Articles for Final

Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising. Berger, I.E., Cunningham, P.H., & Kozinets, R.V. (1999).

-Cause related marketing. EX: Pink things for breast cancer/pink ribbons on products so you know proceeds go to them. EX: TOMS buy 1, donate 1 pair to charity -Hypothesis 1: Females will have more positive attitudes and higher purchase intentions for brands that use cause-related advertising than will men. -Hypothesis 2: Causes act as peripheral cues or heuristic cues when viewers experience low levels of product involvement. What heuristic are they talking about? A question of the evaluation of the product itself versus the company. You could have a bad product, but it's for a good cause. Then they have a reason to choose the product/they feel better about buying the product. Strategy behind this campaign: the attempt to persuade people to buy a product. They rely upon heuristic cues (things that are peripheral), things that don't have to do with the product itself. The product may not be good, but bc it donates, people will buy. EX: Carl's Jr commercial. Abercrombie models/eye candy. That's what the peripheral route is about. "Maybe I will be hot when I wear these clothes." -Hypothesis #3: Causes act as executional cues, which enhance a viewer's level of involvement in an advertisement and thereby increase information processing and persuasion. Results: o Cause-claims not only strongly affect persuasion, they do so in complex, interrelated and multi-faceted ways. Our findings show that cause-claims have a differential effect on females versus male viewers. Females tend to generally have more positive attitudes towards cause-claims and the products associated with them. -"Try to think through the Personal and Situation factors (P x S)" Person-level factors: Gender, Motives Situational-level factors: Proximity, Agent motive, Credibility They were manipulating situational-level variables (the independent variables) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• -->• Does an advertisement for beer that promises to donate to AIDS research attract more attention and persuade people to buy that brand? (in comparison to a regular party ad) • Cause-related marketing (CRM): the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives. • Cause-related advertising: communicates such charitable effort. o The results of Experiments I and 11 suggest that CAUSE claims not only strongly affect persuasion, they do so in complex, interrelated and multi-faceted ways.

Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment. Cialdini, R.B. (2003).

-Normative message -Descriptive norms message Involves perceptions of which behaviors are typically performed (not if it's right or not, just what you're SUPPOSED to do in each context). They are normative, what people normally do. More powerful -Injunctive norms messages: Involves perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved "People don't do drugs" What was the intention of the ad? Don't litter, here's a contrast of how things used to be vs how they are now (people throwing trash out the window). The intended impact: you see Indian crying bc you threw trash out at him, then maybe you won't throw your trash next time. Cialdini said it would have been better if it was good landscape. The descriptive norm is that nobody litters. The environment provides signals for what other people do or think. When you walk down the sidewalk and see trash all over the place, you infer a DESCRIPTIVE NORM ("in this neighborhood, people typically throw trash on the ground. It doesn't matter if I put it in the trash can.") We looked to the environment to tell us what's done, that's what a descriptive norm is. Broken Window Theory: ^ There are signals being sent out into the environment about what is permissible to do. Broken Window Theory is good example of this. -Important consideration: SALIENCE. How prominent are certain aspects/cues of the situation (in this case, aspects of the message) in order to influence people? Time can influence this, if you forget the message over time. -Using with central/peripheral routes, how can we use this with injunctive messages? -You think about the injunctive aspect of these messages. What we find persuasive is what's relevant to us. And also incorporates some real reasons. If were trying to find an injunctive norm, we don't want to make the rationale "because that's what the cool kids are doing" or "don't do this bc others don't think it's cool" Yeah, there's something descriptive in this hybrid message, but the RATIONALE behind it is weak. -Another would be to use the central route with CONCRETE, good reasons "Others don't litter bc it harms the environment" might be a more effective way to take it. You're incorporating some message about what is typically done, and if you're trying to also include an injunctive component, say a rationale for WHY littering isn't done. -The better rationale= more convincing it'll be ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Descriptive versus Injunctive Norms • Injunctive norms o Involving perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved • Descriptive norms o Involving perceptions of which behaviors are typically performed • Both types of norms motivate human behavior; people tend to do what is socially approved as well as what is popular. Conclusion • Public service communicators should avoid the tendency to send the normatively muddled message that a targeted activity is socially disapproved by widespread. • Norm-based persuasive communications are likely to have their best effects when communicators align descriptive and injunctive normative messages to work in tandem rather than in competition with on another. NOTES: Injunctive norms is better

De-individuation

-People in groups tend to lose some of their own self-awareness and self-restraint when in groups. They become less of an individual and more anonymous. In a sense, people will do things in groups they otherwise would not because they feel less responsible for their actions and less like an individual. -Deindividuation: as person moves into a group results in a loss of individual identity and a gaining of the social identity of the group. When two groups argue (and crowd problems are often between groups), it is like two people arguing. The three most important factors for deindividuation in a group of people are: Anonymity, so I can not be found out. Diffused responsibility, so I am not responsible for my actions. Group size, as a larger group increases the above two factors. When you are in a group, you may feel a shared responsibility and so less individual responsibility for your actions. In this way a morally questionable act may seem less personally wrong. You may also feel a strong need to conform to social norms.

Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Diffusion of responsibility effects with competition Guerin, B. (2003).

ME: Critical: The whole time he was citing his own articles, building onto his own research. There's a concern about credibility, but it's not always a bad thing (Isaac Newton, nobody was before him. He only had his work to point to). You should take into consideration anything that could contradict it/weigh against it. Social loafing, social facilitations, de-deindividuation The Self: How does this enlighten behaviors that can emerge (social loafing, social facilitations, de-individuation?)...How does the self function? What do groups do to the self? There are certain things that groups do to the self regardless of cultural considerations. Do you think the dissolving of self is necessary in order for groups to become effective? What is it like to be anonymous? Invisible, not to be noticed/stick out. The feeling of accountability The self: Consistency. What underlies accountability? You feel more accountable bc you're motivated to be consistent. If you're anonymous nobody knows if you're consistent or not. Nobody knows what you're like or what you're supposed to be like. There's no need for consistency. It takes away some of the force of accountability. There's concern about human desirability. Human beings want to be liked and accepted and embraced as a part of the group. We also want to be right. This is part of wanting to be consistent with our own self-concept/schema. It can work at both levels (being consistent with what group expects bc want to fit in and be accepted, and also want to fit in with own image of who I am) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MELANIE: a) Main Point (Principle): No difference between social loafing, social facilitation and deindividuation. They are all just different levels of output (continuum of behavior rather than individual phenomenon). b) Cultural Differences: Is it harder or more difficult to deindividuation in a collectivistic culture? Based on what you know about self, how does this enlighten or inform based on things like social loafing and deindividuation. How does the self function? In the case of loafing, the self might dissolve in the presence of others. c) Deindividuation & Groups: There are certain things groups do to the self regardless of cultural considerations. You lose your personal self to become part of the collective self and group membership. In a way, you renounce your personal interests to be more cohesive. So tie that into the Bandura article. By doing that, you would increase the collective efficacy through your own collective agency. In a way, the collective agency may become more powerful because a group can accomplish things the individual cannot. When groups are doing bad things we don't like it. But groups can also be good things and we like that. It doesn't have to dissolve the self - the military is a good example of group efficacy where your social role to the group and your self-concept might be at odds. But you might have to put your self-concept on hold during group cohesion. The meta-level answer is it hinges importantly on self. So these things like values, upbringing, past history, they all play a part in things like self-knowledge and self-schema. Clearly, not everyone is a follower nor will they relent to the pressures that form in groups. Although sometimes those pressures can be strong enough that the vast majority of people conform in some fashion. d) Anonymity: to be invisible, to not be noticed, to not stick out, you can avoid contribution without acknowledgement or you can contribute but not be acknowledged. When one is known, they have more accountability, more responsibility. You're either contributing to the group or you're anonymous. When you're anonymous and in a small group you end up with negative feedback. Think about this as one of the contributing forces that factor into this...Consistency. If you were to approach someone who's a gold brick doing social-loafing and confronted their laziness, they might say "yep, you're right, you got that one on the first try", there would be no sense you should do something differently. Accountability is a moot point if there's no underlying urge to do something consistent (i.e. consistent view of oneself as a non-social-loafer). So if you're anonymous, no one knows what you value, or whether or not you're a consistent person so there's no sense of "people know who I am, what I'm like, or what I'm supposed to be like". If there's no need for consistency that takes away some of the force of accountability. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • Social loafing-when people perform in groups towards one goal, they do less work or put less effort than when they work alone o If the evaluation of the individual gets lost within the group less effort is exerted by each individual since the group is all exerting an energy • Social facilitation-people perform better alone on easy tasks, but worse on complex task o Myers Book (not explained in article)- there is arousal we feel when we are around other people and so we lean towards the dominant response after an arousal that is felt while performing • Deindividuation-people in groups produce more aggressive, deviant and antinormative or socially unacceptable behaviors o Myers Book (not explained in article) -when working within a group, being identified as an individual gets lost and the rise of anonymity increase this antinormative behavior (depending on the dominant response of the group) General discussion Competition situations show that social loafing, social facilitation and deindividuation and experiments provided insight how arrangements of social consequence allocation affect output and antinormative bx Appeared to have diffusion of social consequences (prizes and within-group reputation) Changing the allocation of social consequences changed the amount of antinormative responding Not clear why large group produced higher number of brick uses when anonymous, although experiment 2 shows that identifiability may not be important in the large groups Examining the social and historical context of the groups and of what participants think are the consequences of giving names and prize sharing would help understand better the patterns of responding This study shows researchers are dealing with a range or continuum of social situations that change social consequences and that the measurement and naming of those measurements are products of the experimenter rather than the world- VERBAL NAMING OF PHENOMENON IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IS ARBITRARY and referring social loafing, social facilitation and deindividuation as separate phenomena is misleading- NOTES: Article is about competition smaller group = more identifiable = social facilitation bigger group = social loafing and deindividuation Goes back to individuality and how it affects you -can be dissolving aspects of the self to conform to the group smaller group is better

Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Bandura, A. (1999).

MELANIE: 1. "The disengagement of moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct is a growing human problem at both individual and collective levels. In a recent book entitled, Everybody Does It, Thomas Gabor (1994) documents the pervasiveness of moral disengagement in all walks of life. Psychological theories of morality focus heavily on moral thought to the neglect of moral conduct. People suffer from the wrongs done to them regardless of how perpetrators might justify their inhumane actions. The regulation of humane conduct involves much more than moral reasoning. A complete theory of moral agency must link moral know3ledge and reasoning to moral action. This requires an agentic theory of morality rather than one confined mainly to cognitions about morality. An agentic theory specifies the mechanisms by which people come to live in accordance with moral standards. In social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1991), moral reasoning is translated into actions through self-regulatory mechanisms rooted in oral standards and self-sanctions by which moral agency is exercised. The moral self is thus embedded in a broader Sociocognitive self theory encompassing self-organization, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulative mechanisms. These self-referent processes provide the motivational as well as the cognitive regulators of moral conduct." (Bandura, 1999) a) Moral Self-Sanctions: he's pointing to societal moral problems and claiming moral disengagement accounts for it (personal & collective level). We've lost touch with inhibitory processes that allow us to behave morally. Similar to Kohlberg's moral perspective i) Kohlberg's Perspective: individuals learn moral behavior. We have cognitive representations of those rules governing how we should behave, and what behaviors are right and wrong. However, just learning it's wrong to steal doesn't necessarily mean you absorb that rule at a behavioral level. There's a disconnection between these theories that try to explain moral behavior as having a connection to moral cognitions. Bandura is setting us up to realize there are limitations in some of the existing literature. b) Empathy: the regulation of humane conduct involves much more than moral reasoning. Empathy isn't sufficient to explain what we see in the real world. c) Agentic Theory of Morality: specifies the mechanisms (i.e. psychological adaptations) by which people come to live in accordance of moral standards. i) Social Cognitive Theory: details of the mechanisms that are supposed to be in place according to Agentic Theory of Mind (1) Self-Regulatory Mechanism: tied in with moral standards, communicated through people around us. Just because the lessons are communicated doesn't mean they are absorbed or internalized. The moral reasoning is translated into actions through these self-regulatory mechanisms. (2) Self-Sanctions: this is how moral agency is exercised. Our ability to function as an agentic self, the self who has potential to bring about changes in the world, are shaped by these kinds of moral mechanisms. ii) Conclusions: these self-referent processes provide the motivational as well as the cognitive regulators of moral conduct. ~~~~~~~~~~ ME: -Agentic theory specifies the mechanisms by which people come to live in accordance with moral standards -Two processes: Inhibitive and Proactive process • The exercise of moral agency has dual aspects: inhibitive and proactive o Inhibitive form: is manifested in the power to refrain from behaving inhumanely o Proactive form: is expressed in the power to behave humanely -You observe something, is it someone INTENTIONALLY doing something good, or was it unintentional misbehavior? ~~~~~~~~~~~ Introduction: • The disengagement of moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct is a growing human problem at both individual and collective levels Concluding Remarks: • The massive threats to human welfare stem mainly from deliberate acts of principle rather than from unrestrained acts of impulse • "More hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than in the name of rebellion" • Given the many psychological devices for disengaging moral control, societies cannot rely entirely on individuals to deter human cruelty • Civilized life requires effective social safeguards against the misuse of power for exploitative and destructive purposes • Monolithic sociopolitical systems that exercise tight control over institutional and communications systems can wield greater power of moral disengagement than can pluralistic systems that represent diverse perspectives, interests, and concerns • Limited public access to the media has been a major obstacle to reciprocal influence on detrimental social policies and practices • The evolving telecommunications technologies are transforming the mode of sociopolitical influence • Mobilization of collective influence against injurious social policies via the Internet can be swift, wide-reaching, and free of monopolistic social control o But the Internet is a double-edged tool o Internet freelances can use this unfiltered political forum to mobilize support for detrimental social practices as well as for humane ones • Some of the efforts at chance must be directed at institutional practices that insulate the higher echelons from accountability for the detrimental policies over which they preside • Discourses that cloak inhumane activities in sanitizing language should be stripped of their euphemistic cover • Some of the moral disengagement is in the service of profit rather than political purposes • Regardless of whether inhumane practices are institutional, organizational, or individual, it should be made difficult for people to remove humanity from their conduct NOTES: o Inhibitive form: is manifested in the power to refrain from behaving inhumanely o Proactive form: is expressed in the power to behave humanely Moral agency -proactive and inhibitive Social cognitive theory -Agentic Theory - mechanisms of living in accordance of your moral standards

Do Ideologically Intolerant People Benefit From Intergroup Contact? Hodson, G. (2011).

MELANIE: a) Authoritarian personalities are one of the aspects of making sense of prejudice. i) Ignorance Hypothesis: i.e. you don't know any better. We can trace the ignorance hypothesis to Allport, which says the reason we are prejudice against them is we just don't know any better, but if we did we'd do better. Research doesn't support this. The problem with the approach that prejudice would be reduced through contact only is the contact has to result in disconfirmation of the original thought. Going into a contact situation, this does nothing to disarm things like confirmation bias or existing stereotypes. There has to be some sort of meaningful engagement. ii) Heineken Ad: put intolerant people together to see if they benefit. iii) Contact Hypothesis: the proposition that increased contact reduces prejudice. Connectedness and Embeddedness of a strong attitude might affect stereotype biases. One of the things with prejudice is you're dealing with stereotypes along with attitudes that go along with those stereotypes. All of our attitudes are embedded in this matrix that involves things like our personal values, beliefs, experiences we've had in the past, and so in order to achieve meaningful changes in prejudice beliefs it's going to require some sort of deeper intervention than just hanging out with other people. iv) Negativity Bias: negative things affectively valence things. It has an outsized impact on what we retain and what we learn. So we pay more attention to negative things, we learn negative things more easily than positive things. If you look at it from an evolutionary point of view: if there had to be an asymmetry in terms of learning strength (learning what's positive vs negative) from our ancient ancestors, figuring out what would kill you and to stay away from it was probably more important than figuring out what was nice. This may be explanatory of why negative attitudes are resistant to change. v) How well do you think Hodson argues the point? We don't know the interval between the contact and post-evaluation (right away or a month later?) 9/11 is analogous for a situation that happened in the US (bias against Muslims). The time scale is worth considering between intervention and follow-up. For interventions you might be able to get a positive outcome, but it's most likely not to be enduring - in the long run, things will go back to what they were. There needs to be some sort of meaningful contact, otherwise you wind up with a situation that's analogous to "taking the high rode" (vs. the low road). The more shallow the nature of the thing that softens people's attitudes toward other, the less enduring they are. The more towards the central route that connects to deeply held beliefs (hard, rational part of us) that's what leads to enduring changes. vi) Conclusions: (1) Intergroup contact is beneficial: Hodson draws the conclusion of intergroup contact being beneficial. Intolerant, prejudice-prone people and those who are cognitively rigid will benefit according to Hodson. Intergroup contact is beneficial for these individuals. Mere contact for people in general isn't sufficient. For a subset of people, contact does seem to be beneficial. (2) Intergroup contact may reduce prejudice: There is anxiety reduction, increase in empathy for outgroups, and increased inclusion of other-in-self, and increased trust and closeness. Exposure therapy, specifically Systematic Desensitization (incrementally higher levels of exposure to fear-stimulus) may be an intervention to facilitate this. vii) Notions of the Self: (1) Self vs. Collective-Self: Our collective sense of self comes from attributions of others (group one interacts with). We can think about our sense of belonging attributing to collective sense-of-self. Our sense of self comes from self-knowledge, comparisons to others, experiences. Common goals (commonality) are a mechanism involved in this formation of the collective self. Group membership comes from sharing ideas, values, and acceptance. We start to understand things like protection and socialization is expected from something like family; but we are taught "this is your group". It's something people do naturally - it takes very little to get people to form into groups. viii) Minimal Group Paradigm: investigates the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. You can get people to assemble as a group based on the most trivial of stuff. Groups were asked to rate similar styles of art (Clay vs Kadinsky). Depending on preference of art participants were group together. Based on something that minimal you can begin seeing group norms and outgroup. Confirmation Bias settles in. We are preloaded with preferences for similarities - we value potential group members. Once we're given something to latch onto we form group membership. ix) Collective Efficacy & Group-level emotions: Collective efficacy can be great if it's a just group, but if the group believes it will be safer in its discrimination then discrimination will occur. Interaction within the group will also lead to heightened self-esteem. What we see at the group level is that the collective-self functions in a lot of ways as the individual-self does. When we talk about attribution there are several biases (i.e. self-serving biases to take all the credit but none of the blame). In-group (we are better than them) vs Out-group biases (they suck) also form. And we develop schemas about us and schemas about them. Just as we have a schema about ourselves, we have one about our group. It's a knowledge structure of who we think our group is (i.e. group-level identity). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ME: -Intergroup contact -The reason why we're prejudiced against others is that we just don't know any better. If we knew better, we would think better. The ignorance hypothesis hasn't been supported. Just getting to know others isn't enough to overcome prejudice susceptibility. Problem: there's still the in-group/outgroup us vs them. Just contact does nothing to solve stereotypes/prejudice. It's easy to focus on one or two "thems" and use that as an existing bias "that's all the proof I needed, that's what THEY are like" There has to be some kind of MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT -How does this tie in to attitude formations/attitude change? It's a way to solve dissonance. And Balance Theory, by coming up with sub-type, this allows us to like someone even though they belong to a social category we have a negative attitude towards You're dealing with stereotypes and attitudes that go along with those stereotypes. It's connected to a negative attitude for that social group. All of our attitudes are embedded into a matrix that involves our personal values/beliefs/experiences In order to achieve changes in prejudice beliefs, it's going to require some kind of deeper intervention/experiences than just being around others. Need to have MEANINGFUL contact to allow for dissemination of those beliefs/values Negativity bias, anything negative, if it has an outsized impact on what we retain and learn. So we pay more attention to negative things. We learn negative things easier than positive things. Evolutionary view: an asymmetry in terms of learning strengths, learning what's positive/negative. Figuring out what was going to KILL You is more important than learning what's NICE/not going to hurt you. This is part of the explanation why negative things loom so large, and why negative attitudes can be resistant to change, including negative attitudes in prejudice/social categories -EX: New York is filled with rude/fast-paced people. Right after 9/11 there is a sudden coming together, lessen of tension, spirit of brotherhood, and it wore off. The timescale, b/w intervention and follow-up....how enduring/lasting are these? -Highly prejudiced -Cognitively rigid -Anxiety reduction * (clinical interest) -Increases outgroup empathy * -Increased trust and closeness * How can we tie these this into notion of the self? What makes prejudice tick? Self vs. collective self: Groups we interact with, community (e.g. goal), sharing -We evaluate others looking for other group members, once we're united with other group members, that's how things. EX: give people red/blue T-shirts to wear/stickers and band together with group and shun out outcasts. Group emerges, they cohere together, if you ask them about the people wearing the other color shirts, they start to form stereotypes, they notice things about people in the other groups. EX: "Blue Eyes Brown Eyes" video Collective efficacy Group level emotions How can we tie these things into prejudice and discrimination? The collective self (group self) functions in a lot of ways just like the regular self. We have self-other biases on a one-to-one level (self-serving biases, willing to take credit/no blame, something good happens "yes that was me" something bad happens "that was someone else's responsibility/the sun got in my eyes). We see similar defenses in a collective sense of self: In group vs. out group biases "we're better than them vs. you suck", it's us vs them. We develop schemas about us and about them. Group level identity (who we think our group is) and similarly, we have an understanding of THEM, what those other people are like in the other group. And that creates what we call a stereotype. Stereotypes can be good "Argosy students are friendly". ~~~~~~~~~~~~ • What is the general idea of the study? o Hodson wanted to emphasize that increased contact between groups will change the perspective of other people from negative to positive, especially for individuals that are intolerant prejudice prone. He uses a lot of his own work to say that there is work to help prove this. o Looks at 9 studies UK prison German adult UK university Belgian adult Canadian university Dutch adult • The concerns were that negative personalities would overshadow positive benefits that the highly prejudice would inflame or that these people would just avoid the contact (Hodson, 2008, in press; Hodson, Costello & MacInnis, in press). • Prejudice people were characterized as intolerant towards outgroups due to psychological insecurities, threat sensitivity and ego weakness (Allport, 1954) General Discussion • Only recently has research for contact focused on those who need it most • Failure to find contact benefits among such individuals is an exception, not the norm • Although individuals that start with favorable attitudes show ceiling effects with contact, Hodson et al., in press show that when the group is highly stigmatized, these individuals do show benefits- MORE STUDY NEEDED • Attempts to undermine the benefits of contact among the highly prejudice by pointing to the potential celling effect among those low in prejudice is like criticizing a literacy intervention for not improving reading among strong readers. • Relatively strong effect among highly prejueice persons have been overshadowed by lumping their results w weaker effect for those who are less intolerant (Hodson et a;, 2009)

Identification with all humanity as a moral concept and psychological construct. McFarland, S., Brown, D., & Webb, M. (2013).

MELANIE: a) He's saying world peace can be achieved if only we had this understanding of all humanity being our in-group. i) Points: absence of prejudice; thee sum of positive qualities (dispositional empathy & principled moral reasoning) ii) What does he set up as the background for setting up this identification of humanity? The historical background that lead to identification of all of humanity. He puts emphasis on this idea of all the countries worth talking about agreed this was something important, that it was a fundamental human right, we're all given the same status of worthy human beings. (1) Social Intuitionism: " ...many persons who have never thought about identifying with all humanity can nonetheless intuit doing so as an important moral ideal. This moral intuition appears to differ from the moral intuitionism popularized by Haidt.". If it's really innate within us, why do we need NATO to draft a description of it? Ingroup priorities outweigh it. "Haidt emphasized primitive emotions that drive moral judgements (i.e. feeling that it's wrong to eat one's dead pet)". (2) Social Identity (In-Group/Out-Group): we have a natural tendency to develop in-groups and contrast our in-groups with out-groups. What are the circumstances in which it is likely one identifies an in-group and an out-group? Survival, in particular when we're talking about competition. Competitive circumstances are when in-group vs. out-group are most likely to arise. That perception of who deserves it will be largely influenced by how much you like the people in question, and how closely you identify them with being part of your group. So we have this question that arises about the kinds of circumstances in which people abandon this identification with all of humanity. iii) Methodology & Conclusion: 2 items he talks about are (1) how much do you identify with [that is, feel a part of, feel love toward, have concern for] each of the following (a. people in my community, b. Americans, c. all humans everywhere); (2) when they are in need, how much do you want to help (a. people in my community, b. Americans, c. people all over the world). iv) Maslow: McFarland is presenting this identification with all humanity, derived from Maslow's ideas. One of the criticisms of Maslow is you don't have to satisfy all the needs at the bottom of the pyramid in order to gratify the higher needs. You can be clearly impoverished and still feel love (i.e. Mahatma Gandhi). The kind of morality Maslow is suggesting (i.e. self-actualization) - basic needs are important but in terms of self-actualization you must understand that Maslow created the standard. v) What about cultural implications about this idea of identification with all humanity? It's too utopian. The general (class) verdict is he's kind of pie-in-the-sky. Given the opportunity, everyone will claim they understand morality but they won't necessarily do it because it's not always in their own self-interest. Just because people know what the right thing to do is doesn't mean they are going to do it. We operate on System 1 (gut feelings) and System 2 (rational thought). But our gut feelings are very powerful. Our intuitions are often times capable of overwhelming anything we can reason ourselves into. So yeah, it sounds great but in terms of bringing about what he says the world should be like it's not a very fruitful approach. ~~~~~~~~ ME: -World peace can be achieved if we think of all of humanity as our in-group -2 Points: 1.) It's about more than the absence of prejudice, and 2.) Puts emphasis on the idea that all the countries sat down and agreed that this is something really important, it's a fundamental human right that we're all given the same statuses as worthy human beings Can we just make a value like that by fiat? • Sum it up: The research confirms that Identification with all humanity is more than absence of prejudice and the positive qualities of empathy, moral reasoning and other related constructs. ID with humanity predicts concern for human suffering and outgroup members more equally, knowledge of humanitarian concerns and giving to international charity. -Social intuition -How can we have all these wars when the identification with human-kind is deeply imbedded into us/intuition? The in-group priorities outweigh the outgroup People are more likely to protect their group than other groups We have a natural tendency to contrast our ingroup with outgroups When is ingroup vs. outgroup most likely to arise? When you're competing for resources. EX: Competing for the last gallon of water. How closely can you identify the people in the class as part of your group to share the water with -Do you think identification with all of humanity despite our best efforts, will that solve the problems that McFarland brings up? In the context of genuine real world things that people fight in war over? No. Values have been instilled/become cultural (Palestine and Israel) -McFarland is having us value this identification with all of humanity. We're comparing everyone with Maslow's intuitions about how everything is supposed to be in the world Criticism with Maslow: You don't necessarily have to satisfy the needs at the bottom of the pyramid to move up. You can be poor and still feel love. There's no good reason to think it has to work according to the way Maslow has suggested. Self-actualization critique: Generally in the field, the basic needs are important, but in terms of self-actualization, you have to understand that Maslow created the standard for what this is. ALSO, it seems to align more with non-Western cultures. Might be hard for the USA -You can know what you're supposed to do and educate people on the moral thing to do, but just bc people know what the right/moral thing to do is, doesn't mean that they are going to do it. We operate on System 1 (gut feelings) just as much as System 2 (rational thought). We can over-ride those gut feelings/instincts with rational thought. Our intuitions are overwhelming anything that we can reason ourselves into. So it sounds great, but what McFarland says how the world should be, it isn't going to be a very fruitful approach ~~~~~ NOTES: He's saying world peace can be achieved if only we had this understanding of all humanity being our in-group • Sum it up: The research confirms that ID with all humanity is more than absence of prejudice and the positive qualities of empathy, moral reasoning and other related constructs. ID with humanity predicts concern for human suffering and outgroup members more equally, knowledge of humanitarian concerns and giving to international charity.

Commercial media literacy: What does it do, to whom---and does it matter? Eagle, L. (2007).

MELANIE: a) Main Point (Principle): Eagle argues the importance of educating children on the motivations of advertising. b) Does educating children do anything to thwart their susceptibility to these campaigns? Kids without access to the internet are probably low SES. We also need to consider parenting - children might not have access to the internet because of parenting style. Low SES is an important consideration but we can make a distinction between those who "cannot" have access and those who have been consciously prevented from using the internet. Clearly, low SES is not a guarantee of one not having access, but among those children who don't have access, it might be a good bet they are low SES. Those may be more exposed to advertisements on the television because that's a more accessible platform. Another major consideration might be peers. Those students that are learning from friends are doing so by proxy (contagion from peers). c) How susceptible are adults to these types of techniques? All these techniques apply to adults as well; they are susceptible to in-app purchases for the same reason as children, it doesn't seem like real money. This is also an acknowledge issue with credit cards. It facilitates you buying more stuff with credit cards, and the more you have the more likely you are to purchase. A friend of mine used to work at Pier 1. He sold more merchandise than anyone at the branch he worked, but he lost his job because he wasn't getting enough people to sign up for credit cards. That should give you an idea of just how crucial credit cards are. And the reason they are crucial is they don't seem like real money. It's more dangerous for adults than children, because at least children have adults to set them straight. We don't have a geriatric population to tell us "hey, don't do that" with credit card spending. d) Does educating children do anything? According to the article it doesn't do that much - using Media smart had mixed results. It was difficult for the children to understand it, teachers claimed they'd implement it but later stated the kids weren't following. And McDonalds lead the informational ads. e) What's one thing that's pertinent to the central route of persuasion talked about in the article? Inoculation (giving them weaker arguments so when presented with stronger arguments they can stick to their guns). The idea is if you can begin with a weaker argument that can be refuted, when you encounter the full-strength argument you'll be resistant to it (similar to viral inoculations). f) What did we say about the nature of attitudes that makes them resistant to change? Commitment. The more committed you are the harder it is to begin penetrating to make a change in a person's attitude. There's something about the nature of the commitment that's involved, and there's certain kinds of commitment that's more resistant than others. To put it the other way, certain kinds of commitment are weaker and easier to penetrate. There are all kinds of connections between their product and these internalized cues. If you're connecting it to commitment, behavior may drive commitment more than attitude. In terms of children, advertisers target the age where children are attending school and the shift from parents to peers is occurring. With "everyone at school" having the product, there's a pull toward societal pressures which makes it more difficult for the children to not want the object in question. We are using a central route to educating children and advertisers are using the peripheral route and so we aren't using the same medium to counteract them. When you're trying to inoculate you're taking weaker arguments and knocking them down. If you're just looking at beautiful people, what's the argument? It's reliant upon your positive associations with beautiful people, or what looks like other kids having a great time playing with a Furby or My Little Pony. g) Reactance: Just to make sure we're clear on reactance - what is necessary in that situation to say it's likely? Pressure, fear of freedom restriction. There has to be an implicit or implied threat to their freedom. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ME: Educating Children about advertisements Your education doesn't end with your diploma. Your diploma is not enough, you need to do things constantly. Things change. There are societal/cultural changes that happen There are children who don't have access to the internet in the US, what could you speculate might be a concern about their susceptibility to these ad campaigns? When they are exposed to it, they may be more susceptible to it. How do you think you'd characterize those kids who don't have access to the internet? Low SES How many of things apply to adults too? All of them, they all apply to adults. Adults are susceptible to internet purchases for the same reason children are. It doesn't seem like real money. This is also an acknowledged issue with credit cards. The more credit cards you have, the more likely you are to use it bc it doesn't seem like real money. Education: educating children about media to make them literate in the Eagle context. Is this effective? Does educating them about media and telling difference bw advertisement and reality do anything? Not much. It doesn't seem to do a whole lot Inoculation: trying to give them a weaker argument, so when they're faced with a stronger argument they can stick to it. EX: Show kid that GI Joe isn't as great as it is on TV, tell them it doesn't actually do that. If you begin with a weaker argument, you can refute the argument. When people refute the full strength one, they won't do it. Same as you give someone a small virus so they can learn to battle full strength one. Maybe there's certain kinds of commitment that are resistant to being penetrated to get through and change someone's attitude. Certain kinds of commitment are weaker and easier to penetrate. Can you think of how that might pertain to this media context? When you're trying to inoculate, you're taking weaker arguments and knocking them down. This doesn't work so well for something that's not argument-based. EX: If you're just looking at beautiful people, there's no argument being made. It's reliant upon your positive associations w/ beautiful people, or that other people look like they're having a good time playing with My Little Pony. What is absolutely necessary in that situation to say it's likely for reactance? There has to be an explicit or implied threat to their freedom. Emerging trends of boycotting things. What happens every time there's a boycott against a company or speaker? Free marketing (banned from speaking), it was a way for increased sales. For those who were trying to censor or boycott him in the first place, they didn't anticipate the power of reactance. Suddenly it becomes important for them to purchase Things that are controversial capture our attention. Anything that captures our attention has a chance of influencing our subsequent behavior ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Commercially-sponsored media literacy initiatives aimed at educating children about the persuasive nature of advertising are evaluated against implicit theories underlying their use, criticisms of the motivation behind their implementation and effectiveness evidence. -In this research, the focus is on media literacy as it applies to commercial content within a range of consumer media forms including new electronic media and hybrid media that increasingly blur the borders between advertising, information and entertainment NOTES: everyone is persuaded - children lack the cognitive skills inoculation theory - lack of it = doesnt prevent persuasion exposure theory

Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Smith, E.R., Seger, C.R., & Mackie, D.M. (2007).

MELANIE: a) Main Point (Principle): There are group emotions that are different from individual emotions. They are related to the person's degree of group identification, they are socially shared, and they regulate intragroup intergroup attitudes. b) Social Emotions: Not all social emotions seem to function the same. i) Collective Happiness: There's a lot of times where you go to a birthday party and someone's opening a present and you're like "oh yay, good for you". Do you really feel as good as they do? Probably not. Yeah, you're happy they are happy but you probably don't feel it the way they do. But if you watch an act of injustice like these viral videos of someone being attacked unnecessarily, does it not piss you off in ways that are vastly more important than being happy for someone else? There's something about negative emotions that grab us in ways we don't see with positive emotions. Think back to our ancient ancestors - in order to survive it might be crucial for everyone to pull together to overcome those things that might have made our ancestors feel sad, angry or afraid. How necessary is it for a group to act together over the kinds of things that would make an individual happy? It's pleasant, but not necessary. The kinds of things that would typically make any individual happy are not the kinds of things that require a group to take care of it. But a large predator entering the village - a single individual being afraid is rational and adaptive, but it's also adaptive for the collective to feel that kind of emotion of fear too. ii) Collective Grieving: Sometimes collective grieving is necessary for society as well (handling negative things with other people). It helps the individual by helping the group. This overlaps with the idea of inclusive fitness. It's adaptive and feeling what another feels in order to help that person survive. The research shows there's a greater inclination to helps those who are genetically related to us more so than those who are not. And it's greatest for child. So we do have these group level inclusive fitness concerns that are baked into the organism. If it's useful for an individual to adapt to the environment through emotion, collective emotions make sense as well - it helps the group and by helping the group you're making it more likely your tribe's genes will survive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ME: What do you think about this idea of group level vs. individual level of emotions? Not all social emotions are the same. You go to a party and someone opens a present, do you really feel as good as they do? If you watch an act of someone being attacked, you feel angry in a way that's more potent than seeing something nice happen. There seems to be something about negative emotions that grabs us in ways that we don't really see with positive emotions The types of things that would make an individual happy, you don't need a group to come take care of it. But if a large animal has entered a village, just a single individual being afraid, that is rationale and adaptive, but it's also adaptive for the collection to feel that emotion of fear too. How does this tie in with Bandura collective efficacy? How is it adaptive ultimately? It helps the individual by helping the group. This overlaps with the idea of inclusive fitness, bc inclusive fitness is about the survival of kin. There's a greater inclination to help those who are genetically related to us than those who are not (lend a car to a friend vs. a grandparent. The more genetically related, the more inclined we are to help them...greatest for child). We do have these group level inclusive fitness concerns. ~~~~~~~~~ ABSTRACT Recent advances in understanding prejudice and intergroup behavior have made clear that emotions help explain people's reactions to social groups and their members. Intergroup emotions theory (D. M. Mackie, T. Devos, & E. R. Smith, 2000; E. R. Smith, 1993) holds that intergroup emotions are experienced by individuals when they identify with a social group, making the group part of the psychological self. What differentiates such group-level emotions from emotions that occur purely at the individual level? The authors argue that 4 key criteria define group-level emotions: Group emotions are distinct from the same person's individual-level emotions, depend on the person's degree of group identification, are socially shared within a group, and contribute to regulating intragroup and intergroup attitudes and behavior. Evidence from 2 studies supports all 4 of these predictions and thus points to the meaningfulness, coherence, and functionality of group-level emotions.

Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Darley, J.M., & Latane, B. (1968).

MELANIE: a) The Darley article, absolutely one of the cornerstones for social psychology literature. He was the teacher of one of my teachers, so you now have a connection to Darley. The whole bystander intervention thing is probably one of the things you remember from taking social psychology. (If I had to guess, I'd say this will certainly be on the exam) i) Genesis for Research: Woman murdered violently in New York, yet no one did anything about it. A number of neighbors watched. That was the original story. In the years since then (1964), psychologists investigated to find out what really happened. The updated version of this is it didn't quit happen that way. The evidence suggests people tried calling the police and were actively trying to figure out what they could do to intervene beyond that. The phone records that are available bear that out. This is one of the cases where even though the original inspiration for the story might be different, it doesn't change the fact the research born of it bore out. The initial reporting that was done on the story was incomplete. There's a propagation of error. ii) Bystander Intervention: The more people are around, the less likely an individual is to help. (1) Direct vs. Reportorial Intervention: there's two varieties of intervention. (1) The bystander rolling up their sleeves and helping or (2) finding someone who can. In the Kitty Genovese story there was no direct intervention - no one directly tried to intervene. But there was reportorial intervention. (a) Direct: often requires skill, knowledge, or physical power. It may involve danger. Results suggest that males are more responsible than females for this kind of intervention (b) Reportorial: reporting to someone qualified to handle the emergency. For this kind of intervention, there seems to be no norms requiring male action. (2) What determines whether or not intervention will happen? Group size, not personality; anonymity, severity of incident, gender, time, other commitments iii) Methods: the response was the dependent variable so you can determine how motivated they were to intervene by measuring the length of time to respond (up to 6 minutes). In other words, it's something different than time pressure. The original point of view is kind of chauvinistic which they were challenging. Group Size makes a difference. Subjects in 2, 3 and 6 person groups bore witness to a fake epileptic fit. Response times for helping were analyzed. iv) What makes bystander intervention work? What commonalities (conformity) might you see between bystander intervention and conformity? (1) Diffusion of Responsibility - the likelihood that others around are responsible for action where the individual is not. (2) Deindividuation. Social Loafing. (3) Conformity - if no one else is doing something you don't want to be the one who stands out as different (wanting to be liked by others), group size of what you're expected to conform to matters (3-5 peoples). There's this weird, invisible force that's exerted upon us by the presence of other people and the pressure increases with each additional person. It works in this inverse way as far as responsibility goes - it gets dispersed and distributed. In unfamiliar environments you don't know what the norm is, so you look around for social cues and signals to indicate what it is you are supposed to be doing. If those are absent we don't like it, and we are far more reluctant to act unless we know what it is we are supposed to be doing. We are more susceptible to norm informative information coming from those who are most like us. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ME: -Bystander Intervention: There's the bystander rolling up their sleeves if they decide they can't handle it themselves and finding someone who can. -What kind of interventions were in play or not in play in Kitty Genovese's story? No one actually got out and tried to interfere with what the attacker was doing. -What determines whether bystander effect will happen? The group size, not the individual's personality, but how many people are present in the situation Anonymity The severity of the incident Gender Time To some degree, other commitments -In this study, the response was the dependent variable -We are constantly looking at cues from our environment. In the smoke-filled room experiment, if there's only 1 person, you feel more inclined to do it. When there are other people around, we're wondering what they know that we don't. If you don't know the appropriate response "Maybe this lab fills up with smoke all the time, the other 2 people may know, I'll just ignore it." ~~~~~ i) Genesis for Research: Woman murdered violently in New York, yet no one did anything about it. A number of neighbors watched. That was the original story. In the years since then (1964), psychologists investigated to find out what really happened. The updated version of this is it didn't quit happen that way. The evidence suggests people tried calling the police and were actively trying to figure out what they could do to intervene beyond that. The phone records that are available bear that out. This is one of the cases where even though the original inspiration for the story might be different, it doesn't change the fact the research born of it bore out. The initial reporting that was done on the story was incomplete. There's a propagation of error. ii) Bystander Intervention: The more people are around, the less likely an individual is to help. (1) Direct vs. Reportorial Intervention: there's two varieties of intervention. (1) The bystander rolling up their sleeves and helping or (2) finding someone who can. In the Kitty Genovese story there was no direct intervention - no one directly tried to intervene. But there was reportorial intervention. (a) Direct: often requires skill, knowledge, or physical power. It may involve danger. Results suggest that males are more responsible than females for this kind of intervention (b) Reportorial: reporting to someone qualified to handle the emergency. For this kind of intervention, there seems to be no norms requiring male action

Father Love and Child Development: History and Current Evidence. Rohner, R.P. (1998).

MELANIE: a) his literature review doesn't discuss mitigating social factors that may have been apparent in the studies he cites. His review also includes multiple studies of his own work. Remember correlation is not causation so it cannot be said that Father Love caused any of these findings. i) What is "father love"? Father's love related behavior in relation to social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children and all offspring. Defined in terms of paternal acceptance and rejection (nurturance, support, warmth, affection, support, comfort and concern). This is what Rohner is starting out with as sort of an operational definition. Real or perceived acceptance or rejection. ii) What is important (i.e. what does it affect)? Culturally, fathers matter more than they did in previous years - their impact was minimized in the past. Evidence punctuates the need to include fathers (as well as mothers) in future research. It's important to analyze them separately in the data to discover separate effects. Personality and psychological adjustment problems, conduct problems, delinquency and psychopathology. iii) Psychopathology: borderline personality disorder more closely implicated by father. Substance abuse, depression, depressed emotion, behavior problems and externalizing behaviors. iv) Health & Well-Being: perceived closeness to fathers makes significant contributions to offspring happiness, life satisfaction and low psychological distress. There is a distinction between "care to" and "care of" v) Gender Roles vi) IQ: associated with higher IQ scores for boys and more self-acceptance for girls. These are true but it's not the main reason why this is important. ~~~~~~~ ME: 1.) -What is "father love"? The author defines father love in terms of paternal acceptance and rejection as construed in parental acceptance-rejection theory Paternal acceptance includes such feelings and behaviors as parental nurturance, warmth, affection, support, comfort, and concern (REAL OR PERCEIVED) Paternal rejection is defined as the real or perceived absence or withdrawal of these feelings and behaviors Rejection includes coldness, indifference, and hostility toward the child Paternal rejection may be expressed behaviorally as a lack of affection toward the child, as physical or verbal aggression, or neglect 2.) -Why is it important? (ie, what does it affect?) It has become more common to discover that the influence of father love explains a unique, independent portion of the variation in specific child and adult outcomes, over and above the portion of variation explained by mother love Studies drawing this conclusion tend to deal with one or more of the following four issues among children, adolescents, and young adults: o (A) Personality and psychological adjustment problems, including issues of self-concept and self-esteem, emotional stability, and aggression o (B) Conduct problems, especially in school o (C) Cognitive and academic performance issues o (D) Psychopathology 3.) -What does it predict? 4.) -How do child outcomes differ based on mother vs. father parenting? 1.) Defining "Father Love" -Paternal acceptance: real or perceived feelings and behaviors of nurturance, warmth, affection, support, comfort, and concern from father -Paternal rejection: real or perceived absence withdrawal of feelings and behaviors of nurturance, warmth, affection, support, comfort, and concern from father -Includes feelings: coldness, indifference, and hostility toward the child -Include behaviors: lack of affection toward child, physical verbal aggression, neglect 2.) Why is it Important? Father Love Affects: -Personality and psychological adjustment- associated with problems including self-concept, self-esteem, emotional stability, and aggression -Conduct problems (e.g., school) This is manifested in school settings They don't know what kind of behaviors are acceptable/unacceptable or they don't care -Cognitive and academic performance issues -Psychopathology 3.) Predictive Ability -Positive association with adolescent symptoms of depression -Positive association with absence of adolescent symptoms of depression EX: Cole and McPherson (1993) concluded that father-child conflict, but not mother-child conflict was positively associated with depressive symptoms in adolescents Moreover, father-adolescent cohesion was positively associated with the absence of depressive symptoms in adolescents o Consistent results with Barrera and Garrison-Jones' (1992) conclusion that adolescents' satisfaction with fathers' support was related to a lowered incidence of depressive symptoms, whereas satisfaction with mothers' support was not Self-Esteem -Daughter's self-esteem predicted by father's physical affection -Son's self-esteem predicted by mother's companionship and father's sustained contact (e.g., picking up the boys for safety or fun) IQ -Parental nurturance positively associated with boys IQ, but not girls Self-Concept -Paternal love and acceptance more strongly associated with girls than boys' self-concept CRITICISMS: There is some self-promotion going on. The person who writes the article (expert on particular area, in this case Rohner is expert on father love) but what if he is incorrect? Something else may account for the findings besides father love Were these boys and girls siblings in the same household? There's plenty of things we don't know. On the face value, this seems enticing. But you should reflect on where this stuff comes from before you give your whole-hearted endorsement to the findings CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION Take father love seriously, but ^ ~~~~ • This article concentrates on evidence showing the influence of fathers' love-related behaviors- or simply, father love- in relation to the social, emotional, and cognitive development and functioning of children/adolescents/adult offspring • The data reported here are but a miniscule part of a larger body of work showing that father love is heavily implicated not only in children's and adults' psychological well-being and health, but also in an array of psychological behavioral problems • This evidence punctuates the need to include fathers (and other significant males, when appropriate) as well as mothers in future research, and then to analyze separately the data for possible father and mother effects

Positive Psychology in Cancer Care: Bad Science, Exaggerated Claims, and Unproven Medicine. Coyne, J., & Tennen, H. (2010).

MELANIE: i) 4 Different Claims: and what the research says about them (1) The role of positive factors ("fighting spirit" in extending the life of persons with cancer. The original study (n = 57) claims having a fighting spirit results in persons being more likely to be disease-free and to survive 5-10 years longer post-assessment. Larger studies (n = 578) suggest that women can be guilt ridden when they find it difficult to maintain a "fighting spirit". The original sample size was tiny and not likely representative of others with breast cancer. These confounds were introduced just by virtue of who and how many were being studied. They also found a publication bias (GIGO principle) - they had used meta-analysis to study a bunch of bad studies (i.e. studies that only include positive results). They also repeatedly used the same people in different analyses (i.e. double-dipping). This "fighting spirit" or "I can beat this mentality" may sound good on the surface, but if a cancer patient has a bad day, the only explanation is they aren't trying hard enough which will make them feel guilty and ashamed. If they already have a fighting spirit, don't take it away, but don't suggest they need it to pull through either. (2) Effects of interventions cultivating positive psychological states on immune functioning and cancer progression and mortality. their positive attitude would have to overcome their biological factors (3) Benefit Finding: people who are ill can find benefits in their condition, which is a good thing (i.e. adaptation and improved immune function). Nobody really understands what benefit finding is as it's never been operationally defined. You can't draw conclusions based on vague definitions because you can't aggregate the research. (4) Post-Traumatic Growth: post-traumatic growth following serious illness such as cancer and other highly threatening experiences in the form of better relationships, increased inner strength, and deeper spirituality. Increased inner strength (i.e. that which does not kill me, makes me stronger). Problem with this is people are notoriously poor at gauging inner growth. People imagine growth and change where this is objectively no reason to believe that. Those who have faced trauma have a perception of growth and change but they are attributing it to whatever the trauma was. This undermines the claims that people have grown as a result of trauma when in fact they might not have grown at all. ~~~~~~~~~~ ME: -What are the 4 claims Coyne & Tennen examine? -What was the basis for those claims? -What did they find for each? -What do they conclude? The Claims: -1.) Adopting a "fighting spirit" increases changes of surviving cancer It can also be harmful bc if they don't have a "fighting spirit" they feel worse, may feel guilty/ashamed if they can't beat it, feel like they have to "try harder" Dr. Hunt wouldn't bring up a "fighting spirit." If they already have it good, but don't feed into any information about "fighting spirit" going to pull you through bc this may not be true. "Fighting spirit" won't improve biological component, but may improve relationships etc. -2.) Cultivating positive psychological states improves immune function, decreases disease progression and morality -3.) The people who are ill can find benefits in their condition which is a good thing (e.g. adaptation, improved immune function) Not enough info to make this claim. Initial criticism of the benefit finding: we don't really even know what it is, there's no definition of it...it's like finding a silver lining in your situation? It has a vague definition, so how are you supposed to do research on your own if there's no definition of "benefit finding"? If you're looking at 10 different things called "benefit finding" how are you supposed to make sense out of that? The definition is ambiguous/vague. That is counter productive, you can't draw conclusions/aggregate research bc it's all different stuff you're comparing it to. -4.) People who are ill may experience "post-traumatic growth" in the form of better relationships, increased inner strength, and deeper spirituality The sample size was tiny, maybe not representative of others who have breast cancer The meta-analysis may cheat by re-counting the same studies various times. Also only studies which were proven got included. Garbage in Garbage Out. It's not a guarantee these are all good studies. What Does Evidence Say About the Claims? -Fighting spirit- flawed studies (e.g. insufficient sample sizes, internal validity of questionnaires, biased self-report measures, uncontrolled confounds, publication bias, distorting meta-analysis); some findings suggest that characteristics of NOT having a fighting spirit are associated with better outcomes What Does Evidence Say About the Claims? -Benefit finding- vague definition, lacks theoretical core measurements are blunt, lack of prospective studies; alternative explanations have not been ruled out (e.g. benefit finding is a personality characteristic, self-explanation for hedonic level, small positive changes become exaggerated when expecting the worst downward temporal comparison of one's condition) -Little/no evidence that supports the idea that immune function improves with benefit finding; immune system, and its relation to cancer is complex and merely increasing immune markers tells us little about impact on cancer -Post-traumatic growth- scales to measures PTG susceptible to shortcoming of self-report -Difficulty accurately remembering personal change- misperceptions of self-change over time as short as 6 months ~~~~~~ (1) The role of positive factors ("fighting spirit" in extending the life of persons with cancer. This "fighting spirit" or "I can beat this mentality" may sound good on the surface, but if a cancer patient has a bad day, the only explanation is they aren't trying hard enough which will make them feel guilty and ashamed. If they already have a fighting spirit, don't take it away, but don't suggest they need it to pull through either. (2) Effects of interventions cultivating positive psychological states on immune functioning and cancer progression and mortality. their positive attitude would have to overcome their biological factors (3) Benefit Finding: people who are ill can find benefits in their condition, which is a good thing (i.e. adaptation and improved immune function). Nobody really understands what benefit finding is as it's never been operationally defined. You can't draw conclusions based on vague definitions because you can't aggregate the research. (4) Post-Traumatic Growth: post-traumatic growth following serious illness such as cancer and other highly threatening experiences in the form of better relationships, increased inner strength, and deeper spirituality. Increased inner strength (i.e. that which does not kill me, makes me stronger). Problem with this is people are notoriously poor at gauging inner growth. People imagine growth and change where this is objectively no reason to believe that. Those who have faced trauma have a perception of growth and change but they are attributing it to whatever the trauma was. This undermines the claims that people have grown as a result of trauma when in fact they might not have grown at all.

Improving adolescents' standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003).

MELANIE: i) Hypotheses: (1) Self-blame for a negative outcome leads to increased anxiety, in turn resulting in poor performance and even more self-blame. Women will do better with mentoring that combats stereotype threat. Control group was questionable. No pre-test. The nature of grades (i.e. the interpretation of them) can make a difference for educational motivation. It's important to stress that grades are better thought of as a signal for the need for more work (rather than as a reflection of the person). (2) Changing stereotyped students' explanations for difficulty from pejorative to non-pejorative can help reduce vulnerability to stereotype threat. In short, if you can get women who think of themselves as being poor at math to think differently you can combat stereotype threat; in becoming so preoccupied with not validating the stereotype, anxiety and stress actually undermine performance. (3) Encouraging stereotyped adolescents to view intelligence as malleable can help reduce vulnerability to stereotype threat. (4) Implementing an intervention that addressed either the pejorative explanations for academic difficulty, or the maladaptive beliefs about the nature of intelligence that stereotypes foster, could reduce the gaps in standardized test performance that typically widen when students enter junior high school. (5) Peer Review: Peer review isn't a guarantee that what you're looking at in a journal is the truth. There are certain standards for scrutiny but it's not a guarantee you've got high quality research. Peer review has passed some kind of minimal threshold for what constitutes a quality research article. But it's not a guarantee. (6) Grants: Research is expensive, especially for things like interventions. Because it's so expensive you have to apply for grants and funding. (7) Effects: Mere presence of others can cause stereotype threat. ~~~~~~~~ ME: -Questionable -Pre-test? -Hypothesis: women would do better in math if they were exposed to mentoring which would help combat the stereotype threat -Stereotypes are made salient when we're engaged in some behavior that is directly tied to that stereotype. According to stereotype threat: This introduces a kind of load on our cognitions. EX: Women who have been socialized believe they are bad at math tasks, to the extent that this stereotype is made salient. It introduces this load in the minds of the girls who are doing math. You become so preoccupied with not validating that stereotype that the anxiety/stress/mental effort for that thinking actually undermines the performance. That's the gist of the stereotype threat. -Mere presence (being around others) can affect your performance. Problem: Good didn't test for this -Research is expensive, especially to see if interventions are effective. You have to apply for grants and funding. Based on the Good article, imagine you're responsible for funding for Good to do follow-up research for stereotype intervention and need a million dollars. Do you think that the evidence that Good has given so far is strong enough to warrant giving a good grant to do this? ~~~~~~~~~ • Standardized tests continue to generate gender and race gaps in achievement despite decades of national attention. o ''stereotype threat'' (Steele & Aronson, 1995) suggests that these gaps may be partly due to stereotypes that impugn the math abilities of females and the intellectual abilities of Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. Results o Results showed that the typical gender gap in math standardized test performance emerged for the participants in the control condition. That is, boys outperformed girls on the math test if they had been mentored in the harmful consequences of drug use However, when the participants learned about the expandability of intelligence the gender gap in math performance disappeared. The incremental condition increased both boys' and girls' math performance, but this increase in math scores was particularly pronounced for the female students, which is consistent with predictions derived from analysis of stereotype threat processes. o As with math performance, a similar pattern of increased achievement was found on the reading test. Students who were mentored in the malleability of intelligence performed better on the reading test than students who were mentored in the perils of drug use. Encouraging adolescents to make nonpejorative explanations for difficulty—that is, to think of intelligence as expandable rather than fixed or to attribute difficulties to the novelty of the situation rather than their own shortcomings—can meaningfully increase student achievement, especially for those students who face negative stereotypes about their abilities such as Hispanic, Black, low-income, and female students. o The results of this intervention were encouraging. Stereotyped students—females in math, and ability-stigmatized students in reading—increased their standardized test scores after participating in the intervention program. o Student performance did not improve through additional skills drilling or cramming of content related to the test. Rather, students improved by learning attitudes that helped them contend with the anxieties that research has shown develop in part from their social identities.

Don't worry, be sad! On the cognitive, motivational and interpersonal benefits of negative mood. Forgas, J. P. (2013).

MELANIE: i) Hypothesis: negative moods often recruit a more attentive, accommodating thinking style that provides superior outcomes whenever externally oriented, inductive processing is required consistent with the principle that all affective states exist 'for the sake of signaling states of the world that have to be responded to'. ii) Evidence: literature review relating to his own studies (synthetic literature review). One drawback to literature review is you don't get the opportunity to go in depth into the study providing the evidence necessary to support the findings. iii) Memory Benefits: negative affect reduced memory interference by promoting item-specific processing. Sad mood reduced false memories by reducing the activation of non-presented lures. iv) Judgmental Benefits: negative mood reduced (and positive mood increased) constructive impression formation biases, such as the incorporation of irrelevant information introduced into subsequent impressions. (1) Reduced Gullibility: sad participants were significantly less likely to accept facial expressions as genuine then were people who were neutral or happy. This is consistent with the more attentive and accommodative processing style associated with negative mood. v) Motivational Benefits: in some circumstances, negative affect can increase perseverance and can reduce dysfunctional self-handicapping behaviors. vi) Interpersonal Benefits: negative mood resulted in more polite, elaborate and hedging requests. Negative mood also provided higher quality and more concrete, detailed descriptions of observed events. ~~~~~ ME: -Reviewing evidence that slight negative moods can actually increase your attention to detail and see things accurately. -People in a negative mood may be: ♣ less prone to judgmental errors ♣ more resistant to eye-witness distortions ♣ more motivated ♣ more sensitive to social norms ♣ better at producing high quality and effective persuasive messages -This is a synthetic literature review. Forgas goes through and assesses the kinds of studies that have been done to answer what purpose does negative affect serve, if any? -Limitation of literature review: you can't go into great detail as you go into summarizing/breaking down an entire subset of the research literature -Would you rather be correct about your views of the world, but sad? Or be wrong and happy? -Think about being wrong and happy in an evolutionary context. How much does this contribute as someone who can pass on their genes? -Sadness gives us something to avoid, happiness gives us something to approach. You need both. There's an obsession in the culture about being happy all the time. You need the negative emotions. They serve a purpose. If you can't feel fear/anxiety/sadness, people can abuse you all day long and you would just be like "cool " it's built into us to have both positive and negative emotions. -Emotions are the most primitive and fundamental systems of us ~~~~ • Recent evidence for the benefits of negative affect for thinking and behavior, consistent with evolutionary theories suggesting an adaptive function for all affective states. • Negative affect can o improve memory performance o reduce judgmental errors o improve motivation o result in more effective interpersonal strategies • Summary and Conclusions o The results are consistent with evolutionary theories that suggest that all of our affective states—including the unpleasant ones—function as "mind modules" that produce adaptive benefits in some circumstances o people in a negative mood may be less prone to judgmental errors more resistant to eye-witness distortions more motivated more sensitive to social norms better at producing high quality and effective persuasive messages

How Do Simple Positive Activities Increase Well-Being? Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013)

MELANIE: i) Hypothesis: some activities, if deliberately practiced, might increase people's happiness. Collectivists might benefit more from other-oriented positive activities and individualists from self-oriented activities. This depends upon person level variables - the extent to which people have a need that is satisfied. They cite themselves 11 times so this may be a synthetic literature review. ii) Positive Activities: experimenters have prompted people to write letters expressing gratitude, to count their blessings, to perform kind acts, to cultivate their strengths, to visualize their ideal future selves and to meditate. The extent to which any activity feature influences a positive activity's success depends on the fit between the person that that activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all intervention. The authors are trying to sell you on the usefulness on these different techniques. Expressive writing (putting your feelings into words) has a fair amount of support behind it. iii) Mediating Variables: positive emotions, positive thoughts, positive behaviors, and needs satisfaction. iv) Criticisms: mirrors operant conditioning (scheduled rewards). In order to improve affect you have to meet the person where they are in terms of their personality characteristics and the situation they are dealing with in the moment. Never lose sight of the Lewinian equation we talked about early on. β = f (P,E) (1) Improvements of the Self: that's absolutely what all this stuff is - therapeutic treatments to have your client shore up gaps or deficits, weaknesses and problems with their self. ~~~~~ ME: • The positive-activity model addresses activity features and person feature that influence the success of positive activities as people perform them -What did the authors do to come to the conclusions of well-being? Synthetic literature review. -What activities did they do? Writing letters, meditating, expressing gratitude, counting blessings, perform kind acts, thinking gratefully -How do these things integrate into what we think about the SELF? "If I'm doing these positive things, I must be a positive person. I'm kind to people/count my blessings, it becomes part of your concept." B = f(PE) ~~~~ • Happier people have more stable marriages, stronger immune systems, higher incomes, and more creative ideas than their less happy peers • The authors posit that positive activities are positive for an individual only to the extent that they stimulate increases in positive emotions, positive thoughts, positive behaviors, and need satisfaction, which in turn increase happiness • Instead, a growing body of evidence based on randomized controlled experiments demonstrates that relatively simple intentional changes in one's thoughts and behaviors can precipitate meaningful increases in happiness

Self-control and aggression. Denson, T.F., DeWall, C.N., & Finkel, E.J. (2012).

MELANIE: i) Main Points: talked about rumination effects, self-control and provocation. These are three important components of making sense of why people behave in aggressive fashion. Three Steps (Impellance and Instigation leading to Urge to Aggress, and Inhibition balancing them out) (1) Rumination: comes in under impellance. Increases aggression when self-control is lost. These are all interconnected. In cases of Depression, when we dwell on what makes us sad or angry there are repercussions in relation to self-control and provocation. If you can short circuit the rumination process (repeated dwelling on something unpleasant) you might be able to short circuit what goes on to become an aggressive impulse. (2) Impellance: the dispositional or situational factors that psychologically prepare the individual to experience strong, urge-readiness when encountering an instigation. ii) Clinical Application: the severity or amount of rumination can cause a reduction of self-control for behavioral inhibitions of aggression. iii) Sugar: consuming sugar reduced aggression among participants high in trait aggressiveness only under conditions of provocation. (Sugar vs. Artificial Sweetener isn't enough to avoid the placebo effect - a Diet Coke will raise my dropping glucose levels equally with Coca-Cola) iv) Relations between Denson view on aggression and Bandura point of view: Denson implies more self-control vs. just learning it from others. This brings us back to the self. Self-control even though it doesn't seem to work the way Baumeister proposed (and Denson cites him for the sugar/glucose depletion part of the article). (1) Self-Control: The Self at the personal level and the self at the group level. You in a car is different than yourself otherwise (situational). You're a different person when you're driving a car - you are anonymous. Our feeling of personal accountability dissolves on the freeway. We're seeing a lot of the same categories of behavioral possibilities emerging with aggression at the personal level and group level that we see with other types of behaviors. So there's a commonality with aggressive behaviors and other behaviors. Even good behaviors depend upon some sense of the self (i.e. making interpretations with the situation, past experiences, knowledge of the self, self-concept, self-schemas). So there's this interface between the Bandurain point of view with inhibitive and proactive components and these other points of view on aggression. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ME: -Current experiment shows: (a) temporary reductions in self-control increase aggression (b) bolstering self-control reduces aggression (c) rumination following a provocation reduces self-control and increases aggression (d) the recruitment of prefrontal cortical control is implicated in overriding aggressive urges Denson part of view is aggression is something adaptive. What is the conclusion? 3 important components for why people behave in aggressive ways: rumination, self-control, and provocation They're all interconnected *Angry rumination consists of re-experiencing the provocation, focusing on angry thoughts and feelings, and planning revenge; it increases anger, aggression, blood pressure, and aggressive cognition *In sum, rumination following a provocation increases aggression, and bolstering self-control can reduce this risk How might you apply this in a clinical setting? When we dwell on negative things/things that make use feel bad/afraid/angry, there are repercussions in self-control. It's a stimulus that sets off the whole thing, whether it's relevant to depression/anxiety/etc. if you can short-circuit this process (bc rumination is repeated dwelling on something unpleasant) you can short-circuit what goes on to become an aggressive impulse This brings us back to the self. A lot of our understanding of the social self is contingent on our understanding on what the self is like Self-control, even though it doesn't work quite like how Baumeister says, it is a thing. This study shows sugar helps with urges (controlling them) We have some understanding about self-control that isn't completely dependent upon Baumeister ego depletion. What kind of a view of the self can we come up with that enriches our understanding of aggression? There has to be some self-control to determine whether we engage or disengage. A lot of it hinges on the nature of the attribution we make. It's like we're seeing a lot of the same categories of behavioral possibilities emerging with aggression at the personal and group level, as we see with other types of behavior. There's a commonality with aggression and other behaviors. Even good behaviors depend on some sense of the self and making interpretations and past experiences and self-concept/schemas etc. There's an interface at the Bandura inhibitive and proactive components and these other points of view on aggression ~~~~~~~~~ Abstract Psychological science has largely neglected the role of self-control in studying aggression. Fortunately, the past half decade has witnessed a surge of research on this long-neglected topic -self-control failures frequently predict aggression and, conversely, that bolstering self-control decreases aggression -maladaptive anger regulation decreases self-control and, consequently, increases aggression -social-affective and cognitive neuroscience suggest that the neural mechanisms involved in emotion regulation and cognitive control mediate the relationship between deficient self-control and aggression Conclusion Aggression may have been an adaptive mechanism in our ancestral past. However, modern life requires effective control over anger-driven aggressive impulses *self-control can eventually contribute to reducing the psychological, economic, physical, and social harm associated with uncontrolled aggression

Social psychology's contribution to the psychological study of peace: A review. Vollhardt, J.K., & Bilali, R. (2008).

MELANIE: i) Main Points: this is connected to studying peace and conflict resolution and social psychology principles are at the heart of it. It's kind of a cheerleading attempt of "yay social psychology! Let's take it seriously!" ii) Definition of Social Psychological Peace Psychology: "the field of psychological theory and practice aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence between members of different sociopolitical groups, as well as the promotion of cooperation and a prosocial orientation that reduces the occurrence of intergroup and societal violence and furthers positive intergroup relations." We're talking about this being the study of peace and practice. It's a distinction they are wiping away between theory and application. Theory is the abstract understanding of what peace is and how it works, drawn largely from laboratory research. But they also talk about practice as well. They are calling our attention to this idea that it's not just about studying the abstract ideas surrounding peace. (1) Direct Violence: war and other conflict. We're talking about person-to-person harm that occurs. (2) Structural Violence: violence may lack a direct actor but be built into the social structure, manifesting itself as unequal power and distribution of resources between groups which results in unequal life changes (i.e. social injustice). "The increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them." "It refers to the avoidable limitations society places on groups of people that constrain them from achieving the quality of life that would have otherwise been possible. These limitations could be political, economic, religious, cultural, or legal in nature and usually originate in institutions that have authority over particular subjects." On some level, there is something deliberate that is implied; it's not an accidental side effect. There's something about intent that's contained in this idea of structural violence. The idea is you've got different sociological groups at stake at this level. It's not interpersonal agreement with others - we're talking about political groups. Nations, or ethnic groups - large social categories of people. iii) Methodological Criteria (4): four criterion (1) Normative vs. Value-Neutral Research: the ultimate goal of SPPR is to reduce and prevent conflict, and to promote positive relations between groups. In other words, peace psychological research is, by definition, inherently normative, and not value-neutral. The issue is about evaluating what is peaceful vs. what is conflict oriented within one's own set of norms (i.e. the researcher's evaluative framework). It's not value neutral. We are making some kind of value judgements of what is peace, what is conflict (i.e. what is right vs. what is wrong). (a) Conclusion: Peace is an inherent value of society. "Harmful effects of numerous biases and unexamined assumptions in social psychology; a "self-reflexive and value-explicit" social psychology could alleviate this danger and create a basis for rational criticism." Neither Social Psychology nor Psychology takes a value-neutral approach to the topic. I wanted to make this as explicit as possible. (2) Contextualized vs. Context-Free Research: Since societal conditions constitute the core of SPPR, it needs to be contextualized, that is, embedded in a concrete sociopolitical context such as a specific intergroup conflict or power relations in society. It's a concern with ecological validity. It's ecological validity that takes into account that the kinds of conflict that happen in Israel vs. Palestine will differ. We should identify these kinds of conflict in their own individuality and contextualize them in their own terms. (George Box: "All models are wrong. But some models are useful"). Whenever you do this kind of contextualized research, you are developing a model that is applicable to that situation and context. There may or may not be principles that apply to other contexts, but that's a matter of replication to see whether or not these basic principles (in conflict resolutions) would apply. Emphasis on real-world research and outcomes. (a) Conclusion: "human behavior can only be fully understood in the social context in which it is shaped." They are compatible but they are divergent in terms of how they tend to play out. So you don't find as much context-free research in peace psychology, you're more likely to find field studies in Peace Psychology journals. (3) Multiple Levels of Analysis vs. Methodological Holism (or Individualism): "SPPR should not restrict its focus to one level of analysis by "reducing structural to personal problems" or by ignoring the impact of individual processes" (see image, "Multiple Levels of Analysis vs. Methodological Holism" below). This harkens back to the Pepitone article (see Midterm study guide). There are multiple perspectives, or multiple levels of analysis. The Ross vs. McDougal approach to Social Psychology. They are talking about dividing it up into levels of analysis and the bigger picture view (i.e. methodological holism). (a) Conclusion: "social sciences consider situations, but only social psychology focuses on situational mediation systematically. This requires an increase of methodological pluralism, including qualitative methods and more sophisticated statistical procedures." Its multiple methods of methodology. If all research methods point to the same conclusion, it gives you confidence of what's real. They also draw a diagram that shows at the very core, the central concerns and issues at the group level (the broadest level), the next layer being the intermediate level, then at the periphery where there's the least amount of overlap is the level of the individuals' thoughts. The real core, the greatest overlap between social psychology and peace psychology is the group level. (4) Practical vs. Epistemic Research Orientation: "SPPR also implies that it has a practical orientation, namely the prevention or mitigation of societal conflict and intergroup violence as well as the promotion of positive relations between groups." The idea is that it should be focused on what the perspective is in both social psychology and peace psychology for practical application vs. knowledge for its own sake. Application and the basic science are not mutually exclusive (very Lewinian). It's an evaluation point to see the extent to which either discipline focuses on application and basic science. (a) Conclusion: "social psychology has always straddled the line between theory and application." One of the purposes of the article is a call-to-arms to actually do something with the knowledge gained by research (basic or applied). Social psychology is not concerned with practical application - it's dominated by laboratory work (mostly experiments). More often than not, the discussion areas of an article are largely BS ("oh yeah, you could probably apply this in that context" without any real support to the statement). ~~~~~~ ME: (- is Lecture notes, is mine) -What are the objectives of this article? What are the authors trying to argue? -How do they define Social Psychological Peace Psychology? -What are the conceptual and methodological criteria of Social psychological Peace Psychology? -How does SPRR relate to social psychology? Social psych is integral to studying peace and conflict resolution. Social psychological principles are at the heart of it. In a way, it's a cheerleading way of "yay social psych! Let's take it seriously" Thus, we define the social psychological study of peace as the field of psychological theory and practice aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence between members of different sociopolitical groups, as well as the promotion of cooperation and a prosocial orientation that reduces the occurrence of intergroup and societal violence and furthers positive intergroup relations. It's a theory they're wiping away between theory and application. Theory is from lab research. But they also talk about practice. They make a point of talking about practice. It's not just about studying peace and conflict resolution, it involves theory and application also. With direct violence, we're talking about person-to-person. But what is structural violence? (?) It's not interpersonal getting along with others, it's the group level, the much larger group level is being talked about. We've talked about things like friendship/attraction and helping others, but only at the individual level. Here, they're talking about it at the much larger group level, maybe in terms of nations or ethnic groups. Large social categories of people What were the criteria of Social psychological Peace Psychology? 1. Normative Versus Value-Neutral Research Evaluating what is peaceful vs. conflict-oriented with your own set of norms. The researchers evaluating their framework 2. Contextualized Versus Context-Free Research Contextualization= there's an issue with ecological validity. Ecological validity that takes into account that the kinds of conflict that happen in one country will differ from one another (Israel vs. Palestine). You can say there's a type of conflict in one land, but it's not the same. Their culture is different, the time when the problems arose are different, the context is different. We should identify these kinds of conflicts as their own unique phenomenon and address this in their own terms. That's what contextualization is about. At the heart of it is ecological validity. Criticism for doing social psych experiments for college freshman is you might be good at predicting what freshman think/behave, but can it generalize to others? Your concerns about ecological validity UNLESS you're drawing conclusions only about college freshman 3. Multiple Levels of Analysis Versus Methodological Holism or Individualism "All models are wrong. But some models are useful." - Box. Whenever you do this contextual research, you're creating a model that's applicable to that situation/context. There may or may not be principles that apply to other situations/contexts. That's a matter of replication. Seeing if these conflict resolutions can also apply to other conflicts (if Palestine resolutions can apply to Catholic Protestant conflicts). You might end up with some general principles. Even though they've got some limitations, they still might be useful. This is the compromise position that Lewin would argue for/these authors would argue for. Yeah, some of it isn't going to carry over, ideally it'd be a perfect overlap for theory and application. But there might be elements that are applicable even though the exact shape for one solution doesn't fit in other contexts. This fits for scientist-practitioner model. Some things might fit to all of us/all contexts. 4. Practical Versus Epistemic Research Orientation We should be able to focus in on what the perspective is on social and peace psychology for practical application vs. knowledge for its own sake. The study of how we know what we know. Knowledge of knowledge (epistemic) Why do we care about them? This ties in with their larger point of trying to argue for a field of social psychology and peace psychology, and the two are importantly bound together. In order to make a solid argument to that effect, we have to see how they do match up Criteria: -Criteria 1: Normative Versus Value-Neutral Research -It's not value-neutral Conclusion? Peace is an inherent value of society. (?) -Criteria 2: Contextualized Versus Context-Free Research -Emphasis on real-world research/outcomes What's the result of their evaluation? Here they start to split a little bit. You're more likely to find experiments in peace psychology (?) inferences about causality are from the lab. We should question if they're applicable to real-world phenomenon -Criteria 3: Multiple Levels of Analysis Versus Methodological Holism or Individualism -Pepitone anyone? Lessons of History from Social Psych: There's multiple perspectives. We can think about it like multiple levels of analysis. Ross vs. McDougal point of view on how to do social psych...difference in levels of analysis. Focus on individual vs. group. Think of it as differing levels of analysis. One of the criteria is being able to divide things up into different levels of analysis and extent to which there can be some fruitful methodological pulls. There's a bigger picture It's not just multiple levels of analysis, it's multiple levels of methodology. The greatest overlap b/w social psych and peace psych is that it's at the GROUP LEVEL. That's the point of their analytical diagram. It's incidental that it gets more negative -Criteria 4: Practical Versus Epistemic Research Orientation -Application and basic science are not mutually exclusive Very Lewin view. It's not mutually exclusive/either-or It's a call to do something, regardless of whether one has knowledge for its own sake (epistemic) or applied Epistemic means knowledge for its own sake Social psych is mostly about knowledge/experiments (vs application) and more often than not in the future directions, it's mostly BS about how it could be applied into some context without any meaningful backup to it. Us (clinical psychologists) take the basic knowledge and apply it into an intervention! -What do Volhardt and Bilali conclude about SPPR contributions in the future? ~~~~~~~~~ Abstract. This article examines the overlap between social psychology and the psychological study of peace. We uggest that, within mainstream social psychology, a substantial body of research exists that can be referred to as "social psychological peace research" (SPPR). We present a framework that defines the subject matter and introduces conceptual and methodological criteria, characterizing core research in this area as (1) value explicit, (2) contextualized, (3) including multiple levels of analysis, and (4) practically oriented. A content analysis of leading social psychology journals identifies the amount and nature of current SPPR. We suggest future directions for an integrated body of research to realize the field's potential to further the understanding and prevention of societal conflict as well as the promotion of positive intergroup relations. i) Main Points: this is connected to studying peace and conflict resolution and social psychology principles are at the heart of it. It's kind of a cheerleading attempt of "yay social psychology! Let's take it seriously

Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2012).

MELANIE: i) Reversing Bystander Effect: self-awareness is capable of reversing these bystander intervention effects. ii) Methods: created a fake online forum in which persons online names were in red lettering instead of the other information in black. This made the name more salient to those who saw it. In the second experiment they installed a webcam to increase the bystander effect. (1) Cameras: It's situational. In public you presume there's cameras everywhere and it's no biggie. In private, it might be uncomfortable. (2) Social Level Intervention: police wearing body-cams. Sometimes police get in trouble for turning them off, or "accidentally smudging" something on the lens. (3) Camera Observation: Camera might be representative of an authority observing you. Might limit the freedom to be naughty. Spotlight effect - people can't operate effectively under those conditions, inhibiting optimal performance. The Spotlight Illusion, this sense that others are watching us, there's something in us where we are wired with a sensitivity towards others watching and evaluating us. So much so we're prone to these false alarms like the spotlight effect. iii) Sensitivity to being Watched: we're sensitive to observations of other people, people being able to identify us in particular, partly because we are concerned about whether or not we are upholding the norms of our social group. If we're violating those norms, there might be dire consequences. We might be punished or shunned. Our self-awareness cues into the fact that we know what happens when wee violated norms. There's a risk we will be punished in some way, and that adverse consequence will take one of two likely forms - (1) you'll be unliked or (2) you won't be validated for doing what is correct. Those are two strong pressures that are validated over and over again. ~~~ ME: -If the bystander can be reversed if you're self-aware in a group -Self-awareness is capable of reversing these bystander effects (says Van Bommel). How did he reach this conclusion? -When we're watched, if we're violating those norms, there might be dire consequences. We might be punished or shunned -Our self-awareness cues into what happens when we know we violate norms, there's some kind of adverse consequence. That adverse consequence will take 1 of 2 forms: either not liked or not validated for doing what's correct. Those are 2 very strong pressures: the need to be liked and the need to be validated for making the correct response ~~~~ • The presence of bystanders can increase helping, notably in situations where public self-awareness is increased through the use of accountability cues (e.g., a camera). • Bystander effect - people help others more when they are alone than when other bystanders are present. o Results the presence of a camera would induce public self-awareness, especially when there are many bystanders People help less when there are bystanders present, but when they become public self-aware (by our camera manipulation), the presence of other bystanders leads them to increase helping behavior The mere feeling of public self-awareness is enough to increase helping in public settings, even when participants were objectively just as visible on the forum, as any other forum member • General Discussion o Results from both studies indicate that, as expected, the bystander effect can be reversed by means of cues that raise public self-awareness in social settings

Decade Review: Observing Marital Interaction. Gottman, J.M., & Notarius, C.I. (2000).

MELANIE: i) What's his main claim in this article? How much he's accomplished. Observational reviews give a more detailed perspective of theoretical experiments. Gottman made his reputation by doing these kinds of studies where interactions in the laboratory were filmed and then qualitative data was taken to assess what kinds of behaviors might be predictive of things like divorce or how close the participants might feel in their relationship. At the time he pioneered this kinds of stuff, the things you could do with a smartphone weren't available. They have since outstripped things Gottman could do in the lab. He got to be known as the person who could predict divorce with 92% accuracy (i.e. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse). In the Time 2 trial, there are only 5 couples included in the analysis ii) What would Gottman have you believe is predictive of whether or not someone gets divorced? Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling. In the sense of the negative interactions he might have some predictive ability (i.e. emotional responsiveness being a key factor of relationship satisfaction). Equity theory might explain the satisfaction some people get, but it's not necessarily the case for everyone. Self-Expansion Theory (learning new things through the person you are with). Safety and Spontaneity (excitement in the relationship and security in the relationship). Emotional responsiveness (gaining satisfaction of unmet childhood satisfaction needs). It's a narrower version of what constitutes a satisfying relationship than you personally might relate to. (1) Equity Theory: economical perspective of relationships. Reciprocity in context of relationship investment. Are you getting out of the relationship as much or more as you are putting into it? If you evaluate this and come to the conclusion that you're getting swindled, putting emotional resources into the relationship and not getting anything out of it, your relationship satisfaction declines. This may be a motivator to end the relationship. iii) Are you convinced by Gottman? I'll tell you this, he is hugely influential in the area of interpersonal relationships. He's been incredibly influential for decades. That doesn't necessarily mean he's right. In terms of working with clients, Gottman is very relatable. In that aspect it's very beneficial. But the equation is after the fact which makes it almost unethical to apply that anywhere. His predictive aspect of this is sexy but it isn't absolute, and the predictive quality makes it sound more robust than it is, but at some point I feel he crosses the line (i.e. the predictive power of his research). ~~~~~ ME: -Gottman made his reputation by doing these studies where interactions in the lab were filmed and then qualitative data was taken -Gottman has a lot of stuff worth considering. At some point, he crosses the line (Dr. Hunt's view) such as when he says he can predict divorce after an hour ~~~~~~~ This article reviews advances made in the decade of the 90's in observing marital interaction NOTES How much he's accomplished. Observational reviews give a more detailed perspective of theoretical experiments. Gottman made his reputation by doing these kinds of studies where interactions in the laboratory were filmed and then qualitative data was taken to assess what kinds of behaviors might be predictive of things like divorce or how close the participants might feel in their relationship He got to be known as the person who could predict divorce with 92% accuracy ii) What would Gottman have you believe is predictive of whether or not someone gets divorced? -Criticism, Defensiveness, Contempt and Stonewalling.

Coordinated punishment of defectors sustains cooperation and can proliferate when rare. Boyd, R., Gintis, H., & Bowles, S. (2010).

NOT REALLY DISCUSSED MELANIE: what did you make of that? It's actually a good segway from talking about getting people to cooperate based on benefits of cooperation (excellent segway into this paper). When you're reading articles from Science, it's one of those journals with a strict word limit - almost all the articles are very short like this one. Many of them are only 4 pages long (but it's not "English" LOL). Whatever it is they have to say it must fit within a word count limit. What did you have trouble with? One of the things you'll have to do at some point is confront a landmark article that's influential in the field. It will contain concepts and background that is foreign to you and you'll have to learn how to navigate it to make use of it. He will email a website to us that is an interactive demonstration of some of the basic ideas involved with cooperators and punishers at the group level. ~~~~~~~ • Analyzed a model of the evolution of punishment that incorporates two empirically based features absent from previous work. o First, punishment is coordinated among group members so that it is contingent on the number of others predisposed o participate in the punishment. o Second, consistent with the "strength in numbers" and "divide and rule" maxims punishment is characterized by increasing returns to scale, so the total cost of punishing a single free-rider declines as the number of punishers increases. ~~~~~ ME: -The end results may not be clear to us now bc it overlaps with gain theory, which is all about math.

Addressing Driver Aggression: Contributions From Psychological Science. Wickens, C.M, Mann, R.E. & Wiesenthal, D.L. (2013).

NOT REALLY REVIEWED... The Problem: Aggressive roadway behavior contributes to collisions, injuries, fatalities, and financial costs. 56% of fatal crashes in the U.S. from 2003-2007 involved at least one driver that is associated with driver aggression. We need to identify the person and situation related variables that can predict driver aggression so that we can alleviate this behavior. Alleviating Aggressive Driver Behavior • Programs using CBT, attribution training and relaxation training are being developed and in the early stages. o Teach those to identify triggers, recognize cognitive distortions and control breathing and relax muscles when an anger provoking even is encountered. o Additional evidence-based curricula could be added like recognizing tendency to overestimate our own driving skills and emphasizing the importance of roadway communication. • Similar programs for DUIs shows that these could improve traffic safety. • Other attempts include incentives for good driving. • Directed passenger feedback has been used to encourage drivers to monitor their speed and mirrors. • Psych science can advise police by identifying specific driving behaviors for enforcement campaigns and when these efforts should occur. • Psych science can allow for evaluation of tech solutions such as photo radar and red-light camera.

Groupthink

Refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd.

The Timing of Divorce: Predicting When a Couple Will Divorce Over a 14-Year Period. Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (2000).

Very small sample size (22 divorced) ~~~~~~ • Theme: predictability of divorce both early and later in marriages in a longitudinal sample • Question raised in the study: o Was whether the predictors of marriages that dissolve during the first critical period are the same as the predictors of marriage that dissolve during the second critical period. o Divorce prediction with a high level of accuracy is possible and that models that contained continued marital dissatisfaction, thoughts about divorce and separation and the WDHWP will predict divorce vs. marital stability. o The interactive variables were more powerful in this prediction than the non-interactive. o In this study, a pattern was discovered: although earlier divorcing couples scored higher at time 1 on positive minus negative behaviors on the RCISS, as well as on criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling than non-divorcing couples did later divorcing couples were different from non-divorcing couples at Time 1 in the absence of positive affect codes—particularly during conflict. o THE ABSENCE OF POSITIVE AFFECT, in both conversations, WAS MOST PREDICTIVE OF LATER DIVORCING.

Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L.B., & Norton, M.I. (2014).

i) Hypothesis: overall relationship between money and happiness (Prosocial vs. Personal Spending). ii) $5 vs. $20 Spending: participants were given $5 or $20 and the instructions to either spend it on themselves (personal spending) or another (prosocial spending) by the end of the day. Those assigned to spend it on others reported higher levels of happiness over the course of the day. The amount of money they received had no bearing on their happiness. These participants are told they must spend the money (forced choice) which leads to demand characteristics - people would have some anticipation about the way they should feel about the spending. It's important to take into consideration what alternative explanations might be (i.e. a child's motivation to feed crackers to a puppet might be no different than feeding quarters into arcade games. It has more to do with "I use this as a token to make the puppet do the funny thing"). It might be different if the child were feeding treats to a puppy or feeding animals grain in a petting zoo. Another factor discussed was self-esteem - it might have been interesting to also test self-esteem and its effect on desire to be prosocial. There is a satisfaction for the need of power that is confounded - differently than the need for prosocial behavior. Having an impact on other people. iii) Conclusion: the benefits of prosocial spending emerge when giving satisfies one or more core human needs (relatedness, competence, and autonomy). iv) Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2016): theory about humans psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness). In order to be fulfilled as human beings, we must have satisfaction of all three needs. (1) Competence is you can effectively do what you set out to do. (2) Autonomy is the need for the sense that no one is controlling you and you are the author of your own actions. When you are confronted with choices of action, you make a choice that you feel you have chosen satisfactorily. In order to fulfil the need for autonomy, there need to be authentic choices you can make that reflect your own values and internal needs. The need for autonomy needs to be supported. Those drafting the choices you can make have to include you having a meaningful pick out of the available options. (3) Relatedness is the need to have close emotional bonds with other people in the sense you can share important things about yourself and the reciprocal need for care (you care about them, they care about you in return) such that you have a communal relationship with them. If you have no communal relationships, the chance of satisfying the need for relatedness is very low. ~~~~~ ME: -They feel a prosocial connection with someone else when they feel like it made a difference and when they have a choice -There are 3 basic needs that people need: 1. Competence (you can effectively do what you've set out to do), 2. Autonomy (the need for the sense that no one is controlling you and you are the author of your own actions. The seed upon which self-determination theory is grown. There needs to be meaningful authentic choices that reflect your own values/preferences/internal needs.), 3. Relatedness (close emotional bonds to others, you can share sensitive information about yourself and reciprocal feelings of care). In order to be fulfilled s human beings, we need to have satisfaction in all three needs. ~~~~~~~~~ ○ Question: What is the best way to use our money and maximize our happiness? ■ A large number of studies have shown that individuals with more money are happier--although this relationship is weaker than many people assume. ■ How people spend their money may be at least as important as how much they have. ii) $5 vs. $20 Spending: participants were given $5 or $20 and the instructions to either spend it on themselves (personal spending) or another (prosocial spending) by the end of the day. Those assigned to spend it on others reported higher levels of happiness over the course of the day. The amount of money they received had no bearing on their happiness. These participants are told they must spend the money (forced choice) which leads to demand characteristics - people would have some anticipation about the way they should feel about the spending. It's important to take into consideration what alternative explanations might be (i.e. a child's motivation to feed crackers to a puppet might be no different than feeding quarters into arcade games. It has more to do with "I use this as a token to make the puppet do the funny thing"). It might be different if the child were feeding treats to a puppy or feeding animals grain in a petting zoo. Another factor discussed was self-esteem - it might have been interesting to also test self-esteem and its effect on desire to be prosocial. There is a satisfaction for the need of power that is confounded - differently than the need for prosocial behavior. Having an impact on other people. iii) Conclusion: the benefits of prosocial spending emerge when giving satisfies one or more core human needs (relatedness, competence, and autonomy).

Beyond Fiasco: A Reappraisal of the Groupthink Phenomenon and a New Model of Group Decision Processes. Aldag, R.J., & Fuller, S.R. (1993).

• In the past, there has been a substantial increase in emphasis on groups in organizations in general and in groups problem solving in particular—popular, comprehensive, general models of group problem solving are lacking. • Group think model By Janis o Acceptance of the group think phenomenon has become most universal—despite becoming so popular, group think theory and related research were problematic. • Underlying assumptions of group think o The purpose of using a group for problem solving is to enhance decision quality o Group problem solving is a rational process—with members unified in their pursuit of goals and participating in the group process to facilitate achievement of these goals. o Benefits associated with a problem solving group that functions well are assumed to include: variety of perspectives, more info concerning alternatives, decision reliability, etc o Groupthink characteristics are assumed to prevent the actualization of the potential benefits by causing members to respond passively to external pressures in undesirable ways. o It is assumed that by taking steps to prevent the occurrence of groupthink, a more rational and effective group process will result and better decision quality will occur. o Illusion of wellbeing is presumed to be dysfunctional. o It is assumed that concurrence (agreement) seeking attitudes and behaviors (symptoms and defects) result from individual's psychological agreement seeking drives and group pressures for consensus. NOTES: The model doesnt work and groupthink is just a phenomenon