final exam

culture of honor

"Culture of Honor" à Southern U.S. White Male: • small disputes become contests of reputation and status -take the law into your own hand Experimental test: -test cortisol of men upset • White males from South or North • Provocation: bumped into by confederate (or control) • Compared to Northerners, Southerners: • more likely to think that their masculine reputation was threatened • more upset • more primed for aggression • physiological • cognitive • engage in more aggressive and dominant behavior results: -southern males had more cortisol and testosterone when insulted and northerns had less -game of chicken where southern gives guy less distance and north gives more

forbidden toy aronson and carlsmith

-aronson and carlsmith -let kid play in room and then pick 5 favorite toys -severe or mild set of punishment to play with forbidden toy -mild condition participants were more likely to not play with it -mild participants decreased ranking while severe ranting increased ranking • Children were randomly assigned to a mild or a severe threat of punishment for playing with a particular toy (ranked moderately high) • They were then left alone with all the toys for ten minutes, but were observed through a one-way mirror.

alcohol and aggression

-if someone knows that alcohol makes them aggressive, the presence of alcohol w/o drinking it can make them aggressive causal relationship between alcohol intake and aggressive behavior more aggression in alcohol conditions • Stronger effect in men than in women • Stronger in those with chronic/trait aggressiveness • Stronger in those with alcohol—aggression expectancies Priming participants with (preconscious) cues to alcohol (pictures, words) can produce an increase in aggression-related thoughts and behaviors • Especially in those with strong pre-existing expectancies regarding the effect of alcohol on aggressive behavior

shu et al

-student read code of honor and then given opportunity to cheat -if cheat=less moral code=more moral disengagement so not aware of morals -change and justify ones mall act it leads us to justify the next act=rationalization trap -strategic forgetting

1st moral foundation of haidt moral psychology

1. care/harm: Related to our long evolution as mammals with attachmentsystems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. -Underlies compassion, empathy, kindness, nurturance -not do harm to others because against morality -kids detect when someone is hurt --Attachment system is pan-mammalian (Bowlby) • --Psychopaths lack a "Violence Inhibition Mechanism" (Blair) • --Mirror neurons and empathy? (Rizzolatti; Decety) • --Infants detect helping and hurting

cognitive dissonance theory major research paradigms 4 of them

1. induced compliance: -getting people to do counter-attitudinal things -high-pay vs low pay -low choices vs high choices -to see where dissonance comes into play 2. insufficient justification -working for things that turn out not so great -forbidden fruit/forbidden toy 3. free choice: -making decisions among alternatives 4. disconfirmed expectancies -when expectancies are violated

what behavioral intentions are determined by in theory of planned behavior

1. ones attitude towards the behavior -whether the individual views their own performance of the behavior as positive or negative 2. subjective norms -whether the individual perceives other people (who are imp to the individual like friends and family) would approve their engaging in the behavior 3. perceived behavioral control: -the extent to which the individual feels that they have the capabilities to enact the behavior predicts behavior when ones perceived behavioral control reflects one's actual behavioral control

two stoic practices

1. premediatatio malorum -think ahead of the bad stuff; think about crap that's going to happen in the day, whats gonna make you angry -what could go wrong 2. cultivate equanimity: regulate your emotions, prepare your response to certain situations so you know how youre going to act -whats the most constructive emotional and behavioral reaction to those possibilities

1. what is happiness what are the problems?

1. pursuit of postive emotions -i feel good, positive emotions 1. Pursuit of positive emotions= pleasure-seeking, hedonic principles • Peace with the past, happiness now, hope for the future • Many routes to present happiness: food, sex, drugs, music, exercise, internet, buying things, social connections, etc. 3 main problems with increasing/seeking positive emotion • Habituation, dependence, addiction, material worldly things • Costly - diminishing returns over time • Heritability

2nd moral foundation of haidt

2. fairness/cheating: related to evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism -generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy --Reciprocity is a human universal (Brown) • --Reciprocal altruism (Trivers) • --People want punishment to fit crime, not to prevent future harm (Darley & Carlsmith) • --Concepts of fairness not clear until age 7, but emotional sensitivity to unfairness emerges much earlier... • -- Chimps have a detectable sense of fairness • --Very large research literature on Justice; broad consensus on best, appropriate forms of justice • --Humans very good at detecting unfairness or norm violation

2. what is happiness

2. pursuit of individual strengths -figure out strength abilities and improve those 2. Pursuit of individual strengths= engagement, flow • In contrast with increasing pleasure, in a flow state, you don't feel anything at all • Completely absorbed in your work, creativity • E.g., Increasing capacity for love and compassion, selfcontrol, moderation, self-awareness, mindfulness, gratitude • Identify your individual strengths, and craft your life (work, play, love, family) to use them as much as possible -engagement flow, managing flow

pettigrew's theoretical integration

3-stage model of contact decategorized personalized interaction leads to category salience leads to common ingroup identity • Having respectful, quality contact changes minds because it changes affect and behavior first à the gut • Pettigrew (1998) argued for the role of dissonance processes in contact (as yet untested) • Positive interactions that are not compelled à ? • Once the discomfort is gone and the behavior goes well, the "cognitive stuff" will typically follow.

3rd moral foundation of haidt

3. loyalty/betrayal: related to out long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions -underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group --Minimal Groups Paradigm (Tajfel) • --Early preference for local accent (Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, 2007) • --Tribalism and initiation rites emerge even when not culturally supported (e.g., street gangs, fraternities, religions)

3. what is happiness

3. pursuit of positive institutions/social connections -pursue broader meaning by engaging in social situations 3. Pursuit of meaning via positive institutions/social connections à meaning • Using your strengths to belong to and promote positivity in the world - something larger than you • Community • Family • Religion • Democracy • Freedom • Equality • Tolerance

4th moral foundation of haidt

4. authority/subversion: shaped by our long primate history of heirarchical social interactions -Underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority, respect for traditions and the fulfillment of role-based duties --Hierarchy is culturally widespread • egalitarianism is not the default, it is maintained effortfully (Boehm) • --Displays of appeasement (Keltner; Fessler) • --Brown, Pronouns of Power: tu/vous distinction is recreated even when language doesn't mark it

5th moral foundation by haidt

5. sanctity/degradation: shaped by psychology of disgust and contamination -Underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way, idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants --Disgust is universally present, extended into social world (Rozin, Haidt) • --Purity and pollution practices are widespread in traditional societies, many similarities (Douglas) • --Purity and pollution practices emerge even in modern societies

excitation transfer theory of aggression

Assumptions: -raise the arousal of people and people make mistake physiological arousal as anger arousal • 1. arousal dissipates slowly • 2. if two arousal-inducing events occur within the same time period, then the arousal from one event may "transfer" to the second • 3. if the first event causes anger (e.g., provocation), then arousal from the second event (e.g., exercise) can amplify the anger and subsequent aggression • "Two studies": DV often aggressiveness toward social targets • Insult=arousal manipulation= "shock paradigm" those who were provoked and exercised/or not had more aggression

desensitization to violence

Bartholow et al. (2006): • Measured EEG while showing pictures to violent and non-violent video gamers (all male) • EEG: electroencephalogram à neural voltage deflections in information processing • Negative images = greater deflection amplitudes = stronger psychological reaction • Image viewing task: • Neutral images (e.g., man with backpack) • Negative (but non-violent) images (e.g., dead dog) • Violent images (e.g., man holding a gun to another's head) • Also played "aggression game" with partner results: -more violent gaming-weaker brain responses to violent images More recent studies (e.g., Bartholow; Bailey; Weber) with various neuroscience methodologies have shown direct impacts of violence (film and game) on frontal lobe activation & amygdala •executive function, impulse control/inhibition •aggression

communal relationship

Communal relationships • More frequent in close intimate relationships • Satisfaction determined by mutual concern and equity • Costs / rewards are still important • ...but equity can be repaid over longer periods of time (i.e., trust) • Immediate repayment often seen as offensive

elements of flow state or activity

Components of a Flow-producing activity: • Complete involvement: You can fully concentrate on the activity • Ecstasy: You feel outside of normal experience • Inner clarity: The activity has clear goals, and it has direct feedback • Activity is doable: You are capable of the activity; You feel that you control the activity • Serenity: A low sense of "ego"; your worries and concerns disappear • Timelessness: Your subjective experience of time is altered; hours can pass quickly • Intrinsic motivation: Whatever produces this state is its own reward

ben franklin effect

Dissonance theory predicts we will like others more after doing them a favor. • Ben Franklin reported using this. After he borrowed a book from a political opponent, the other politician became more civil toward him. -get people to do a favor for you instead of doing a favor for someone else

egan et al cont.

Egan et al. (2007) pretested children and capuchin monkeys for their preference among stickers and M&Ms, respectively. • Determined three statistically non-significant (in preference) alternatives: orange, red, and green • Choice condition: let participant select between Orange and Red. • No-choice condition: give participant either Orange or Red, preventing the other option. • Test phase for both conditions: Present "Unchosen" option alongside novel option (green)

high pay vs low pay festinger and carlsmith

Festinger and Carlsmith 1959 (participants put spoons on and off table then turn pegs-pointless boring tasks-told participants to tell next participants that experiment will be fun which is a lie give $1 or $20 $20 found it more enjoyable (behaviorists) $1 found it more enjoyable (dissonance) $1 loved it- know from personal experience that task was dull but felt next person would enjoy it -convinved themselves that the study was fun because $1 wasnt enough to lie and reduce dissonance from lying $20 hated it- didnt have shift attitude around to know they didnt like it because got lots of money -did not have to convince themselves that the experiment was fun because $20 was enough motivation to lie and reduce dissonance

balance theory

Heider's balance theory -motive for interpersonal consistency drives attitudes people prefer balance relationships and are motivated to change unbalanced relationships 3 different people/objects have 3 connections and each connection can be positive or negative -positive relationship: all 3 signs multiplied together give positive sign -negative relationship: all 3 signs multiplied together equal negative sign **look at figure

world's most persuasive communication

IF you... THEN I... • IF=identify specific behavior you want from them • THEN= exchange for something you have that they want •Tips about timing: bad ideas •When you are in the low power position •When you've given away your resource • Don't waste favors • correct: If= Then (behavior= reward) • Incorrect: Then= If (reward= behavior) BUT, expect some predictable responses • 1. bringing it back to abstract, high altitude generalities • 2. switching their IF for your THEN (a promise) • 3. emotional displays: shock, surprise, disgust, etc. • 4. "It's not fair" • 5. name-calling and excuses • 6. "I though we were friends"; "After all I've done for you..." • 7. playing dumb • 8. trivialization of your resource

media violence key conditions what four conditions must be present

Media aggression is more likely to increase viewers' aggressive tendencies over time if the following conditions are present: • Efficacy • If aggression is presented as an effective instrument to achieve one's goals and/or remains unpunished • Normativeness • If aggression is presented without attention to its negative consequences; as 'normal'; often as justified • Reality • If perpetrator is portrayed as similar to viewer (s/he could imagine being in this role); if aggression is presented in a realistic manner (vs fantasy, cartoons, or fiction) • Emotional susceptibility • If viewer of aggression is in a state of emotional arousal (pleasure, anger, arousal), which prevents a more detached or critical attitude

passive and displaced

Physical, Verbal, Relational: Same as before, but innocent target(s)

active and displaced

Physical: "kick the dog" Verbal: yelling at children Relational: harming innocent relationships

active and direct

Physical: hitting Verbal: yelling, etc. Relational: ostracism

passive and direct

Physical: letting her walk into traffic while texting Verbal: not preventing or stopping verbal abuse Relational: allowing rumors to spread

passive and indirect

Physical: not warning someone of some potential harm Verbal: lukewarm letter of recommendation? Relational: not correcting false rumors

active and indirect

Physical: vandalism Verbal: telling rumors Relational: telling rumors

pop psych

Pop psych approach: attitudes, values, beliefs, personality, ego, self-esteem -they don't change very easily -better to go after behavior itself which can change vs pop-psych -Here's what's not useful in describing problems: • Dispositions • Personality • Traits • Broad psychological labels • Values • Attitudes • Etc.

catharsis freud beliefs hydraulic pressure

The hypothesis that "blowing off steam"—by performing an aggressive act, watching others engage in aggressive behaviors, or engaging in a fantasy of aggression—relieves built-up aggressive energies and hence reduces the likelihood of further aggressive behavior. • Freud: repression of negative emotions leads to a build-up of negativity, leading then to disorders. • "hydraulic pressure" model of aggression based on this: hold it in and you'll do bad things --Aggression is a deep, instinctual Drive --Flipside: let it out (or channel it) and you'll be all better • Tested in lab experiments since the 1950s

theory of reasoned action

attitude and subjective norms lead to behavioral intention and ultimately behavioral -subjective norms: what the people in your life will think of your behavior you're performing; their attitude perception of what important people think

theory of planned behavior table

attitudes towards the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control all lead to behavioral intention and then behavior

jecker and landy demonstrating ben franklin effect

can you do a favor for the experimenter who was mean to you or the whole department Jecker & Landy (1969) • Participants with unpleasant experimenter complete some tasks, win some money • Return the money as a favor (a) to the Department or (b) to the Experimenter

khan

central hypothesis: White suspects would receive less police force than non-white suspects -an intragroup pro-White bias in police officers would be a strong protect for Whites, thus leading to them receiving less police force (the Whiter the suspect phenotypically appears, the more he or she will be shielded from police force) -intragroup differences in phenotypic racial stereotypicality may exacerbate police use of force for non-White suspects, providing evidence of negative anti-non-White subordinate group bias -pro-White intragroup bias may be as strong a protective effect as negative bias against non-Whites methods: The researchers collected and examined police force cases from a police officer database. The researchers recorded and rated the severity of the force used by the police officer in the case. The researchers put the booking photos of the suspects in a survey to obtain trait ratings by participants before the experiment began. In this survey, the participants rated the suspect's race, stereotypes, age, and the extent of their injuries -Internal use of force case files from a large police department were coded for severity of police force, and suspects' booking photographs were scored for phenotypic racial stereotypicality findings: White suspects received far less police force while being arrested. A pro-White bias affected the treatment of White suspects and they were treated with significantly less force. The results also indicated that officers used more force against males than females. Overall, the researchers could conclude that the severity of police force can be predicted when looking at race and if a pro-White intragroup bias exist. White suspects have a benefit from their race, which decreases the amount of police force used on them -Regression analyses confirmed that police used less force with highly stereotypical Whites, and this protective effect was stronger than the effect for non-Whites. Results suggest that intragroup bias is a protective factor for Whites, but not for non-Whites, providing an additional route through which racial disparities in policing operate limitations: focusing on police ratings of phenotypic racial stereotypicality to connect directly to police behavior in the field. Further, these data speak to the extent that force is used when it is employed and not whether force is used or not in a given interaction. It may be that phenotypic racial stereotypicality similarly predicts whether or not force is ever used in an interaction -non-White grouping may have limited the power to find predicted negative effects of anti-Black bias -no causal conclusions -It is possible that other co-occurring factors may be driving the relationship, including differential suspect behavior or resistance that vary by phenotypic stereotypicality

depaulo, tang, stone

central hypothesis: attractive persons should be especially successful at detecting the kinds of lies told to attractive people where as unattractive people should be successful at detecting lies told to unattractive people methods:showed videotapes of truthful and deceptive messages to participants classified as low, medium, or high in attractiveness -speakers shown on the tapes were telling truths and lies to attractive and unattractive listeners of the same or opposite sex findings: the lies that the speakers told to attractive listeners were generally easier to detect than were the lies that they told to unattractive listeners -lies told to attractive listeners were more accurately identified by subjects who were themselves of average or high attractiveness -lies told to the unattractive listeners were relatively more accurately detected by unattractive than those of moderate or high attractiveness limitations: no data to support hypothesis that attractive persons hear more ingratiating lies than do unattractive persons -the personal factor that might motivate people to fail to notice the insincerity of certain kinds of lies wasn't a factor in this study because truth and lies present in the study were addressed to someone else and the subjects knew this

hasan

central hypothesis: violent video game players would have lower cardiac coherence and would exhibit higher levels of aggression because of induced and increased stress methods: participants played a violent or nonviolent video game. Cardiac coherence was measured before and during game play. After game play, participants had the opportunity to blast a confederate with loud noise through headphones during a reaction time task. The intensity and duration of noise blasts given to the confederate was used to measure aggression findings: participants who played a violent video game had lower levels of cardiac coherence. Participants who played a violent game were more aggressive in their levels of intensity of the noise blast to their partner. Overall the researchers could conclude that lower cardiac coherence values correspond with violent video games and aggression. Violent video games lead to more stress in the player which eventually leads to higher levels of aggression. -Cardiac coherence was negatively related to aggression. limitations: cannot make causal inferences on the effects of cardiac coherence on aggression because cannot manipulate cardiac coherence -only measured one type of aggressive behavior (e.g., administering noise blasts to an opponent during a competitive game). Our findings may not generalize to more planned and thoughtful forms of aggression -did not include other physiological measures such as blood pressure, heart rate, and skin conductance

category salience vs decategorization

decategorization: category salience typicality LOW category salience: category salience typicality HIGH • Using the decategorization approach, you improve intergroup relations by reducing the salience of existing social categories; the category salience model proposes the opposite • Others argue that interventions should not (try to) eliminate categorization, but to change which categorizations are used • Ingroup/outgroup definitions should be re-structured to reduce intergroup bias and conflict • Two interventions • Crossed categorization (began in 1980s) • Recategorization (late 80s)

original aggression theory

frustration-aggression hypothesis: -• Frustration = blocked goal attainment • 1. Frustration always leads to some form of aggression • 2. Aggression is always a consequence of frustration • The tendency to act aggressively is decreased by showing aggression or its substitutes

egan et al

let monkey play with M&M and see which ones they like the best: liked orange, red, green -let money chose between red, orange, other option prevented when chose one -test phase: monkey's brain do the same thing as humans and they degrade down their first choice; chose red 1st time; chose green 2nd time

relative contribution of happiness to general well-being

meaning has the largest impact, engagement 2nd and pleasure the 3rd

allport contact hypothesis

optimal conditions: • Equal status • Stereotypes are disconfirmed • Cooperation / common goals • Situation allows participants to get to know each other properly • Norms support equality • "It has sometimes been held that merely by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes. The case is not so simple." (Allport, 1954) • "It has sometimes been held that merely by assembling people without regard for race, color, religion, or national origin, we can thereby destroy stereotypes and develop friendly attitudes. The case is not so simple." (Allport, 1954) lDoes it work? YES -See Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2005 -Dependent variables ¡1. Out-group attitudes -More positive or, at least, less negative ¡2. Perceived variability of the out-group -Increased complexity of out-group perceptions (less OHE) ¡3. Decategorization -Decrease in category use, or perceived usefulness, for identifying and classifying individuals ¡4. Outgroup Trust (see Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy, & Cairns, 2009) ¡5. Forgiveness -Increased readiness to forgive past behavior of out-group Why does it work??? • Processes underlying "good" contact: why does it reduce prejudice? • 1- Learning about the outgroup • Disconfirmation of expectancy more important than 'knowledge' about the group • Stereotyping as minor mediator; not major outcome • 2- In-group reappraisal • Changing a (glorified) view of the in-group, which itself leads to a less 'provincial' view of out-groups • 3- Generating affective ties • Close friendships • è Empathy + perspective taking • 4- Reducing (intergroup) anxiety (affect) • Bulk of literature examines basic, direct contact • OK, but vague • Quality vs. quantity distinction is helpful • Quality always outperforms quantity • There is also: • Friendship contact • Indirect/vicarious/extended contact • Vicarious contact • Imagined contact

balance theory experiment

participants presented with triad relationship 80% said something needed to change • Most recommended changing attitude toward Bob • 1/3 said to downgrade the poem • 5% said to change the relationship between Bob and his poem **look at figure

weapons effect

presence of weapons should lead, in general, to more extreme aggression than presence of neutral objects presence is either pictures or actual weapons frustrated/angry with weapons present leads to more aggression frustrates.angry with neutral objects present leads to less aggression

social capital vs moral-communal capital

social capital: social networks and the associated norms reciprocity and trustworthiness moral-communal capital: social capital but also institutions, traditions, and norms ensure that contributions and cooperation will be rewarded, and that cheating will be punished -cheating is punished while honesty rewarded

Aron, norman, aron, mckenna, heyman

study one: central hypothesis: 1: Shared participation in novel-arousing activities is associated with higher levels of experienced relationship quality -This association is mediated by the extent to which the relationship is perceived as boring (versus exciting) methods: participants took a marital questionnaire that they sent in through mail. participants had to have been together for no more than 15 years. -the questionnaire measured experienced relationship quality and satisfaction, boredom with the relationship findings: strong positive association between responses to the exciting activities question and experienced relationship quality -relationship between exciting activities and experienced relationship quality became nonsignificant when boredom with the relationship was included in the model -significant relationship between type of activities engaged in and the quality of the relationship limitations: measuring excitement with only one question -the correlations among our variables as simply due to a general tendency to experience everything about the relationship as similarly positive or negative

christ

study one: central hypothesis: that individuals with little contact exposure would have the greatest effects of outgroup attitude change after prolonged contact with an outgroup methods: Researchers asked the participants about their close contact and extended friendships along with their attitudes towards foreigners. The researchers also recorded the participants certainty in their answers and what part of Germany the participant was from -typical measure of the cognitive aspect of outgroup attitudes findings: participants from West Germany had more direct contact with outgroups and more certainty in their attitudes. East Germans were more prejudice towards individuals in their extended contact. Direct contact affected the participant's certainty in their attitudes. -having contact with outgroups can affect attitudes and strengthen intergroup relationships limitations: direct contact cannot have much impact on those who live in segregated environments (unless, of course, they also move and work in other mixed environments) -direct contact requires more time to affect attitude strength

surface vs deep-level acting

surface acting: do your displayed emotions differ from felt emotions? -emotional dissonance where you display emotions you dont really have=lead to burnout where you dont care anymore • Generally negative outcomes • E.g., Kenworthy et al. (2014): significant relationship between surfaceacting and job burnout (emotional exhaustion) deep acting: do you try to change the underlying emotional state, so that the display is "authentic"? • Generally less negative outcomes • See Hulsheger & Schewe (2011)

planned behavior

the direct precursor to behavior is one's underlying behavioral intentions (the degree to which an individual is ready and willing to try and perform the behavior)

tedlock's arguments about central functions of thought

thought is for interpersonal functions A central function of thought is make sure that one acts in ways that can be persuasively justified or excused to others. The process of considering the justifiability of one's choices may be so prevalent that decision makers not only search for convincing reasons to make a choice when they must explain that choice to others, they search for reasons to convince themselves that they have made the "right" choice.

dissonance theory

two cognitions, relevant to one another will either be consonant or dissonant -They are consonant if one of the cognitions follows from the other. They are dissonant if one of the cognitions psychologically implies a contradiction of the other When we are confronted with information implying that we may have behaved in ways that are irrational, immoral, or stupid, we experience discomfort. •This feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that runs counter to one's customary (typically positive) conception of oneself is referred to as cognitive dissonance. •Cognitive dissonance refers to the unpleasant state when attitudes and behavior are inconsistent •Not just any inconsistency • Should be relevant and threatening to a positive, self-image • Maintaining this image is one of our most powerful motivators • Confronting a discrepancy between who we think we are and who we actually are is very upsetting = discomfort /dissonance

weapons effect study findings accessibility hypothesis

weapons increased aggression for those who were angered and non-angered field experiment: pickup truck and gun rack and purposely stop and not go when there's a green light-see how long it takes a person to honk accessibility hypothesis: • 1. Read prime word for 1.2 seconds • Weapons primes: shotgun, fist, machete, bullet, dagger, grenade • Animal primes: rabbit, bug, bird, dog, butterfly, fish • 2. Blank screen à ½ second • 3. Target word appears (say it aloud) • Aggressive words or neutral word -more likely to say aggressive words faster when primed with aggressive weapon and say non-aggressive words slower

what is a weird culture and why is it relevant to the study of moral psychology

weird: industrialized, democratic, nations rich, educated, western why is it relevant?

socialization and religion

• "The role of religion is paradoxical. It makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice" •Allport, 1958 • When will religion make prejudice? • Perhaps it is in the nature of certain kinds of religion • Emphasis on US versus THEM • Emphasis on "our way is the best and only way" • But this would only explain prejudice toward religious out-groups. • Two consistent findings for North American Christianity • 1. Church members express more racial prejudice than non-members • 2. More traditional and fundamentalist = more prejudice • Explanations for these correlational findings? • 1 - no causal connection. Perhaps less educated people are more fundamentalist and more prejudiced. • 2 - instead of religion causing prejudice, perhaps prejudice causes religiosity? • Religious ideas are created or selectively chosen from scripture to justify racial / ethnic / gender inequality • 3 - religion causes prejudice • e.g., the belief in free will à impoverished minority groups get what they deserve • Another example: "Curse of Cain"; "Curse of Ham"

reduction of anger arousal

• 1. Never show anger - hold it in? • 2. Venting? • Catharsis theory • Intense physical exercise (esp. with "rumination") • 3. Defuse anger - Emotion Regulation • Decrease arousal • 1. delay (count to 10, or 100) • But NOT with "rumination" • 2. distraction (think about something else) • 3. relax (breathing, music, etc.) • 4. incompatible response (empathy for victim, humor, sex, hold a pet) • è all of these increase positive affect, lower anger arousal • 1. Plan ahead and practice an arousal-reduction technique for anger/aggression reduction •Including CBT (walk away, count to 100) / Stoic practices •Write-up: Which event(s), Which emotion, Which technique(s), Success?

socialization

• Basic socialization hypothesis: • Prejudice towards other groups is a set of values that is transmitted from parent to child. • "Prussian Blue" - white nationalist teen singers • Their mother, April: "I'm going to give them...my opinion just like any parent would." • April: "Well, all children pretty much espouse their parents' attitudes. We're white nationalists and of course that's a part of our life and I'm going to share that part of my life with my children." • Socialization: you get prejudice from the same source as other evaluations of the world • Basic processes of conditioning and observational learning lead to prejudice

media and aggression

• Beginning with Bandura's modeling studies, lab studies sought to replicate the effect with TV and film aggressive models • E.g., "Bobo doll" studies with televised actors • Worked really well when the actor was rewarded, praised for aggressive actions • 1970s (Drabman/Thomas team) investigated apathy effects (desensitization) • Watch aggressive film clip (or not) • Observe two children on a monitor fighting • Report the fighting to authorities? 1. Random assignment to violent TV clip, film clip, video game, etc. • 2. Create aggression situation • 3. Works like a charm, especially in conjunction with a provocation • Causal effect is moderate, but real • Show Batman, Spiderman, or Mister Rodgers' Neighborhood to children (over time), then observe play behavior (over time) • Natural aggression increased for those who watched aggressive films • Power Rangers vs. control • Much more aggression, compared to controls Strong correlations between (a) amount of violent TV watched and • aggressive attitudes • aggressive behaviors • delinquent behaviors • Those (3rd, 4th, 5th graders) identified as those who bully, spread rumors, exclude, fight also tend to be those who watch violent media bushman: those with low trait and high trait stilled showed more aggression after watching a violent video Huesmann: long-term effects: more aggressive later on in life after continuously watching aggressive shows -males and females both have high amounts of aggression after watching violent shows •Anderson et al. (2010) meta-analysis of violent video games and aggressive behavior • 130 research articles • Over 130,000 participants • Strong effects of violent (vs. nonviolent) games on aggressive behavior • Strong in short-term • Increased risk over time • Male and female • Collectivist and individualist cultures

decategorization findings 2 limitations

• Brewer & Miller (1984) • Decategorization: • Personalized interaction with a member of the outgroup, with very low category salience • à personalization of self and other, differentiation of self from ingroup, and of members of the outgroup • Research evidence for decategorization: • Primarily laboratory studies • Manipulation of categorized or decategorized interaction • Decat. leads to more positive attitudes than categorized interaction • Questionable theoretical basis of decategorization: • Decreasing the salience of group boundaries will reduce intergroup bias? • Failure of 'color-blind' perspective (Schofield, 1986; 1991) • Also à suppression of race or ethnicity or stereotypes tends to increase stereotyping • Key limitations to this approach • 1. Group membership provides a source of desired social identity, so it's both impractical and undesirable to try to ignore some distinctive group memberships • 2. Conditions that promote decategorization will impede generalization

social exchange theory comparison level vs comparison level of alternatives

• Comparing MY costs and rewards to YOUR costs and rewards • Attempted to quantify the value of various relevant behaviors • "Behavioral economics" approach Comparison Level People's expectations about the level of rewards and costs they are likely to receive in a particular relationship. outcomes above this are attractive Comparison Level for Alternatives People's perceptions of the level of rewards and costs they would receive in an alternative relationship. threshold= worse outcome a person will accept and stay in a relationship

cocaine and aggression

• Difficult to study in humans, causality hard to establish • But see prenatal exposure studies - there is a link • Cocaine-dependent patients: there is a link • Extensive animal research: clear link to aggression • Like alcohol, cocaine impacts the serotonin system

extended contact hypothesis

• Direct vs. indirect contact • Indirect: media, vicarious interactions, friend-of-a-friend • Extended contact (Wright et al., 1997) = friend-of-a-friend • Having an ingroup friend who has outgroup contact/friends • Good for high segregation / low opportunity contexts "Knowledge that an ingroup member has a close personal relationship with an outgroup member can lead to more positive outgroup attitudes" (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997, p. 73)

does catharsis work?

• Doesn't work to reduce aggression; usually increases it • ...even for those who believe in the value of venting, for those who feel better after venting • Can even lead to displaced aggression • What about exercise? • Sometimes can be a substitute, but it maintains arousal • Recent research showing that exercising when upset or angry can be dangerous • Exercise can be dangerous? • Physiology • 1. Cardiac rate and output volume • 2. Vascular dilation vs. constriction • If cardiac output goes up along with dilation (from epinephrine response), then it's OK • challenge response • If cardiac output goes up without dilation (or with constriction), then it's dangerous • threat/danger/stress response exercise leads to excitation transfer effect -provocation + arousal leads to more aggression competing in competitive games, watching violent aggressive games, and direct aggression against the source of your anger ALL DO NOT DECREASE AGGRESSION but make it worse! -When people commit acts of aggression, such acts increase the tendency toward future aggression. • (see Geen et al.)

exchange relationships

• Exchange relationships • More frequent in broader society • e.g., Business relationships, casual acquaintances • Satisfaction determined by: • 1. equity in ratio of tangible costs to rewards • 5/2 = 15/6 • 2. reciprocity: equity re-established in short-term • Sometimes used for romantic relationships, but can be very awkward

revised aggression theory

• Frustration seen only as a stimulus to aggression •Aggression seen not as inevitable, but as dominant response tendency • Thus frustration creates a readiness to aggress •Whether aggression is shown depends on additional conditions •Define relation between F and A more precisely: Cue arousal theory -cue arousal: frustration=inner state plus external cue=aggression likely environment plays a role

aggression defined three things that aggression possesses

• Infliction of harm or injury on another person or organism intended to hurt or harm them • "Aggression is any form of behavior directed toward the goal of harming or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment" (Baron & Richardson, 1994) • 1. Visible, external • 2. Social - involves at least two people • 3. Intentional

dissonance approach to prejudice reduction

• Leippe and Eisenstadt (1994) • Participants told the university was considering giving more money to scholarships for Black students, and was soliciting help from the psychology department for opinions. • Participants then wrote an essay in favor of doubling the amount of money given to Black students for scholarships. • As is typical in dissonance studies (see Kenworthy et al., 2011, for a review), some participants were randomly assigned to a low-choice condition, and others to a high-choice condition. • Low-choice condition: they were randomly assigned to write an essay in favor of doubling the scholarship money for Black students. • High-choice condition: ...had already gathered enough essays against the proposal and that they needed some in favor of the proposal, asking the participants if they would help out (noting, of course, that it was completely voluntary). • Following this manipulation of choice, the participants wrote their essays. • In the high-choice condition, pro-Black attitudes were then significantly more positive than in the low-choice condition esp. if thought to be public • Son Hing, Li, and Zanna (2002) • Participants (some identified as anti-Asian, and others not) were induced to write an essay about the importance of treating minority groups fairly on campus • ...with the added instructions that their arguments would be used in actual pamphlets promoting racial equality. • Anti-Asians felt more negative affect (e.g., guilt) after advocating the egalitarian position. • In line with dissonance theory, they subsequently showed the strongest change in pro-Asian attitudes, and advocated for the fewest cuts to the university's Asian Student Association. • Key process in dissonance is the element of choice. • If you freely choose to do something (especially if the behavior is observable/public), you will justify your behavior. • ...making this difficult as an intervention

how we reduce dissonance 3 ways

• Like hunger or thirst, dissonance is an aversive psychological state that we are motivated to reduce or remove • How? • 1. Change behavior (stop smoking; stop cheating on exams) • 2. Rationalize: Remove or reduce dissonant cognitions (it's not that bad; it's just this once) • 3. Rationalize: Add consonant cognitions • I can't function without it • I know others who cheated • Internet search w/ confirmation bias: benefits of cheating

weapons effect experiment

• Male college students performed task; performance 'evaluated' by confederate • Part 1: • Receive one or many shocks, independent of actual performance (i.e., random assignment) • More shocks è reported more anger than those who had received only 1 shock • Part 2: • All participants had to evaluate (with shocks) performance of confederate • Condition 1: shotgun or revolver placed on nearby table • Condition 2: No objects present more shocks given when weapons are in the room

crossed categorization findings limitations

• Many instances of intergroup conflict in the real world involve multiple social categorizations. • Some categorizations converge • (Catholics + Nationalist + Sinn Fein) vs. (Protestants + Unionists + UP) • Many cut across each other • Geography and politics in the USA • "Crossing" these two categories results in 4 groups (e.g., from perspective of Working Class Catholics) •the 'double ingroup' (ingroup on both dimensions) • Working Class Catholics •the 'double outgroup' (outgroup on both dimensions) • Middle Class Protestants • and two 'crossed' groups • ingroup-outgroup: Working Class Protestants • outgroup-ingroup: Middle Class Catholics • Experimental findings: • Most discrimination against double outgroup, which is weakened in the crossed conditions • In general, less discrimination in crossed than simple conditions • Thus 'others' may be 'outgroup' on one dimension, but 'ingroup' on another •How does it work? •(a) It leads to "convergence" between the categories (they are seen as more similar) which weakens the inter-category differentiation effect • Group boundaries are blurred •(b) It leads to "divergence" within each category (more differences are seen within the category) which weakens the intra-category similarity effect • Perceived variability of outgroup increases • Main limitations: Outside of the laboratory, most groups have unequal importance • POLITICS vs. class • Nationality vs. RACE • RELIGION vs. gender • SEXUAL ORIENTATION vs. race

montheith's model of prejudice reduction

• Monteith's Self-Regulation of Prejudice (SRP) Model • For those who have a sincere desire to reduce their actual level of intergroup bias and prejudice, there is an effective self-regulation strategy that can achieve both non-biased behavioral responding as well as the reduction of internal bias. • Pro: one of very few attempts to leverage self-regulation to change prejudice • Cons/Limitations? • 1. For those who have a sincere desire to reduce their actual level of intergroup bias and prejudice... • there is an effective self-regulation strategy that can achieve both non-biased behavioral responding as well as the reduction of internal bias. • 2. Involves a lot of work (self-regulation!)

serotonin and aggression

• Negatively correlated with aggression and violence • Human longitudinal and clinical samples • Non-human primates • Likely reason is its role in irritability and impulsivity • (Also, cocaine and alcohol reduce serotonin levels)

optimal distinctiveness theory

• Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991) proposed that there are two opposing needs • Inclusion and belongingness • Differentiation and uniqueness • Optimal groups are those that satisfy inclusion within groups, but satisfy differentiation between groups • We should resist identifying with groups that are either too inclusive or too distinct and differentiating • Being too differentiated (standing out) elicits the need for inclusion, and being too assimilated elicits the need for differentiation • Manipulate threats to inclusion à people identify with groups more and selfstereotype (depersonalization) • Assignment to smaller distinct groups leads to greater identification than assignment to large, overly inclusive groups

behaviors that increase happiness and well-being

• Optimism • Gratitude • Meditation/spirituality • Forgiveness -Acceptance & positive reappraisal (of stress, negative events, etc.) -Focus on personal strengths (engagement) -Make and pursue obtainable goals (engagement) -deep-acting -positive thoughts, more happy and peaceful -humor, stoic practices

forms of aggression 8 forms

• Physical: using body parts or weapons • Verbal: using words • Relational: harming relationships, acceptance, inclusion • Direct: victim is physically present • Indirect: victim is absent • Displaced aggression: substitute target • Active: hurtful behavior; doing yourself • Passive: failure to act or to help, resulting in harm • (not all "being indirect" is passive-aggressive) -not doing something because failure to act will cause harm

what does balance theory predict what are you motivated by?

• Predicts attitude change due to cognitive re-assessment of prior attitudes, motivated by aversive drive state. •not due to persuasion, external information, etc. • Can partially predict/explain attitude change and justification in politics - depending on who expresses the attitude • Universal health care • Gun control • Immigration

testosterone and aggression

• Present in both males and females, but higher in males • Peaks during adolescence, declines beginning in early 20s • Reliable links to aggression (in both sexes) • Both long-term (development) and short-term effects

extended contact experiment

• Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (Paolini, Hewstone, & Cairns, 2004) • Reduced intergroup anxiety • More willingness to self-disclose • White, English high school and college students' attitudes toward South Asian immigrants (Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007) • Lower anxiety and perceived threats • German nationals: Muslim and "foreign" immigrants (Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007) • Related to direct contact; reduced perceptions of group threat • Small groups and minimal groups experiments (Wright, Aron, McLaughlinVolpe, & Ropp, 1997) • Finnish students showed more positive attitudes and tolerance (Liebkind & McAlister, 1999) • English school children (ages 5-11) demonstrated more positive outgroup attitudes toward children with disabilities, non-white refugee children, and British-Indian immigrants (Cameron & Rutland, 2006; Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006, Cameron, Rutland, Hossain, & Petley, 2011)

functions of aggression 3 of them

• Reactive aggression: hot, impulsive, angry • Motivated by desire to harm, retaliate, defend • Proactive aggression: premeditated, cold, calculated, instrumental • Motivated by other goals (justice, reputation, money, revenge) • Social influence: aggression / violence employed to change behavior • Difficult distinction: mixed motives occur frequently

how does extended contact work?

• Reduced intergroup anxiety • Changes in perceived ingroup norms toward outgroup • Ingroup member becomes source of important information on how to feel and think about the outgroup • Changes in perceived outgroup norms toward the ingroup • Reduces negative perceptions about the outgroup • Reciprocity • Inclusion of the Outgroup in the Self (IOS: Aron & Aron, 1986; Wright, Aron, & Brody, 2008). • Shift in how observer perceives the boundaries between the ingroup and the outgroup • Inclusion of other in self expands to include the outgroup member as part of the self, and the outgroup as part of the self

recategorization findings limitaitions

• Sherif (1966: "Robber's Cave") resolved intergroup conflict by creating superordinate goals (which neither group could attain on its own) • Gaertner et al. (1993) propose that 'ingroup' vs 'outgroup' conflict is resolved by creating, at a superordinate level, a common ingroup identity • Bias can be reduced by factors that transform members' perceptions of group boundaries from 'us' and 'them' to a more inclusive 'we' • Positive intergroup contact promotes the development of a common ingroup identity • Key findings of experiments: • (1) inducing a one- vs. two-group representation of intergroup relations (e.g., via cooperation) reduces bias via its effect on cognitive representations of social categorization (Gaertner et al., 1989, 1990) • (2) distinctive two-groups representations predicted more bias, and stronger superordinate representations predicted less bias (Dovidio et al., 1995) •Overall bias is reduced primarily by improving attitudes towards former out-group members, due to their recategorization from 'out-group' to 'in-group'. • The key limitations of the CII model (like decategorization): • 1. Works OK in the lab, but less well with "real" groups: When implemented, it threatens to deprive individuals of valued social identities in smaller, less inclusive groups • (Brewer 1999; see Optimal Distinctiveness Theory) • 2. Recategorization (like decategorization) is a 'temporally unstable' solution to the problem of intergroup discrimination (Brewer & Gaertner, 2001) • Tendency to revert back to smaller, more meaningful subgroups

social dominance theory

• Sidanius & Pratto (1999) • Social Dominance Theory: basics • Human societies naturally organize into hierarchies • Within the hierarchies, some groups have better access to resources than other groups • Societies also develop ideologies that either promote or attenuate those hierarchies • One's attitude toward the existing hierarchies should be a good predictor of how you feel about and treat people in different places along the hierarchy. • That attitude is SDO • Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a measure developed to measure (individual) motivation to preserve (or not) the hierarchy -if you have hierarchies then have attitudes about people at each level • Higher levels of SDO are associated with greater support for a variety of hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing beliefs and ideologies • Political conservatism, Protestant work ethic, and just world beliefs, meritocracy • e.g., Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1994 • Intergroup threats and anxiety have been shown to increase SDO • e.g., Morrison & Ybarra, 2008 • Consistent with the theory, there is a consistent gender effect: men (as a group) score reliably higher than women on SDO • Men gravitate toward being "hierarchy enforcers" • UCLA studies, and others • Males (and those higher in SDO) are overrepresented in law, law enforcement, criminal prosecutor, military, business administration, government • Hierarchy-maintaining professions • Females (and those lower in SDO) are overrepresented in social work, civil rights law, public defenders, arts • Hierarchy-attenuating professions

relative deprivation theory

• Social comparison determines satisfaction with how things are • Conflict arises when one group is perceived as doing better than another without justification, esp. when something is taken away • Revolutionary war deprivation • Post-WWII civil rights conflict

marijuana and aggression

• Some (but few) good experimental designs • Double-blind, placebo drug administration • Causal link to aggression is non-existent

catharsis experiment

• Step 1: provoke participants (or control) • Step 2: hit a punching bag (or control) ---2a: While hitting the punching bag, some participants think of getting physically fit; others see a picture of the partner think about him. • Step 3: Opportunity to aggress against partner. ---Thinking about partner during punching bag led to the greatest self-reported anger and the highest levels of aggression toward the partner.

integrated threat theory what are the four types of threats

• Stephan & Stephan (2000) • Proposes that there are four distinct threats (2 group level and 2 personal level) that are experienced from a specific outgroup • 1. Realistic threats (group) • Threats to power, well-being, existence of the ingroup • 2. Symbolic threats (group) • Threats to values, ideals, goals, morals of the ingroup • 3. Intergroup anxiety (personal) • Personal discomfort experienced with actual or anticipated interaction with outgroup members • 4. Negative stereotypes (personal) • Assumptions about the outgroup that imply negative interactions or outcomes -perceived threat which is supposed to predict in/out group behavior -realistic threat affecting your physical well-being • Good support for the role of these threats (especially symbolic and realistic) in supporting and perpetuating real conflict • Israel - Palestine • Northern Ireland • Immigrants (basically anywhere) • Korean peninsula • Cyprus

socialization and personality

• The authoritarian (fascist) personality (Adorno et al., 1950) • Intolerance for weakness • Punitive • Submissive respect for authority • Obedience is a virtue • Inflexible right—wrong thinking • Assumption is that harsh discipline in childhood is the root cause of such a personality • The authoritarian personality (modern; Altemeyer) • Conventionalism- devotion to traditions and social norms • Submission to legitimate authority • Aggression towards outgroups, deviants • Tends to co-occur with "Social Dominance Orientation"

personal resources

• Value of your resources is never fixed across time and/or situations. • Best predictor of a resource's value, in economic terms, is other people's demand / desire for them. • So, for interpersonal influence, timing is crucial. • In order to influence (to control! to manipulate!) others, you need to do your homework. • What resources to do you possess, that are valuable to others? • How do you know? • What resources do others have, that are valuable to you? • You can use this information to your advantage, but also for mutual advantage. • Start with the basis of Exchange Theory: • People are happy when exchanges are equitable and reciprocal in the short term • People are unhappy when exchanges are not equitable and not reciprocal in the short term • Why not take advantage of this? • Why should you give away your "stuff" for free?

approaches to religion and socialization

• When does religion "unmake" prejudice? • Individual processes • 3 approaches to religion (Allport & Ross; Batson) • Extrinsic: instrumental for social connections, status, etc. à often "casual" adherents • Intrinsic: religion is an end in itself, underlies one's whole approach to life; devout followers, spiritually committed. • Quest: embrace doubt and questions, the degree to which individuals seek to face religious issues in all their complexity, while resisting clear-cut, pat answers • Extrinsic: positively correlated with prejudice. • Intrinsic: negatively correlated with prejudice, but only on obvious, explicit measures. • Quest: negatively correlated with prejudice, on both explicit and unobtrusive measures. • See also Hall, Matz, & Wood (2010) • Meta-analysis of correlation between religion and racial prejudice • Extrinsic +, Authoritarianism +, Identification +, Fundamentalism +, Intrinsic-, Quest - extrinsic: go to church just because everyone else goes and will be judged if don't go intrinsic: apply to your life fundamentalistic: understand the concept and strictly believe it

social identity theory

•Assumptions/hypotheses: • 1. People are motivated to have positive self-esteem • 2. Group memberships are an important source of self-definition and esteem • 3A. Prejudice/discrimination are methods of making the ingroup look better than the outgroup, thereby reflecting positively on the self •(3B. Engage in collective action to improve the ingroup's status) • Self-esteem (Social Identity Theory) • Possibility #1: people with low self-esteem attach to groups and display prejudice to boost selfesteem. • Less support for the idea that people identify with groups in the first place because of low selfesteem • High self-esteem (not low) associated with greater prejudice, especially if narcissistic • Possibility #2: displaying prejudice and positive intergroup distinctiveness boosts self-esteem. • Good support for the idea that positive intergroup distinctiveness causes an increase in self-esteem

interventions for anger

•Behavior modification for proactive (instrumental) aggression ---Punishment doesn't teach alternatives, so use DRA technique (also DRO, DRI) (differential reinforcement alternative which prompts people to do the correct behavior and reinforce right behavior-no punishment Social skills training • Anger management / Emotion regulation • Feedback • Handling stress, rejection • Partner communication • Prosocial modeling • TV, film, ... and video games! model non-aggressive behavior: When children see adults, when provoked, express themselves in calm, respectful manner, children subsequently handle their own frustrations with less aggression.

zanna and cooper

•Cover story = told that testing the effects of drug on memory, •Pill = placebo •Conditions: •Told drug causes arousal, tenseness (slows you down) •Told drug causes relaxation •Told drug has no side effects •Counter-attitudinal essay in high and low choice -told to write an essay on why vietnam war was worth it -high choice: feel effects of placebo and change attitude -low choice: already feel sad from the essay

social learning theory

•Observational Learning Theory / Modelling Theory (Bandura, 1973) •Individuals acquire new and more complex forms of behavior by observing this behavior, and its consequences, in other people or 'models' • People who 'model' aggression (1) show others ways to act aggressively; (2) send the message that an aggressive response is right, correct, acceptable • This should be especially true when the observed aggressors are rewarded for their behavior •Mimicry of both behavior and emotion is pronounced in most higher primates (see also emerging research on 'mirror neurons')

category salience limitations

•One (perhaps misplaced) critique of the decategorization model was/is: ---Hey, if you don't know the category, positive interactions cannot generalize, so... •Hewstone & Brown (1986) • Keep group memberships clear in contact situations •Generalize positive interpersonal contact via typical outgroup member(s) • Key limitations: •(1) Too much emphasis on group memberships may increase intergroup anxiety • ...limiting impact of stereotype disconfirming information • (Anxiety overpowers the impact of the new cognitive information) • ...resulting in (more) negative evaluations of the outgroup • via misattribution •...and (2) negative contact will confirm stereotypes for the whole group.

problems of the original frustration-aggression hypothesis

•Problems for the F-A hypothesis •Aggression is not always directed against the cause of frustration • It can take different forms • If source of frustration is physically strong/high social status • Aggression may be turned to weaker target or 'scapegoat' (target substitution) • Aggression may be expressed in more indirect ways (response substitution) • Aggression without frustration; frustration without aggression

bobo doll experiment

•The 'Bobo doll' experiments (Bandura et al., 1961, 1963) •Child and adult in room both independently playing with toys • Exp. Condition: after 10 minutes of tinker toys, adult beats up Bobo doll • Control condition: adult plays with tinker toys the entire time • Child then led to another room with similar toys

catharsis experiment cont

•Venting hostility against someone who angers us feels good •But "feeling better" should not be confused with reducing hostility •In fact, "feeling better" is actually the problem with catharsis - the emotional reward reinforces the behavior and makes similar responses more likely in the future • 1. Behaving aggressively results in more, not less, aggression • 2. Behaving aggressively does feel good • Neuroscience catching up (e.g., Chester & DeWall, 2016)