Social Behaviour Final Exam

Who cares more about looks - men or women? Why?

"On the whole women tend to love men for their character while men tend to love women for their appearance,"

**Write out the formula for perceived injustice. What are the two types of problems (injustice) that occur?

"That's unfair!" If I contribute more than you, but benefit less than you, I'm not going to be very happy. This is considered injustice. Indeed, I'm likely to be very sensitive to this outcome that I see as very unfair. Definition: Injustice: when the distribution of rewards in proportion to individual contributions is unequal. How am I likely to respond to this perceived injustice? According to Elaine Hatfield and colleagues, there are 3 likely outcomes: I might accept and justify my inferior position I might demand compensation I might retaliate One injustice that is now receiving a great deal of attention is the pay gap between men and women. See below for data from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2004) that shows the average salaries of women working full time as a percentage of average salaries of men working full time.

Define and give an example of each of the following: Self-fulfilling prophecy

** Negative Attitudes predict Negative Behaviours You have probably heard the term self-fulfilling prophecy before. A self-fulfilling prophecy is the tendency for your expectations to evoke behaviour in others that confirm those expectations. Think about a person you hate. How do you feel when you see them? Do you get angry, frustrated, or upset? Are you just waiting for the snarky, rude or obnoxious thing they are going to say or do? Have you considered that your negativity may actually be causing their behaviour? Here is how that can happen: Whenyou see that person, it evokes negative feelings in you. Your feelings and negative emotions change your demeanor as well as the way you speak, think, and act. That person sees that you are cranky or seem otherwise upset, and will likely react in a similar fashion. Then, you act cranky; being rude to them or at the very least non-communicative. Because they see that you are cranky, they are cranky to you. That crankiness in turn, leads to you being crankier. It is a vicious circle.

What are some influences on memory?

- Are influenced by our beliefs and expectations - Are influenced by police expectations - Are influenced by leading questions - Can be created through hypnosis

Discuss three factors that influence court decisions.

1) attractiveness, 2) similarity of a defendant to a juror, 3) athlete

How do the following play a role in dispute resolution: o Contact o Communication o Cooperation o Conciliation

1)Contact: Contact means getting the two groups together. But you might imagine a situation where putting two groups together that are in conflict could just make things worse. Let's ask this question: historically in the US, Blacks and Whites were not allowed to go to school together. But in the 1960s schools were desegregated. Does desegregation improve racial attitudes? As it turns out, yes. Attitudes towards Blacks and other minorities are far less prejudiced now though they were 50 years ago. Although prejudice has not gone away, it is definitely improved. An important element is that there must be equal-status contact. Blacks and Whites in South Africa were always in contact, but the contact was with unequal status. It was not until Black and White status was equalized in South Africa that things began to change. 2) Cooperation: Cooperation between groups is very important if we want to improve relationships and conflict. But how do we encourage cooperation, or how does it come about naturally? Cooperation is more likely when we are facing common external threats, such as natural disasters (the Ontario & Quebec ice storm of 1997; Hurricane Juan; White Juan). Yet natural disasters can lead to additional conflict. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in the fall 2006, but did not lead to less conflict -- it led to more. The context of the external threat is very important. Remember we talked about Sherif's experiment where he took two groups of boys and created rival groups? By creating superordinate goals that were important for both groups, he was able to turn these rivals into friends. If you look at this website for Sherif's Robbers Cave study, you will see that Superordinate Goals are very important -- working cooperatively can turn old enemies into friends. That said, there are also cautions to be aware of with respect to the generalization of these effects, as discussed in this website: Simply Psychology. In attempt to generalize the Sherif findings on superordinate goals, superordinate goals have also been translated into the classroom where cooperative learning has replaced competitive learning (e.g., jigsaw classroom). To see a great example of how cooperative learning works, go to and learn about the jigsaw classroom. Dr. Aronson describes his jigsaw classroom structure, where students learn through cooperation and respect, rather than the competitive model of learning 3) Communication: Communication is also very important. Bargaining, mediation, and arbitration can play big role in turning win-lose compromises into win-win integrative agreements where both parties benefit. It is important to make the process of unraveling misperceptions work through controlled communications. Again equality of status is very important. 4) Conciliation One of the key issues in conflict is the willingness to be conciliatory -- in other words we have to be willing to give a little. But you have to be careful, being 100% cooperative is often an ineffective strategy -- you will be taken advantage of.

What are the four factors that influence obedience to an authority figure?

1. Emotional distance of the victim: the further the victim was removed from the site of the teacher, the more shocks were administered. Indeed, in Milgram's pilot study the learner did not scream out in pain. In this version of the study everybody went to 450V. In one version of the study Milgram actually created the situation where the teacher had to take the learner's hand and place it on a shock plate for the learner to actually get a shock. In this case, where the violence and pain was so close, only 35% of participants went to 450V. 2. Closeness and legitimacy of the authority: the closeness of the authority figure was very important. When the authority figure was another participant, they were obeyed much less. In addition when the authority figure gave their instructions by phone or via a tape recorder, obedience was substantially reduced. 3. Institutional authority: Milgram tried various versions of the research where instead of being at Yale, it was done in a storefront in the middle of a Connecticut town. Here obedience dropped somewhat, but was still around 50%. 4. Group influence: perhaps most frightening was the impact of group. If the participant was simply a member of the group who was recording the events, 95% went all the way to 450V. Interestingly however, as soon as one person in the group disagreed, or disobeyed, all members of the group disobeyed -- obedience was 0%. The presence of others can actually be a good thing.

How do you resolve social dilemma

A number of strategies have been suggested and investigated over the years in order to solve social dilemmas. The first is regulation -- this means enacting new taxes, laws, etc. to control people's behaviour. We have also learned that small really is beautiful -- small groups make people feel more responsible -- with more responsibility comes more protection of the resources we have. Communication is also important because it enables groups to cooperate. Once the groups are willing to cooperate we have to change the payoffs. In other words we have to make cooperation more rewarding. For example if we want to encourage carpooling, creating designated freeway lanes for carpoolers would help. We can also simply appeal to altruistic norms -- highlight need for personal sacrifices for the good of the group. Some people do this, but this will eventually end if no one else follows suit.

Define and give an example of each of the following: Behavioural confirmation

A similar effect is called behavioural confirmation -- a type of self-fulfilling prophecy where people social expectations need them to act in ways that cause others to confirm those expectations. Also known as self-fulfilling prophecies, it can be a series of learned behaviors that people use to elicit expected reactions is social situations. For example: A person learns that flattery or good manners can deflect anger in some people.

Explain Frustration-aggression theory. Draw a picture if you wish.

A well-known theory of aggression is frustration-aggression theory. The basic idea behind frustration-aggression theory is that when our goal-directed behaviour is blocked, we become frustrated and want to aggress against what is blocking our goal. However this is not always possible, and sometimes we get what is called displacement. Displacement is simply the redirection of aggression to a target other than the source of the frustration. Importantly the new target is usually a safer or more socially acceptable target. For example, if your boss at work yelled at you, you may come home and yell at your partner. You cannot yell at your boss, or you will lose your job, but yelling at your partner is safer. As you can see in the figure above, there are many steps in the frustration aggression process. This is a fascinating theory, but it does have some limitations. Frustration does not always lead to aggression. This theory does not do a very good job at explaining this.

Self-serving biases can be both adaptive and maladaptive. Why? Give examples.

Adaptive behavior is behavior that is positive and functional to the individual. It allows the individual to relieve anxiety. Maladaptive behavior is quite different from adaptive behavior. This usually entails behavioral patterns that are dysfunctional to the individual. Self-Serving Bias as Adaptive: Self-serving bias can be adaptive in that they promote good feelings about ourselves, they reduce our anxiety about the world and to some extent they can ward off depression. Indeed, as noted in the text, Jeff Greenberg and his colleagues have argued that self-serving biases even ward off our fears about death. Let's take a second to consider how self-esteem is discussed in the popular media. Many people discuss the importance of having positive self-esteem. Is positive self-esteem the secret to successful, happy living? One might certainly think so given the number of self-help books, seminars and activities one can become involved with. Indeed, clinical psychologists have developed many programs to improve the self-esteem of those individuals who have low self-worth. In fact, you too could improve your self-esteem with a series of easy to learn and engaging activities. Mark Baldwin, a social psychologist at McGill University in Montreal has developed a website just for this. Self-Serving Bias as Maladaptive: Self-serving biases can sometimes be a bad thing. As an example, self-serving biases might lead us to be over-confident. Self-serving biases can also influence our relationships with others negatively. Think of someone you know who exhibits an overly self-serving bias regularly. Is this person fun to be with? Probably not: they are probably perceived as having a rather unpleasant personality. One could also argue that self-serving biases demonstrate some lack of self-reflection: you have to reflect on your weaknesses in order to develop positively. In addition to having inflated judgments about the self, self-serving biases also result in inflated group judgments. It is rare that we judge harshly the groups to which we belong. One clear downside to a strong sense of self-esteem is how we react when that self-esteem is threatened. When people give us negative feedback or when we are threatened we can take out our frustrations on others. In fact, the negative reactions we have when our self-esteem is threatened can be extreme. Indeed, perhaps surprisingly, bullies, gang members, genocidal dictators, and obnoxious narcissists (you may know a few) tend to have high self-esteem. The dark side of high self-esteem exists in the tension between the findings described above and that people expressing low self-esteem are somewhat more vulnerable to assorted clinical problems, including anxiety, loneliness, and eating disorders.

How do the following influence helping? o Guilt o Mood o Religion

Are there conditions when we are more likely to help? Helping often increases among people who are: Feeling guilty In a good mood Deeply religious In addition, the odds of our helping someone increase when we: have just observed a helpful model we are not hurried the victim appears to need and deserve help the victim is similar to ourselves we are in a small town or rural area there are few other bystanders

Opposites attract. Discuss.

Are we not also attracted to people who are in some ways different from ourselves, in ways that complement our own characteristics? Researchers have explored this question by comparing not only friends and spouses attitudes and beliefs but also their ages, religions, races, smoking behaviours, economic levels, educations, height, intelligence and appearance. In all theses ways and more, similarity still prevails.

How pervasive is prejudice in North American Society - discuss the empirical evidence that supports your position.

As I mentioned earlier, overt instances of prejudice are relatively rare in our society. When they happen, they make news. This is important: because overt prejudice is relatively rare does not mean that prejudice is gone altogether. Subtle forms of prejudice exist, and they have significant negative consequences. In 2005, five million Canadians reported being the victim of racism. More than half of Canadians were aware of someone who had been discriminated against. Study example: What about other forms of prejudicial behaviour? In a fascinating study, Josh Correll and his colleagues showed participants pictures of people either holding a gun or holding some harmless object like a cell phone. Participants had to take the position of a police officer -- do you shoot or don't you? What the researchers found is that people were much more likely to shoot a Black person than a White person, and they were much quicker to shoot unarmed Black person than they were to shoot unarmed White person.

What is the outgroup homogeneity effect? How does distinctiveness play into this effect?

As we talked about, we have a natural tendency to categorize people when we encounter them. When this is combined with a tendency to prefer the ingroups over outgroups, we get what is called the outgroup homogeneity effect. This is the perception that our own group members are more distinct from one another than members of other groups. This may be best illustrated in a statement "they all look alike". In fact one of the areas of research that I used to work on is on cross-race eyewitness identification. Essentially, because we perceive members of outgroups to be more similar, we are less able to identify those differences when we do encounter them. Thus, to us it may seem true, they all might appear to look alike. Understanding of this effect is starting to make its way into mainstream pop culture. Check out this clip from The Good Wife. On the other hand, we do see diversity within our own group. Why does this distinction occur? Why do we assume that all members of the outgroup are the same? Let us assume that we have less experience with outgroup members then ingroup members. Therefore outgroup members are going to be more distinctive. Distinctive people draw attention. For example being the only male in a group is distinctive. We use limited experience with member of a given group to guide impressions of the entire group (e.g., all people of African descent are good at basketball).

Why do we need ethics? What are the ethical principles a psychological researcher must follow?

As you can see, people vary in what they think is okay to do in research. For this reason, researchers have to abide by very strict research guidelines. We always must have our research approved by Research Ethics Boards. When a social psychologist designs a research study there are certain ethical principles they must adhere to: Informed consent: Participants must be aware of all the information that might influence their decision to participate in the study Be truthful: Researchers should not lie to participants; however it is understood that in order to get at certain topics (such as prejudice) a researcher may have to withhold some information from a participant at the beginning of the study Protect from Harm: A researcher cannot withhold information that could potentially be harmful to the participant. It is the duty of all researchers to protect the health and psychological well-being of the participants. Confidentiality: Any information that is gathered during research must be kept confidential (i.e., no personal information should ever be released), and ideally should be anonymous (i.e., if at all possible, there should be no way to link a participant to his or her responses). Debriefing and Feedback: Participants have the right to be fully debriefed at the end of an experiment, that is, they must be told the purpose of the experiment and be given the opportunity to learn the results of the study when they are available. Withdrawal: another important issue, which may be very important if you participate in experiments, is that participants have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

When do attitudes predict behaviour?

Attitude Strength: It turns out that not all attitudes are created equally. Some attitudes are stronger than others. They have features that make them more impactful in our lives that others are missing. For example, some attitudes are based on a lot of compelling knowledge, whereas others aren't. Some attitudes are based on direct experience which allows us to have a much more reliable evaluation than attitudes that are not based on direct experience. Some attitudes are held with confidence, whereas others are not. Having insights into the features of attitude strength has allowed researchers in this field to create much more accurate and nuanced predictions about when attitudes will predict behaviour.

List and describe how two factors concerning the communicator of the message that can influence persuasion.

Attractiveness & Credibility ho is giving the message is crucial. One of the first issues we consider is the credibility of the source. Expert and trustworthy communicators appear to be more believable. We believe LeBron James when he says that his Nike basketball shoes made him a better player. We believe dentists who tell us we should chew sugar-free gum. Of course there is always the element that these people are being paid by a company, so the source has to overcome this potential biasing factor. The attractiveness of the source is also important. It is not surprising that the most successful politicians also tend to be relatively attractive. Arguments are often more influential when they come from beautiful people. Similarity is also very important: We respond better to a message from people in our own group. You may notice this when you suddenly discover some common traits between you and a salesperson. The salesperson may have the same hobbies as you, or may own a shirt you are considering buying. We trust people who are similar to us. And we like them. This shouldn't be surprising to you. If you go to meet a professional (let's say a professor), and they are wearing a suit jacket, you might tend to think they are more credible than a professor wearing jeans and a t-shirt. If a professor is confident when lecturing, you might tend to think of them as more of an expert than if they're stammering and unsure.

Assume your child is behaving aggressively. What would you do to change that behaviour

Bobo Doll Experiment: Bandura showed children movies of adults interacting with an inflatable Bobo doll. In some videos the adults were not aggressive, playing nicely with the doll. In others they were aggressive, hitting a punching the doll and using aggressive language. What Bandura found (and we will discuss this research more in a later module) is that children learn to be aggressive, but children were also aggressive in novel ways -- they were inventive in how they aggressed against the doll. Environmental Influences: The environment can also make us aggressive. Painful incidents, heat, being attacked, crowding, and other kinds of arousal can all make a more aggressive. This is why we often hit back if we have been hurt, why of violent crimes are more common in hotter cities/in the summer, and that crowds can often become spectacularly violent (remember the riots from a previous module). How to reduce aggression: So how do we reduce aggression? Freud, and other researchers have argued that we can use what is called catharsis. Catharsis means we aggress against something else (like is argued in frustration aggression theory) and that makes us feel better and thus less aggressive. Maybe we can watch violent television or play violent videogames so that we are less violent in our own lives. But does catharsis work? Does behaving aggressively reduce our levels of aggression? Although there has been some debate in the literature on this, the short answer is: no. Catharsis does not work. Catharsis does not occur with violent behaviour. Being violent increases future violent behaviour. There is no debate. A social learning approach to violence reduction: If we take what we know from social learning theory, we should be able to develop ways to reduce aggression and violence. Bandura would argue that we should reward non-aggressive behaviour, and this will naturally reduce violence. In addition, we could teach non-aggressive conflict resolution, reinforce positive behaviour (as opposed to punishing negative behaviour) and, perhaps most importantly reduce children's exposure to violent films, television and video games. We will come back to this topic in a later module on the role of media in aggression.

The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion proposes two routes to persuasion. Name them, define them and describe how they are different.

Central route to persuasion: persuasion that occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts Peripheral Route Persuasion: persuasion that occurs when people are influenced by incidental cues, such as the speaker's attractiveness. As we can see from the figure above, when we are listening to a particular message, such as the one made by this political candidate, there are two ways in which we can be persuaded. If we take a central route, which is most likely if we are involved in the topic or we find it somehow interesting, we will focus on the arguments being presented. If the arguments are strong, then we will be convinced and be more likely to vote for this candidate. If the arguments are weak, we will be less convinced and less likely to vote for them. This is important: to take the central route, targets must be both a) motivated, and b) able to process the message. The smartest person in the world might be able to process a message, but if they are bored or uninterested, the central merits of an argument won't be carefully attended to. If we are not interested in the message, or if we are unable to understand it (e.g., too much jargon), we will trend toward the peripheral route. This means that we will tend to focus on peripheral cues as we process the information. These cues might include the attractiveness of the speaker, or the confidence with which they speak (which might have nothing to do with the quality of what they are saying!).

Define the following: Co-actor

Co-participants working individually on a noncompetitive activity Mere presence means that people: - Are not competing - Do not reward or punish - Do nothing other than be present as a passive audience Other people who are in a situation with us are called co-actors: these are people who are in a situation with us, but are not interacting with us in any way -- you might think of spectators during your class presentation is being co-actors. These people are not competing with you and have nothing to gain by you winning or losing; doing well or failing. These co-actors in a situation with us can serve as a source of social arousal. For some people, this arousal is positive (such as fans at a home football game), and for some it can be negative (such as the home team's fans at an away game!). The effect of social arousal is to strengthen whatever our dominant response is. This social arousal can have at least two effects. As you can see in the figure below if the dominant response is an easy behaviour, such as riding a bicycle, then performance can be enhanced. If the behaviour is a difficult one, such as tennis or a figure skating performance, the performance can actually be interrupted by the social arousal.

What is the cognitive interview and how can it be used by police?

Cognitive Interviews is an interview technique based in cognitive psychology, focusing on context reinstatement to enhance recall of events Police use CI to recall witness memory. They create a rapport with the person and then ask them to "go back" to the event and having them visualize. They use open ended question and encourage witnesses to use complete answers.

What is cognitive dissonance? What are some types of cognitive dissonance effects? Give examples.

Cognitive dissonance is tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions, as when we realized that we have, with little justification, acted contrary to our attitude. Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that we act to reduce such tension, as when we adjust our attitude to correspond with our actions. Cognitive dissonance is perhaps the most studied form of attitude change. In general, cognitive dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling we get when our attitudes and behaviours don't match (or when we have conflicting attitudes). This feeling of dissonance is not fun, and we are motivated to reduce it. To reduce the feeling, we can either change our attitudes, change our behaviours, or we can reduce the importance of the attitudes. It is interesting because fundamentally cognitive dissonance leads to self-persuasion -- you recognize a disjoint between your attitude and behaviour and work to change that. Example: Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual's behavior conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity. For example, consider a situation in which a man who places a value on being environmentally responsible just purchased a new car that he later discovers does not get great gas mileage.

What are the "4 C's" of conflict resolution?

Contact Cooperation Communication Conciliation 1)Contact: Contact means getting the two groups together. But you might imagine a situation where putting two groups together that are in conflict could just make things worse. Let's ask this question: historically in the US, Blacks and Whites were not allowed to go to school together. But in the 1960s schools were desegregated. Does desegregation improve racial attitudes? As it turns out, yes. Attitudes towards Blacks and other minorities are far less prejudiced now though they were 50 years ago. Although prejudice has not gone away, it is definitely improved. An important element is that there must be equal-status contact. Blacks and Whites in South Africa were always in contact, but the contact was with unequal status. It was not until Black and White status was equalized in South Africa that things began to change. 2) Cooperation: Cooperation between groups is very important if we want to improve relationships and conflict. But how do we encourage cooperation, or how does it come about naturally? Cooperation is more likely when we are facing common external threats, such as natural disasters (the Ontario & Quebec ice storm of 1997; Hurricane Juan; White Juan). Yet natural disasters can lead to additional conflict. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in the fall 2006, but did not lead to less conflict -- it led to more. The context of the external threat is very important. Remember we talked about Sherif's experiment where he took two groups of boys and created rival groups? By creating superordinate goals that were important for both groups, he was able to turn these rivals into friends. If you look at this website for Sherif's Robbers Cave study, you will see that Superordinate Goals are very important -- working cooperatively can turn old enemies into friends. That said, there are also cautions to be aware of with respect to the generalization of these effects, as discussed in this website: Simply Psychology. In attempt to generalize the Sherif findings on superordinate goals, superordinate goals have also been translated into the classroom where cooperative learning has replaced competitive learning (e.g., jigsaw classroom). To see a great example of how cooperative learning works, go to and learn about the jigsaw classroom. Dr. Aronson describes his jigsaw classroom structure, where students learn through cooperation and respect, rather than the competitive model of learning 3) Communication: Communication is also very important. Bargaining, mediation, and arbitration can play big role in turning win-lose compromises into win-win integrative agreements where both parties benefit. It is important to make the process of unraveling misperceptions work through controlled communications. Again equality of status is very important. 4) Conciliation One of the key issues in conflict is the willingness to be conciliatory -- in other words we have to be willing to give a little. But you have to be careful, being 100% cooperative is often an ineffective strategy -- you will be taken advantage of.

We have often discussed the distinction between correlation and causation in research. Give an example of a correlation, and describe how you might create an experimental study to test if the correlation is causal.

Correlations are simply natural associations between two variables. Correlations can be positive: for example, height and weight. The taller you are, the more you are likely to weigh. Number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films Nicholas Cage has appeared in, however one does not cause the other to occur. There is a causal relationship between two variables if a change in the level of one variable causes a change in the other variable. Note that correlation does not imply causality. It is possible for two variables to be associated with each other without one of them causing the observed behaviour in the other. When this is the case it is usually because there is a third (possibly unknown) A researcher had found a link between murder rates in Canada and trust in the federal government. This correlation is positive (as the value of one variable goes up, the value of the other variable also goes up). But-- is it causal? Do more murders occur because people trust the government less? Is it the other way around?

Describe how cults use persuasion tactics to convert followers

Cult: A group typically characterized by 1) distinctive rituals and beliefs related to its devotion to a God or a person; 2) isolation from the surrounding "evil" culture; 3) a charismatic leader (a sect, by contrast, is a spinoff from a major religion.) Groups like cults are excellent at using the tactics we've been discussing over the last few modules to gain converts. For example they may use the foot-in-the-door technique very effectively. This is why you never see cults with advertising placards that say "come join our cult." They start with disaffected people and slowly draw them into a group that not only understands them, is willing to listen, but is also willing to offer a better way of life, salvation. The only thing you need to do is to follow the group. Once followers buy into the group in a small way they commit to learn more. Your book gives a good example of this on page 149 where Craig Silverman's experience of an encounter with Raelians are reviewed, and where your author's brother's experience is also reviewed.

Describe some factors that affect the occurrence of the Fundamental attribution error

Differing Perspectives: Perhaps not surprisingly this has been a focus of a substantial amount of social psychological research. Researchers have discovered that perspective and situational awareness are important elements to how we react to the behaviour of others. Our perspective differs when we observe others relative to when we act ourselves. This is called the actor-observer bias. When we are the actor, we tend to attribute behaviour to the environment, whereas when we observe others, we tend to underestimate the impact of the environment. There is also a fact which has been called the correspondence bias: this is a tendency for people to view behaviour as coming from inner dispositions. Because of this natural disposition, it takes some effort to overcome our pre-existing tendencies. Therefore, it is easier to make dispositional inferences particularly when we are less motivated to find situational excuses (i.e. when it is me, versus someone else). Perspectives Change with Time: An important issue to remember is that perspectives change over time. Immediately after hearing someone argue an assigned position, people assume that's how the person really felt. But a week later they are much more ready to credit the situational constraints (Burger, 1991). Cultural Differences: There are important cultural issues that play a role in the occurrence of the fundamental attribution error. We have talked about the difference between independent and interdependent selves, as well as the distinctions between individualist and collectivist societies. What would you predict here? Who would be more likely to make the fundamental attribution error? What may surprise you is that in some cultures, the FAE effect can even be reversed. As noted in the text, language plays an important role as well. For example there is a Spanish idiom which states that "the clock caused me to be late" rather than saying "I was late". Clearly an external attribution. Overall, in collectivist cultures, people less often perceive others in terms of personal dispositions, and are more likely to view their behaviour as being caused by situational aspects.

Describe one of the three studies discussed in class suggesting that attitudes do not predict behaviour

Do attitudes predict behaviour? Although you might think the answer is obviously "yes". There are researchers who would disagree. For example in 1930, LaPierre published a now classic study on racial attitudes and behaviours. LaPierre wanted to see if people's attitude towards Chinese immigrants (who had been brought over en masse to work on the railroads across Canada and the US) translated into behaviours. In general, it would be fair to say that Chinese immigrants were viewed very negatively by the American population. LaPierre visited hundreds of establishments in his travels, accompanied by a young and well-dressed Chinese couple. LaPierre, a 50-ish man who was a university professor, went with this couple to restaurants and hotels and asked to be served. They were served in all but one establishment. Later, LaPierre sent letters to the same establishments and asked if they would serve a Chinese couple. Every single one of them said no. LaPierre concluded that attitudes do not predict behaviours.

How does playing video games affect behaviour? Use a picture to make your argument.

Do video games function the same as watching violent social models? According to Craig Anderson and his colleagues, playing aggressive videogames leads to: Increased arousal Increased aggressive thinking Increased aggressive feelings Increased aggressive behaviours Decreased prosocial behaviours Increased physical injury Indeed, there are some reasons to believe that playing violent video games might be more harmful than watching television. Specifically, players: identify with, and play the role of, a violent character. actively rehearse violence, not just passively watch it. engage in the whole sequence of enacting violence—selecting victims, acquiring weapons and ammunition, stalking the victim, aiming the weapon, pulling the trigger. are engaged with continual violence and threats of attack. repeat violent behaviours over and over. are rewarded for effective aggression. As we can see in the figure below, playing violent video games, particularly first-person shooter type games, can lead to aggression and violence through the processes mentioned above. Again, no one is saying that everyone who plays these video games will act out, but in the back seat of the destroyed car pictured at the beginning of this module police found a copy of a street racing videogame. Are video games dangerous? Based on course material, why or why not? So what is the take-home message? I think the APA recommendations are helpful: Recognize that too much of anything can be a problem, and that some people will exhibit this problem much easier than others. If you are the one playing violent videogames, accessing lots of pornography, or watching violent television, think about how this might influence your thinking. If you are responsible for someone else, you have a responsibility to make sure they aren't overexposed to these potentially problematic media. ** Picture on Video Games slide Module 21

Memories are like impressions on wax tablets. Discuss.

Errors can creep in to witness memory from the moment after the crime occurs. Witnesses talk to each other, and that talking does affect memory for the event. We have to remember that memory is not a wax tablet, as Socrates argued. Memory is malleable, and changes over time, particularly when we learn new information about an event in our past. We have to remember that memories not only change, but: - Are influenced by our beliefs and expectations - Are influenced by police expectations - Are influenced by leading questions - Can be created through hypnosis Robert Baltovich learned that all too well when he was convicted based on the "hypnotically enhanced" testimony of a witness. Definition: Cognitive interview: An interview technique based in cognitive psychology, focusing on context reinstatement to enhance recall of events Simultaneous lineup: A lineup type that presents photos together in one array Sequential lineup: A lineup type where photos are presented individually So how do we protect eyewitness memory? We can use what's called the cognitive interview, which uses tactics learned from cognitive psychology to enhance correct recall but reduce or at least hold constant any errors. In a number of different studies, and a number of different fields, the cognitive interview has been demonstrated to be effective at enhancing correct recall. But how do we study eyewitness memory in a lab setting? Below is a typical video in an eyewitness experiment. Click on it and see what happens. When participants in the lab arrive: They are not aware they are going to see a video They don't know it will be a crime - as in real life They have a chance to identify the criminal Police typically use simultaneous lineups Did you find it easy to pick him out? There are some problems with Simultaneous lineups. These lineups are: Like a multiple choice test -- you just have to choose one of the six People make relative judgments -- which one looks most like you remember The "Best" choice is not necessarily "correct" choice Concern over investigator effects -- bad instructions, or a biased lineup can lead to choosing an innocent person It is better to use a sequential procedure. Some key features specific to sequential lineups include a double blind procedure. The investigator should not know who the suspect is - this reduces the likelihood they might inadvertently give "hints". The pictures must be shown 1 at a time, with the witness saying "yes" or "no" after each picture. This avoids comparative judgment across the pictures. . If the investigator who does the lineup does not know who the suspect is, there is no way for bias to creep in. Many years of research have demonstrated that using a sequential lineup rather than a simultaneous lineup reduces error rates by 50%.

Define and distinguish between correlational and experimental research. Give an example of each

Experimental research allows the researcher to control the variables in the study, while correlational ones involve just looking at the data that already exists. Experimental studies allow the researcher to draw conclusions about one variable causing changes in another. --> In correlational studies a researcher looks for associations among naturally occurring variables, whereas in experimental studies the researcher introduces a change and then monitors its effects. It is important to be able to distinguish between correlational and experimental designs, because only well-controlled experimental designs allow conclusions about cause and effect.

Define aggression

For the purposes of this class, aggression is any physical or verbal behaviour intended to hurt someone. This excludes auto accidents, dental treatments, and sidewalk collisions, but includes slaps, direct insults, and gossip. Two Types of Aggression 1.Instrumental Aggression: aggression that provide a means to an end. 2.Hostile Aggression: aggression with the aid of injuring someone driven by anger.

Birds of a feather flock together. Discuss and defend your position with evidence.

Friends, engaged couples and spouses are far more likely than randomly paired people to share common attitudes, beliefs and values. Furthermore, the greater the similarity between husband and wife, the happier they are and the less likely they are to divorce. Such correlational findings are intriguing. But cause and effect remain an enigma. Does similarity lead to liking? Or does liking lead to similarity? Dr. Morry has been interested in determining if similarity lets to attraction to if the opposite is true- that attraction leads to perceptions of similarity. I one study participants were asked to rate their own and their friends locus of control and friendship satisfaction. As Dr. Morry expected, participants perceived their friends to be similar to themselves, however these perceptions did not match the friends self-ratings. Instead participants perceptions reflected a belief in their friends similarly to themselves. In other studies it was shown that the desire for similar mates outweighs the desire for beautiful mates. Studies of newlyweds reveal that similar attitudes, traits and values help bring couples together and predict their satisfaction. Similarity breeds contentment-birds of a feather do flock together.

Define the following: Free ride

Have you ever had to work on a group project with others? How did that go? One year, when teaching a 4th year course, I gave a group project. I remember one group very clearly. One student (let's call him Wayne) did nothing to help his group. I received various complaints leading up to the final submission -- he did not come to meetings; he did not do the readings; and he did not prepare the slides for the presentation like he was supposed to. During the debate, Wayne did not speak at all. Yet at the end of the debate, he got the same grade as the rest of the group. Does Wayne remind you of someone you have worked with in the past? Someone who was part of the group, got the credit, but didn't pull his or her own weight? I'll bet he does This is called social loafing. Group members may be less motivated when performing additive tasks. Someone who is loafing is called a free-rider.

What is the fundamental attribution error? How is it different and how is it the same as the actor-observer bias?

Fundamental Attribution Error: The tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences and overestimate dispositional influences upon others' behaviour We tend to take credit for our successes and avoid blame for our failures. In the language of attribution, we make dispositional attributions for our successes but situational attributions for our failure (I failed my psych exam because the prof is horrible, but I did well on my sociology exam because I'm smart). Another consistent finding is that when we are observing the behaviour of others we tend to overestimate the dispositional influences on them and underestimate the situational influences. This is called the fundamental attribution error. Actor-Observer: When we are the actor, we tend to attribute behaviour to the environment, whereas when we observe others, we tend to underestimate the impact of the environment. Same because in both cases we are taking credit for successes but avoiding blame for failures, however different because in fundamental attribution error is more general and is not specific to us or to others, where as actor-observer takes into account whether its us or if it's another party, as our behaviour changes accordingly.

Define group polarization. What happens to attitudes in the process of polarization?

Group produced enhancement of members' pre-existing tendencies; a strengthening of the members' average tendency, not a split within the group Group polarization is group-produced enhancement of members' preexisting tendencies. That is, if a group starts out as moderately positive toward some idea, it is likely to end up as more positive at the end of the discussion. It is important to note that this is not solely an effect on the group decision. It is actually a strengthening of the members' average tendency. The group members become more extreme in their attitudes. Also when we talk about polarization, you should be aware that it is not a split within the group, as some people think (that is, half of the group moving to one extreme, and the other half to the other). This polarization is often the result of discussion. If you look at the figure below, you will see that regardless of people's initial views (either positive or negative) once people discuss them they become more extreme. This is called the risky shift. How do we explain group polarization? There are at least two types of influence going on here. Think back to the conformity module. The first type of influence we see in these types of groups is informational influence. This results from believing that others have the information we need to make correct decision. There are also normative influences at work. As we know, this is Influence based on a person's desire to be accepted or admired by others.

Define and give an example of each of the following: Hostile media bias

Hostile Media Bias: : Opposite groups, such as at football matches, will both perceive balanced and neutral views as hostile to their side. This is why referees are universally disliked. We see the world through the eyes of our own side and thus have very biased view of anything about situations where we compete.

List and explain Cialdini's 6 principles of compliance tactics.

How do we get people to do what we want them to do? Robert Cialdini asked this question and, in the true sense of adventure, took a variety of different jobs to try to understand how salespeople convinced us to do and buy things that we would otherwise never have done. Cialdini identified a core set of principles employed by marketers and salespeople to gain our compliance. Cialdini's six principles of compliance 1. Commitment and Consistency: once we commit to something we want to stick with that commitment 2. Scarcity: we are more attracted to things if they are scarce, either in terms of how long they will be available, or in terms of how many there are. 3. Reciprocity: if someone does something nice for us we want to do something nice for them 4.Social proof: when I am trying to decide what to do, I look to others in the same situation to see what they are doing. 5. Liking: I am more likely to buy something from someone I like that from someone I do not like 6. Authority: we trust authority when making our decisions

Describe how researchers have used resistance tactics to reduce smoking rates in children.

How do we protect our attitudes? One strategy has been to use what is called attitude inoculation. This is based on a theory similar to how we inoculate ourselves against diseases. We expose ourselves to a weak form of the disease, which in turn allows our bodies to build defenses. Similarly, in terms of attitude, we can expose ourselves to weak attacks on our attitude, which allows us to strengthen our defenses against stronger attacks that may come later. How well does this work? Well, there has been significant research looking at how we can inoculate children against peer pressure to smoke. In carefully conducted research that was done schools in the US, researchers were interested in how exposing people to weak forms of tobacco advertising could actually result in students being less likely to smoke. As you can see from the figure below, attitude-inoculated children are half as likely to start smoking than children who were not exposed to the weak pro-smoking advertising. If we can attitude-inoculate children against smoking advertising, can we inoculate children against the influence of advertising in general? There has been a move in the education domain to try to make children more media savvy. In other words, developing training programs to attempt to give children a more realistic understanding of commercials. Very young children cannot make the distinction between what is reality and what is a television commercial. These kinds of training programs are designed to help children understand what commercials are and how they distort reality in order to sell a product.

What makes a minority an effective minority in a group?

How does one go from a minority that is ignored, to a minority that is listened to? Researchers who have looked into this have found that there are three elements that are important. Consistency-- a persistent minority is influential. The minority group member needs to have self-confidence, both in terms of their position and their ability to stand up to the group. Attitude can be more persuasive than fact. Finally, defections from the majority are important. The only way for a minority to become the majority is for people to defect from the existing majority. But this is a snowball effect: once one person has defected, more are likely to follow. One-time members of the majority group can be viewed as more persuasive when they become members of the minority.

Would you ever confess to a crime you did not commit? Defend your answer using evidence from empirical research.

I would like to believe I would never confess to a crime I didn't commit but as this course has taught me, easily over 50% of people could be made to falsely confess to a crime they didn't commit. It has been shown that innocent people are more likely to waive their right to an attorney than guilty people. People believe that their own innocence will protect them. Research by Kassin has shown that it does not. The Innocent Project has cited approximately 25% of their cases have involved false confessions given by a suspect that were legally obtained meaning they weren't threaten or beaten out of them. Police use something called the Reid technique which consists of 9 steps designed to extract a confession from an unwilling suspect. This method includes interrupting any effort to deny the claims, the interviewer showing sympathy and offering alternative views to the crime such as it was an accident. It's also important to understand that Police can mislead you and tell you they have evidence against you such as finger prints or a witness as long as they don't fabricate evidence and they stay within the law. The combination of overwhelming evidence with an aggressive and relentless interrogation technique, leads to a high number of confessions but the downside is whether their true criminals or just saying they are. We now know that people sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit, and police interrogation tactics can either increase or decrease that possibility.

You have two good friends who are siblings and who are fighting over who gets to use the family car. Describe how you would help resolve the issue.

I would use the four c's of conflict resolution in order to solve the issue: Contact Cooperation Communication Conciliation

Define the following: Social facilitation

If individual efforts are evaluated this leads to what is called "evaluation apprehension" -- in other words we are worried about what other people will think of us. This apprehension increases arousal and leads to social facilitation. Social facilitation leads to enhancement of the dominant response, whether that is an increase in performance or a decrease depends on the dominant response. Social facilitation can be defined as 'an improvement in performance produced by the mere presence of others'. There are two types of social facilitation: co-action effects and audience effect. Studies on social facilitation concern the extent to which a given piece of an individual's behavior is affected by the real, imagined or implied presence of others.

What are some consequences of the self-concept?

If we have a negative self-concept (in other words if we don't like ourselves, or some major elements of ourselves) this can have a distinctly negative impact. Self-Concept has the ability to backfire, Prison example: There are several to choose from. One of the best examples is the Scared Straight program, in which at-risk teens are taken to prisons and harangued by hardened inmates to avoid a life of crime. Many communities adopted this program before it was properly tested. It turns out that not only do Scared Straight programs not work, they backfire: Teens who participate are more likely to commit crimes than a randomly assigned control group of kids who do not participate. The kids seem to be getting the message that they must be at risk of becoming criminals if convicts are going to such extreme measures to talk them out of it. And indeed, in a cheating study I did with college students, I found that strong external threats at one point in time can actually increase interest in a forbidden activity at a later point in tim

What increases the chances of being helped? What decreases it?

In addition, the odds of our helping someone increase when we: have just observed a helpful model we are not hurried the victim appears to need and deserve help the victim is similar to ourselves we are in a small town or rural area there are few other bystanders

Define interpersonal attraction. How does anticipation of interaction influence attraction?

Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between people which leads to friendships and to platonic or romantic relationships. Interpersonal attraction, the process, is distinct from perceptions of physical attractiveness, which involves views of what is and is not considered beautiful or attractive. Mere anticipating interaction boosts liking. Similarly, expecting to date someone boosts liking. Anticipatory liking- expecting that someone will be pleasant and compatible- increases the chance of forming a rewarding relationship.

Describe the Asch line judgement experiment and the results of the study.

In the 1950s Asch developed theories that addressed the question of when people would or would not conform to the group. Asch's experiments were very simple, but addressed extremely important issues. A participant came into a room and sat in a group of six other people (see the photo of the experiment below). Each person held a number, and the participant was always number six. Participants were told they were going to be in a study exploring perception processes, specifically visual perception. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line in the presence of the six others. The types of lines they had to judge were much like the ones depicted below. Overall, in the original studies 75% of subjects conformed to giving an incorrect response at least once. Across all trials there was a 37% conformity rate. Asch's results were startling because there was no obvious pressure to conform, there were no rewards for "team play", and there was no punishment for individuality. These people were conforming to clearly incorrect information for no good reason other than to avoid the unpleasant situation of disagreeing with the group. Of course this research raises an important question: Why did participants conform? There are really two types of influence that people discuss in the conformity literature. The first is normative influence: this is when someone changes their opinion or actions because they want to fit in with the group (i.e., be normal). The second is informational influence: when someone changes their opinion or actions because they believe that others have the information they need to make the right decision. In the study discussed above, it's clear that what we are seeing is normative influence. People do not want to experience the discomfort of disagreeing with the group.

Describe and discuss two social sources of prejudice.

In this module I want to talk about the different sources or underlying causes of prejudice. One of the most important social sources of prejudice is unequal status between groups. When two groups are of unequal status it is easy for a higher status group to think of the lower status group as being undeserving of consideration. This can lead to stereotyping the lower status group, and these stereotypes help rationalize unequal status. Interestingly, the stereotypes resulting from the unequal status can also lead to self-fulfilling prophecies that reinforce these beliefs. For example, as a teacher, if I believe that one ethnic group is more intelligent than others, I may treat them better in the classroom -- this may result in higher performance. I therefore fulfill the stereotype. Similarly if I believe a particular group is less intelligent, I may take away opportunities for them to be educated and thus prove that stereotype. In colonial times, Whites did not believe Blacks could be educated, so no educational opportunities were offered to them. A few examples of social sources of prejudice: Unequal Status: -Masters view slaves as lazy, irresponsible, lacking ambition—as having those traits that justify slavery -Once these inequalities exist, prejudice helps justify the economic and social superiority of those who have wealth and power -People view enemies as subhuman and depersonalize them with labels The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy -negative beliefs predict negative behavior (or problems in life) -If a person thinks we are clever or stupid or whatever, they will treat us that way. -If we are treated as if we are clever, stupid or whatever, we will act, and even become, this way. -The person has thus had their prophecy about us fulfilled! -This is also known as the Pygmalion Effect. Stereotype Threat -a self-conforming apprehension that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype -refers to being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group (Steele & Aronson, 1995) -Black college freshmen and sophomores performed more poorly on standardized tests than White students when their race was emphasized. -When race was not emphasized, however, Black students performed better and equivalently with White students. -The results showed that performance in academic contexts can be harmed by the awareness that one's behavior might be viewed through the lens of racial stereotypes.

Define the following: Independent variable Dependent variable Reliability Validity Reactivity

Independent variable is the experimental factor that a researcher manipulates Dependent variable is the variable being measured Reliability: The extent to which a measure yields the same result when used on more than one occasion to assess some relatively stable characteristic Validity: The extent to which a measure assesses what it is intended to assess Reactivity: Degree to which a measure may itself influence the behaviour we are studying

How might we resist cult indoctrination? Give specific examples.

Indoctrination: A process to teach members a partisan and uncritical acceptance of the group's perspective on issues. (the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.) How we resist: Attitude Strength: You probably know whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream. It is unlikely that I'm going to be able to argue with you to change your attitude about which you'd like more. Information Processing Biases: When our attitudes are strong, we also tend to have certain biases in the way we process incoming information, such as advertising.

Compare and contrast three of the following: o Aggression as an instinct o Aggression as a neural influence o Aggression as a genetic influence o Aggression due to blood chemistry o Aggression as a psychological process o Aggression as a environmental process

Instinct: Is aggression an instinct? There are opposing views to this question. Both Sigmund Freud and Conrad Lorenz believed that aggression was instinctive, but they disagreed on the purpose. Freud believed that aggression was a self-destructive instinct, and because we could not aggress against ourselves (typically) we aggress against others. Lorenz argued that aggression was an active mechanism to protect us and help us gain resources. Neural Influence: More recently, sophisticated analyses have explored the neural influences on aggression. However, no one spot in the brain controls aggression. There are neural systems in the brain that facilitate aggression. Although neurology may be a factor, it is not the only factor. Genetic Influence: Many researchers have looked at potential genetic Influences on aggression. We know for certain that aggressiveness can be bred (Lagerspetz, 1979) in animals. Often times pitbulls are used as an example of breeding aggression. There is no question that SOME pitbulls are aggressive animals, just as SOME of each breed of dog can be aggressive. Unfortunately, pitbulls are one high-profile example of a breed where some genetic lines have been selectively bred for their aggression, just as some poultry lines have been bred for aggression in cock fighting. Genetic influences can be powerful. Blood Chemistry: Many researchers have explored blood chemistry and its role in aggression. Have any of you ever experienced a fight at a bar? It is clear that alcohol can unleash aggression. However alcohol does not cause aggression, it simply reduces inhibitions. The cues to aggression need to be there before aggression will occur. Nonetheless, we know that half of homicide victims and 75% of those accused had consumed alcohol or drugs at the time of the crime (Statistics Canada, 2004). Alcohol can increase aggressiveness by reducing self-awareness. We also know that there is a role of testosterone in aggression. The higher your level of testosterone the more aggressive you will be. Again however this is a tendency - cues need to be present for aggression to occur.

What is the bystander effect? Give an example.

It is surprising to consider that the presence of numerous bystanders decreases helping. You would think that if there more people around your chances of getting help when you are in need should be good. Yet the opposite is true. Please watch this video to learn more about the Bystander Effect. It will talk about the Kitty Genovese case again, and show you footage from research experiments demonstrating the bystander effect. The key issue, as depicted in figure above, is how you will perceive the situation. The first step in helping is noticing that there's anything wrong in the first place. In a clever study done by Latane & Darley in 1968, they put participants in a room and started adding smoke leaking in under the door. They measured how long it took people to raise the alarm that there was smoke and potentially a fire. What they found, as depicted in Figure18-3, is that people were less likely to ask for help when there were more people in the room. Why does this happen? The key is the second step: Interpreting the nature of the situation. Because we are frequently unsure of what is going on we often rely on using others' behaviour to make decisions. If no one else in the room is reacting to the smoke we won't either. Of course they are watching us, and we are not doing anything either ... Next is the issue of assuming responsibility. If there are a number of people around we can get diffusion of responsibility -- when others are present (e.g., passing a stranded motorist when others are present) we assume that the other person will take charge, and we are free to move along.

What are mirror image perceptions?

It's worth noting that conflict frequently leads to what is called mirror image thinking. Mirror-Image perceptions are reciprocal views of one another often held by parties in conflict. Each may view itself as moral and peace loving and the other as evil and aggressive. A good example of the is the way people talk about terrorists, and the way people in the Middle East sometimes talk about the West. I am good and faithful, and I support virtue and light. You are evil and crazy and wicked. There is nothing good about you at all. Do you see how easy it is to demonize the opposition? Politicians do this too -- the government is corrupt, the bureaucrats are incompetent, until of course my party is in power.

Define deindividuation.

Loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad. A classic example of this is rioting after sports events. They are supposed to be celebrating a happy moment yet the crowd turns to mass destruction and sometimes violence.

What role do the following factors play in attraction: o Mere exposure o Proximity o Physical attractiveness

Mere Exposure: It turns out that we don't need to even interact with people to become attracted to them. All we need is mere exposure. Mere exposure can be defined as the tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more positively after the rater has been repeatedly exposed to them. Take a look at the picture below -- which one do you find more attractive? You probably find the one on the right more attractive, which is the one we more typically see. (Stephen Harper was previously the Canadian prime minister). Stephen Harper, on the other hand, probably prefers the picture on the left, which is the one he sees in the mirror every morning. This is one of the reasons why we tend not to like pictures of ourselves. First of all, the faces we see in the pictures are not as familiar to us as the ones we see in the mirror -- we like the one in the mirror more. Proximity: Think back to your first romantic interest. Where did they live, and where did you live? Chances are they were someone you went to school with, or who lived on your street (depending on how early you started dating). Interaction with others is key. The closer we are to them the more opportunity we have to interact, and the more likely we are to be attracted to them. Functional distance, not geographic distance, is most important. Even the anticipation of interaction can lead to liking. I always find this effect so cool: most people marry someone who lives in the same neighbourhood as them, who they work with, or who are in the same class. Consistent with the literature, I met my wife at University, we were in similar graduate programs, and we lived a few blocks from each other. Physical Attractiveness: Does physical attractiveness matter? It turns out that it does. "On the whole women tend to love men for their character while men tend to love women for their appearance," said Bertrand Russell (1930, p. 139). And on the whole he is correct. In general, we prefer better looking people. This is an area of the research where we see sex differences. Men tend to put more value on physical attractiveness of women than women do on men. That said, women also attend to the attractiveness of men. This effect is more pronounced if women are looking for a short-term relationship. In these cases, women tend to prefer men deemed more attractive. Is physical attractiveness always the most important thing that we consider? No—just because attractiveness is important doesn't mean that we don't attend do other qualities. Indeed, we do. Interestingly, despite the importance of physical attractiveness, it turns out that we don't all go for the most attractive partner. Indeed, there is a lot of research showing that relationship partners are generally similar in their levels of attractiveness.

Design an effective anti-smoking ad.

Messages can also be effective by evoking negative emotions. When trying to convince people to cut down on smoking, a fear arousing message can be potent. To have one's fear aroused is to become more intensely interested in information about a disease and in ways to prevent it. Fear arrousing communications also increase people's detection behaviour.

Do we need to belong? Does being ostracised have an impact on people

Need to belong: A motivation to bong with others in relationships shops that provide ongoing, positive interactions. We are attracted to other people. People are social animals. What happens if other people are not attracted to us? Does it hurt when people don't like us? Absolutely. This is called ostracism. You may have experienced at some point in your life being socially ostracized by some group (think back to junior high). The ostracism can include: Acts of excluding or ignoring Silent treatment Shunning

How does role-playing influence the attitude-behaviour relationship?

Now you should have a good understanding of when and why attitudes predict behaviour, but can our behaviour predict our attitudes? There has been a significant amount of research that looked at how role-playing (that is playing a particular role) can influence our behaviour. In particular researchers have been looking at how the actions expected of those who occupy a particular social position influence their attitudes. Perhaps the most famous of these studies is Zimbardo's Prison Experiment. Philip Zimbardo created a mock prison in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford University in the 1970s. In this study, healthy young men who were psychologically normal on all tested dimensions were randomly assigned to act as "prisoners" or "guards" in a mock jail study. Over the course of 6 days, the behaviour of prisoners to the guards became so aggressive that the study had to be ended early. Throughout the study there was "a growing confusion between role-playing and self-identity...This prison which we had created...was absorbing us as creatures of its own reality" (Zimbardo, 1972). Did you watch it? Frightening isn't it? Simply playing the role of a prison guards made these people sadistic prison guards. Role-playing had the same effect on the prisoners - play a passive prisoner and you become one. Sometimes, we are how we act. In what other cases might role-playing influence our attitudes? The Zimbardo case is a negative example, but there are also positive examples of how role-playing can influence your attitudes. Again, remember that answering these questions can help you prepare for your tests.

Define and distinguish between conformity, obedience, compliance, and persuasion.

Obedience: changes in behaviour elicited by the command of an authority figure Compliance: agreeing to a behaviour based on a request Conformity: changing perceptions, opinions, or behaviour in order to be more consistent with the real or imagined group norms. --> Obedience: changes in behaviour elicited by the command of an authority figure Compliance: agreeing to a behaviour based on a request Conformity: changing perceptions, opinions, or behaviour in order to be more consistent with the real or imagined group norms. Persuasion: attitude change

Define and give an example of each of the following: llusion of control

Our bias is to assume that two things that co-occur cause one another, and this leads us to another cognitive heuristic. We have what is called an illusion of control -- we believe that events that are outside our control can actually be influenced by us. This again comes from the covariance principle -- when two things happen at the same time one must have caused the other. Perception of uncontrollable events as subject to one's control or as more controllable than they are.

Define the self-concept. What are some sources of the self-concept?

Our self-concept, which we can define as how we perceive ourselves, plays a central role in our lives. Our self-concept has a significant impact on how we interact with others, how we interact with our families, and our overall health and well-being. If we have a positive view of ourselves, these relationships are impacted positively. But if we have a negative self-concept (in other words if we don't like ourselves, or some major elements of ourselves) this can have a distinctly negative impact.

Define and give an example of each of the following: Illusory correlation

Perception of a relationship where none exists, or perception of a stronger relationship than actually exists Part of the problem of illusory correlations comes from how we process distinctive events. A good example of illusory correlations is crime rates and ethnic groups. Being Aboriginal is distinctive in Canada; most people are not aboriginal. So is being a criminal -- most people are not criminals. However if we were to ask someone how likely it is that a given Aboriginal is a criminal the estimate we would likely get would be substantially higher than the true percentage in society. When we see two things that are distinctive happening together (being an Aboriginal; being a criminal) people can assume the link between the two is much stronger than it really is. Although part of the assumed correlation may be based on reality (it is true that Aboriginals are over-represented in the criminal justice system) this does not necessarily mean that the correlation between being Aboriginal and crime rates is high, or that all Aboriginals are criminals. Indeed, there are of course many reasons why Aboriginals are over-represented in the legal system (other correlates with criminal activity such as economic circumstances, bias, drug and alcohol dependency issues, etc.). Our bias is to assume that two things that co-occur cause one another, and this leads us to another cognitive heuristic. We have what is called an illusion of control -- we believe that events that are outside our control can actually be influenced by us. This again comes from the covariance principle -- when two things happen at the same time one must have caused the other.

Define the following terms: Prejudice, Stereotype, Discrimination, Racism, Sexism

Prejudice:A negative attitude toward a group; typically considered the affective component of outgroup bias Stereotype: A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people; cognitive component of outgroup bias Discrimination: Unjustifiable negative behaviour toward a group or its members; behavioural component of outgroup bias Racism: Prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour toward people of a given race Sexism: Prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour toward people of a given gender

Compare and contrast the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons. How are they similar or different?

Prisoner's dilemma: In social dilemmas, choices that are individually rewarding can become collectively punishing. For example, some people might believe that littering is fairly trivial as far as crimes go, but litter can be a big problem. Have you ever noticed the side of a busy street filled with trash from littering? A classic approach to creating social dilemmas in the lab is through using what's called the prisoner's dilemma. Imagine you and a friend have been arrested for a crime that you did indeed commit. The two of you are separated at the police station and interrogated. If you confess, you will be granted immunity, and your friend will get a harsh sentence (let's say, 10 years). If you don't confess, but your friend tells the cops that you did it, you get a harsh sentence (you go away for 10 years). If you both confess, you get a moderate sentence (you each get 5 years). Here is your dilemma: To confess or not to confess? What will your friend do? As you can see from the figure below, in our fictitious example the consequences of our decisions are important. We could go completely free, or we could spend the next 10 years in prison. Our decision is based not only what is better for me, but what is best for the other person, and what we believe they are doing. Tragedy of Commons: Another analogy that is used to explore social dilemmas is the tragedy of the commons. These are acts that benefit the individual short term but lead to major negative consequences over time. Some examples include environmental pollution, and an over-fishing. These are what are called non-zero-sum games -- when one person gains the other loses. A recent example of the Tragedy of the Commons comes from the Bluff Trail just outside of Halifax. There was a big push to get more people using the trail for hiking and nature education purposes. This is great! Unfortunately, many people were having illegal campsites and campfires, causing some significant damage to the ecosystem. Rather than shut the trail down, the Woodens River Watershed Environmental Organization (WRWEO) has begun an educational campaign to facilitate outdoor engagement in ways that protect nature. In order to solve social dilemmas we have to reframe things: Outcomes need not sum to zero; with cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose. Therefore we can reframe this as finding a solution through working together. But how do we solve the problem?

Define random assignment and explain why it is important to experimental research.

Random Assignment: Participants in experimental groups are assigned through a random process to be in the experimental or control conditions. This assures that there are no pre-existing differences between the two groups, thus the differences observed after treatment are caused by the treatment and not some other factor. People might self-select to specific groups due to pre-existing preferences, and participants would also be aware of the condition they are in. Awareness of condition can lead to demand characteristics. If we allow people to choose the group they want to be in, they may choose a group based on their pre-existing interests, values, or preferences. For that reason we do not let participants choose, we assign them randomly to condition.

What is realistic conflict theory? Discuss how Sherif's Robber's Cave experiment is a good or poor example of this theory.

Recall from Module 14 when we discussed the role of frustration in aggression. Frustration and aggression can play an important part in prejudice as well. Here are two ways that this can happen: the first is that when we are frustrated we look for someone to blame for our frustration. For example, if someone is low resourced (low socioeconomic status), they may be experiencing significant frustration in their own lives, and therefore look for someone to blame. The second way frustration can lead to prejudice and aggression is through a much closer link. Some researchers have explored what is called Realistic Group Conflict Theory: the idea that prejudice arises from competition among groups for scarce resources. We know that when unemployment is high, attitudes towards immigration become more negative. For example, if we are losing our jobs, we don't want to give the limited jobs to those immigrants. Therefore we become more aggressive towards the immigrant groups (who tend to be minorities). Robert Cave Experiment: The field experiment involved two groups of twelve-year-old boys at Robber's Cave State Park, Oklahoma, America. The twenty-two boys in the study were unknown to each other and all from white middle-class backgrounds. They all shared a Protestant, two-parent background. None of the boys knew each other prior to the study. The boys were randomly assigned to one of two groups, although neither was aware of the other's existence. They were then, as individual groups, picked up by bus on successive days in the summer of 1954 and transported to a 200 acre Boy Scouts of America camp in the Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. At the camp the groups were kept separate from each other and were encouraged to bond as two individual groups through the pursuit of common goals that required co-operative discussion, planning and execution. During this first phase, the groups did not know of the other group's existence. The boys developed an attachment to their groups throughout the first week of the camp, quickly establishing their own cultures and group norms, by doing various activities together like hiking, swimming, etc. The boys chose names for their groups, The Eagles and The Rattlers, and stenciled them onto shirts and flags. Sherif now arranged the 'competition stage' where friction between the groups was to occur over the next 4-6 days. In this phase it was intended to bring the two groups into competition with each other in conditions that would create frustration between them. A series of competitive activities (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war etc.) were arranged with a trophy being awarded on the basis of accumulated team score. There were also individual prizes for the winning group such as a medal and a multi-bladed pocket knife with no consolation prizes being given to the "losers." The Rattlers' reaction to the informal announcement of a series of contests was absolute confidence in their victory! They spent the day talking about the contests and making improvements on the ball field, which they took over as their own to such an extent that they spoke of putting a "Keep Off" sign there! They ended up putting their Rattler flag on the pitch. At this time, several Rattlers made threatening remarks about what they would do if anybody from The Eagles bothered their flag. Situations were also devised whereby one group gained at the expense of the other. For example, one group was delayed getting to a picnic and when they arrived the other group had eaten their food. At first, this prejudice was only verbally expressed, such as taunting or name-calling. As the competition wore on, this expression took a more direct route. The Eagles burned the Rattler's flag. Then the next day, the Rattler's ransacked The Eagle's cabin, overturned beds, and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive with each other that the researchers had to physically separate them. During the subsequent two-day cooling off period, the boys listed features of the two groups. The boys tended to characterize their own in-group in very favorable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavorable terms. Keep in mind that the participants in this study were well-adjusted boys, not street gang members. This study clearly shows that conflict between groups can trigger prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behavior. This experiment confirmed Sherif's realistic conflict theory. The events at Robbers Cave mimicked the kinds of conflict that plague people all over the world. The simplest explanation for this conflict is competition. Assign strangers to groups, throw the groups into competition, stir the pot, and soon there is conflict. There is a lot of evidence that when people compete for scarce resources (e.g. jobs, land etc.) there is a rise in hostility between groups. For example, in times of high unemployment there may be high levels of racism among white people who believe that black people (or asylum seekers) have taken their jobs. The study was a field experiment which means it has high ecological validity. However, the Robbers Cave study has been criticized on a number of issues. For example, the two groups of boys in the study were artificial, as was the competition, and did not necessarily reflect real life. For example, middle class boys randomly assigned into two separate groups is not rival inner city gangs, or rival football supporters. Ethical issues must also be considered. The participants were deceived, as they did not know the true aim of the study. Also, participants were not protected from physical and psychological harm. Nor should the results be generalized to real life because the research used only 12 year old white middle class boys and excluded, for example, girls and adults. The sample was biased.

Describe two types of self-presentational styles, and two self-presentational biases. How are they related?

Self Presentation: Wanting to present a desired image both to an external audience (other people) and an internal audience (ourselves) We are motivated to present ourselves in the best light, and use of several different techniques to present ourselves in the most positive light possible Role Playing: A role is a set of norms that define how people in a given social position ought to behave. Fake it 'til you make it! The first week on a job can feel awkward, but we put on a brave face and do our best to act appropriately. Soon, it doesn't feel so faked! What is not real can evolve to be real. False Modesty: Presenting ourselves in a more negative light. We sometimes present ourselves in a more negative light than is warranted. For example, "I know I failed that test!" Why might we do this? It can actually be self-serving: the person we are talking with is likely to say "No, I bet you did great!" Self-Handicapting: sabotaging our own chances of success Impression Management: We continually manage the impressions we create, and will modify our behavior accordingly Impression Management: In a North American culture, we tend to want to self-present a desirable image to both others and ourselves. As a result, to varying degrees we manage and monitor our self-presentation and we can tailor it to the context to maximize the impressions formed of us.

What is self-efficacy? How is it related to locus of control?

Self-efficacy is how competent you feel to do something. Some people have high self-efficacy whereas others do not. If your level of self-efficacy is high, you tend to be more persistent when presented with difficult tasks (in other words you try harder); you will also tend to be less anxious and depressed than someone with low self-efficacy; and you will tend to be more academically successful (in other words you will get higher grades and be more likely to graduate). Locus of control is the extent to which people perceive outcomes as internally controllable by their own efforts and actions (internal locus of control), or as externally controlled by chance or outside forces (external Locus of control) How many times have you said after some negative event: "I've got back luck"? What you are saying here is that you believe that chance or fate controlled what happened to you. Think back to that car accident, or other kind of accident that you had. Did you beat yourself up over it? Did you say to yourself: "I should have known better, I should have been driving slower, or I should have taken the other route"? If you did, then you are demonstrating an internal locus of control. If you believe you are in command of what happens to you, this is an internal locus of control. If you believe that others or fate determine what happens to you, then you are displaying an external locus of control. Just like with self-efficacy, if you have an internal locus of control you are much more likely to take charge of a situation and believe you determine your own fate. People with an internal locus of control are more likely to do well in school, stop smoking, wear seat belts, use birth control effectively, and deal with relationship problems in a constructive manner. People that have an external locus of control do not do as well in these kinds of situations. They assume things will work out on their own, and do not (or are less likely to) play an active role in solving the problem.

What is a simultaneous lineup? Sequential? Show-up? Which is best? Why?

Simultaneous lineup: A lineup type that presents photos together in one array Sequential lineup: A lineup type where photos are presented individually and witness must make a yes or no before moving on. This is the best method as it significantly reduces error rates compared to other line up types Show-up: The live presentation of a criminal suspect to a victim or witness of a crime.

What is social loafing? How does it happen and how can we counter its effects?

Social Loafing is the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable. Social loafing is ubiquitous -- we see it on all kinds of teams, in organizations, at school, and in government. Anywhere where there are groups of people working on communal tasks there will be social loafing. Individuals in collectivist cultures tend to exhibit less social loafing than individuals from individualistic cultures, but they still exhibit it. All that being said, clearly working on a team can be beneficial. How do we create a situation where people will put their best effort in on the team? How do we decrease social loafing? To motivate group members, one strategy is to make individual performance identifiable (e.g., viewing football film to evaluate individual players is one strategy that has been adopted to maximize individual performance). Studies have demonstrated that individual effort increases when outputs are measured individually. Furthermore, people in groups loaf less when: The task is challenging The task is appealing The task is involving When their members are friends or identify with their group It has also been demonstrated that organizational work groups are usually more effective when they are small, and include equally competent individuals. So how should I deal with this in my class? How should I have handled Wayne? Now, in any course where I have group work, I require students in each group to evaluate all the rest of the students in their group, and take a test demonstrating that they understand and can articulate the submitted product that came from the group.

**Define and distinguish between normative and informational conformity

Social influence occurs when our behaviour is influenced by the real, imagined or implied presence of others. Information social influence occurs when people conform to peer views in an attempt to reach the correct answer for themselves; it is the desire to be correct. This form of social influence is moderated by self-confidence and task difficulty. On the other hand, normative social influence occurs when people conform in order to be accepted and liked by the group; normative influence is moderated by group size, as well as social support.

Define social psychology. What kinds of questions do social psychologists ask?

Social psychology can be defined as the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. Social Psychologists ask questions about social thinking, social influence, and social relations. Social Thinking - How we perceive ourselves and others - What we believe - Our attitudes Social Influence - Pressure to conform - Culture & Biology - Persuasion Social Relations - Prejudice - Aggression - Attraction & Intimacy

How do the following influence prejudice: o Need for status o Negative emotions o The authoritarian personality

Some of the earliest research on determinants of prejudice looked at people's personalities. Need for status, self-regard, and need to belong have all been found to be related to level of prejudice. People who are high in need for status (i.e. want to highlight the unequal nature of status between groups) tend to be more prejudiced. There is clearly a role for negative emotions (e.g., humiliation, thoughts of dying) in eliciting prejudice against other groups. People who are humiliated or somehow insulted will aggress against minority groups when they are given the opportunity. Again, this is a good example of displacement of aggression. The Authoritarian Personality Perhaps the most studied personality characteristic as it relates to prejudice is authoritarianism. Research on authoritarianism has its roots in the 1940s -- researchers who were looking at the role of personality in how Germans could engage in the Holocaust. Adorno and his colleagues found that hostility towards Jews often correlated with hostility toward all minorities. They hypothesized that what was really going on was more of an ethnocentrism (i.e. a belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic and cultural group and a corresponding disdain for all other groups). They developed these beliefs into a scale that measured authoritarianism: a personality style characterized by ethnocentric belief.

Can we measure love? What are the problems with trying to?

Sternberg's triangular theory of love is an attempt to measure love. Top: Intimacy (Liking) Bottom Left: Passion (One night stand) Bottom Right: Commitment (Empty Love) Look at the figure above. Robert Sternberg has created this tripartite theory of love. It is based on the presence or absence of intimacy, commitment, and passion. If we have intimacy but no passion or commitment (see the top of the pyramid) we have liking. If we have commitment but no intimacy or passion we have what Sternberg calls empty love. If you have passion but no commitment or intimacy, you have a one night stand. Presumably, what we all seek is consummate love, depicted here in the center of our pyramid, where we have high intimacy, high passion and high commitment.

How do you prevent groupthink from occurring?

Survey a wide range of objectives to be reached, always taking into account the multiplicity of values involves. Consider a wide range of possible courses of action Intensively search for new information relevant to evaluating the alternatives Correctly consider and assimilate new information and expert judgments, even when they do not support the initially preferred course of action. Reconsider both the positive and negative consequences of alternatives originally regarded as unacceptable, before making a final decision. Carefully weigh the negative as well as the positive consequences that could result from the preferred alternative. Prepare detailed provisions for implementing and monitoring the chosen course of action, with particular attention to contingency plans that might be required if known risks were to materialize. Although group decisions may take longer when the steps described above are taken, they may prove less defective and more effective. You will get better decisions, and better policy. If you want whatever groups you are involved into make better decisions, these strategies would be valuable to follow

What is the difference between task leadership and social leadership?

Task Leadership Goal oriented leadership that sets standards, organizes work, and focuses attention on goals. Being a Task Leader A task leader focuses on accomplishments. This leader assesses the team's accomplishments and judges the success of a project based on how close they are to reaching the specified goal. A task leader tends to be influential, mature, well-educated, good at problem solving, and communicating Behaviors of a Task Leader A task leader is someone that tells you exactly how something needs to be done. The leader makes all of the important decisions without explaining their reasoning for fear of wasting time that could be spent achieving goals. A task leader sets goals, plans, establishes standards, and creates a communication network. Social Leadership Social leadership is group-oriented leadership that builds teamwork, mediates conflict, and offers support. Being a Social Leader The social leader values individual accomplishments, personal development, and employee satisfaction. Social Leader Behaviours A social leader recognizes the importance of discussing a topic or plan with the employees before implementing it, reducing conflict, and boosting morale. This type of leader is also genuine, caring, approachable, and available. Superiority Studies show that leaders that exercise social leadership are more effective than those that are task leaders. The Best Approach The best type of leader combines both task leadership and social leadership. The combined approach results in an efficient and productive team. Setting tasks helps everyone stay on track and building a rapport with the employees encourages them to work hard and contribute. This results in the social leader supporting the task leader. The End

Describe the Milgram study. When was obedience highest? When was it lowest? What does this tell us about group influences on obedience?

The Milgram experiment was very involved. It had to be in order to create the experimental realism necessary for the study to work. Participants were told that the study was designed to examine the effects of punishment on learning. A "learner" had to learn a list of word associations (such as blue -- boy). The experimenter told a person assigned to be the "teacher" that the "learner" was being shocked for incorrect responses, and theory suggested this would increase learning. Therefore in this study all incorrect responses were to be punished with a shock. The more errors the learner made, the worse the shock. The participants were randomly assigned to be either the "teacher" or "learner". Importantly, the participants were always "randomly assigned" to be the teacher, and the learner was actually a confederate of the experimenter. As you can see in the diagram below, the learner was placed in a separate room where they entered their responses on a keypad. The teacher and the experimenter were in the same room, to facilitate the experimenter giving commands to the teacher. Every time the learner gave an incorrect answer (which was frequent) the teacher administered a shock on a complicated shock generating machine. As you can see from the video, people frequently wanted to stop. But Milgram's experimenter continued to give certain commands. To keep participants going, four verbal prods were used: Please continue The experiment requires that you continue It is absolutely essential that you continue You have no other choice; you must go on In the basic condition of the study, depicted in the diagram above, the learner was in a separate room and began to protest at about 135V shocks. First the learner complains of pain, then flees to be let out, and as the shocks become increasingly intense and painful, the learner simply refuses to go on after screaming through the agony of a shock. In Milgram's first condition, 65% of the participants provided full compliance -- in other words they went up 450V, which was labeled as "XXX - Danger: severe shock" on the machine. . This is 10 steps beyond when the participants stopped responding altogether (and could presumably be dead in the next room). These results are stunning. Milgram himself was shocked by the outcome (no pun intended). Even with the person begging and pleading to be released, a regular person (not a soldier, not a sadist) continued to shock past a level where they may have killed a person. It is quite remarkable. After his initial experiment, Milgram wanted to find out how far people will go in other conditions. Essentially he wanted to determine the limits of obedience.

What is the impact of pornography and/or sexual violence on behaviour and attitudes?

The advent of the Internet has certainly increased the availability of pornography to youth. There are some scary statistics about this, especially if you have children. Children as young as eight years old are going on the Internet to view pornography. Pornography websites represent more than 10% of all the websites on the Internet. 90% of 8 to 16 year-olds have viewed online pornography. But watching pornography isn't the only problem: there is increased risk for children and teens using the Internet of being victimized by sex criminals. Have you ever been approached in a sexual way by someone on the Internet? Lots of people have. What do we know about the effects of pornography on people who are exposed to it? Repeated exposure to fictional eroticism has several effects: Decreased attraction to one's real-life partner Increased acceptance of extramarital sex Increased acceptance of women's sexual submission to men Viewing pornography results in distorted perceptions of sexual reality. Viewing fictional scenes of a man overpowering and arousing a woman can distort one's perception of how women respond to sexual coercion, and increase men's aggression against women. Furthermore, watching pornography can result in the reinforcement of rape myths: "No doesn't really mean no". "No" is just the first answer -- being persistent will change things. These are myths. It is not only men who are affected by these: women are affected too. Does this mean that everyone who watches pornography is going to experience negative effects? No. Remember, we are talking averages. There are also new genres of pornography becoming more mainstream that focus on consensual sex. Saint Mary's University offers Psychology courses in sexuality and gender roles, taught by leading experts in this research domain. If you are interested in learning more details about research in this area, they are great courses to take. At this point in time, I want to acknowledge that one in four Canadian women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Men can also be victims of sexual assault. There is no excuse for sexual assault. As a society, we are now having many difficult conversations around sexual assault, which is good. Learning about sexual assault can be uncomfortable, and it will require us to overcome many social barriers (that we've been talking about throughout this class!) to make progress. If there is ambiguity about what is/isn't assault, the best option is to ask. You can ask a doctor, lawyer, therapist, trusted expert. Importantly, ask your partner. For example, "Is this okay?" Consent to sexual activity is paramount for anyone engaging in sexual activity. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, and if someone decides "no" or "stop" at any point, legally the activity must stop.

How does the message content influence persuasion?

The content of the message is (obviously!) very important. What do you think works better: reason or emotion? Does the logic of the argument work better or is it better to touch on people's emotions? The answer of course, like every good social psychological question, is "it depends". People are often swayed by emotional arguments when there is little cost to them. For example, advertisements that focus on emotion are good for low-cost consumer products such as soft drinks and other consumables. However when we are dealing with high-cost items such as cars or computers, more cognitive or reason based advertising often works better. If you look at the Super Bowl advertisements linked below, you'll notice that many of them try to make you laugh. Indeed, many made me laugh (my favorite was the Dodge Charger commercial).

Define the following: Experimental realism

The degree to which the research procedures are involving to participants and lead them to behave naturally and spontaneously In a lab, it is easy to replicate what it is like to write an exam. We can be fairly confident that our findings will generalize to "real world" exams. It is more difficult (though not impossible) to mimic meeting someone in a bar. Thus, it is also important that we have what is called experimental realism. This is the extent to which the experiment itself engages the participants and encourages them to behave in a natural and spontaneous way. The situation might not be the exact same as the "real world," but the controlled conditions effectively elicit the same psychological mechanisms that we would see outside of the lab.

Define the following: Mundane realism

The degree to which the research situation resembles the places and events in the real world What is fair to say is that some laboratory-based research is very controlled to get a clear sense of cause and effect. In these cases, it is fair to say that the controlled nature of the manipulations and the specific measures may not always address some of the subtle nuances of the real world. This is why, to the extent possible we make sure our work has what is called mundane realism. Mundane realism is the extent to which the experimental situation is similar to the real world setting in which we want to observe the behaviour.

Social psychology is nothing more than common sense. Discuss.

The fact that things seem obvious once they've been explained to you has been the basis of much criticism of social psychological findings. Indeed, critics say that the findings of social psychology are not important because usually, we "knew it all along". So, do social psychology's theories provide new insights into the human condition? Or do they only describe the obvious? Social psychology has also been attacked by critics who say that some of the findings of social psychology could be used to manipulate people. For example if I want to promote the health of Nova Scotians, I can use the principles of persuasion theory to make people more active. However if I want to sell more soft drinks, I can use the same persuasion principles to do that. I make money, which some people would say is good, but drinking soft drinks, as we know, leads to obesity in many people

What is learned helplessness? Give two examples. You may use a picture if it helps.

The hopelessness and resignation learned by humans or animals who perceive themselves as having no control over repeated bad events Examples: 1)For some of the dogs, in the middle of the cage there was a low barrier. Seligman would turn on the electricity on one side of the cage and watch the dog's reaction. Of course, the dog jumped over the barrier to escape the pain and landed on the safe side. For some dogs however the barrier was too high to jump. These dogs were simply electrocuted and suffered through the pain. There was nothing they could do to escape, although they did try for some time. Eventually they gave up. For dogs who learn that there was no opportunity to escape, if they were subsequently placed in a cage with a low barrier, they did not even try jump over it. They had learned that there was no escaping the electric current. 2)An elderly woman, a beloved Grandma, no longer has to take care of herself in her nursing home--someone does that for her. If that were to go on long enough, Grandma might stop trying to take care of herself altogether. Indeed, this is what sometimes happens when people enter seniors' residences. We often see a rapid decline in seniors' health after they enter such a home. For this reason, seniors' homes are now changing how they treat their residents; increasing their opportunity to take care of themselves and be independent. Allowing the residents to retain control over their behaviour will reduce the likelihood that seniors learn to be helpless in their new environment. 3)Video of unscrambling letters, half the class has one set of questions while the other half has easier questions which they solve almost immediately

Draw and explain Sternberg's triangular theory of love. For each of the types of love possible, give an example.

Top: Intimacy (Liking) Bottom Left: Passion (One night stand) Bottom Right: Commitment (Empty Love) Look at the figure above. Robert Sternberg has created this tripartite theory of love. It is based on the presence or absence of intimacy, commitment, and passion. If we have intimacy but no passion or commitment (see the top of the pyramid) we have liking. If we have commitment but no intimacy or passion we have what Sternberg calls empty love. If you have passion but no commitment or intimacy, you have a one night stand. Presumably, what we all seek is consummate love, depicted here in the center of our pyramid, where we have high intimacy, high passion and high commitment.

What is stereotype threat and why does it happen?

The idea that stereotypes lead to self-fulfilling prophecies is the basis for research that has explored what is called stereotype threat. Stereotype threat is essentially the fear that one will be evaluated based on negative stereotypes. Interestingly there is quite a bit of research that suggests that when facing a negative stereotype this will actually change your behaviour. Definition: Stereotype threat: a disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based on that stereotype. Unlike self-fulfilling prophecies that hammer one's reputation into one self-concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects. In the figure below you can see the results of a classic study of stereotype threat. Stephen Spencer, Claude Steele, and Diane Quinn conducted a study (published in 1999) where they gave very difficult math questions to men and women students with similar math skills. Some women were told that the researchers expected to see a gender difference on scores. Others were told they were not expecting to see a difference. There was no reason to actually suspect any difference at all. As you can see in the figure, when presented with the threat of a gender difference (a threatening stereotype) women performed much worse than men on the test (interestingly men seem to perform better than they did when there was no different expected). Thus, being presented with the stereotype actually had an impact on performance. This effect has been demonstrated in many different situations.

Define and distinguish between interdependent and independent selves as they relate to individualism and collectivism. You may use a picture to clarify your argument.

The independent self acknowledges relationships with others, but the interdependent self is more deeply embedded in others. Individualism: The concept of giving priority to one's own goals over group goals and defending one's identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group identifications Collectivism: Giving priority to the goals of one's group (often one's extended family or work group) and defining one's identity accordingly Researchers looking at how self-concept differs across cultures have explored how different cultures define and influence the place of the individual within that culture. Early work identified cultures as being more individualistic or more collectivist. Most Western cultures, such as Western Europe, Canada, and the US are seen as individualistic. On the other hand cultures such as those in Asia, including East India, are seen as more collectivist. Research on this has been refined to focus on how these types of cultures affect the individual self-concept. Researchers like Markus & Kitayama (whose work is described in the text) have focused the discussion of culture and self-concept into the distinction between independent and interdependent selves.

Define and give an example of each of the following: Regression toward the average

The statistical tendency for extreme scores or extreme behaviours to return toward one's average - Example: Exam scores A final heuristic we will discuss in this section is called regression toward the average -- this is reflected in the tendency for extreme scores or extreme behaviours to return toward the average over time. From your life experience this is probably easiest to explain in terms of exam scores. Have you ever done very well on an exam at the beginning of a course only to do badly on the next one in the same course? If you have, you may have experienced regression toward the average. As you can imagine, when someone does very well at a task they attribute this performance to their skills (internal attribution!). So when they do poorly on the next exam, they do not understand why. I try to warn my students about this fact, and this is one reason why regression towards the average is covered relatively early in the course. Do not assume that if you do well on the first exam that this means you can ease up when it comes to the second exam -- your performance may be reflecting some elements of chance. Make sure you continue to study for the next exam as well!

Define and give three examples of the hindsight bias.

The tendency to exaggerate, after learning an outcome, one's ability to have foreseen how something turned out. This is also known as the "I knew it all along" phenomena. Assuming that you are in or near your 20's, you have probably been involved at some point in at least a minor traffic accident. If you have been, think back to that car accident. What led up to it, what happened, and what did you say to yourself about it after it happened? If you have not been involved in a car accident, think back to any accident or error you may have had or made (i.e., a trip and fall, failing an exam). After that happened, did you say to yourself "I should have seen that coming" or "I shouldn't have been drinking before the exam"? Many people do. We are also especially likely to do this when we are trying to explain the actions (i.e. particularly failures) Examples -Terrorist attack story of man who had bomb, many said they should have seen it coming due his past behaviour - On the evening of an important World Series game, your friend predicts that the Red Sox are going to win by a large margin. In fact, the Red Sox do end up winning the game, causing your friend to boast "I predicted it!" - A letter comes in the mail informing an individual that he was accepted into a college. When he tells his mother she says, "I really had a feeling that you were going to get in" (even though she had expressed doubts to his father earlier that week).

Describe and give examples of four self-serving biases we regularly exhibit.

The tendency to perceive and present oneself favourably. Fundamentally, in "western" cultures, we take credit for our successes, but we are less likely to take the blame for our failures. Examples: 1) In what can be considered a textbook example of self-serving bias in the classroom, those students who get an 'A' grade consider themselves smart, while those who get an 'F' grade blame the teacher, even accusing her of giving them such a grade because she doesn't like them. 2) A sales representative takes the credit for completing his targets for five months in a row, but when he fails in the sixth month, he blames external factors like market trends, recession, change in company's policy, etc. 3) In sports, when a team wins, the captain is all praise for the team's efforts. However, when the team loses, he simply states that it was just not their day, or worse, blames the conditions or referee for their loss. 4) An individual's meeting with a client turns out to be a disaster because of an ineffective sales pitch. Instead of acknowledging the fact that he was not fully prepared, the individual either question's the client's credibility, or blames his competitor for his own failure to bag the contract.

What is the two-factor theory of emotion? Give an example.

The two-factor theory of emotion, states that emotion is based on two factors: physiological arousal and cognitive label. EXAMPLE: Think about a time when you felt scared. Maybe you were walking down a dark street and heard someone coming up behind you. Maybe you were in a quiet place and heard a loud bang. Imagine what your body felt like at that moment: your heart probably sped up, your hands got sweaty, your breath got shallower. These are all signs that you are scared. What causes emotions? Why do you sometimes feel happy and sometimes feel angry? What causes fear? There are really two things going on with emotions: your body's response to the situation (like when your heart started racing in the dark street) and your cognitive assessment of your emotion, or the thoughts that tell you what emotion you are experiencing.

Define and distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. Give an example of each.

Theories - ideas which summarize and explain facts and imply hypotheses Example:"When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside." Hypotheses - testable predictions which serve several purposes Example: "It's bright outside because the sun is probably out."

How does television impact on violent and aggressive behaviour?

There is a lot of mindless action in TV, movies, and video games. Most of this is harmless fun. But increasingly over the last couple of decades there has been discussion about the role of media in aggression. Think of some commercials you've seen: some are very aggressive. Indeed, personally I really hate it when they show "scary" commercials during funny shows. If I am trying to relax and calm down, seeing violence doesn't help my cause. Movies like The Fast and Furious and its sequels make street racing seem like something really cool to do. But the image above, and real life, shows us that dangerous driving can kill people. Can we say that watching movies like The Fast and the Furious makes people want to race? The answer is not simple -- as usual in social psychology the answer is: it depends. Based on work by Albert Bandura, we know that seeing someone act violently can lead to the watcher also acting violently. I want to bring this to life for you. Please see below for footage of the "Bobo Doll Experiment" discussed in your text. Here are some interesting statistics: 99% of households have a TV Six in ten programs contain violence By the end of elementary school, the average child views some 8,000 murders and 100,000 other violent acts Does watching violent television result in more violent children? This is a question that is debated in the media, but from a psychological point of view the answer is pretty clear. Both correlational and experimental evidence suggests that the more violent the content of a child's TV viewing, the more aggressive the child. As we can see in the figure below this correlational study showed that children's television viewing predicted later criminal activity quite well (although the correlations never make it above about .45).

How does social identity play a role in prejudice and discrimination?

There's been substantial research that has explored how our own personal identity influences how prejudiced we become. As you will recall from Module 3, we have a well-established self-concept. Part of that self-concept comes from the group we belong to. This is what we called our social identity. According to Social Identity Theory the group we associate ourselves with will have an influence on how we think about the people we meet. Fundamentally, as we noted in our module on attitude, we evaluate the things we encounter in our lives. Importantly, when it comes to people, we categorize them: male, female, Black, White, Asian, Indian, old, young, etc. We identify with our ingroup -- those people with whom we share a sense of belonging and a feeling of common identity. We also distinguish ourselves from outgroups -- those people that we perceive as distinctly different from or apart from our ingroup. We also will naturally compare ourselves to our ingroups and to our outgroups, and we compare the groups themselves. When we compare ingroups and outgroups, we end up developing an ingroup bias. That is, we tend to favor our own group relative to the outgroup. In doing so, we develop certain stereotypes and beliefs about the other group. Once established, these stereotypes are maintained by conformity to the group norms. Everyone in the ingroup tends to agree about the characteristics of the outgroup. Our contact is primarily with members of our ingroup, and not the outgroup, therefore the opportunity for us to change our beliefs is limited.

How does social arousal influence performance? Use a picture, if you wish, to help you explain.

These co-actors in a situation with us can serve as a source of social arousal. For some people, this arousal is positive (such as fans at a home football game), and for some it can be negative (such as the home team's fans at an away game!). The effect of social arousal is to strengthen whatever our dominant response is. This social arousal can have at least two effects. As you can see in the figure below if the dominant response is an easy behaviour, such as riding a bicycle, then performance can be enhanced. If the behaviour is a difficult one, such as tennis or a figure skating performance, the performance can actually be interrupted by the social arousal. This process is called social facilitation. Social facilitation is a boost in performance on easy tasks and reduction in performance on difficult tasks. More recently, this effect has been discussed as the strengthening of dominant (prevalence, or likely) responses in the presence of others. As you can see from the figure below, the effect is quite clear. Zajonc (pronounced like Science with a "Z" as in Zcience) and Sales (1966) conducted a study where they asked people to pronounce various words between 1 and 16 times. They were then told that they would be presented with those same words on a screen. However they were only presented with black lines for 1/100th of a second. Nonetheless, most people "saw" the words they have pronounced most frequently -- in other words these words have become the dominant response. Furthermore, the researchers found that people recalled the dominant words more frequently when they were in front of an audience of two others. Thus, having an audience enhance the dominant response.

How do perceptions of love vary across time, culture and gender?

Time and Culture: People in Western cultures assume for example that love is a precondition for marriage. People's ideas about love seem to be fairly consistent across cultures, Most cultures (89%) do have a concept of romantic love. However in some cultures, notably those practising arranged marriages, love tends to follow rather than precede marriage. Gender: Although most people would assume it is women who fall in love more easily, studies have shown that it's actually men who tend to fall more readily in love. Men also seem to fall out of love more slowly and are less likely than women to break up a premarital romance. However women who are in love are more typically emotionally involved as their partners, or more so.

What factors elicit deindividuation?

Two factors that elicit deindividuation are Physical anonymity & Diminished Self-Awareness 1. Physical anonymity also plays a role. Uniforms are often used in teams or work settings to depersonalize individuals. This is why Ku Klux Klan members wear hoods. They do this to protect their otherwise normal reputation while they're engaging in aberrant and racist behaviours (see module 15). It is important to note that often seemingly minor actions usually precede aggressive and violent outbursts. There is self-reinforcing pleasure in acting impulsively when observing others doing likewise. For example what might start as simply one parent yelling at a hockey official, can lead to threats of assault after the game (see Referees fear abuse from parents for an example). These types of events have resulted in new rules about how parents can behave at Junior hockey games. 2. Diminished self-awareness It is important to understand that once deindividuation begins, people who are deindividuated are: √ Less restrained √ Less self-regulated √ More likely to act without thinking about their own values √ More responsive to the situation

Define a self-schema.

We play many roles in our life. You for example, are a student. But you are also a man or a woman, a son or daughter, a friend, sibling, and many other things. All of these function as the elements of our self-schemas. A self-schema is a set of beliefs about the self that organize and guide the processing of self relevant information. It is interesting to note that when information is relevant to our self-concepts, we process it more quickly and remember it better. For example, if you are telling someone a story about a party you attended, you will tend to see yourself as playing a central role in any event you are describing. And if the event centres on you, you will tend to remember it better than an event that centred on someone else. Our sense of self is at the centre of our worlds; we see ourselves on centre stage. Because of this, we tend to experience the hindsight bias in our own lives as well: we tend to overestimate the amount of control we have in a particular situation.

How do you make sure people help you if you are in need?

What can you do when you need help? Know that the default might be for potential helpers to ignore the situation. Make eye-contact if you can, be explicit that you need help, get the attention of one individual person and grow the helping base from there. If you've taken a first aid course, you'll know that they teach the first responder to say "YOU! Call 9-1-1!" This helps to break people out of the bystander effect: it helps to get the event noticed, and interpreted as an emergency. With a clear directive on how to help, people are more likely to assume responsibility.

Define altruism. Give an example.

What is altruism? An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return Penelope was driving to a friend's wedding in a beautiful gown with impeccable makeup and hair. She noticed a car jet off the road and flip upside down into a deep canal. Without a thought, she immediately stopped her car, kicked off her heels, and ran towards the accident. Knowing the driver was still in the car, she single-mindedly jumped into the deep canal and swam towards the bottom to attempt to rescue the driver. Penelope was not a great swimmer, and she was having difficulty breathing in such deep water, but her heart told her that she needed to save the driver. One could say that Penelope is exhibiting altruistic behavior in this example. Altruism is the belief that the well-being of others is equally, if not more, important than the well-being or survival of the self. Further, altruism involves selfless acts or undertakings that put the welfare of others before one's own. Truly altruistic people do not practice seemingly selfless acts for their own benefit; they do not have ulterior motives, such as a desire to gain recognition, a reward, or even make themselves feel better.

What do the Asch and Milgram experiments tell us about the fundamental attribution error?

What is important about the Asch and Milgram experiments is that they show how obedience can take precedence over moral sense. Essentially situations can persuade people to go against their own consciences. It is important to note that level of personal responsibility is a factor in the obedience studies. Psychological states shifted during the various phases of the obedience studies. There was often a reluctance to comply (at the beginning of study) that later led to a justification of cruel acts (nearing the end of study). As we have learned in previous modules, culture is a powerful shaper of lives. However the immediate situational forces are just as powerful. Situations can induce ordinary people to agree to falsehoods or to capitulate to cruelty. Perhaps the most important lesson from this module is that the situation matters. FAE: The fundamental attribution error is our tendency to explain someone's behavior based on internal factors, such as personality or disposition, and to underestimate the influence that external factors, such as situational influences, have on another person's behaviour

What are three keys to maintaining close relationships?

What is it that makes a relationship last? Like many things, when humans are involved it is complicated. We do have some good insights, though. 1. Attachment: Work with children has shown that having a secure attachment with a caregiver leads to positive outcomes. Your book explains attachment, and this video provides insight into the basics of the research supporting this model: 2. Equity: Both partners need to perceive the relationship as equitable in order to achieve relationship satisfaction. In other words, you have to perceive that you are getting out of the relationship what you put in. If one partner feels they are doing all of the hard work, dissatisfaction is likely. 3. Self-Disclosure: Another important element for relationship satisfaction is self-disclosure and disclosure reciprocity: we expect that if we tell someone intimate details about ourselves that they will reciprocate. This happens gradually over the length of a relationship - we likely don't feel very comfortable disclosing too much information on the first date.

What is groupthink? Give some examples.

When we have unchecked group polarization, we can end up with groupthink. Groupthink is the mode of thinking that people engage in when trying to reach agreement (particularly in a cohesive group). This way of thinking can become so dominant that it tends to override reason, and the consideration of reasonable alternative courses of action. Definition: Groupthink: the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking become so dominant in a cohesive group that tends to override realistic appraisal of alternate courses of action. As with group polarization, there are many examples of groupthink in our society. A good example is the US and British involvement in the Iraq war. In January of 2011 the British Parliament released a report based on a series of investigations into why the British became embroiled in the Iraq war. It became clear that the information they relied upon to get involved in the war (i.e. the presence of weapons of mass destruction) was flawed. Why did people believe this information? In retrospect (but beware of the hindsight bias) we can say they should have known this information was flawed. But they did not.

How does the audience influence persuasion?

Who is receiving the message is also important. How old are they? Differences in social and political attitudes depend on age. People who are older tend to be more conservative. Why is this? One theory suggests a "Life-cycle" explanation -- as people get older they tend to become more conservative. The second explanation is called the "Generational" theory -- older people are more conservative because they come from a different time. Interestingly, the baby boomers who are nearing retirement age, come from one of the most liberal times: the 1960s, but statistically they are now the most conservative. Thus it is not clear which of these explanations is best, but there is some suggestion that both have some merit. Another question we have to ask is what is the audience thinking? We know that "forewarned is forearmed." If we go into a situation knowing the speaker is going to try to persuade us, we can have ready counter arguments. However, distraction disarms counter-arguing (the ability to argue against an incoming message). Thus many advertisers try to distract us with flash and no substance in order to stop us from counter-arguing. We also need to understand whether or not the audience is involved in the topic. The more involved the audiences are, the more likely they are to use central processing of the arguments. If the audience is less involved we can rely on more peripheral cues. The best arguments of course, use both good peripheral cues and strong arguments.

How many eyewitnesses make mistakes from real-world police lineups? In lab-based research?

Why did it take so long for this to happen? It took the right person to be falsely convicted before people started paying attention. Tom Sophonow was not the first man to be falsely convicted in the Canadian legal system. In fact, his conviction was probably not the most spectacular false conviction in Canadian history either. However, his conviction led to a judicial inquiry that changed how police do their investigation, and what kind of evidence they can use. The following video is Dr. Elizabeth Loftus talking about her research on errors in memory in legal contexts. We will delve more into this throughout this module, but please watch it now for an overview: As you should have taken from the video you just watched, eyewitness testimony is very compelling. Eyewitnesses are believed even when their evidence is discredited. People are not good at distinguishing between a correct and incorrect witness. Both correct and incorrect eyewitnesses are believed about 80% of the time. In North America, around 80,000 eyewitness identifications are made every year. Some of them are wrong. It is impossible to know exactly how many are wrong, but there is evidence that gives us some ideas: False identification rates in eyewitness lab experiments can vary dramatically: from as low as a few percent to well over 90% depending on the study conducted (Wells, 1993). Although actual rates of eyewitness errors in the real world are unknown, there is some evidence that shows that false identifications may be fairly common. As mentioned in the text, of 8,000 suspects arrested for sexual assault that had DNA samples tested by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation laboratory, over 2,000 (or about 25%) were excluded as the perpetrator. Typically these arrests were made based (at least in part) on eyewitness identification (see Scheck, Neufeld & Dwyer, 2001). Were it not for DNA testing, a large percentage of these individuals may have been convicted. The Innocence Project, led by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, has to date overseen the exoneration over 200 defendants in Canada and the United States (many on death row in the US) through the analysis of DNA evidence that was available but untested (or not testable) at the time of the original trial. In over 75% of the Innocence Project cases, erroneous identifications by eyewitnesses were a key factor in the conviction. You can explore these websites by going to www.innocenceproject.org. The results of the Innocence Project cases are consistent with the results of a study of over 1000 false convictions, where the majority of false convictions were primarily the result of mistaken identification (Brandon & Davies, 1973). You can also visit The Centre for the Defence of the Wrongly Convicted site which deals with a number of Canadian cases: http://www.aidwyc.org/. This site has a summary of important findings and cases.

**How do people use social exchange theory, empathy, reciprocity norms, and social responsibility norms to explain helping?

Why do we help other people? Some researchers say that we help others to help ourselves/ This is called social-exchange theory-- human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one's rewards and minimize one's cost. Other researchers argue that we help others because of empathy -- the vicarious experience of another feelings; or putting oneself in another's shoes. If I can feel your pain, I will want to reduce it. There is also the reciprocity norm -- An expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them. And the social-responsibility norm -- An expectation that people will help those dependent upon them.

Will your marriage last? Use empirical evidence to defend your response.

Why relationships end: Why is the overall divorce rate so high? And why does it vary across the provinces? What we know, is that people tend to stay married if: Were married after age 20 Both grew up in stable, two-parent homes Date a long while before marriage Are well and similarly educated Have a stable income from a good job Live in a small town or on a farm Did not cohabitate or become pregnant before marriage Are religiously committed Are of similar age, faith, and education But let's say that a relationship is failing. Caryl Rusbalt has argued that three common ways of coping with a failing relationship are with the following responses (in addition to the 4th option of exiting the relationship): Some people exhibit loyalty: they stay with the partner and hope things will get better Others (especially men) exhibit neglect: they ignore the other person and hope it will go away Others will voice their concerns and take active steps to improve the relationship -- this is clearly the best response as it provides the opportunity to improve things before the relationship ends.

What are the steps to helping? Draw a picture if it makes things easier for you.

You begin by: - Noticing the incident - Interpret as an emergency -Assume Responsibility -Try to Help ** Picture on the Bystander effect slide Module 18

Give some examples of group polarization in everyday life.

make decisions in the appeals court over a number of years found an interesting effect. Republican appointed judges make more conservative decisions with other Republican appointees than with Democratic ones. In other words, when they are working with like-minded people they make more extreme judgments. We can also see group polarization in communities; gang delinquency, and "landslide" elections are all good examples. We also see group polarization on the internet. Do you belong to any virtual groups? In virtual communities, like-minded people tend to get together, and the people in these groups can feed off each other. Good examples of these kinds of groups are right or left wing political groups. If you look, you'll be able to find groups that call themselves "left wing" which have become far from what we would call mainstream. We can also see group polarization in terrorist groups. No one is born thinking they want to be a terrorist -- no one is born thinking he wants to blow himself up and kill innocent people. Becoming a terrorist is a process. The process begins when someone joins a group of like-minded individuals who start talking about the problem and their ideas. Groups can shift to become more and more extreme, as the moderate drop out or join other groups. All that is left are the extremists. In all of these cases these groups are initially formed based on shared beliefs or grievances. Ultimately however, members of the group become isolated from moderating influences. This can lead to extreme beliefs, and very poor decision-making.