Tingnan ang lahat ng mga set ng pag-aaral

SOCIAL PSYCH TEST 3

Pataasin ang iyong marka sa homework at exams ngayon gamit ang Quizwiz!

1954 book on prejudice

"The Nature of Prejudice" by Gordon W. Allport -"The evidence we reviewed constitutes a very strong argument that prejudice is basically a trait of personality. When it takes root in a life it grows like a unit. The specific object of prejudice is more or less immaterial. What happens is that the whole inner life is affected; the hostility and fear are systematic." (Allport, p. 71). -"One of the facts of which we are most certain is that people who reject one outgroup will tend to reject other out groups. If a person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti Catholic, anti-Negro, anti any out group." --Note: Current research is not entirely supportive of this view, but...Generalized Prejudice is About Devaluing Marginalized Groups

How Do We Define Helping?

"engaging in costly behavior to benefit another" -Now, to avoid dealing solely with the issue of selflessness, we say "Helping" or "Prosocial Behavior." -Questions we ask: --Under what conditions do we help others? °What are the processes (motivations, etc.) that can explain the increased help? °What moderates helping responses? --Under what conditions do we avoid helping? °What are the processes (motivations, etc.) that can explain the decreased help? °What moderates avoidance of helping?

Micro-aggressions:

(Derald Sue) 1. Microassault 2. Microinsult 3. Microinvalidation --these micro-aggressions build up- after so much, it's not okay anymore --aggression is built on the target's perspective in psychology

Zajonc's (1968) "Attitudinal effects of mere exposure" (JPSP):

*mere exposure is sufficient to cause attraction and liking. Why? Familiarity gives you a sense of control, comfort, and security so you tend to like it (people or things) more *Mere exposure studies- Turquish words were flashed across wall. They were then told to guess whether the word was positive or negative and if they'd seen it before. The words were flashed so quickly, they couldn't recognize if they've seen it before. A clear relationship was found between the number of times the word was flashed and the amount of times they believed it was positive. The effect was smaller if they consciously recognized seeing the word before *this effect was also true of art, music, etc. For art, people tended to choose the art they saw more to hang up in the room *another factor that is not to be confounded is seeing the person more AND finding out they're horrible people. This factor is JUST simply about exposure leading to familiarity -"Mirror exposure" - we like our reflection view better than the view that others see of us; and vice versa. --researchers had people look at photos of the view the person had of themselves when being in front of a mirror and one of the view of another person who was looking at them from another angle. They were asked what the difference was and they said they couldn't tell but they did like the one that represented their view of themselves better. They asked their friends what the difference was and they couldn't tell but they liked better the photo that represented their perspective when looking at their friend. -Moreland & Beach's (1992) "Exposure effects in the classroom..." (JESP) --those who showed up to classes the most were rated as more attractive, friendly, like-able, etc.

Helping in Social Psychology: Where it really took off: Bystander Intervention:

*study on helping took off after this incidence. This woman got attacked when she got home for about half an hour. Within this time, she cried out for help loudly. Nobody called for help or stepped in to help. This incidence was shocking to the whole world *if you explain this event by dispositional attribution, you would say that it's just how New Yorkers are; they are cold and don't care. That would make one feel good by believing that they would've helped. Catch is that this kind of incidence happens everywhere around the world, with people with all sorts of dispositional attributions *researcher then began to investigate under what circumstances would a person help or not help when something distressing is happening

Explicit:

-"Dominative racism" (Kovel, 1970) - the type who acts out bigoted beliefs—he represents the open flame of racial hatred" (p. 54) -Bogardus social distance scale (mentioned earlier) -"old fashioned" measures -Problem with this method is that people become aware of what is not appropriate to say (PC concerns) --measures of prejudice used to be outright but after it being politically incorrect and undesirable, it was hard for people to rate themselves as prejudiced because they became more disguised

More on Aversive Racism:

-Consciously knowing and professing that all people are equal, yet subconsciously treating and judging some groups differently (Dovidio & Gaertner). -People often profess egalitarian beliefs, and deny racially motivated behavior; nevertheless they change their behavior when dealing with a member of a minority group. --Lock their doors, stand farther away, ignore or avoid, talk less, etc. --The motivation for the change is thought to be implicit or subconscious.

Videogame Correll, Park, & Judd, JPSP, 2002:

-Created a videogame where African American or White targets held guns, cell phones, or wallets. -Participants were instructed to "shoot the bad guy, don't shoot the good guy." -Results: --Study 1: Participants fired on an armed target more quickly when he was African American --Study 2: Participants failed to shoot armed White target more than armed African American target; shot unarmed African American target more. --Study 3: Effects stronger for participants who hold stronger African American + aggression associations.

Why the sex differences in Short-term mating?

-Cultural factors --Societal norms influence men to be more agentic and women to be more passive across all behaviors, including sex (but why did these norms develop?) --Cultural double-standard, with promiscuous sexuality more acceptable for men than women (but why did this double-standard come about?) --Recent research suggests these differences in acceptability are closing -Evolutionary factors --Minimum obligatory parental investment (Trivers, 1972) --Men are physiologically required to contribute only a few sex cells to offspring, women must provide substantial pre- and postnatal resources if offspring are to survive --Short term mating has higher cost-to-benefit ratio for women than it does for men --Men more likely to have unrestricted socio-sexual orientation (sex without emotional bonds) (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). --argument that double-standard comes from biology

Cliques:

-Definition: An exclusive peer group -Why do people like to be in cliques? --Well defined groups that are recognizable to all --Gives person a sense of certainty about "who am I?" --Exclusive; hard to get into, so especially rewarding when one does ("I am liked by a group that doesn't like others!"); Exclusivity increases the social status of the group --Tightly bonded; fortifies need for belonging --"Wannabes" are unsure of their inclusion; will often do thinks they know are wrong just to be included.

Cyberbullying:

-Definition: Willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices -Why is it so popular? --Instant gratification °Can be done immediately with big effects --Illusion of anonymity °Disinhibits undesirable behavior --Distance makes it easier to harm another (remember Milgram) --Easy to spread and build alliances quickly °Mass audience --Attractive also to less powerful people

Physical Attractiveness Stereotypes; what are they?

-Different for cultures, but still positive within each culture (Wheeler) -Western cultures (high in individualism) attribute potency to physically attractive people (assertive and dominant) -Eastern cultures (high in collectivism and group harmony) attribute high concern for others and integrity to attractive people -But, there are stable factors that cross cultures: --Waist-to-hip ratio: ~.75 (25in waist; 34inch hips or 86cm hips to 63cm waist) --Men also prefer neotenous (child-like) characteristics in women.

Indirect aggression is not just "girl" aggression; it can affect everyone:

-Disrupts communication climate in schools, families, workplaces -Men/boys are often used as sounding boards, and can be caught in the crossfire, be the victims of, or engage in this behavior, too -Spreads to others --Stress can be vicariously experienced when a loved-one is in (social) pain

Love & Lust:

-Do short-term influences affect long-term liking and love? -Are there other factors and issues that relate to long(er) term relationships?

Lust on a Bridge:

-Dutton,& Aron (1974) JPSP -BC, Vancouver, Canada: --a high suspension bridge over a river. --there is also a Low sturdy wooden bridge over the same river --misattribution of Arousal --IV(?): low or high bridge --DV: sexual attraction: °TAT °Phone call -hypothesis was that when on lower bridge, they would be less attracted than higher bridge -flaw is lack of random assignment to bridges; could be that higher risk men would be on high bridge

Group Level Approaches study; Apfelbaum, Pauker, Sommers, and Ambady (2010):

-Elementary school students read either a story with colorblindness values or multiculturalism values -Rated three vignettes for levels of discrimination -Described these vignettes to an adult --No bias --Ambiguous vignette: White child's exclusion of a Black classmate from his birthday party: "Brady decided not to invite him because he knew that Terry would not be able to buy him any presents." --Explicit vignette: White child's unprovoked physical assault of Black opponent: " Max tripped Derrick from behind and took the ball. When one of Max's teammates asked him about the final play, Max said he could tell that Derrick played rough because he is Black." --tested if they were able to detect racism

Cognitive Associations, Prejudice, and Discrimination:

-Everyone is aware of stereotypes -Even if we don't believe them, they can sometimes affect our attitudes and behaviors -stereotypes are pervasive because we learn them

Berkowitz's Two-Factor Theory of Aggression:

-Evolved from frustration-aggression hypothesis: "frustration causes aggression" --Table shaking study --Frustration is the blocking of goal-directed behavior --Triggers a readiness to aggress or displacement -Original theory overstated the frustration-aggression connection --Frustration produces anger, an emotional readiness to aggress --But, it can cause helplessness or persistence, too. --Other things cause aggression that aren't frustrating

Is there a causal link? Anderson et al. 2010 meta-analysis:

-Examined 136 studies -Over 130,000 participants, 381 effect sizes -6 Outcomes: aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, prosocial behavior, empathy/desensitization -Found that playing violent games does increase aggressive behavior, cognition, affect, etc. -Longitudinal effect size: 2.31% -outcomes were the things researchers were looking at to see if they were affected (dependent variable) -finding was taken from account of studies which covered all kinds of settings: real life, lab, experimental, correlational, longitudinal, etc.

The Role of Arousal in Attraction:

-Feelings that include arousal or passion go beyond simple liking. -Arousal is relatively undifferentiated: --arousal --label -arousal of attraction is lust in heart; heart beating fast, sweating, etc. -arousal could be for something else that's not about attraction (for example, you could be aroused about something else, then you see an attractive person and assume you must be attracted to them); misattribution of arousal (example on next slide)

The Academic Debate:

-Ferguson & Markey- "Video games don't make kids violent. Despite grave concerns that violent video games lead to aggression, the research suggests otherwise." -Anderson & Bushman- "People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don't all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that's not true."

Propinquity:

-Festinger, Schachter & Back (1959)'s "Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing" -Zajonc's (1968) "Attitudinal effects of mere exposure" (JPSP)

Foundations of Prejudice & Inter-Group Conflict; Sherifs' Robbers Cave Study (1954):

-Field study of summer camp adolescent boys Stage 1: In-group formation; weren't aware of other group of boys Stage 2: Friction phase; introduced groups to each other and competition Stage 3: Integration phase (reducing friction); fake situations in which groups had to work together to figure out and resolve problems; boys ended up liking each other much more Stage 4: Superordinate goals (broken water main) --Note: Sherif was able eavesdrop openly by dressing up as a custodian (i. e., oblivious ostracism). -At first, boys highly disliked each other but ended up liking each other after working together -Take home message: Groups in competition is the key --Cooperation on super-ordinate goals (goals that can only be achieved by cooperation) reduced conflict, etc. and stereotypes/prejudice -Sherif's functional theory of inter-group behavior - presumed to be from positive interdependence in pursuit of common goals, whereas inter-group relations are characterized by competition and negative interdependence. -Realistic Group Conflict Theory - competition over scare resources leads to inter-group hostility & conflict.

Video game study of Bushman & Gibson (2011):

-First long-term experimental study of violent games -20 minutes: played violent or non-violent game -24 hour period: told to ruminate (or not) over game --effect sizes have to do with amount of exposure (short-term v. long-term) -Returned to lab to complete noise blast test

What Can Victims Do?

-For Victims in Need of Help: --Reduce Ambiguity, Increase Responsibility --Personalize bystanders --Personal request --Eye contact --Stating their names or identifying them somehow "You in the red shirt, call 9-1-1!"

Paying It Forward; what does that mean?

-Forward reciprocity -Giving help to someone else, after someone gave help to you

Why Do People Engage in Gossip and Rumors?

-Fun; it's a social activity. We are social beings -Allows people to feel like they are "in the loop" --A form of belonging and fitting in --good gossipers are actually valued and tend to be popular because they're in the loop -Normative --"Everyone else does it" -Gives one informational power. --People seek rumor-mongers out for the latest information. -Allows one to being in control and take revenge

Indirect aggression Influenced by Gender and Culture:

-Girls and women more often use relational aggression -More socially acceptable (less able to be caught and punished for it) -Grown women often behave in patterns learned from childhood/adolescence -Cultures that are tolerant of women expressing anger experience less relational aggression -Often used on "tall poppies" --Females who stand out among her peers --tall poppies are those who stick out because they've done better and therefore, others want them to be cut down

Gossip and Rumors:

-Gossip: --An aggressive or untruthful statement told about another person -Rumors: --False information about a person spread to a number of other people -Used interchangeably in psychology field

Colorblindness:

-Group membership does not matter -Everyone should be treated equally and as an individual -Examples: --"We need to focus on how we are similar to our neighbors rather than how we are different." --"We want to show everyone that race is not important and that we are all the same." -Has been the dominant social approach to racial differences. -Majority Group: "we are all the same, so you should be more like us."

Multiculturalism:

-Group membership should be acknowledged, appreciated, and celebrated -Acting as though group differences do not exist undermines cultural heritage -Examples: --"We need to recognize how we are different from our neighbors and appreciate those differences." --"We want to show everyone that race is important because our racial differences make each of us special"

Gottman's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

-He had 650 couples argue with each other in the lab in front of a video camera. -He coded their verbal and non verbal behaviors. -He examined to what extent these behaviors predicted marital dissatisfaction and break-ups.

Correlation vs. Experiment:

-Heat and Aggression --Manipulate Independent Variable (e.g., heat, insult, etc.) and observe effects on any number of Dependent Variables --Self-Reports of Intentions/Behaviors --# times hit a Bobo doll --Negative Evaluations --Hornhonking --Shocks --Noise Blasts (loud or aversive) --Hot Sauce Allocation --Ground up pill bugs

When Are Bystanders More Likely to Help?

-Helping when someone else does --Prosocial models promote pro-sociality --Having the mindset of "Paying it forward" -Similarity --We tend to help those whom we perceive as being similar to us (kin, friends, in-group members) --Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin (1976): Who helps the man laying down in subway train? Whites more likely to help whites; Blacks more likely to help blacks

Media Effects on Homicide Hypotheses (3):

-Hypothesis 1: --Prize fighting triggers an increase in gambling, which in turn provokes anger, fighting, and murder. --However, increased homicide rate did not occur following the Super Bowl. Therefore, not supported. -Hypothesis 2: --Prize fight merely precipitated a murder that would have occurred anyway, even in the absence of the prize fight. --Found no evidence of any dip in homicides soon after the peak. Therefore, not supported. -Hypothesis 3: --Social learning / modeling hypothesis. --Was there victim modeling? -- is a person more likely to aggress against a target victim if his target is similar to the victim? --This hypothesis was supported

More on The Result of Minimal Group Assignment:

-IN-GROUP FAVORITISM: We are better than them (evaluation/prejudice). As measured by assessing the average personality of in-group members and out-group members -OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY: They are more similar to each other than we in our in-group are to each other. We are more heterogeneous than they are (beliefs/stereotypes). Individuating in-group members; lumping out-group members -BIASED RESOURCE ALLOCATION: If asked to distribute rewards, I will give more to my in-group than to my out-group (behavior/discrimination)

Putting Catharsis to the Test (Bushman):

-IV 1: Insult vs. Control -IV 2: Catharsis vs. Control -DV: Hot Sauce Allocation --How much hot sauce consumption was assigned to another person was used as a measure of aggression -Results: Insult led to aggression, but the MOST aggression came from those who punched the pillow.

Implicit Measures of Prejudice

-Implicit Association Task (Greenwald et al) -Affective Misattribution Paradigm (AMP; Payne, et al) -Priming -Face Morphing -Videogame Correll, Park, & Judd, JPSP, 2002

Allport-Postman (1945) Rumor Transmission:

-In a classic study, Gordan Allport and Postman (1945) conducted a version of the "telephone game," wherein participants were shown a picture of a White man on a bus, holding a switch blade and talking with a Black man. The first participant studied the picture described it to another person, beginning a chain of other participants who described the picture to each other in succession. After the description of the picture had been passed down the chain, the final participants often reported that the Black man was holding the switch blade. -Seven retellings led to half the reports including the weapon migration effect. -NOT A MEMORY EFFECT originally, but a study in Canada replicated basic effect in an eyewitness paradigm

How ubiquitous is this factor of physical attractiveness?

-In the courtroom --less likely to be found guilty; if guilty, lighter sentence (except if used to commit crime) -In job applications --More likely to be hired even for jobs in which appearance could have no conceivable relationship to job performance -Class project (High, Med, Low Phys Attractiveness X High, Med, Low Qualifications) --they were given pictures of high, med, and low physical attractiveness as well as high, med, low qualifications; the highest attractive person with lowest qualification had a greater chance of being hired than med attractive and high qualifications --Which matters most? Physical Attractiveness does -as in the courtroom, the same findings are found in lab settings -With children --Physically attractive children are more popular, better liked by parents, teachers, and peers. --Dealt with less severely if they commit a transgression --Teachers give them more information, better evaluations, more opportunities to perform, and more support for their educational endeavors -study done in Canada: rated the physical attractiveness of babies when entering stores and others rated how far the mother wandered off in store and how close they were to baby. Physical attractive babies were less left in distance and mom was closer to them throughout the time -With infants --Langois, 1991 - infants (6 month olds) smile more at attractive than unattractive photos of adults (regardless of race of child and race of photo) --and, the other way around... --no preference for races but preference for attractiveness

Aggressive cognitions (from general aggression model):

-Inner biases that lead to aggression --Expect others to act aggressive --View ambiguous acts as aggressive --Assume when someone does something to hurt or offend them, it was deliberate and intended to harm. --Aggressive people assume aggression will make them feel better.

Psychologists define "aggression" as:

-Intent to harm another --Hostile (driven by anger) --Instrumental (to achieve another outcome) -Still a working definition -Limitations with this definition: --Hard to measure intention °People can harm without intending to ("microaggressions," see D. Sue) °People can intend to harm someone, but somehow the person is not harmed --Difficult to measure validly and ethically

Foundations of Prejudice & Inter-Group ConflictMinimal Groups (Tajfel, 1970):

-Irrespective of personality, arbitrary assignment to groups leads to --In-group favoritism/Out-group derogation --Out-group homogeneity (they're all the same) --Biased resource allocation (distributed more when given resources to their own group) --all of this came from an arbitrary group formed by a toss of a coin; this is all that's necessary to get it started -People show in-group favoritism even when group membership is randomly determined. Not only do they favor in group and immediately like you, but the other group become stupid/obnoxious/immoral. -This has been found both in explicit/implicit measures for real groups and minimal groups

What Does This Research Suggest?

-It suggests anyone can be prejudiced, can stereotype, can discriminate, can dehumanize. --Whether one does it depends on social forces (vs. individual personalities) --A perception of ingroup/outgroup is sufficient

Social Norms (sociological perspective):

-It's the norm to help" -Reciprocity norm --Expectation that people will return favors. --They will help, not hurt, those who have helped them. -Social-responsibility norm --Expectation that people will/should help those needing help -Norms to help women --Women offer help equally to males and females --Men offer more help when the persons in need are women -Violating helping norms can be disruptive and threatening --McCarty & Kelly (2013): opening doors for men lowers their self-esteem and self-efficacy -Critique: Norms are descriptive; easily applied after the fact. --more to critique: not predictive, is stated after the action; not explanatory so not helpful. "this happened, therefore, there must be a norm to them"

Violence in Japanese TV; Personal Observations:

-Japan has (or had) extraordinarily low violent crime rate -Japan has explicit violence/nudity on TV, even on Sunday mornings -How can this be? --Offenders NOT rewarded --The consequences of the violence are shown, not ignored. Grieving widows, children, etc., as opposed to the US, where shootings occur and you move on with life

Michelangelo Phenomenon:

-Just as the renowned renaissance sculptor Michelangelo chipped away at blocks of stone to reveal the ideal form slumbering in the stone, partners sculpt (support and interpret) one another's dispositions, motives, and behavioral tendencies to allow each person's ideal self to emerge. -As opposed to Pygmalion Effect; Molding other into one's own desires -the way as to what you think in this way, is the level of success in relationship as well as satisfaction -Ghosting is cutting off all communication completely- person is dead to you; people who endorse destiny orientation are more likely to do this

Ethological Perspective:

-Konrad Lorenz -Aggression is natural and functional -Is adaptive and was selected for -In animals, aggression only occurs under certain circumstances --Is triggered by an external stimulus --The stimulus, however, isn't sufficient, to cause aggression. There must also be arousal -Two factors: arousal and external trigger --Male stickleback fish: protect egg, see dot, aggress

Physical Attractiveness: Why is it so powerful?

-Learning -Halo effect -Kernel of truth -Rewarded by association -Evolutionary Psychology

Short-Term Mate Selection:

-Males are more likely to report that they would enter into a short-term sexual relationship than are females. --biologically (not culturally) there's no obligation for males -The sexes are more similar in what they prioritize in their partners for short-term relationships. -Five studies (Li & Kenrick, JPSP, 2006) --Men and women given "mate budgets" to design short-term mates, and asked whether they would actually mate with their constructed partner. ---mate budgets- how much would you spend for mate to be attractive, social, etc. --Mate screening paradigm --Reported reasons for having casual sex.

Sex Differences in Short-term mating:

-Men have lower thresholds for entering into short-term mating relationships -More willing than women to engage in sexual relations after any length of acquaintance --1 hr to 5 yrs --75% say "yes" to opposite sex strangers proposal for casual sex; 0% for women (Clark & Hatfield, 1989) -Both have high standards for long-term partners, but men lower their standards for short-term partners (especially one-night stands).

Teaching children moral inclusion (Opotow, 1993)

-Moral exclusion --Perception of certain individuals or groups as outside the boundary within which one applies moral values and rules of fairness --De- and Infra-humanizing out-groups -Moral inclusion --Regarding others as within one's circle of moral concern

Is physical attractiveness regarded as a necessity or luxury in short-term casual sexual relations?

-Necessity: an item that is initially desirable but, once obtained in sufficient quantity, yields to other items -Luxury: Becomes important once sufficient levels of necessities have been obtained -By using forced choice method, Li & Kenrick concluded that physical attractiveness was a necessity for both males and females for short-term partners

More about Neoteny characteristics in women:

-Neoteny is a desirable facial characteristic -Neoteny: the retention of juvenile features in the adult -bigger eyes, bigger lips, cheekbones -Youthful = Reproductively Healthy --more attractive because the younger they are, the more success in reproducing and rearing children

What Will Increase Bystander Helping?

-Noticing emergencies; be observant --We are less likely to notice a situation if we are with others. -Interpreting yourself; rely less on others' reactions --Is help needed? Is this really an emergency? Others who don't look alarmed give us the impression that it isn't an emergency. -Assume responsibility, don't diffuse it.

A Few Items from the F-Scale:

-Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. -A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. -Most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people.

Media portrayal of violent video games:

-Often over-sensationalized -Confuse correlation and causation -Poor discretion in interpreting research findings -Defer to questionable "experts"; child counselors, child psychologists, etc

The Various Measures fit the Types of Racism being Assessed:

-Old-Fashioned Racism --Openly expressed prejudice & negativity toward other racial group -Modern/Symbolic Racism --Emphasizes that beliefs about individualism and meritocracy motivate opposition to policies, not race. Ideologies justify racism. Applies mostly to conservatives. --" Irish, Italian, Jewish and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same." --"It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites." -Aversive Racism --Aversive racists sympathize with victims of past injustice, support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as non-prejudiced, BUT at the same time, possess negative feelings and beliefs about blacks, which may be unconscious. --Negatively arousing to be near Blacks (not so with other forms of racism) --May be more pro-white than anti-black --Applies mostly to liberals. --the feeling of racism feels aversive. Consciously knowing, and professing that all people are equal, yet subconsciously treating and judging some groups (races, genders, Ethnicities) differently. --"Luke: I know not all Asians are math geniuses, but in math class I tend to choose an Asian as a partner, without even thinking about it."

Other helping paradigms; "Elaine" Paradigm (Batson, 1991):

-Participants are assigned the role of watching a subject (Elaine) get electric shocks -Perspective taking instructions (or technical instructions) -Experimenter learns Elaine has an ear infection and it hurts her a lot. "You don't have to, but you can take her place..." --If you don't, you can leave or --If you don't, you will be watching her get the shocks -DV: Do they take her place (a mild form of "altruism") -Results: --If they can leave, they leave, especially if they get the technical instructions --If they have to stay and watch, perspective taking increases "altruism"

Bandura's Bobo Doll Studies:

-Participants were normal children -Watched violent TV episode or various "control" episodes that were not violent...discuss -Manipulated whether aggressor in video was rewarded or not -Observed children in play area after they watched video -Aggression defined as number of times the children hit the bobo doll -Results: --Viewing rewarded violence increases violent behaviors in children. --Viewing unrewarded violence does not necessarily increase violence --Choice of control groups are very important when conducting this research --So, what are the effects of watching violence? Catharsis or modeling?

With Respect to Prejudice, what is an "ism?": Racism / Ageism / Sexism

-Persistent pervasive oppression -Daily prejudice and discrimination in the past, in the present, and likely, in the future --Not occasional insults based on one's race that one rarely encounters. -Thus, those in the majority position are, relatively speaking, unlikely to face day-to-day prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination --Sue (2014): "Whites are not subjected to racism; African Americans are." -persistence is key; it means there is a continuation of oppression, something you won't be able to get out of, which is why it is said that Whites are not subjected to racism

In general, Who Will Help?

-Personality Traits --Individual differences °Agreeableness predicts pro-social behavior (Graziano) °Pro-social (vs. pro-self) orientation (van Lange) -Network of traits °Positive emotionality °Empathy/Compassion °Self-efficacy (a belief one has the capability to accomplish one's goals) -Particular situations induce certain types of people to help. °Expertise (e.g, CPR, mechanic) or role (e.g., EMT, lifeguard)

kinds of aggression (4):

-Physical Pushing, shoving, hitting -Verbal Insult, name-calling, derogation -Direct Direct Confrontation -Indirect Exclusion/ostracism/silent treatment Gossip

How they budgeted "mate dollars":

-Physical attractiveness: Women: $40.80 Men: $52.30 -Social level: Women: $20.20 Men: $13.30 -Creativity: Women: $6.10 Men: $6.00 -Kindness: Women: $17.10 Men: $13.70 -Liveliness: Women: $15.80 Men: $14.70

Reasons for Bystander Effect (3):

-Pluralistic Ignorance --Others aren't helping or even looking alarmed, so help is probably not needed. --Smoke-filled room study (similar to conformity; they see others not helping) -Social Inhibition --Fear of standing out, making a mistake, over-blowing the situation, etc. Smoke- filled room study (others see what they do) --when others see you, it'll reduce help -Diffusion of Responsibility --Epileptic seizure study (participants could not see others; others could not see them)

Many people don't confront Prejudice. Why?

-Prejudicial statements are sometimes ambiguous -Don't think it will do any good -Afraid they will be evaluated negatively --Problem with not confronting: Can create an environment where expressing prejudice is normative and okay.

Confronting Prejudice:

-Prof. Margo Monteith -Includes Making people aware of their biases -Effective at changing future behavior. Why? --Helps high prejudiced people recognize that they have been biased. Sets external norm for egalitarianism. --Helps all people recognize consequences of implicit bias, and ways to enact strategies to combat it. -Czopp, Monteith, & Mark (2006) --People who were confronted about stereotype-consistent responses reduced stereotyping and explicit bias later on in the session. --People who were confronted felt more negatively about themselves (e.g. guilty and uncomfortable). This negative emotion accounted for reductions in bias. Doesn't work well. --Hostile confrontations (e.g. "it seems that you sounded like some kind of racist to me) vs. non-threatening confrontations (e.g. "Maybe it would be good to think about Blacks in ways that are a little more fair"). Works better.

Initial Attraction: What matters at first?

-Propinquity (we like those who live/work near us; mere exposure) -Physical Attractiveness (we like those who are physically attractive; halo, rewards, kernel of truth; evolutionary signs of health and reproductive advantage) --halo effect- when seeing physical beauty first, the relying of stereotypes comes next so their character is judges as more positive --rewards- physical attractive people get more rewards -Similarity/Complementarity (we like those who are similar to us—it's rewarding; complementarity of needs) -Responsiveness (we like those who are responsive to us; signals belonging, worth, and control) -Reciprocal liking (we like those who like us—it's rewarding)

Festinger, Schachter & Back (1959)'s "Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing":

-Randomly assigned students to housing -Determined who liked who after several months -We like the people who live closer; who we run into more often.

Responsiveness:

-Rats like responsive rats (Latané) --Findings on responsiveness started off with rats (not people); Tried to find what would predict time and contact with each other; tried every factor-smell, fur, etc.; a PhD student hypothesized that what would predict it would be responsiveness; found that this was the case when they did back to the rat that the rat did to their hand and controlled for motion; it wasn't motion that predicted time and contact with hand but responsiveness did -People like responsive people (Davis, Bernieri) --responsiveness doesn't mean that they like you but they are responding to what you do; nodding at the right time when talking -Non-conscious mimicry (Chartrand, Bargh, et al) --pauses begin to match more through interactions

Implicit Association Task (Greenwald et al):

-Related to both discriminatory behavior and explicit measures of prejudice (McConnell & Leibold, 2001). -Criticisms: --Knowledge of cultural stereotype does not mean personal endorsement (hard to disentangle individual from culture). --Pro-white does not mean anti-black. (are you just pro-white or anti-black or both?) --Debate as to whether or not explicit and implicit measure SHOULD be related. A better question (Olson & Fazio) is WHEN, not IF. For example, McConnell found that order can matter...the IAT is pretty transparent, and can color any explicit measure or behavior you measure. Although it is true that the IAT is transparent, as you have seen it is very difficult to control responses...and a traditional program will measure reaction time in milliseconds.

Indirect Forms of Aggression:

-Relational aggression (also known as social aggression, covert aggression) --Harm is caused through damage to one's relationships or social status --Rumor, gossip spread face-to-face or online --Manipulating the web of third party relationships in order to hurt individual: Spreading rumors, gossiping, lying, telling secrets, eye-rolling, exclusion, etc. -Mobbing (as its known in Europe; first described by Konrad Lorenz) --A group "ganging up" on an individual through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, isolation, humiliation. -Excluding, Shunning, Silent treatment, Ostracism --Exclusion and ignoring, partially or fully -Bullying is a popular term that includes many forms of aggression (some indirect, some direct): --Persistent abuse (across time) and unwanted.

Biases that Affect Evaluation of Academics:

-Science faculty rated the male applicant as more competent and hirable than the identical female applicant. --They also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant (Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoli, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012). --the resumes (Vitaes) were exactly the same except for the names -A study of over 300 recommendation letters for medical faculty hired by a large US medical school found that letters for female applicants were shorter, provide "minimal assurance" rather than solid recommendation, raised more doubts, portrayed women as students and teachers while portraying men as researchers and professionals, and more frequently mentioned women's personal lives (Trix & Psenka, 2003). --later studies showed that the word genius only showed up for men -In a national study, 238 academic psychologists (120 female) evaluated a curriculum vitae randomly assigned to a male or female name. Vitae with male names received better evaluations for teaching, research, and service experience and were more likely to be hired (Steinpreis et al, 1999). -In a recent study here at Purdue, female faculty received lower course evaluations (.5 points lower) ("Overall, I would rate the instructor as..." [excellent to very poor] than males. --Female faculty members were expected to be more friendly, likeable, nurturing, understanding, caring, and pretty (Ai et al, 2014); Many comments for female instructors mentioned attractiveness, clothing, and nurturing attitude. Not so for males. -A study of postdoctoral fellowships awarded by the Medical Research Council of Sweden found that women candidates needed substantially more publications to achieve the same rating as men, unless they personally knew someone on the panel (Wennerås & Wold, 1997)

Sharing Information vs. Gossip Continuum:

-Sharing information: The person whom the information is about is comfortable with others knowing the information, the information is not used to hurt, embarrass, or exclude others, and the information is truthful -Gossip: The person whom the information is about is not comfortable with others knowing the information, the information is used to hurt, embarrass or exclude others, and the information may be exaggerated or simply untrue (a rumor)

So...Is there a causal link?

-Short answer: Yes --Scientific evidence is highly consistent --Ongoing disagreement in interpretation -No detectable effect on criminal behavior --"All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence"

Self-Linking:

-Single Potent Link (Gulker & Monteith, 2013) -Forging a strong, single link with an out-group member can lead to reduced explicit prejudice by increasing self-other overlap. -Repeated reinforcement of this link lead to reduced implicit bias -little study details: Across three studies, participants who indicated on the prescreen survey that they would A) like to have children and would B) be open to adopting internationally were brought into the lab. They believed that the study was investigating what characteristics make people good adoptive parents. They then went through a simulated adoption process. -Dependent measures: --Inclusion of other in the self --Implicit attitudes (IAT) --Explicit attitudes -Completed scales of self-other overlap. -Less practice affects explicit but not implicit. -More practice affects implicit as well. -Differences in explicit attitudes were fully explained by the level of Self-Other overlap. -if you adopt someone from another country, you're going to be less prejudice for those people -Only repeatedly associating a Chinese baby with oneself led to reduced evaluative bias toward Chinese people. -One possible reason that self-linking is an effective method to reduce both explicit and implicit bias is the transfer of positive feelings about the self. *(try to find more details on study; didn't get all of it in class)

Studies on Bystander Intervention:

-Smoke in the room --Bystanders are also potential victims -Fall from ladder -Epilepsy study --Diffusion of responsibility --(study of student who is a participant of radio talking) when being the only bystander, most people reported seizure. When knowing that they're not the only bystanders, 62% reported. When 4 other bystanders, 31% reported it. Men and women are equally likely to report. Participants were all disturbed. In fact, those who were most disturbed, did not report -Pencils dropped in elevators --Generalizes to non-emergencies, too (emergencies not necessary) --if you were to drop all your pencils in an elevator, the bigger the group, the slower and less likely anyone will help. Moderators include how men are more likely to help when it's women. Also, cultures play a part because norms can vary. -When will people help? (film with Darryl Bem- the one who who used self-perception theory which went against dissonance) --bystander must define situation as emergency. Sometimes emergencies can be ambiguous --must feel weight of responsibility --Third factor that helps to intervene is modeling; if another person intervenes first. When one person helps, others go in and help too

Theoretical Perspectives of why we help:

-Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1961) -Social Norms (sociological perspective) -Evolutionary Psychology -Emotion Theories

Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1961):

-Social Exchange Theory has roots in sociology, psychology, and economics -Behavioral interactions are based on estimates of maximize one's rewards and minimizing one's costs. -Costs --Time, Effort, Money, Safety -Rewards --Internal (feeling good about oneself; avoiding feeling bad) --External (adoration, fame, money) -So, helping is the result of this mental calculus; a mental costly decision making process -Critique: Much helping can occur spontaneously under enormous cognitive load; unlikely the result of deep processing.

How Can We Increase Helping?

-Socializing Compassionate Helping --Teaching children moral inclusion (Opotow, 1993) --Modeling altruism; Prosocial TV models --Learning by doing °Induce voluntary helpful actions; these promote the self- and other- perception that one is caring and helpful, which in turn promotes further helping --Attributing helpful behavior to compassionate motives

Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love:

-Sternberg (1986), Psych Review -Intimacy --closeness, bondedness, connectedness. --Sharing of inner thoughts and feelings. -Passion --arousal, sexual attraction -Decision/Commitment --short-term decision that one loves the other --long-term commitment to maintain the love

Teasing vs. Taunting:

-Teasing --A playful way of joking between peers (Keltner,1998; 2008) --Can be fun; can actually bond people (especially males). --It reflects interpersonal closeness and comfortableness (not "walking on eggshells") -Taunting a hurtful, aggressive statement often implying the taunter has power over the taunted. -research has not been found of where line is between teasing and taunting

SOCIAL PSYCH TEST 3

Kaugnay na mga set ng pag-aaral

ARCH 215 - Sustainability

Baker Chapter 8

2: U2L1: Demonstrative Adjectives & Demonstrative Pronouns

Chapter 5: Elasticity

SA Pro - Test 1

Art Exam 1 Review

Chapter 12 muscles

Antibiotics that Inhibit protein Synthesis

GEOG 100- TEST 1

TEST 1 (MOUDLES 1-4)

Chonnam - Global Business Management Post-Midterm

A+

Fin 301 Chp 2

Chapter 4 - Software Process Models

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Review

MIS 330 Final Review

Unit 17 - Heart

Ch 6 LPad

Course 6 - Agile Project Management | Quizes & Questions

Macroeconomics Chapter Three