shipslides
Psychology30 slides0 views

Social Psychology — The Science of Human Behavior in Groups

Social psychology's central insight is disquieting: human behavior is far more shaped by the social situation than by individual character. Who we are... Slides: Social Psychology · The Situation Rules · Milgram's Obedience Study · Asch's Conformity Experiments · The Stanford Prison Experiment.

StandaloneDownloadMarkdown
Sandboxed deck
Open raw
Shared with ShipslidesCreate your own deck →

About this HTML presentation

This Shipslides page presents Social Psychology — The Science of Human Behavior in Groups as an interactive HTML presentation deck in the Psychology catalog with 30 slides. The share page keeps the uploaded deck sandboxed while exposing readable context, topics, and a slide outline for viewers and search engines.

Social psychology's central insight is disquieting: human behavior is far more shaped by the social situation than by individual character. Who we are depends heavily on where we are and who is watching. Key sections include: Social Psychology; The Situation Rules; Milgram's Obedience Study; Asch's Conformity Experiments; The Stanford Prison Experiment; The Bystander Effect; Social Facilitation and Social Loafing; Groupthink; Group Polarization; Cognitive Dissonance.

Key sections

  • 01Social Psychology
  • 02The Situation Rules
  • 03Milgram's Obedience Study
  • 04Asch's Conformity Experiments
  • 05The Stanford Prison Experiment
  • 06The Bystander Effect
  • 07Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
  • 08Groupthink
  • 09Group Polarization
  • 10Cognitive Dissonance
  • 11Persuasion: Routes to Attitude Change
  • 12The Science of Attraction
  • 13The Social Psychology of Prejudice
  • 14Stereotype Threat
  • 15The Psychology of Aggression
  • 16Prosocial Behavior and Altruism
  • 17Social Identity Theory
  • 18Impression Management
  • 19Deindividuation
  • 20How We Explain Behavior
  • 21The Power of Social Norms
  • 22Self-Control and Delayed Gratification
  • 23Terror Management Theory
  • 24The Psychology of Power

Topics covered

psychologysocial

Related decks

Psychology30 slides

Social Psychology

Psychology31 slides

Behavioral Psychology

Psychology27 slides

Clinical Psychology

Psychology30 slides

Cognitive Biases — Glitches in Human Reasoning

Guides to sharing HTML presentations

Slide outline
  1. 01Social Psychology
  2. 02The Situation Rules
  3. 03Milgram's Obedience Study
  4. 04Asch's Conformity Experiments
  5. 05The Stanford Prison Experiment
  6. 06The Bystander Effect
  7. 07Social Facilitation and Social Loafing
  8. 08Groupthink
  9. 09Group Polarization
  10. 10Cognitive Dissonance
  11. 11Persuasion: Routes to Attitude Change
  12. 12The Science of Attraction
  13. 13The Social Psychology of Prejudice
  14. 14Stereotype Threat
  15. 15The Psychology of Aggression
  16. 16Prosocial Behavior and Altruism
  17. 17Social Identity Theory
  18. 18Impression Management
  19. 19Deindividuation
  20. 20How We Explain Behavior
  21. 21The Power of Social Norms
  22. 22Self-Control and Delayed Gratification
  23. 23Terror Management Theory
  24. 24The Psychology of Power
  25. 25Social Psychology in the Digital Age
  26. 26The Social Psychology of Morality
  27. 27Social Psychology's Reckoning
  28. 28Culture Shapes Psychology
  29. 29Social Psychology in Practice
  30. 30The Fundamental Lesson
Page data
Canonical
https://shipslides.com/d/psychology-social-psychology
Category
Psychology
Size
69.5 KB
Updated
2026-05-17
LLM text
https://shipslides.com/d/psychology-social-psychology/llms.txt

Presentation Transcript

Detailed slide-by-slide text content extracted from this presentation.

Slide 01

Social Psychology

  • Psychology
  • The scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in the presence — real, imagined, or implied — of others.
  • From Milgram to social media · 30 slides
  • 1 / 30
Slide 02

The Situation Rules

  • The Field
  • Social psychology's central insight is disquieting: human behavior is far more shaped by the social situation than by individual character. Who we are depends heavily on where we are and who is watching.
  • Since Gordon Allport defined social psychology in 1954 as "the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others," the field has accumulated evidence for a counterintuitive claim: the power of the situation consistently exceeds the power of individual personality in shaping behavior.
  • The Situationist Challenge
  • We tend to attribute behavior to character — she's generous, he's aggressive. Social psychology shows that the same person behaves dramatically differently across situations. Honesty, altruism, cruelty, and conformity are less stable personality traits than they are contextual responses.
  • The Big Questions
  • Why do ordinary people commit atrocities?
  • Why do bystanders fail to help victims?
  • How does social pressure reshape beliefs?
  • What makes people comply with authority?
  • How do groups amplify individual behavior?
  • 2 / 30
Slide 03

Milgram's Obedience Study

  • Authority & Compliance
  • Stanley Milgram's 1961–1962 experiments at Yale are among the most important — and disturbing — in the history of psychology. They asked a simple question: how far will ordinary people go in obeying authority, even when obeying means causing serious harm?
  • The Setup
  • Participants were told they were in a study on learning. They played the role of "teacher" — administering electric shocks to a "learner" (an actor) when they gave wrong answers. Shocks appeared to range from 15 to 450 volts. As voltage increased, the learner screamed, complained of heart trouble, then went silent. An experimenter in a lab coat said only: "Please continue."
  • The Result
  • Before the experiment, psychiatrists predicted only 1–2% of people would go to the maximum 450 volts. The actual figure: 65%. Most participants, expressing distress but ultimately deferring to the authority figure's calm insistence, administered what they believed were lethal shocks to a stranger.
  • Milgram's Conclusion
  • "The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation." He connected the results directly to the Holocaust — how ordinary people participated in atrocity through the mechanism of hierarchical obedience.
  • Contextual Factors
  • Obedience dropped dramatically when: the authority figure left the room (21% compliance), two confederates refused (10%), or when subjects were in the same room as the learner. The situation — not character — determined compliance levels.
  • Milgram's methods, which caused significant psychological distress to participants without full informed consent, would not pass modern ethics review.
  • 3 / 30
Slide 04

Asch's Conformity Experiments

  • Conformity & Social Influence
  • Solomon Asch's 1951 line-judgment experiments showed that people will deny the evidence of their own eyes to conform with a group consensus — even when the answer is unambiguously clear.
  • The Design
  • One genuine participant sat in a room with seven confederates. All were shown two cards: one with a reference line, one with three comparison lines of obviously different lengths. Confederates unanimously gave wrong answers. The question: would participants conform?
  • In a baseline with no group pressure, errors occurred less than 1% of the time. With unanimous false majority: 76% of participants conformed on at least one trial; 37% of answers overall were conforming (wrong). Only 25% maintained independence throughout.
  • Informational vs. Normative Influence
  • Post-experiment interviews revealed two distinct mechanisms: some participants genuinely doubted their own perception ("the group must know something I don't"). Others knew the group was wrong but went along to avoid standing out. Social psychology calls these informational influence (believing the group is right) and normative influence (wanting to fit in).
  • The Dissenter Effect
  • When even one confederate gave the correct answer — any ally, regardless of credibility — conformity dropped from 37% to just 5.5%. A single voice of dissent liberated the genuine participant to trust their own perception. The implications for institutional design — the importance of structural dissent — are profound.
  • 4 / 30
Slide 05

The Stanford Prison Experiment

  • Power & Roles
  • Philip Zimbardo's 1971 simulated prison experiment has become the most controversial study in psychology's history — both for what it purportedly showed about the power of roles, and for serious methodological criticisms that emerged decades later.
  • The Setup and Claims
  • Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford students to be "guards" or "prisoners" in a simulated prison. The experiment was scheduled for two weeks but stopped after six days — guards had become sadistic, prisoners had broken down psychologically. Zimbardo concluded that good people placed in bad roles rapidly become bad actors: the situation creates the person.
  • The Lasting Influence
  • The SPE was cited in explanations of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. It became a centerpiece of social psychology curricula. Zimbardo's 2007 book The Lucifer Effect extended the argument: situational forces can transform anyone into a perpetrator of evil.
  • The Revisionist Account
  • Investigative reporting and access to Zimbardo's own recordings (2019) revealed significant problems: guards were explicitly coached to be tough; Zimbardo himself played the role of "prison superintendent," compromising his objectivity; participants later stated they consciously role-played rather than genuinely transforming. The clean narrative of "the situation did it" appears significantly overstated.
  • The Remaining Lesson
  • Even accounting for methodological flaws, the behavioral literature on roles, institutions, and obedience consistently shows that context powerfully shapes conduct. The SPE's specific claims may be overstated; the broader point about situational power is supported by multiple stronger studies.
  • The SPE violated informed consent standards and caused lasting psychological harm to participants. It would be impossible to conduct under modern ethical guidelines.
  • 5 / 30
Slide 06

The Bystander Effect

  • Helping Behavior
  • The presence of others reduces individual willingness to help in an emergency. The more bystanders, the less likely any one of them is to intervene — paradoxically, because each assumes someone else will act.
  • The Kitty Genovese Story
  • The field was inspired by the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York, widely reported (though later disputed) as having been witnessed by 38 neighbors who failed to call police. Bibb Latané and John Darley asked: why? Their laboratory studies revealed a systematic phenomenon they called "diffusion of responsibility."
  • Diffusion of Responsibility
  • When alone, a person who perceives an emergency feels direct personal responsibility to act. When others are present, that responsibility is shared — each person assumes someone else has acted or will act. The more people present, the more diffused the responsibility, and the less any individual feels compelled to intervene.
  • Pluralistic Ignorance
  • A second mechanism: in ambiguous emergencies, bystanders look to each other for cues about severity. If everyone appears calm (because they're all looking to each other), each person concludes the situation isn't an emergency — even when it is. Collective inaction produces a false signal that action isn't needed.
  • The Reversal
  • The bystander effect can be overcome by clear, direct assignment of responsibility: "You in the red jacket — call 911." Specificity dissolves diffusion. First-aid training includes this principle: point at a specific person and tell them exactly what to do.
  • 6 / 30
Slide 07

Social Facilitation and Social Loafing

  • Groups and Performance
  • The presence of others affects individual performance — sometimes improving it, sometimes degrading it. Whether the effect is positive or negative depends on task complexity and the nature of accountability.
  • Social Facilitation
  • Norman Triplett's 1898 observation — cyclists performed better when racing others than when alone — was the first social psychology experiment. Robert Zajonc later explained the mechanism: the mere presence of others increases physiological arousal, which enhances performance on well-practiced (simple) tasks but impairs performance on novel or complex tasks.
  • Expert performers thrive with audiences; beginners collapse. The amateur pianist who plays perfectly in practice falls apart at the recital.
  • Social Loafing
  • When individual contributions are not identifiable within a group effort, people reduce their effort — "free-riding" on collective output. Max Ringelmann found in 1913 that people in tug-of-war teams exerted significantly less individual force than when pulling alone.
  • Social loafing is pervasive: it occurs in noise-making experiments, brainstorming groups, work teams, and online collaborative projects. The antidote: individual accountability — making individual contributions visible and evaluable.
  • The Key Principle
  • Both effects stem from the same root: others are evaluating us. When evaluation increases performance (evaluation apprehension on practiced tasks), we get facilitation. When evaluation is absent and responsibility diffuses (anonymous group work), we get loafing.
  • 7 / 30
Slide 08

Groupthink

  • Group Decision-Making
  • Irving Janis's analysis of major foreign policy disasters identified a pattern he called "groupthink" — the tendency of cohesive groups to prioritize consensus over critical thinking, leading to catastrophically poor decisions.
  • The Eight Symptoms
  • Janis identified eight symptoms of groupthink in his 1972 analysis:
  • Illusion of invulnerability
  • Collective rationalization
  • Unquestioned moral superiority of the group
  • Stereotyped views of out-groups
  • Direct pressure on dissenters
  • Self-censorship of doubts
  • Illusion of unanimity
  • Self-appointed "mindguards" protecting consensus
  • Historical Cases
  • Bay of Pigs (1961): Kennedy's advisers failed to challenge an obviously flawed plan — no one wanted to seem the dissenter
  • Challenger (1986): NASA engineers' warnings about O-ring failure were suppressed by management pressure for launch
  • Iraq WMD (2003): Intelligence community's doubts subordinated to prevailing expectations
  • Prevention
  • Janis recommended: external experts as critics, leader withholds initial preferences, designated devil's advocate, subgroups develop alternatives independently, second-chance meetings to revisit decisions before finalizing.
  • 8 / 30
Slide 09

Group Polarization

  • Group Dynamics
  • Group discussion doesn't moderate opinions — it amplifies them. When people who share an initial view deliberate together, their positions become more extreme, not more moderate. The group moves toward the pole their initial lean favored.
  • The Discovery
  • James Stoner's 1961 discovery of the "risky shift" — groups made riskier decisions than individuals — was later generalized. Groups don't just shift toward risk; they shift in whatever direction the majority initially leaned. Cautious groups become more cautious; bold groups become bolder. Prejudiced groups become more prejudiced after discussion.
  • Two Mechanisms
  • Persuasive arguments: In a like-minded group, most arguments heard support the initial view — reinforcing and strengthening it. People encounter more arguments favoring their position than against it, updating accordingly.
  • Social comparison: People want to be seen as appropriately strong adherents to group values. When they see others expressing the view strongly, they shift to match or exceed them, signaling group loyalty.
  • Online Echo Chambers
  • Social media recommendation algorithms create digital echo chambers — environments where users are served content matching their existing views, simulating a like-minded "discussion group." The predictable result, consistent with group polarization research: sustained exposure to an online community of similar views produces steadily more extreme positions. Political polarization has intensified alongside social media adoption.
  • Cass Sunstein's Research
  • Sunstein's studies of federal judges found that Democratic-appointed judges ruled more liberally in panels composed only of Democrats; Republican-appointed judges ruled more conservatively in Republican-only panels. Ideology polarized in homogeneous groups, moderated in mixed ones.
  • 9 / 30
Slide 10

Cognitive Dissonance

  • Attitude Change
  • When our beliefs and behaviors conflict, we experience psychological discomfort — "dissonance" — that we are motivated to reduce. The most common way is not to change behavior, but to change the belief.
  • Festinger's Theory
  • Leon Festinger proposed cognitive dissonance theory in 1957. His counterintuitive prediction: people paid only $1 to tell others a boring task was interesting would come to believe it more than people paid $20. The $1 group had insufficient external justification — they had to convince themselves the task was interesting. The $20 group could blame the money.
  • The experiment confirmed this: the $1 group rated the task more favorably. They had changed their attitude to justify their behavior — precisely because they couldn't justify it with the reward.
  • Everyday Manifestations
  • Smokers emphasize the stress-relieving benefits of smoking
  • Buyers rationalize expensive purchases as higher quality
  • Hazing survivors rate their group more positively (justifying the ordeal)
  • Voters credit their chosen candidate's virtues after voting
  • People who donate to charity come to believe more strongly in the cause
  • Self-Perception Theory
  • Daryl Bem's alternative: we infer our own attitudes from our behavior, just as we infer others' attitudes. "I donated money — I must believe in this cause." The dissonance-reduction mechanism may not always require the tension Festinger proposed; sometimes we simply observe ourselves.
  • 10 / 30
Slide 11

Persuasion: Routes to Attitude Change

  • Persuasion
  • Not all persuasion works the same way. Richard Petty and John Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model (1986) identifies two routes by which attitudes are changed — with very different durability and resistance to counter-persuasion.
  • The Central Route
  • When people are motivated and able to process a message carefully, they evaluate the quality of arguments — the "central route." Attitude change through this route is durable, resistant to counter-arguments, and predictive of future behavior. It requires cognitive effort and a topic the person cares about.
  • The Peripheral Route
  • When motivation or ability to process is low, people rely on "peripheral cues" — source credibility, attractiveness, length of message, emotional appeal. Change via this route is superficial, temporary, and easily reversed. Most advertising operates here.
  • Practical Implications
  • Distraction reduces central processing — ads with background music prevent argument evaluation
  • Time pressure shifts processing to the peripheral route
  • Making people feel responsible for their judgments activates central processing
  • Expert sources are peripheral cues — credibility shortcuts, not argument quality
  • Rhetorical questions ("Isn't this obvious?") can prompt central processing by engaging the listener
  • The Inoculation Principle
  • Exposing people to weakened counter-arguments — then refuting them — makes them resistant to future persuasion attempts. "Inoculating" against misinformation requires pre-exposure to the misinformation and its refutation, mimicking vaccine logic.
  • 11 / 30
Slide 12

The Science of Attraction

  • Interpersonal Relationships
  • What determines who we like and who we fall in love with? Social psychology has identified surprisingly systematic factors that predict interpersonal attraction — with implications both romantic and non-romantic.
  • Proximity
  • The most consistent predictor of friendship and romantic partnership is physical closeness. MIT's "Westgate Studies" found apartment residents were closest friends with people on the same floor, specifically those nearest their mailboxes and stairwells. Functional distance — paths people walk — matters as much as physical distance.
  • Similarity
  • We like people who share our attitudes, values, interests, and backgrounds — "birds of a feather flock together." Byrne's "similarity-attraction" research showed that attitude similarity, not complementarity, drives attraction. The folk wisdom about "opposites attract" is largely unsupported by evidence outside of specific trait dimensions (e.g., dominance/submissiveness).
  • Reciprocal Liking
  • We like people who like us — "liking begets liking." Learning that someone finds you attractive increases your attraction to them. This reciprocity effect is robust and extends beyond romance: knowing a colleague respects your work increases your respect for theirs.
  • Physical Attractiveness
  • Attractive people receive preferential treatment in hiring, legal judgments, and social interactions — the "attractiveness halo." What counts as attractive is more culturally variable than classic research suggested, though some features (symmetry, averageness, indicators of health) show cross-cultural consistency.
  • Arousal Misattribution
  • Dutton and Aron's 1974 "shaky bridge" study: men approached by an attractive interviewer on a swaying suspension bridge were more likely to call her afterward than men approached on a stable bridge. Physiological arousal from the bridge was misattributed as attraction. Context-generated arousal can amplify romantic feelings.
  • 12 / 30
Slide 13

The Social Psychology of Prejudice

  • Prejudice
  • Prejudice — negative attitudes toward members of a group based solely on group membership — and discrimination — differential treatment based on group membership — are among social psychology's most thoroughly studied phenomena.
  • Three Components
  • Cognitive (Stereotype): Beliefs about group characteristics — often inaccurate or overgeneralized.
  • Affective (Prejudice): Emotional response to group members — often negative.
  • Behavioral (Discrimination): Differential treatment based on group membership. These components can dissociate: people may hold stereotypes without prejudice, or discriminate without conscious prejudice.
  • Implicit Bias
  • The Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, 1998) measures automatic associations between social groups and positive/negative attributes. Most people show implicit biases — even those who explicitly endorse egalitarian values. The IAT's predictive validity has been contested, but the existence of automatic racial and gender associations is well-established.
  • Sources of Prejudice
  • Social categorization — automatic classification of people into groups
  • In-group favoritism (minimal group paradigm)
  • Realistic group conflict theory — competition for scarce resources
  • Social learning — absorbing prejudices from cultural environment
  • Scapegoating — attributing frustrations to a target group
  • Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al.) — correlates with prejudice
  • Reducing Prejudice
  • Allport's Contact Hypothesis: equal-status contact under cooperative conditions with institutional support and intimate enough for disconfirming individuating information reduces prejudice. A 2006 meta-analysis confirmed the hypothesis across 515 studies in 38 nations.
  • 13 / 30
Slide 14

Stereotype Threat

  • Identity & Performance
  • The fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one's group impairs performance in the domain the stereotype targets — creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that can reproduce the performance gaps stereotypes describe.
  • Claude Steele's Discovery
  • Steele and Aronson (1995) found that Black college students underperformed White students on verbal tests — but only when the test was described as measuring intellectual ability. When described as a laboratory problem-solving task (removing the stereotype-relevance), the gap disappeared. The mere salience of a negative stereotype was sufficient to depress performance.
  • Gender and Math
  • Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) found that equally math-capable women underperformed men on difficult math tests — but only when told the test showed gender differences. Removing stereotype threat eliminated the gap. The effect has been replicated for multiple social groups across diverse academic and professional domains.
  • The Mechanism
  • Stereotype threat works through cognitive load — worrying about confirming the stereotype consumes working memory resources needed for the task. It also triggers physiological stress responses that impair complex cognitive performance. The anxiety of representation — "I am being watched as a representative of my group" — is itself cognitively expensive.
  • Interventions
  • Effective interventions include: affirming broad personal values before a test, reminding participants of role models who contradicted the stereotype, reframing ability as malleable rather than fixed, and reducing identity salience through task framing. These are all low-cost, scalable, and have been shown to close achievement gaps in classroom settings.
  • Some original effect sizes have not fully replicated; the mechanism and scope remain active research areas.
  • 14 / 30
Slide 15

The Psychology of Aggression

  • Human Aggression
  • Social psychology examines aggression not as an instinct but as a behavior shaped by social situations, frustration, learned responses, and — increasingly — media exposure.
  • Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
  • Dollard et al. (1939): frustration — the blocking of goal-directed behavior — always produces an instigation to aggression. The original strong claim (frustration always leads to aggression) was quickly modified: frustration creates readiness for aggression, but contextual factors determine whether it is expressed, displaced, or suppressed. Berkowitz's revised theory: frustration creates negative affect, which primes aggressive cognition.
  • Social Learning Theory
  • Albert Bandura's Bobo Doll studies (1961–1963): children who watched an adult model behave aggressively toward an inflatable clown imitated that behavior far more than children who had not observed the model. Aggression is learned through observation, not just instinct or frustration — and television/media provide models at scale.
  • Contextual Factors
  • Heat — crime rates and interpersonal aggression increase in hotter conditions (Anderson's research)
  • Weapons effect — the mere presence of a gun primes aggressive cognition and behavior
  • Anonymity — deindividuation reduces inhibitions against aggression
  • Alcohol — dramatically increases aggression by narrowing attention and reducing self-regulation
  • Provocation — reciprocal escalation dynamics in conflict
  • Media Violence Debate
  • Decades of research suggest a modest, positive correlation between violent media exposure and aggressive behavior — though causation is contested. The effect sizes are small, and violent crime has declined as media violence has increased. The research literature remains hotly debated.
  • 15 / 30
Slide 16

Prosocial Behavior and Altruism

  • Helping Behavior
  • Why do people help others — sometimes at great personal cost? Social psychology has identified both situational and psychological factors that promote prosocial behavior, and debated whether pure altruism exists.
  • The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
  • C. Daniel Batson's research argued that empathy (feeling what another person feels) produces genuine altruistic motivation — helping for the other's benefit, not one's own. His elegant experiments separated empathic concern from personal distress, showing that high-empathy conditions produced helping even when it was easy to escape the situation without helping.
  • Reciprocal Altruism and Reputation
  • Evolutionary psychologists note that apparent altruism often serves long-term self-interest through reciprocal exchange or reputation effects. Costly signaling theory: public generosity advertises quality as a social partner, ally, or mate. Neither explanation fully accounts for anonymous donation to strangers — pure altruism may exist.
  • What Promotes Helping?
  • Good mood — people in positive affect are more helpful
  • Guilt — having harmed someone increases helping, including toward third parties
  • Modeling — observing others help increases helping
  • Time pressure reduces helping — the "Good Samaritan" study
  • Individual accountability — removing anonymity
  • Similarity to victim — we help those we identify with
  • The Good Samaritan Study
  • Princeton seminary students were asked to give a talk — half on the Good Samaritan parable. On the way, they passed a slumped man (a confederate). Students in a hurry helped only 10% of the time; those not in a hurry helped 63%. Rushing past — not values, beliefs, or even the topic of their sermon — determined helping.
  • 16 / 30
Slide 17

Social Identity Theory

  • Identity
  • Henri Tajfel and John Turner's Social Identity Theory (1979) proposes that our sense of who we are is fundamentally group-based — we define ourselves through our group memberships, and our self-esteem depends partly on how favorably our groups compare to others.
  • The Theory
  • Social identity = the part of self-concept derived from group memberships. People are motivated to maintain positive social identity, which leads to: (1) social categorization — dividing world into in-groups and out-groups; (2) social identification — adopting the identity and norms of in-groups; (3) social comparison — favorably comparing the in-group to out-groups. The result: in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
  • Implications
  • Threats to group status increase discrimination
  • Group membership becomes more salient when groups are compared
  • Strategies for managing identity: mobility (leaving the group), creativity (changing comparison dimension), competition (improving relative status)
  • Strong national, ethnic, or political identity can predict intergroup hostility
  • Inclusive identities (emphasizing common humanity) can reduce bias
  • Applications
  • Social Identity Theory has been applied to organizational behavior, political psychology, international relations, and marketing. Brand communities work precisely by offering identity membership. Political parties mobilize through identity — "one of us vs. one of them" — rather than policy differences alone.
  • 17 / 30
Slide 18

Impression Management

  • Self and Social Life
  • We are always managing the impressions we make — monitoring our behavior, calibrating our self-presentation to audiences, and strategically controlling information about ourselves. Erving Goffman called it "dramaturgy."
  • Goffman's Dramaturgy
  • In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), Goffman proposed that social life is inherently theatrical. We perform roles for audiences, using "front stage" (public self) and "back stage" (private self) regions. We use props, costumes, settings, and "sign vehicles" to present desired impressions. When our performances fail (gaffes, embarrassments), we engage in "facework" to restore the social fiction.
  • Self-Monitoring
  • Mark Snyder identified "self-monitoring" as an individual difference: high self-monitors are highly attuned to social cues and adjust their behavior to fit each situation; low self-monitors behave consistently across situations based on stable internal attitudes. High self-monitors tend to be better at social navigation but show less attitude-behavior consistency. They're "social chameleons."
  • Online Self-Presentation
  • Social media amplifies impression management imperatives. The "highlight reel" dynamic — curating only favorable moments — intensifies social comparison. Research shows social media use is associated with increased social comparison and reduced wellbeing, particularly in adolescents. Instagram's impact on body image has been documented by the platform's own internal research.
  • The Impostor Syndrome
  • The experience of feeling like a fraud — that one's achievements are undeserved and will soon be exposed — afflicts highly capable people, particularly those from underrepresented groups newly entering prestigious environments. It is a maladaptive self-presentation anxiety rooted in identity threat.
  • 18 / 30
Slide 19

Deindividuation

  • Crowds & Anonymity
  • In crowds and anonymous situations, individual identity becomes submerged — people lose the sense of personal accountability that normally restrains antisocial behavior. The phenomenon has been invoked to explain everything from mob violence to internet trolling.
  • The Theory
  • Leon Festinger and colleagues (1952) proposed deindividuation: anonymity, reduced accountability, and group immersion reduce self-awareness, loosening the self-regulatory constraints that prevent norm violations. People who wouldn't behave antisocially as individuals may do so in the relative anonymity of a crowd — not because they've become "inhuman," but because the social calculus has shifted.
  • The Halloween Study
  • Diener et al. (1976) observed children trick-or-treating. Children alone took only what they were offered; anonymous children in groups took significantly more candy when left alone with a bowl. The deindividuation of costume and group membership dramatically increased transgressive behavior in otherwise well-behaved children.
  • Online Deindividuation
  • The internet has created near-perfect deindividuation conditions at scale: anonymity, physical distance from victims, group membership in like-minded communities, and reduced accountability. Online harassment, abuse, and radicalization are all partly products of these structural conditions — not purely individual pathology.
  • The Nuance: Social Identity Model
  • Later research revised deindividuation theory: anonymity doesn't simply reduce all self-regulation. It reduces attention to personal identity while increasing attention to group identity. Anonymous group members follow group norms more strongly, not just general uninhibition. In prosocial groups, anonymity increases prosocial behavior; in antisocial groups, it increases antisocial behavior.
  • 19 / 30
Slide 20

How We Explain Behavior

  • Attribution Theory
  • Attribution theory examines how people explain the causes of events and behavior — their own and others'. The patterns of attribution shape how we respond to success, failure, and other people's actions.
  • The Dimensions of Attribution
  • Bernard Weiner identified three key dimensions of causal attribution: Locus (internal/external), Stability (stable/unstable), Controllability (controllable/uncontrollable). How we attribute failure on a test: internal-stable-uncontrollable ("I have no ability") produces depression. Internal-unstable-controllable ("I didn't prepare enough") produces motivation to try harder.
  • Learned Helplessness
  • Seligman's research on dogs who could not escape shocks showed that experience of uncontrollable outcomes produces a generalized passivity — learned helplessness — that generalizes to new situations where escape is possible. Applied to humans: persistent attribution of outcomes to stable, internal, uncontrollable causes produces the depressive explanatory style associated with clinical depression.
  • Self-Serving Bias
  • We attribute successes to our own abilities and efforts (internal), and failures to external circumstances. We're the authors of our victories; circumstances are responsible for our defeats. This bias protects self-esteem but interferes with accurate feedback and learning.
  • Cultural Variation
  • The self-serving bias is more pronounced in individualistic Western cultures. In collectivist cultures (Japan, Korea), the reverse is often observed — self-effacing bias, attributing success to context or luck, and failure to personal shortcomings. Cultural display rules about modesty shape attribution patterns.
  • 20 / 30
Slide 21

The Power of Social Norms

  • Social Norms
  • Social norms — shared expectations about appropriate behavior — are among the most powerful regulators of human conduct. We follow norms even when no one is watching, even when the norms are arbitrary, and even when we disagree with them.
  • Descriptive vs. Injunctive Norms
  • Robert Cialdini distinguished two types of norms: Descriptive norms describe what most people do. Injunctive norms prescribe what people should do. Hotel towel-reuse messages that said "75% of guests in this room reused their towels" (descriptive norm) outperformed generic environmental appeals — the specific descriptive norm was more powerful than the general moral appeal.
  • Norm Violations and Surprise
  • Garfinkel's "breaching experiments" (1967) revealed norms through their violation. Having students respond to "How are you?" with a detailed literal description of their health, or accepting a game of checkers and then refusing to make the first move, provoked striking discomfort and hostility — revealing how powerfully invisible norms organize social interaction.
  • Social Norms Marketing
  • Advertising and public health campaigns that communicate descriptive norms ("Most students at your university don't binge drink") reduce problem behavior more than messages about harms — because they correct the tendency to overestimate how much peers engage in the behavior (pluralistic ignorance).
  • The Overjustification Effect
  • When people are paid or rewarded for an activity they already enjoy, their intrinsic motivation decreases — they shift attribution from internal interest to external reward. Excessive external incentives can undermine the very norms and intrinsic motivations they're trying to reinforce.
  • 21 / 30
Slide 22

Self-Control and Delayed Gratification

  • Self-Regulation
  • Walter Mischel's "Marshmallow Test" became one of psychology's most famous studies — and its implications for self-control and life outcomes have been significantly revised by subsequent research.
  • The Original Study
  • Mischel offered young children one marshmallow immediately, or two marshmallows if they could wait 15 minutes. Follow-up studies found that children who waited longer showed better outcomes decades later — higher SAT scores, better health, lower rates of substance abuse. Self-control in childhood seemed predictive of lifelong outcomes.
  • The Replication and Revision
  • A 2018 large-scale replication (Watts, Duncan, and Quan) found that the predictive power of delay time essentially disappeared when controlling for family socioeconomic background. Children from stable, affluent families had reasons to trust that the second marshmallow would be delivered — it was a rational calculation as much as a test of self-control. Poverty teaches distrust of future promises.
  • The Broader Lesson
  • The marshmallow story illustrates a recurring problem in social psychology: individual-level psychological constructs that predict outcomes often turn out to be partially mediated by structural and environmental factors. Self-control is real, but it is cultivated and expressed within social contexts that powerfully constrain and enable it.
  • Ego Depletion
  • Baumeister's theory that self-control is a limited resource — depleted by use like a muscle — was enormously influential and widely cited. It has been a major casualty of the replication crisis: a 2016 multi-site replication failed to find the ego depletion effect. The "limited resource" model of self-control is now contested.
  • 22 / 30
Slide 23

Terror Management Theory

  • Existential Psychology
  • The awareness of our own mortality — unique to humans — creates pervasive existential anxiety that culture, worldview, and self-esteem serve to manage. This is the provocative claim of Terror Management Theory.
  • The Theory
  • Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski drew on Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death (1973) to argue that human culture is fundamentally a response to mortality salience — the awareness that we will die. Cultural worldviews offer symbolic immortality (religion, legacy, national glory) and literal transcendence. Self-esteem provides an anxiety buffer. When reminded of death, people cling more tightly to their worldviews and increase hostility toward those who challenge them.
  • Experimental Evidence
  • When experimentally reminded of their own death ("mortality salience"), people: judge norm violators more harshly, reward those who praise their worldview more generously, increase xenophobia and nationalism, donate more to their own cultural group, and become more defensive about their beliefs. Over 500 experiments across 26 countries support TMT's core predictions.
  • Political Implications
  • TMT suggests that political leaders who heighten mortality salience (terrorism threats, existential crises) and offer worldview-validating narratives of national or cultural greatness can leverage existential terror for political ends. The timing of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks — raising mortality salience — coincided with dramatic shifts in American political behavior consistent with TMT predictions.
  • 23 / 30
Slide 24

The Psychology of Power

  • Power & Leadership
  • How does power change people? Social psychology has found that even small, temporary increases in felt power produce systematic behavioral and cognitive changes — not all of them benign.
  • French and Raven's Bases of Power
  • The classic taxonomy identifies six bases of social power: Reward (ability to give rewards), Coercive (ability to punish), Legitimate (formal authority), Expert (knowledge), Referent (identification/attraction), Informational (access to information). Different power bases elicit different compliance types and have different durability.
  • Power and Disinhibition
  • Keltner's research: power reduces perspective-taking, increases risk tolerance, decreases sensitivity to social feedback, and disinhibits behavior — both prosocially and antisocially. Powerful individuals are more likely to act on their own attitudes rather than social norms, and are less accurate in reading others' emotional states.
  • The Power Paradox
  • Dacher Keltner observes that the social behaviors that enable people to acquire power — attentiveness, cooperation, empathy, fairness — are undermined by the experience of power itself. Power corrupts, not in a moral sense but in a psychological one: those who gain power often lose the qualities that got them there.
  • Leadership Research
  • Transformational leadership — inspiring followers through vision, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration — consistently outperforms transactional leadership (reward/punishment) on measures of innovation, satisfaction, and organizational performance. Yet organizational structures still overwhelmingly favor transactional models.
  • 24 / 30
Slide 25

Social Psychology in the Digital Age

  • Digital Society
  • The internet and social media have become massive natural experiments in social psychology — scaling and accelerating phenomena studied in laboratory settings, sometimes to globally consequential effect.
  • Amplified Phenomena
  • Conformity: Like counts and follower numbers create social proof signals at scale
  • In-group favoritism: Online communities create strong in-group identity and out-group hostility
  • Deindividuation: Anonymity enables harassment impossible in face-to-face interaction
  • Group polarization: Algorithmic filtering creates echo chambers that push views toward extremes
  • Rumor spread: False information spreads faster than true information on Twitter (Vosoughi et al., 2018)
  • New Phenomena
  • Parasocial relationships — emotional bonds with people who don't know you exist
  • Context collapse — performing for multiple incompatible audiences simultaneously
  • Viral morality — rapid collective judgment cascades across social networks
  • Digital disinhibition — people say online what they wouldn't say in person
  • The attention economy — optimizing for engagement amplifies outrage
  • The Outrage Premium
  • Content triggering moral outrage spreads further and faster on social networks — each additional moral-emotional word in a tweet increases retweet rate by 17% (Brady et al., 2017). The algorithmic attention economy rewards outrage systematically, regardless of content accuracy or utility.
  • 25 / 30
Slide 26

The Social Psychology of Morality

  • Moral Behavior
  • How do people make moral judgments? Jonathan Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model challenged the rationalist tradition by arguing that moral judgment is primarily emotional and intuitive, with reasoning typically serving as post-hoc rationalization.
  • The Trolley Problem
  • Five people are tied to trolley tracks; a trolley is heading toward them. You can pull a lever to divert it to a side track, killing one person instead of five. Most people say: pull the lever. But in a variant, you must push a large man off a bridge to stop the trolley. Most say: don't push. The utilitarian calculus is identical (one life for five); the emotional response is radically different. The physical directness of action, not the numbers, drives judgment.
  • Moral Foundations Theory
  • Haidt and colleagues identified six moral foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, Liberty/Oppression. Political liberals primarily value Care and Fairness; conservatives draw on all six more equally. Moral and political disagreement often occurs across people with different foundation profiles rather than between reason and unreason.
  • Moral Licensing
  • Doing something virtuous grants "moral credits" — people subsequently feel licensed to behave less virtuously. Voting, recycling, or donating can produce compensatory "immoral" behavior. Moral self-regulation is not purely additive; prior virtue can reduce subsequent vigilance. Campaigns that make people feel good about small prosocial actions may inadvertently reduce larger prosocial behavior.
  • 26 / 30
Slide 27

Social Psychology's Reckoning

  • Science & Method
  • The replication crisis has hit social psychology harder than almost any other scientific field — forcing a reassessment of many foundational findings and leading to significant methodological reforms.
  • What Failed to Replicate
  • Ego depletion — the "limited resource" model of willpower
  • Many specific priming effects
  • Some stereotype threat effect sizes
  • Facial feedback hypothesis (smiling causes happiness) — partially
  • Power posing's hormonal effects
  • Some versions of the bystander effect
  • What Has Replicated
  • Conformity (Asch) — direction if not all specific magnitudes
  • Obedience (Milgram partial replications) — directional findings hold
  • Group polarization — very robust
  • Cognitive dissonance — core effects replicate
  • In-group favoritism — consistently replicated cross-culturally
  • The Structural Causes
  • The replication problems stemmed from: publication bias (journals publish significant results, not null results), small sample sizes producing unreliable effect estimates, p-hacking (flexible analysis until significance), HARKing (hypothesizing after results known), and the "file drawer" problem of unpublished replications.
  • The Reform Movement
  • Pre-registration (declaring hypotheses and methods before collecting data), open data sharing, larger samples, direct replications, registered reports, and the "reproducibility crisis" discourse have produced substantial methodological improvements. Social psychology is becoming a more robust science through this painful process — which is how science is supposed to work.
  • 27 / 30
Slide 28

Culture Shapes Psychology

  • Culture & Mind
  • Many findings from social psychology have been discovered to be culturally variable — the WEIRD problem again. East-West differences in cognition, social relationships, and self-concept are among the most documented cultural variations.
  • Independent vs. Interdependent Self
  • Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed that Western cultures cultivate an "independent self-concept" — autonomous, unique, expressed in behavior — while East Asian cultures cultivate an "interdependent self-concept" — relational, contextual, harmonizing. These different self-models produce different patterns of attribution, motivation, social comparison, and emotional expression.
  • Holistic vs. Analytic Cognition
  • Richard Nisbett's research: East Asians tend toward holistic cognition — attending to context and relationships; Westerners toward analytic cognition — focusing on the focal object, separating figure from ground. In eye-tracking studies, American participants fixated on the central object in scenes; Japanese participants attended more to background and contextual elements.
  • Universal vs. Cultural Patterns
  • Basic emotions (Ekman's six) — cross-cultural recognition, though expression rules vary
  • Attachment patterns — distributed differently across cultures
  • Social comparison tendencies — more prominent in individualist cultures
  • Conformity effects — directionally universal, magnitude varies
  • Reciprocity norm — universal, different expression forms
  • The Deep Challenge
  • If most social psychology was conducted on WEIRD participants, how much of what we call "social psychology" is actually "Western social psychology"? The field is grappling with this systematically, expanding cross-cultural research and revisiting universal claims with appropriate humility.
  • 28 / 30
Slide 29

Social Psychology in Practice

  • Applications
  • The findings of social psychology have been applied — with varying success — in public health, criminal justice, organizational design, environmental policy, and education.
  • Health Behavior
  • Descriptive norms messaging reduces substance abuse and promotes vaccination. Implementation intentions ("I will do X in situation Y") dramatically improve health behavior follow-through. Social support networks are among the strongest predictors of recovery from illness. Peer health educator programs exploit referent power more effectively than authority-based campaigns.
  • Criminal Justice
  • Eyewitness testimony — subject to conformity, post-event misinformation, and own-race bias — is far less reliable than courts have assumed. Double-blind lineups, sequential rather than simultaneous presentation, and recording of confidence at time of identification (not after) significantly reduce false identifications. These reforms are being adopted across jurisdictions.
  • Environmental Behavior
  • Social norms interventions (Opower/Oracle Utilities) telling households how their energy use compares to similar neighbors reduced consumption 2–3% — equivalent to a 20% price increase. Commitment and consistency effects: public commitment to energy saving increases follow-through. Defaults toward green energy dramatically change enrollment rates.
  • 29 / 30
Slide 30

The Fundamental Lesson

  • Synthesis
  • Social psychology's core message challenges the individualism of Western thought: who we are, what we believe, and how we behave are profoundly shaped by the social situations we inhabit, the groups we belong to, and the contexts that surround us.
  • Key Insights
  • The situation shapes behavior more than character — but character is not irrelevant
  • Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary compliance and cruelty under situational pressure
  • Groups amplify individual tendencies — toward better and worse
  • Our beliefs about ourselves and others are systematically biased in predictable ways
  • Culture shapes the very architecture of thought, not just its content
  • Small situational changes can produce large behavioral shifts
  • The Constructive Applications
  • Understanding social psychology's findings allows us to design better institutions — with structural checks on obedience and groupthink, provisions for dissent, accountability mechanisms that combat deindividuation, and norm-based interventions that align individual behavior with collective welfare.
  • The field offers no simple optimism about human nature — the Milgram results are too sobering for that. But it offers realistic paths toward systems and situations that bring out better human behavior, even from imperfect human animals.
  • "To understand the situation is to understand why behavior that looks irrational from the outside is deeply rational from the inside."
  • 30 / 30
Remove this deck