Exam 3

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

(Altruism in a loose sense) We engage in behavior when we feel empathy. The argument driving this theory is that empathy precedes altruism. There are 3 key factors for this hypothesis: 1. Perspective Taking - putting yourself in someone else's shoes 2. Personal Distress - you need to be emotionally impacted 3. Empathetic Concern - "other-oriented" emotions Do we always help when we feel empathy? Not necessarily; If we have a different way to feel better than by helping we may not help.

Interpersonal Attraction

(Interpersonal attraction is heavily dependent on culture, but there is little research on homosexual relationships; generally, similar patterns appear). What attracts us to people?? 1. Proximity/Propinquity Effect - We tend to like people that we encounter regularly due to the mere exposure effect: the more that we are around people, the more likely we are to like them in the absence of negative characteristics. 2. Similarity - Similarity is a good predictor of liking because it acts as a point of connection between people - similarities can be hobbies, views, interests, etc. - elements of similarity are important, but the relevance of similarities may depend on context - it is hard to maintain relationships with people who don't have overlapping interests/similarities - things that are important to people should overlap for a relationship to work - Similarity does not equal identical 3. Reciprocal Liking - we like people who like us - when we know other people like us, we are more likely 4. Attractiveness - we like attractive people, both physically and charismatically (in friends and romantic partners) - Halo effect: we assume that people who are attractive have other positive traits - we like symmetrical features (evolutionary explanation) - some traits that are considered attractive vary by time, place, culture, etc. - Generally, people who meet societal standards of beauty are desired for relationships - Behaviorally, there are no differences between genders in importance of attraction - attractiveness matters less for long-term relationships where other things become more important

Role of Others in Helping

A big predictor of helping is what other people do. - Social norms are influential - If others help, then we are more likely to do so, too, in that moment and in the future. Seeing someone help primes the norm of social responsibility. Personal norms are better predictors of helping though. Some people are more likely to help or provide different forms of helping. When we know people's individual beliefs we can better predict behavior on a day-to-day basis (but this is not practical from a research perspective). - Knowing individual beliefs impacts who we reach out to for different kinds of help. Helping others is not always clear, so we are likely to rely on others to figure out what to do in ambiguous situations. We also may rely on "imagined" others when no one else is present. A lot of helping situations are ambiguous, leading us to turn to others for information.

Reinforcements for Aggression

Aggression applies to operant conditioning. - Reinforcement is more effective in reducing dissonance than punishment. - Severe punishment usually doesn't usually change behavior because there is sufficient external justification. - Violent punishment tends to be ineffective and a bad idea, especially with young kids. The best way to get kids to stop whining is to ignore the whining. Aggressive behavior should be addressed using... - non-aggressive punishment/negative reinforcement - consequences for dangerous/undesired behavior that makes the behavior less likely Real world punishments - death penalty does not decrease the murder rate - jail time doesn't always prevent crime - aggression breeds aggression For punishment to be effective, it must be swift and certain, however... - this is hard to do - it is almost impossible in the real world - punishment should occur as close to the action as possible to be effective and it should be predictable/certain - it is all about consistency of punishment

Aggression

Aggression refers to the intent to do harm or cause pain (this definition does not care about the justification for intent to cause the harm, it just cares that it is there). For example, accidents cause harm, but they are not intentional and therefore not considered aggression.

Prejudice

An attitude with cognitive, affective, and behavioral components that is mostly negative. Hostile attitude toward a distinguishable group based solely on the membership in that group. "Prejudiced against..."

Qualified Parental Investment Model

Because human infants are highly dependent... Men are more likely to stay involved because it increases the child's chance of survival. There are fewer gender differences in what people want. We can't disentangle evolutionary traits from culture. Some traits are preferred across time and culture: example waist to hip ratio. The idea of mate preference is becoming dominant in social psychology and we can see bigger gender differences in short-term rather than long-term relationships.

Catharsis - Freud

Catharsis doesn't reduce aggression. Small acts of non-harmful aggression reduce overall aggression and may reduce short-term physiological tension, but are not effective in long-term reduction. Catharsis is a commonly held belief, but there is a difference between diffusing physiological tension and diffusing actual aggression. Foot-in-the door idea applies to acts of aggression.

Cognitive Component of Prejudice

Cognitive = Stereotypes The beliefs that someone has about members of a group. Generalizations about a group in which identical characteristics are assigned to all members regardless of individual differences. The consequences for generalizing people incorrectly are greater than for objects. We tend to form stereotypes about any category that we're familiar with because they are easy to form; Unfortunately they're also very hard to change. When we see people who defy our expectations about certain members of a group, we tend to consider them exceptions rather than changing our beliefs about the entire group. Just because someone has an example of a member that does fit a stereotype, that doesn't make the stereotype true. Stereotypes are oversimplifications and often incorrect. The cognitive component of prejudice is difficult to overcome.

Communal Relationships

Communal relationships refer to long-term relationships and we care about people in these differently than those with whom we have short-term relationships.

Methods for Reducing Prejudice

Contact Hypothesis - This is the single largest and most influential prejudice reduction theory - Suggests that there are certain types of in-group/out-group contact that can reduce intergroup prejudice and bias. - Prejudice may reduced only under very specific conditions and lab-based results don't generalize well to the real world. - A criticism of this theory is that it is an oversimplification. There are 6 conditions for the Contact Hypothesis to reduce prejudice between groups... 1. Mutual interdependence - people must actively work together 2. Common goal - people must work together to achieve something that they both want. (1 and 2 alone are not enough to reduce prejudice) 3. Equal status - each group must have equal power dynamics so that they are working on the same level (this is almost never achievable in real life) 4. Friendly, informal, interpersonal contact - groups can't be competitive or ALL-business. There must be a getting to know you component 5. Multiple contacts with multiple members - finding too many exceptions to stereotypes forces you to break down the assumptions you hold 6. Social norms of equality - social norms should clearly show value for everyone at the same time (this is most effective when the norms are salient) In reality, it is very hard to meet all of these conditions. It is easy under structured conditions, but in the real world results are inconsistent.

What determines whether aggression is deemed acceptable versus unacceptable?

Context matters for determining whether aggression is acceptable. Self-defense is considered aggression even though it is also considered acceptable/justified. There are cultural differences in when aggressive acts are considered acceptable or unacceptable. Animal acts are usually not identified as aggression but it is not clear whether or not they actually have intent to cause harm. The day-to-day use of aggression is very different than the social psych use of aggression. Killing to eat is usually not seen as aggression. It it important to look at operational definitions of aggression when reading research. It is also important to separate your ideas about justified aggression from the operational/conceptual definitions of aggression.

Cultural Messages about Aggression

Culture tells us what types of aggression are acceptable and under what conditions.

Equity Theory

Developed because the comparison level model ignores the idea of fairness. The goal of this model is to achieve a point of equity with your partner, so that the benefits are equal to the costs. People who are under benefited in relationships tend to be the most dissatisfied. People who are over benefited should be unhappy according to this model because they will feel uncomfortable with always getting more. In reality, people who receive more are not normally dissatisfied. Time frame for equity matters. In long-term relationships, the time frame for equity is extended.

Seemingly Positive Stereotypes

Even though they seem better, positive stereotypes are also harmful and are still problematic. For example, the stereotype that "all Asians are smart" is problematic. "Positive stereotypes" still have a net, negative outcome.

Evolutionary Approaches to Love

Evolutionary psychology explains mating and parenting practices. It assumes that men and women have different things that they look for in partners because of influences in our evolutionary past. Parental Investment: Men can have a theoretically unlimited number of offspring so they look for mates that are healthy and in reproductive years. Women can have a limited number of offspring, so they look for mates with status and resources. This pattern has been supported historically, however it is difficult to distinguish the explanation based on evolution from that based on culture.

Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis

Frustration increases the likelihood of aggression, as does being kept from reaching some goal. Ex. If you are at the front of a line and someone cuts in front of you, you are more likely to engage in aggression than if you were further back in line. The closer you are to your end goal, the greater the frustration you will feel and the greater the chance for aggression. Aggression is less likely if the person who frustrates you has greater physical presence or social status. (Retaliation potential is reduced then). Justification reduces the chance of aggression.

Factors that Influence Prejudice

Generally, we think of the groups that we are a part of as different than those we are not a part of resulting in in-groups and out-groups. We tend to favor in-groups over out-groups, resulting in an in-group bias. We want to think of our in-groups in positive ways and we want to create greater distance between in-groups and out-groups to make them more distinct. Context influences our interactions with people and priming matters for prejudice. We recognize diversity in our in-group members, but not in out-group members ("they're-a'll-alike" framework) resulting in the perception of out-group homogeneity. - This may lead us to look at one example of an out-group member and think we have the whole picture. Out-group members who don't fit our expectations are viewed as unique exceptions. Our understanding of out-groups can be challenged, but it is difficult to do so. - Dispositional attributions influence how we interact with people and our expectations may cause people to act in ways that confirm our preexisting beliefs.

Hostile v.Instrumental Aggression

Hostile aggression stems from anger with the goal of inflicting pain. Instrumental aggression is causing harm as a means to some other goal (Harm is not the goal, but the intent to cause harm is still there). - This form of aggression is about power or status and it happens a lot. - The motivating factor is a goal for something else.

Why might we stay in relationships even if the costs are greater than the benefits?

If we feel we can't do better or if we think that that's what relationships are supposed to be like. Our understanding of our potential alternatives and expectations about relationships matter. People are generally happiest when their expectations are met.

Why does prejudice exist?

Institutionalization of prejudice (practices that keep people in line) is a part of how groups function/what they produce. For example, there are very stable expectations about the prototypical man and woman. Men are expected to be career-oriented and women family-oriented. General cultural expectations come from institutionalized ideas. Even if our personal experiences are different, we are influenced by cultural norms/messages. Ex. Cinderella contains a lot of subtle messages; "finding a man is important"; "appearance is important". Cultural norms create hierarchies through institutionalization creating a breeding ground for prejudice. No one can escape the effects of institutionalization of ideas, but we can challenge why/how we are affected by it. Intergroup prejudice often begins as competition for scarce resources and leads to an escalation of prejudice. As real conflict occurs, prejudice and discriminatory behaviors increase. Conflict will always occur, but we can think about ways to reduce it.

Relationships Succeeding

Long-term relationships are typically successful because partners share important similarities. Research has revealed particular patterns about the success of long term partners. They tend to... - be best friends - like each other as people - agree on core aims, values, and goals - find their partner becoming more interesting over time - want the relationship to succeed/put effort in - see marriage as a long-term commitment (greater likelihood of addressing challenges)

Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love

Love involves a combination of three ingredients: passion, intimacy, and commitment. Liking - just intimacy; typical of friendships Infatuation - just passion; no emotional connection or commitment Empty - No passion or intimacy, just commitment. Romantic - Passion and Intimacy; Typical of early stage relationships; not maintainable long-term Companionate - Intimacy and Commitment; This is a goal state for some people; can be found in friendships Fatuous - Passion and commitment with no intimacy; usually one-sided; ex. stalking relationships; harder to find in practice than in theory This model is conceptually useful, but not entirely practical to study.

Love

Passionate love - love characterized by intense longing w/ physiological arousal. Typical in the early stage of relationships. - This type of love is not maintainable. Companionate love - love characterized by caring and deep affection. Typical in later stages of relationships. Part of relationship dissatisfaction can stem from different expectations about love.

Comparison Level for Alternatives

People ask themselves "'what's my relationship like and can I do better?" - people are more likely to leave if they think that they can do better - prior experience and expectations influence comparison level Level of Commitment - When people are heavily invested in a relationship they are less likely to leave. - Commitment level may be influenced by time, finances, children, etc. - we prefer relationships where we are getting at least as much as we are putting in A criticism of the comparison level model is that it ignores the idea of fairness.

Prejudice and Conformity

People typically conform to public norms about acceptance, but many still hold discriminatory cognitive views. Our expectations of others/our perceived expectations influence our behavior. If we think that others expect non-discriminatory behavior, then we will act accordingly. Research on prejudice has changed with time. Nowadays, data collected from surveys is weighted differently because what people self-report may be different from their actual beliefs due to social desirability effects. Behaviors that reflect prejudiced attitudes have also changed over time. There is great variability in research about prejudice due to differences in operationalizations, designs, times, etc.

Categories of Aggression

Physical Verbal Hostile v. Instrumental

Physical v. Relational Aggression

Physical and relational aggression can be either hostile or relational aggression. Physical aggression is more frequent in males, but it is not exclusive to them. There is a long history of stating that men are more aggressive in general. Relational aggression refers to verbal or social ostracism, often thought of as "mean girl" behavior. - Relational aggression is more likely in females, but the gender difference is less severe for relational aggression. - Today, lots of research is focusing on online relational aggression.

Digital Interface and Helping

Relationships are affected by distance, but distance today is different than it was in the past due to the internet. We can have more distant contact. Purely online relationships look different than in-person relationships. In digital environments, helping consists more of social support and involves less tangible help. The framing of information can also be altered digitally and affect how things are perceived and how help is given.

Relationships Ending

Social exchange theory helps to explain why relationships end. Destructive behaviors do more damage than constructive behaviors are able to fix. Similarity is important for the success or relationships. - the saying opposites attract often results in a fatal attraction whereby the traits that initially drew partners to one another eventually become the reasons for the relationship's failure. Most relationships end because people grow apart.

Dealing with Aggression Effectively

Staring Point - The best way to deal with aggression is to point time between the emotional experience and the response to it. - It is best to let the emotional state settle down to respond cognitively rather than affectively - Even though it is important to wait to address a problem, it is necessary to come back and address it. - Venting is not effective and it reinforces your anger and frustration; It can be effective if the ventee is neutral and you figure out why you're upset/gain self-awareness If you're at fault, then giving a sincere apology is incredibly effective, but it will cease to be effective if the problem keeps happening. Improving communication and problem solving skills to negotiation and compromise, as well as perspective taking helps to deal with aggression. Model Non-aggressive behavior/resolution - social learning to show that disagreements do happen, but they can be resolved non-aggresively. Building empathy helps to decrease victim blaming and limits the extent to which we dehumanize people that we aggress against.

Consequences of Prejudice

Stereotype Threat - The apprehension by members of a group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype. - This extra burden of apprehension may result in ability to perform well. Victim Blaming: - This happened because because victim X did Y. - This aligns with the belief in a just world theory that helps us to deal with fear and anxiety about bad things that happen. - A focus on dispositional attributions can blind us to situational factors that influence how we experience life. - Victim blaming blinds us to complex social realities

Robber's Cave Study: Sherif

Study on reducing intergroup prejudice after the introduction of a bias. - Participants were groups of boys who had never met and came from all over the state for a camp. They had no prior relationships. - Boys were randomly assigned to either the "Eagles" or the "Rattlers" groups and were then generally kept separate from the other to form in-group bonds. - The groups were then brought together for competitive games and activities that were used to induce intergroup conflict. - Researchers then attempted to get rid of the conflict and prejudice... - They found that removing conflict doesn't remove prejudice, so they sought to inspire cooperation between groups. - Active cooperation reduced bias/prejudice, but contact alone was not enough because self-segregation occurs.

Measuring Prejudice - IAT

The Implicit Association Test is a measurement used to assess prejudice based on the speed of associations. People tend to show bias in the direction of cultural stereotypes. This measure hasn't been shown to predict actual behavior. It is hard to study behavioral interactions while under cognitive load. There are fairly predictable patterns of results in culturally familiar IATs. One problem with this method is that we can learn how to respond. Automatic thinking impacts attitudes and behaviors and a desire to use controlled thinking doesn't always equal ability to do so.

Affective Component of Prejudice

The affective component of prejudice refers to emotional reactions to a members of a group based on their membership in that group. The affective component of prejudice is difficult to change because it is not about factual evidence, it is all about emotion and feelings. If an emotion is strong enough, then even a strong contradictory cognitive component can't change it.

Behavioral Component of Prejudice

The behavioral component of prejudice is often referred to as discrimination. Discrimination is harmful action aimed at a member of a group simply because of their membership in that group. Discrimination can be explicit or subtle. Even if the perpetrator of discriminatory acts don't see them as harmful, the victim does. Today, explicit discrimination is less likely and people are less likely to explicitly express prejudice.

Aggressive Stimuli

The mere presence of aggressive stimuli can increase the likelihood of aggression. Objects that are associated with aggression may prime aggression. Ex. Experiment with gun in lab room versus a badminton racket. When we see others behave aggressively we are more likely to do the same because of social learning (Bandura Bobo doll study). We are more likely to behave as others do if we respect them or if they have high status, or if there is a reward.

Gender and Helping

The stereotype is that men are more likely to help in emergency situations, playing the role of "hero" and that women are more likely to provide long-term, nurturing help by offering social support. In reality, the bulk of help that people provide is day to day. Women are more likely to give and get help, but they may be unlikely to ask for social support and may be drained by giving it.

Criticisms of the Contact Hypothesis

The type of contact matters. Contact with out-groups must be positive and reflect individualistic perspectives. - Less privileged groups should come together to force change Minorities become less aware of discrimination. Legal desegregation does not equal functional integration. Getting rid of legal restrictions doesn't inherently result in the ability to make change happen. Individual bias changes do not equal systematic changes. This can't be the only means for making change.

Prosocial Behavior

There are 3 types of prosocial behavior that exist in concentric circles from broadest to most specific: Prosocial behavior -> Benevolence -> Altruism In this model it is highly unlikely that pure altruism exists. Prosocial behavior is the broadest form of helping and refers to any action that is intended to benefit others (intent matters here). Benevolence - Refers to any action that is meant to benefit others BUT there is no expectation of an external reward (there is a self-reinforcing or internal reward present) Altruism - Any action intended to benefit others BUT there is no internal or external motivation (absolutely no reward expectation)

Helping, Mood, and Age

There are inconsistent findings that age matters. Evidence suggests that negative emotions may impact children and adults differently. Emotions consistently motivate helping in adults, but not so much in children. - We must conceptualize helping as rewarding to provide help and young kids don't tend to find helping to be intrinsically rewarding (that comes with cognitive and emotional maturity)

Aggression in Research

There has been a shift from lab-based studies to real world correlational studies on aggression. For example, there has been an emphasis on violent/aggressive behavior and media. Violent/aggressive media has been found to correlate positively with the likelihood of engaging n aggressive behavior. In lab settings, video games can have a causal effect on aggression in lab settings, but in the real world the relationship is only correlational. Bidirectional Correlations/Reciprocal Determinism: we impact the situation and the situation impacts us. People who play video games that are violent may become more aggressive, but people who play violent video games may be inherently more aggressive. There is more longitudinal research being done on aggression in the media.

Altruism Debate

There is a debate about whether true altruism actually exists. Often, extreme examples of benevolence are cited as near altruism when the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. - E.g. Saving someone from a burning building at the risk of your own life. The argument has been made that the motivation for helping is personal, such as " I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't help," but that is still an internal motivation/reward. Technically, pure altruism may not exist, but functionally it may. Altruism is a wishy-washy term, so finding an operational definition of it is important.

Changing Prejudice

Today, discriminatory behavior tends to look more subtle and research has shifted to examine interpersonal/covert discrimination. People today may exhibit suppressed prejudice (aka public compliance without private acceptance), however, there is still job discrimination based on sex, race, sexuality, etc. Different interactions may occur based on the prejudiced beliefs that people hold. It can be difficult to identify covert discrimination; To do so, some researchers have studies micro aggressions - when people receive, often unintentionally, different treatment based on presumed group membership. Modern sexism and racism have resulted from shifting social norms. People often engage in non-discriminatory behavior without believing changing their cognitive or affective prejudice. Sometimes people don't actually know how they feel. The very knowledge of a prejudice affects us at times. We can challenge cultural stereotypes when we are able and motivated to do so. No one is completely without prejudice - that is not possible. However, people can try to reduce the extent to which stereotypes affect them by using controlled processing. Eg. Why do I think that?" There are also differences in individual degrees of prejudice. People can have stronger or weaker automatic tendencies towards prejudice.

Who needs help matters

We are more likely to help relatives, in-group members, attractive people, people similar to us (similarity is contextually dependent and it seems to increase empathy). Sometimes help can be given as a way to enforce status/hierarchy. We are more likely to help people that we have existing relationships with because it is more rewarding and it is easier to perspective take. Perceptions about why someone needs help also matters. We are more likely to help when we feel that people are not responsible for their situation. (people want to help the blameless) Belief in a just world and victim blaming affects helping. Political beliefs can also affect perspectives of responsibility and helping.

Helping and Mood

We are more likely to help when in good or bad moods than in neutral moods. Negative state relief model/Emotion regulation hypothesis - we seek to get rid of bad moods by helping. - sadness or guilt are particularly strong motivators for helping - guilt is an other-oriented emotion that will lead us to help others or the person we harmed - The idea of paying back debt cause by harm is a strong motivator for helping Negative emotions only motivate helping in non-clinical levels. We help people when we are in good moods because it prolongs the good mood - positive mood effect. People are more likely to help on a sunny day than a rainy day because their moods are likely to be positive. Mood maintenance effect - we engage in behaviors that will help us to continue feeling good. Even small acts of helping can be enough. People also interpret things more positively when they are in good moods, and they are more likely to help. There is speculation that in good moods we become more self-focused which can lead people to help because they see themselves as good.

When and Who do People Help?

We are most likely to help people that we are related to/genetic relatives, especially children. - Highest degree of helping found in parent/child relationships. This is inspired by the evolutionary concept of kin selection: the argument that we are likely to help those who share our genes and are likely to help those genes survive. The argument also exists that social norms tell us to help children. Reciprocity norm - we provide help to those who provide help to us because we "ought to". - the timeframe for reciprocity is dependent on the context of the relationship. - reciprocity is expected more quickly in short-term, casual relationships - some may even apply the idea of reciprocity to parent-child relationships Social responsibility norm - if you are in a position to help, then you should regardless of whether they're able to reciprocate. - when we perceive someone as dependent, we are more likely to help them because this norm is primed. - sometimes help is desired, but sometimes it is not (context matters and we can't intuitively know whether someone wants help or not). - the social responsibility norm is more influential in collectivist cultures Social Exchange Theory - We don't want to give more than we get. In longer term relationships the timeline for equity is extended.

Social Exchange in Relationships

We judge our relationships using an economic model of costs and benefits. We are likely to be dissatisfied if the costs are greater than the rewards. 3 Factors 1. Benefits - What am I getting out of the relationship? 2. Costs - What costs do I incur? 3. What are my expectations about what I should get and what I should give?

Variability in Prejudice

We tend to favor in-groups over out-groups because we're more aware of the variability in our in-groups than in out-groups. Individuals who violate stereotypes rarely change our core assumptions about the groups and are unlikely to change the stereotype.

Bystander Effect

When other people are present, you are less likely to get help. Latané and Darley conducted research on helping and found that there are 5 things that need to happen for people to get help. 1. People to need to NOTICE that help is needed - there needs to be no ambiguity to the situation, it must be very clear that help is needed. - social norms may cause us to be unlikely help (norm that it is in polite to stare) - people may be caught up in their own concerns and not see their surroundings - to get help, draw attention to yourself/make a scene 2. People must INTERPRET the situation as requiring help - Situations that are noticed may be ambiguous and people may not know if help is needed - When the situation is ambiguous we look to others for cues in this case; when others help, ambiguity is decreased - Even if people notice and interpret, if they don't know what to do, help is unlikely. 3. People must take RESPONSIBILITY for providing help - if you are alone, you are more likely to help or if you have special knowledge/training - People often sit and stare as a result of diffusion of responsibility - people are more likely to help if they hold a leadership - when you know a person, you're more likely to help. - people are less likely to help if they feel anonymous 4. People must make the decision to act/DECIDE how to help - deciding to help is more likely if you know what to do - situational anxiety makes people less certain and less likely to help 5. HELPING! - Just because people know how to help doesn't mean they will, it just makes it more likely. - Ultimately, helping comes down to circumstance

Relative Deprivation

When we perceive that we are getting less than we expected or deserved, the chance of frustration and aggression increases. Construal of a situation matters.