

# Persuasive communication

© SPMM Course 
 Fatuous love: passion and commitment but no intimacy seen. 
According to SVR theory, – relationships proceed from Stimulus (external attributes) to Values 
to Role stage. 
 
Linguistics of interpersonal communication 
Some linguists view language as a “system of signs that have been developed to serve the 
communicative needs of people living in a social context”. Thus language is a product of 
sociocultural evolution. In this context, language serves 3 functions: 
1. Ideational Function: enable people thinking with language to interpret experience. 
2. Interpersonal Function: enable people acting with language to communicate experience 
and thoughts 
3. Textual Function: enable people organise of a message with language. 
 
Fields of enquiry in linguistics 
• 
Phonology: The study of sound structure 
• 
Morphology: The study of sound structure 
• 
Syntax: The study of sentence structure 
• 
Phonetics: The study of physical act of speaking 
• 
Semantics: The study of the connection of language to meanings. Semanticists consider 
that meanings are inherent in sentences; while communication-intentionists consider that 
meaning is not inherent but comes from something that people do when using language 
• 
Pragmatics: The study of the connection of context to meanings. 
• 
Sociolinguistics: The study of the connection of language to social situations 
• 
Semiotics: The study of signs and symbols in relation to their form and content 
Whorfian hypothesis or Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis states that the semantics of 
a language can affect the way in which its speakers perceive and conceptualize the world. 
Language determines the basic categories of thought and that, as a consequence, speakers of 
different languages think differently. This extreme position is also called linguistic determinism. 
Noam Chomsky argues against this stance (see Language Development section in the notes on 
Human Development). 
 
Persuasive communication 
Techniques of persuasive communication (e.g. used by sales representatives) include 
1. Ingratiation: eliciting likeableness

© SPMM Course 
2. Reciprocity: doing a favour first, making one indebted. 
3. Arousal of guilt 
4. Scarcity: ‘offers valid only till stocks last; so hurry!’ 
5. Social validation: ‘everyone is going to Argos? What about you?’ 
6. Multiple requests 
1. Foot in the door technique: if one agrees to small request this increases the 
likelihood of saying yes again. 
2. Door in the face technique (concession effect): when a larger request is turned 
down initially this increases the likelihood of agreeing to a smaller subsequent 
request. 
3. Low-ball tactic: hiding the costs and disadvantages initially but revealing after 
an agreement is reached. 
When attempting to persuade others, one-sided arguments may strengthen existing beliefs but 
two-sided arguments more effective in changing beliefs/attitudes. Similarly, highly fear-inducing 
messages may increase anxiety but may not result in behaviour change (Jansis & Feshback 1953); 
while moderately fear-inducing messages can produce greater behaviour change in some 
instances. Thus, an inverted U-shaped curve relates fear and attitude/behaviour change. Feeling 
vulnerable also increases behaviour change. The credibility of a perceived message has been 
found to be a key factor affecting persuasive communication (Hovland & Weiss, 1951); if we read 
a report about health in a professional medical journal, we are more easily persuaded than if we 
read it from a tabloid. 
Propaganda refers to mass suggestion or influence via emotional manipulation of an individual. 
While educating an individual about an issue gives independence for making a judgment, 
propaganda over an issue provides ready-made judgments to be adopted by the individual. This 
may be done using 
1. Induction of stereotypes 
2. Substitution of names to facilitate scapegoating and scaremongering 
3. Selected facts presentation 
4. Repeating same messages in various forms 
5. Presenting assertions instead of rational arguments 
6. Pinpointing an enemy

# 13 - 4. Leadership, social influence, power and ob

# 4. Leadership, social influence, power and obedience

# 14 - Conformity & obedience

# Conformity & obedience

© SPMM Course 
4. Leadership, social influence, power and obedience 
Conformity & obedience 
Conformity is a process where no explicit requirement is made to do a certain task, but peer 
influence, and the need for acceptance pushes one to carry out the task. Obedience refers to 
conditions where the individual is explicitly asked to do a task, and this instruction comes from 
an authority. 
Conformity can be either true internalisation of values or compliance externally without 
changing one’s private beliefs. Men conform less than women; people with lower intelligence, 
poorer ego strength, poor leadership abilities and having inferiority feelings conform more often. 
Sherif used an autokinetic effect (the apparent, false perception of movement of a pinpoint of 
light in a dark room, aka Phi Phenomenon) to study conformity. Individuals initially provided 
idiosyncratic responses (individual norms) when asked about the distance moved by the light 
source. But when 
subjects were 
grouped together, 
individuals 
compromised on 
their assessments 
and gave modified 
answers, so as to conform to the rest (group norms emerged). 
Asch used an unambiguous paradigm (length assessment test) to study conformity. It was noted 
that the size of group majority up to 3 to 5 people influenced conformity; a much larger majority 
did not influence individual decisions. Further, the more unanimous/consistent the majority was, 
the more the conformity of the rest. Giving opinions privately reduced conformity. Collectivist 
cultures showed more conformity than nuclear cultures. 
Can minorities effectively influence the majority? This is possible if the minority is consistent, 
perceived to 
be 
autonomous 
and having 
real interest in 
the issue at 
hand, appear 
to have 
CONFORMITY 
OBEDIENCE 
No explicit instruction given 
Instructed explicitly 
Peer influence is the source 
Authorities are the source of pressure 
Mutually a subject can influence 
Mutuality absent as it is one 
Need for acceptance 
Need for compliance 
Done by ‘example’ 
Done by ‘directions.' 
Factors increasing obedience 
Factors reducing obedience 
Authority figure providing instructions 
Administering by proxy 
Relieving the subject from responsibility 
for actions 
Achieving ‘agentic state.' 
Authoritarian personality of subjects 
(they obey more!) 
 
Proximity to shocked victim 
Remoteness of authority 
Peer rebellion against instructions 
Increased sense of responsibility for 
plight of the victim

# 15 - Group processes

# Group processes

# 16 - Social power

# Social power

© SPMM Course 
balanced flexibility, and if the minority appeared to have some similarity to the rest of the group. 
Milgram’s experiments on obedience: Subjects were recruited by an authoritative university 
faculty and were asked to administer electric shock to victims kept in a different room by 
pressing buttons. The sham victim would make crying sounds in pain on increasing the dose of 
electricity. 
Group processes 
There are various processes that influence individuals when making decisions as a part of a 
group. The group can make more risky decisions than what an individual him/herself can. This is 
called risky shift. 
A group discussion process can strengthen average individual inclinations and polarise the 
group in the direction where most individuals were heading already. This is called group 
polarisation. 
While making extreme decisions, the desire to agree with other members of a group can override 
rational judgment applicable in individual decision-making. This is called groupthink. 
Group processes, especially polarization, are considered to be due to three underlying 
phenomena: 
 Normative influence: People have a need not to appear odd or ‘stick out’ like a sore 
thumb. So they say yes to what others in the group say. 
 Informational influence: Having more information after group discussion can facilitate 
decision-making 
 Social identity: A group norm is established soon after a group is formed. This creates a 
social identity and pressure to conform to maintain the belongingness. 
Robert Bales made observations around small group communication in early 1950s. In small 
groups, discussion initially tended to shift back and forth quickly between a task and its 
relevance to the group members. This helped to balance task completion and group cohesion. 
Later a linear phase emerged – the discussion moved from a mere exchange of opinions to 
evaluating values underlying a decision and then to making a decision. He also noted that no 
matter how large the group, the most talkative member spoke for 40-50% of the time, and second 
most talkative 23-30% of the time – dominating the conversation to the detriment of the others. 
Social power 
French and Raven identified 6 sources of social (or organizational) power. They used the term 
Bases of Social Power to describe these factors.

# 17 - Leadership

# Leadership

# 18 - Social Influence

# Social Influence

© SPMM Course 
1. Reward Power - based on the perceived ability to give positive consequences or remove 
negative ones 
2. Coercive Power - the perceived ability to punish those who not conform with your ideas 
or demands 
3. Legitimate Power - based on the perception that someone has the right to prescribe 
behaviour due to election or appointment to a position of responsibility 
4. Referent Power - through association with others who possess power 
5. Expert Power - based on having distinctive knowledge, expertness, ability or skills 
6. Information Power (Similar to 5) - based on controlling the information 
Leadership 
Lewin (1939) identified the following leadership styles. 
 Autocratic – leader’s decision-making occurs without consultation from the others and 
causes the most discontent. It works if no need for input on decision i.e. that motivation 
would not be affected by not being consulted. 
 Democratic – leader’s decision-making involves others though the decision may 
ultimately made by the leader having facilitated group discussion and discussed opinions. 
It is a well-regarded process but can be time-consuming. 
 Laissez-Faire – leader’s involvement in decision-making is minimal, so others make their 
own decision. It works well if those involved are capable and motivated, and no need for 
central coordination. 
Social Influence 
Kelman described three psychological factors that underlie the process of influence of one person 
on the other in social settings. 
 Compliance – responding favourably to a request (implicit or explicit) from another. It is a 
change of behavior rather than a change in attitude (i.e. one can hold private objections but 
still comply). Satisfaction from compliance is due to the positive social effect (i.e. reward or 
avoid punishment). 
 Identification – change in attitude/behavior due to the influence of someone that is liked 
e.g. celebrity endorsement. A resultant desired relationship the identifier relates is the 
reward. 
 Internalisation – process of acceptance of a set of norms established by a person/group 
influential to the individual. The content of the influence is intrinsically rewarding.

# 19 - 5. Intergroup behaviour

# 5. Intergroup behaviour

# 20 - Prejudice

# Prejudice

© SPMM Course 
5. Intergroup behaviour 
Prejudice 
Prejudice is essentially an attitude. It has 
1. Cognitive component – stereotypes 
2. Affective component – hostility 
3. Behavioural component – which according to Allport can be 
a. anti-locution 
b. avoidance 
c. discrimination 
d. physical attack or 
e. extermination in terms of increasing severity. 
Prejudice can be positive or neutral as well as negative though the term is mostly used to describe 
negative prejudice. 
Theories of prejudice 
 Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory: Authoritarians are prejudiced in a generalised 
manner; difficult upbringing and disciplinarian rules in childhood may lead to a projection 
of difficulties on minorities. But this theory does not explain the sudden surges of 
prejudice that occur in history. It has no experimental proof either.An allied theory says 
that ideological dogmatism in rigid, authoritarian people can explain prejudice. 
 Scapegoating theory: It is related to the frustration-aggression model of Dollard. In 
situations of extreme frustration when the source of such frustration is too powerful, we 
may tend to displace aggression towards a soft target – the scapegoat. The choice of 
scapegoat depends on the prevailing social mood. Hence, the society provides the content 
of one’s prejudice though one’s personality may predispose to such prejudice according to 
Adorno. 
 Relative deprivation theory: This supplements scapegoating theory. The discrepancy 
between actual attainments and expectations of a society is called relative deprivation. 
Any acute changes can cause a sudden substantial relative deprivation, leading to unrest 
and scapegoating follows. Note that the relative deprivation is subjective to individuals in 
a group, and the competition may be within individuals (egoistic) or between groups 
(fraternalistic). 
 Realistic conflict theory: This asserts that the mere suggestion of competition is enough to 
trigger prejudices. Famous Robber’s Cove experiments by Sherif supported this theory. 
The mere perception of another group’s existence can spark discrimination. At a summer 
camp at Robber’s Cove, two groups were created from unrelated individuals. Even when

© SPMM Course 
these groups were allowed to interact freely, they developed strong in-group preferences 
and anti out-group ideas. When a competition was introduced, the groups exhibited a 
high degree of aggression and hatred against each other. Sherif concluded that mere 
competition is sufficient to create conflicts, and no real lack of resources or acute 
deprivation is necessary. 
 Social identity theory: An individual’s positive self-image depends on both personal and 
social identities. So each individual strives to improve his group’s success to foster his own 
image. This leads to prejudice against other groups. 
How to reduce prejudice? 
 Blue eyes and brown eyes experiment (Elliott): Prejudice exhibited by a person could be 
lesser when he/she himself experienced such prejudice in the past. In a class room, blueeyed children were initially treated badly by instructing brown eyed pupils that blue eye 
stood for inferiority and weakness. When the roles were reversed later, and opposite 
information was now provided, supporting the supremacy of blue-eyed children, the 
amount of aggression shown was lesser. This suggested that when one experiences 
prejudice first hand, his own discriminatory behaviour reduces later. 
 Contact hypothesis (Allport): When contact occurs between opposite group members 
under equal status and in pursuit of common goals, this can reduce prejudice. Personal 
friendship is not needed though. Due to lack of knowledge about what happens in the 
other group a degree of autistic hostility exists. This reinforces negative stereotypes as 
mirror image phenomenon i.e. ‘we are right, so they are wrong’, etc. Also, one group starts 
believing that the members of the opposite groups all are alike – illusion of out-group 
homogeneity.

# 21 - 6. Aggression

# 6. Aggression

© SPMM Course 
6. Aggression 
There are several types of aggression as outlined below. 
 Hostile aggression: aimed solely at hurting someone. 
 Instrumental aggression: used as a means to an end – may be self-defense or to attain 
something. Instrumental aggression is carried out for the purpose of achieving a particular 
goal e.g. kidnapping for ransom. Hence, it is often planned and not impulsive. Hostile 
(also called angry or affective) aggression is motivated by the need to express negative 
feelings, such as anger. 
 Positive aggression: combating prejudice, self-defense. 
 Pathological aggression: violence for the sake of being violent- may be associated with 
pathological personality. 
 Overt aggression: This is readily observable, either reactive & impulsive or proactive, 
planned aggression. 
 Covert aggression is much more subtle, e.g. telling lies, spreading rumours, excluding a 
child from a group of friends, etc. It is seen more in girls than boys. 
Hydraulic or build up models 
 Psychoanalysis Theory: Human aggression is due the death instinct Thanatos - an 
instinctive biological destructive death related urge that gradually builds up in everyone 
and must at some point be released. 
 Evolutionary Theory: Through the process of natural selection, aggression ensures 
survival of the aggressor’s genes passing from one generation to the other. It helps in the 
fight for the survival of the fittest. 
 Lorenz studied animal aggression and proposed that features such as territorial 
imperative are linked to the survival benefits of aggression. According to him aggression 
is a fixed action pattern elicited by specific sign stimuli. But he found non-human 
aggression to be mostly constructive. Ritualisation refers to a series of stereotyped fight 
scenes, carried out by animals without actual physical harm to both the victor and the 
vanquished. Appeasement rituals or gestures form a part of such ritualisations in which 
certain behaviours (e.g., lying down, dropping and tucking one’s tail) can reduce 
aggression expression. 
 
Non-hydraulic models 
These models refute the notion of ‘building up’ and ‘release’.

© SPMM Course 
 Genetic theory: It is controversial whether aggression is inherited; it is often the case in 
animal species. But in humans however, people may not necessarily inherit the tendency 
to be aggressive; instead they may inherit certain temperaments, such as impulsiveness, 
that in turn make aggression more likely (Baron and Richardson, 1994). 
 Social learning theory: Bandura’s ‘Bobo Doll’ experiments provide impressive 
demonstrations of the power of observational learning. When children observe an 
aggressive model, they often reproduce many of the model’s acts precisely, especially if 
the model’s aggression was rewarded. Vicarious conditioning refers to a kind of 
observational learning where learning is influenced by seeing or hearing about the 
consequences of others’ behaviour. Observational learning can occur even when there are 
no vicarious effects of reinforcement, but the performance of an aggressive behaviour is 
more likely if vicarious reinforcement was observed instead of just seeing behaviour in 
isolation without knowing its consequences. 
 The frustration-aggression hypothesis was originally proposed by Dollard et al. (1939). It 
holds that frustration always results in aggression and conversely aggression will not 
occur unless a person is frustrated. But this is not true as sometimes frustration produces 
depression or withdrawal instead of aggression. The modified frustration-aggression 
hypothesis considers aggression to be one of the many possible products of frustration. In 
a meta-analysis including 49 studies, Marcus-Newhall et al. (2000) found consistent 
evidence that frustrated individuals show displacement of aggression from the source of 
the frustration onto a less powerful or more accessible target. 
 Berkowitz (1993) later modified Dollard’s proposal. This is called aggressive cue theory or 
weapons effect: Frustration produces not aggression but a readiness to respond 
aggressively; once this readiness exists, cues in the environment (e.g. knives, guns, etc.) 
will often lead a frustrated person to behave aggressively; neither frustration nor cues 
alone can trigger the aggressive behaviour. 
 Generalised arousal theory maintains that arousal (e.g. physiological) from one source 
may energise some other response. This is called transferred excitation (Zillman). 
 Festinger’s deindividuation theory: According to this, people in-group context act 
uncharacteristically more aggressive as a sense of identity and belongingness and 
diffusion of responsibility occurs in groups. Similarly, uniforms can reduce individuality, 
promoting expression of aggression (hence its use in Police and military forces). But 
deindividuation does not always cause aggression. 
Media influences on aggressive behaviour: TV can influence through modelling effects. In a 
natural experiment at St Helena Island when TV was first introduced, some increase in prosocial 
behaviour was recorded, surprisingly. Media influence is mediated via

# 22 - Stress and aggression among primates

# Stress and aggression among primates

© SPMM Course 
1. High arousal 
2. Disinhibition – ‘this is happening everywhere; it is not uncommon.' 
3. Imitation: e.g. copycat crimes and suicides – Shannon Matthews incident in UK (2008) is 
speculated to be akin to a channel 4 drama episode (Shameless). 
4. Desensitisation: due to repeated showing 
5. Priming- enhancing automatic associations of certain stimuli with a crime. 
 
Family background and aggression: Aggressive children tend to commit violent and non-violent 
offences in adulthood. Antisocial behavior is much more common in men. Harsh and inconsistent 
discipline and an absence of positive parenting may be an aetiological factor in aggression. 
Note that cultural differences exist in expression of aggression; it is said to be much more 
common in individualist than in collectivist cultures (Oatley, 1993) 
Stress and aggression among primates 
 In most species, dominance ranks influence the extent of sustaining stressors. It is too 
simplistic to say higher / lower ranking individuals have the highest stress or aggression 
levels. The actual amount of stress and aggression depends very much on group’s social 
structure and dynamics. 
 Ability to avoid confronting dominant individuals will reduce stress levels. When this is 
lost in captivity (artificial environments) the subordinates show high-stress hormones. For 
example dominant wolves have more cortisol in the wild; subordinates have higher levels 
in captivity. 
 The most frequent context in which aggression is seen is in defense of status. But the best 
fighter does not become the highest-ranking individual in a group all the time (ability to 
form coalition and source social support are important). 
 In some species, aggression is a primary cause of mortality. 
 The most important modulating influence on aggression is social dominance; once it is 
established the rate of aggression drops substantially. 
 Aggressive encounters are highest among adolescent males during group migrations. 
Aggression is also higher under conditions of crowding. 
 Males are generally more aggressive than females, but once dominance is stabilized, males 
have a substantial drop leading to females showing higher aggression than or as high as 
males. 
 Mating competition can increase male-to-male aggression. The presence of children can 
act as agonistic buffers to reduce aggression among both males and females in some 
species.

© SPMM Course 
 Socially living primates learn social cues of aggression and restraint from the early period 
of development by observing their parents and older individuals; they later practice these 
skills with their peers. In fact, parental control is essential for the development of cortical 
areas involved in impulse control. 
 Coping outlets for stress include social support (grooming, coalition formation and 
physical contact). Reconcilative behaviour immediately after a competition may help the 
loser to cope. Poor availability of this support with low presence of kin will increase stress 
among subordinates.

# 23 - 7. Altruism

# 7. Altruism

© SPMM Course 
7. Altruism 
Any action that is intended to help others is called Prosocial Behaviour in psychology. Altruism 
is often considered to be a motivation behind people’s prosocial acts. Altruism refers to the wish 
to help others with no expectation of reward. 
Bystander apathy: When alone, individuals will typically intervene if another person is in need 
of help: this is called bystander intervention. But intervention becomes less likely to an extent 
that no single person will intervene from a crowd or group of observers when someone is in need 
of help. This is called bystander apathy or Genovese effect. 
Pluralistic ignorance: This refers to members of a crowd looking at each other for signs of 
distress but remaining calm themselves, leading to misappraisal of the situation being safe 
leading to lack of intervention. Bystander competence is usually not required for intervention 
except in ambiguous situations where technical help is required e.g. blood at the scene. 
According to arousal/cost-reward model, emotional arousal on seeing a victim increases 
motivation to act. But a cognitive appraisal of costs and rewards occurs before an intervention is 
carried out. If the cost of helping is high, the bystander undertakes a cognitive reinterpretation - 
calling the situation as non-urgent, blaming the victim or diffusing or dissolving responsibility. 
Diffusion of responsibility: Similar to social loafing – ‘I have some responsibility, but so do 
others; let someone else help.' 
Dissolution of responsibility: Not knowing what others are doing, rationalizes that someone 
would have helped the victim. 
Males show higher agentic help and intervention while females show higher communal help and 
empathy. 
Social loafing: This is also called Ringelmann’s effect. It is seen in games such as tug-of-war and 
in clapping hands after a performance. The larger a group is, the less the individual performance 
- as one thinks the others will do the job

© SPMM Course 
Notes prepared using excerpts from 
 Sapolsky, R. (2005) The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health Science, 648-652 
 Thambirajah, MS. Psychological Basis of Psychiatry, Elsevier 2005 
 Gross, R. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour, Hodder Education; 6th Revised edition 
 Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive 
Science, 2(3), 253-265. 
 Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?. 
Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. 
 J. French and B. Raven, The bases of social power in D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds.), Group 
dynamics (pp. 607-623). New York: Harper and Row, 1960 
DISCLAIMER: This material is developed from various revision notes assembled while preparing 
for MRCPsych exams. The content is periodically updated with excerpts from various published 
sources including peer-reviewed journals, websites, patient information leaflets and books. 
These sources are cited and acknowledged wherever possible; due to the structure of this 
material, acknowledgments have not been possible for every passage/fact that is common 
knowledge in psychiatry. We do not check the accuracy of drug-related information using 
external sources; no part of these notes should be used as prescribing information