PSYC 2301: Social Psychology (Final Exam)

Where do our Stereotypes and Prejudices Come From?

1) Personal experiences/interactions with a member(s) of an outgroup. 2) The media (e.g., movies, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc.). 3) From others (e.g., parents, other family members, teachers, friends, etc.). 4) Social norms; ways of think, feeling, and behaving that are generally accepted by people and regarded as proper and right. 5) Religious beliefs. 6) Personality traits (e.g., right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, etc.). 7) Social inequality increases prejudices; stereotypes rationalize oppression. 8) Scapegoat theory of prejudice (i.e., finding someone to blame when things go wrong — belief of Hitler that jews were the reason they lost the first world war). 9) Social identity theory (i.e, judge our group as better than others to feel good about ourselves).

How to Reduce Aggression

1) Physical punishment: The use of physical force causing pain (not wounds) as a means of discipline. Parents who use a lot of physical punishments tend to have more aggressive children/adults in the long term than parents who use little physical punishment. 2) Skills training: Social skills training (e.g., how to deal with conflict, problem solving, communication skills, etc.); anger management training; empathy/perspective training. 3) Modeling non-aggressive (prosocial) responses (exposure to prosocial models). 4) Viewer education programs: Increase critical viewing skills among the viewers. - Study: gave one group of children critical viewing training with group discussions, and didn't for the control condition. The viewers that were in education program had to write small paragraphs about how bad aggression is, etc. The children in the education training program showed a huge decrease in their aggressive tendencies and behaviours compared to the children in the control group. 5) Incompatible response technique: You can't feel happy and angry at the same time. 6) Apologizing. 7) Catharsis: Blowing off steam to relieve pent-up aggressive energy. Actually increases aggression rather than reducing it.

Costs of Belonging to Groups

1) Restrictions on personal freedom (e.g., telling you how to behave). 2) Demands on your time and resources (e.g., tuition at university, weekly meetings at dance, etc.). 3) Groups may endorse a policy or position that you personally disagree with.

Benefits of Group Membership

1) Sense of belonging 2) Social rewards (e.g., friendships, companionship, etc.). 3) Help us reach our goals (e.g., joining a fitness group). 4) Help us to accomplish social change (e.g., members of oppressed groups can often improve their place in society by coming together; feminist movement). 5) Meet our need for security (i.e, safety in numbers; we are less likely to get hurt in groups — buddy system). 6) Groups are an important part of our social identity ("I am Canadian").

Basic Features of Groups

1) Status: one's rank or position within the group (e.g., senior member vs. junior or entry-level member). 2) Roles: the behaviour that people with a specific position within the group are expected to perform. 3) Norms: rules that dictate how members should (and should not) behave. 4) Cohesiveness: forces that make group members want to stay in a group; cohesive groups have a strong sense of "we-ness".

Resisting Commands from Authority Figures

1) Tell people that they will be held responsible for their own actions. 2) Having another person who disobeys with them helps people defy authority. 3) Knowing about the power of influence.

Groups

A collection of people who perceive themselves to be bonded together (i.e., part of a coherent unit).

Groupthink

A decision making style that is characterized by an excessive tendency among group members to maintain cohesion and seek unanimity or agreement, as opposed to making the best possible decision. Example: decision by John F. Kennedy to invade Cuba. Plan was to send an invasion source of Cuban exiles to overthrow gov. exile force was poorly equipped, and after 3rd day all were either dead or captured by larger Cuban military. After learning about the outcome, Kennedy said "how could we have been so stupid". According to groupthink theory, high cohesiveness among group members (tight-knit group); they met in secret, so no one outside of the group could offer criticisms; and JFK was a very strong and charismatic leader. Antecedents (or precursors) of groupthink: 1) High cohesiveness (Fail to evaluate all options available to them because they are too concentrated on being "on the same page"). 2) Isolation from outside influences (Cut off from people who may offer criticisms of their plan). 3) Strong directive leader. Symptoms of groupthink: 1) Illusion of invulnerability (Shared illusion by group members that they are invincible). 2) Illusion of morality (Members believe in the moral correctness of the group's decision, regardless of how immoral or unethical it is). 3) Stereotyped view of the enemy (Members of the group often believe that they're group members are too evil, unintelligent, not willing to negotiate, etc.). 4) Pressure on dissenters to conform (Anyone in the group who dares to go against the decision gets ridiculed, shut out, pressured into agreeing, etc.). 5) Self-censorship of misgivings (Group members will suppress rather than express, because they don't want to "rock the boat"). 6) Illusion of unanimity (Created belief that the decision of the group is unanimous, even though some silent members may have reservations about it). 7) Mindguards (Individuals who protect the leader from information that may contradict the decision of said leader). Preventing groupthink: 1) Encourage group members to voice their objections and doubts. 2) Seek input from outside experts. 3) Appoint one member of the group to play the role of the devil's advocate (to question/challenge every aspect of the group's decision). 4) Break group down into smaller subgroups. 5) have group leader initially remain impartial. 6) Hold a second chance meeting (to voice any objections/problems with the decision).

Symbolic Social Influence

A form of social influence in which our thoughts about others influence our actions or thoughts even if they are not present.

Collectivistic Group

A group in which the norm is to maintain in harmony among group members, even if doing so might entail some personal costs; in such groups, conflict and disagreement are to be avoided among group members.

Individualistic Group

A group in which the norm is to value standing out form the group and be different form others; individual variability is to be expected and disagreeing with the group is often seen as courageous.

In-group

A group to which we belong/with which we identify.

Out-group

A group to which we do not belong/with which we do not identify.

Common-Identity Group (Social Categories)

A group whose members are linked together via a category as a whole rather than to each other (e.g., Mount Allison students, gender, nationality, etc.).

Deindividuation

A psychological state characterized by reduced self-awareness, brought on by external conditions such as being an anonymous member of a large crowd.

Social Embeddedness

A sense of knowing the reputation of the other parties involved, often by knowing someone else who knows them.

Culture of Honour

A society in which people, especially males, are highly protective of their reputation and very sensitive and reactive to personal insults, humiliation, and other threats to their honour.

Emotional Contagion

A very basic and persuasive form of social influence in which our own feelings and emotions are influenced by those of other people.

Causes of Aggression (Continuance from Midterm 2)

Aggression is Learned behaviour. 1)Direct reinforcement - being rewarded for behaving aggressively (a way that people learn to be aggressive). 2)Observational learning - observing the aggressive behaviour of others. Albert Bandura's bobo doll studies: He made preschool kids in one condition watch a video of a woman doing very aggressive things to a bobo doll. In another condition, the children watched the woman act in a non-aggressive way towards the doll. The children who had seen the woman act aggressively toward the doll acted the same way when put in the room with the same doll and said the same comments that the woman had uttered (there are 2-3 more conditions studied in this study that were not mentioned). Aggression and media violence: There is a positive correlation between the amount of violence on TV and the amount of violence in our society. By the time the average child in the US finishes elementary school, he or she will have viewed ore than 8,000 murders and over 100,000 other acts of violence. Before-and-after experiments: 1-Obtain a baseline measure of aggression. 2-Show the children an episode of a violent TV show. 3-Measure the child's level of aggression again. - Criticisms include: lack of external validity (laboratory setting is not natural), demand characteristics (laboratory situation may suggest to the participant that the experimenter encourages aggression), Measure of aggression taken immediately after exposure (when there is a delay, the impact of the TV program is less exponential). Correlational Studies: 1-Obtain information about how much and what type of TV sows children watch 2-Relate this data to some measure of each child's aggressiveness. - Study (1970): correlational study including over 500 children 8-9 years old. They first established a baseline of aggressiveness for each child by observing them and by asking people close to the children. Then, they find out how much tv violence the child actually watches and assess how much the child likes the aggressive characters in these shows. They found that the most aggressive children enjoyed and watch the most tv violence. In the mid-90s, they found over 400 of these children and found that the children who were assessed as more aggressive in their 1970's study were found to be the most aggressive adults. - Criticisms include: no causality, and directionality and third variable problems (does A cause B, B cause A, or C causes both A and B?). Explanations for relationship between media violence and aggression: 1-Social Learning theory (Children see attractive/powerful characters on TV being rewarded/praised for behaving aggressively, and they copy these characters' behaviour because they want to be like their TV heroes). 2-Normative (Constantly seeing acts of aggression on TV leads people to assume that behaving aggressively is OK and acceptable). 3-Desensitization (Exposure to media violence leads to a reduction in, or a numbing/blunting of, people's negative reactions to aggression).

Compliance (Type of Social Influence)

Agreeing to a direct request from someone. Changes in behaviour that are elicited by direct requests (e.g., can you do me a favour?). Examples include: bribes, guilt, temper tantrums, politeness, etc.

Additive Task

All group members perform the same task and group performance is the sum of the efforts of the individual members.

Type A Behaviour Pattern

Always in a rush, doing more than one thing at a time. They tend to behave more aggressively.

Intergroup (or between Groups) Attitude

An attitude toward people because they are members of a particular group (e.g., women, blacks, gays, obese people, muslims, lawyers, etc.)

Narcissistic Rage

An instance in which people's narcissism often leads them to be aggressive when others dare to question their overblown views of themselves.

Study: Norman Triplet (1898)

Asked children to wind fishing line onto a fishing reel. Conditions: - Children completed the task alone. - Children completes the task in pairs. Results: - Children wound more line onto their reels when performing this task in pairs than when they were doing this task alone.

Foot-in-the-Door (Compliance Technique)

Asking for a small favour before asking for a larger favour. That will augment the chances of that person to say yes to the bigger favour. Principle of consistency (explanation of this technique): people don't like to be inconsistent (cognitive dissonance).

Synchronous Behaviour

Behaviour in which individuals match their actions to those of others.

Obedience (Type of Social Influence)

Being ordered to do something. Behaviour change produced by the commands of an authority figure. Study: social psychologist in 70s sat on the sidewalk and waited until someone walked by, and would point at a confederate next to a parked car and said "he doesn't have money to pay for paring, give him a dime". When Bateman was dressed in regular street clothes, 30% went over and gave him a dime. When Bateman dressed in a security type uniform, 90% went over and gave him a dime. Study: Security person on the sidewalk (with offender), and orders someone to look after the perpetrator by shocking him if he tries to get away. 50% actually used to taser when he tried to get away. Study: authority figure asks people to walk away from a bench, jump random, and litter, switch a bag from one hand to the other, and 70% listened to the bizarre instructions. When the person is out of uniform, it did not work. Stanley Milgram (1960s) study: Add posted in the paper for participation in a study of memory. Participants were deemed as being "teachers" and one informed person as the "learner". the participant and the researcher strap in the "learner" in a shock machine, and then researcher and teacher go to a separate room. The teacher needs to repeat a combination of words to be remembered by the "learner", and then test the learner by asking what the second word in the word combination was. If he gets the answer wrong, the teacher will need to shock him as a punishment, and with each mistake he makes, he is to receive increasingly worsening levels of shocks. The teacher is told by the researcher that even though the shocks may be painful, they will not damage any part of the learner. The learner makes desperate pleas to stop the shocking. After a certain level of voltage, the learner is seen to be unresponsive. The researcher then tells the teacher that no response is considered to be a wrong answer. Results - 6 out of 40 male participants (65%) obeyed the experimenter completely; Run-down office building — 50% obeyed; Learner sat in same room as you — 40% obeyed; Teacher had to put learners' hand on shock plate — 30% obeyed; Experimenter not in room — 20% obeyed; Experimenter is ordinary person — 20%. Criticisms include: Psychological harm; results non-meaningful (lab setting); and not ethical. Factors Influencing Obedience: 1) Personal: Authoritarianism 2) Situational: Physical presence of an authority figure (e.g., white lab coat), The use of gradual increments in shock level, Fast pace of the experiment, Shift of responsibility from the participant to the experimenter, Nearness of the learner, Volunteered for study and paid up front, Setting (e.g., Yale University).

Stereotypes (Cognitive Component in ABCs of Intergroup Attitudes)

Beliefs (or expectations) that certain characteristics (e.g., traits, attributes, behaviours) are associated with members of a particular group.

Self-Enhancement

Boosting one's own public image.

Gender Differences in Aggression

Childhood: 1) Boys are more likely than girls to fight physically. 2) Boys are also more likely than girls to fantasize about aggressive themes. Adulthood: 1) Males are more likely than females to be charged with violent crimes (Males accounted for almost 90% of all murders around the world). 2) Evidence for gender difference in verbal aggression is mixed. 3) Females are more likely than males to engage in indirect aggression.

Punishment

Delivery of aversive consequences.

Social Influence

Efforts by one or more people to change the behaviours, attitudes, or feelings of one or more others.

Distributive Justice

Fairness judged in terms of the outcomes we and others receive.

Procedural Justice

Fairness judged in terms of the procedures involved. Instances in which people are interested in the fairness of the procedures through which rewards have been distributed.

Door-in-the-Face (Compliance Technique)

First ask for a larger, unreasonable request (that you know will be turned down) and then ask for the small favour. People are more likely to agree to the small favour. Delinquent kids to the zoo study: Asked to take delinquent kids to the zoo for2 hours— 17% agreed. Asked to take care for delinquent kids for 2 years then asked for the zoo — 50% agreed. Large sign study: Asked one group if they can put a big ugly sign in their yard — 17% agreed. Asked another group if they could put a small sticker and a week later asked them to put the sign — 76% agreed. Explanations for this technique: - Norm of reciprocity. - Self-presentation theory (make ourselves look good in the eyes of others)

Brainstorming

Generating ideas in a group without critically evaluating them.

Free-gift (Compliance Technique)

Giving someone something for free before making a request. Norm of reciprocity (explanation for this technique)

The Lure Effect

In this technique, the intended target of a request is first asked to agree to do something he or she finds appealing (e.g., brief 10-minute questionnaire for $10). Then, once they agreed, targets were told that they were not needed to complete the questionnaire, but would instead perform a very boring task (e.g., copying letters from one page to another). A large portion of participants agreed to continue.

Hooliganism

Incidents of serious disorder.

Common-Bond Group (Face-to-Face)

Individual group members are bonded to each other (e.g., sports team, study group, etc.)

Unintentional Social Influence

Influence that occurs when other people change our behaviour without intending to do so.

Glass Cliff

Instance wherein the leadership position can be considered precarious or relatively risky because the organization is in crisis.

Aggressive Cues

Learned stimuli (objects) that are associated with aggressive response (e.g., gun, knife, baseball bat, boxing gloves, etc.). The likelihood of someone to behave aggressively will be far greater if one of these cues is present.

Cognitive Neoassociationist Theory of Aggression (Fight or Flight)

Negative affect (frustration) automatically activate thoughts and feelings associated with aggression and these thoughts an feelings will be expressed as either aggression (fight) or escape (flight), after appraisal of the situation. Other sources of negative feelings include: provocation, teasing, heat, loud noises, unpleasant smells, overcrowding, etc.

Discrimination (Behavioural Component in ABCs of Intergroup Attitudes)

Negative or harmful behaviour directed toward people based on their group membership. Example: In 1998, Matthew Shepherd, a 21-year-old gay student at the University of Wyoming, met some people at a campus bar one evening. one of the two men, reportedly upset because he thought Sheppard was making passes at him. Pretending to be gay, they drove him to the other side of town, beat him senseless, and tied him to a fence post. He was found the next morning unconscious, and brought to hospital, where he was later determined to be in a coma. He died a few days later in hospital from his injuries. At his funeral, protestors were outside with sigs that said things like "no fags in heaven", etc. + Holocaust

Prejudice (Affective Component in ABCs of Intergroup Attitudes)

Negative or hostile feelings (e.g., dislike, irritation, disgust, anxiety, fear, hatred, loathing, etc.) about people based on their membership in a particular group. Types of prejudices: Racism: Prejudice against people because of their race. Sexism: Prejudice against people (particularly women) because of their sex. Heterosexism: Prejudice against people (homosexuals) because of their sexual orientation based on the notion that heterosexuality is the normative sexual orientation. Ageism: Prejudice against people (particularly the elderly) because of their age. Single-ism: Prejudice against people because they are single. Height-ism: Prejudice against people because of their height. Fat-ism: Prejudice against people because of their weight. Able-ism: Prejudice against people with bodily disabilities. ETC.

Bait-and-Switch (Compliance Technique)

People are drawn in with an attractive offer that is unavailable, which is then switched to a less attractive offer which is available. Example: you have been enticed by an attractive offer for something that you really like (though advertisement). Once you get there, there are no more left. The sales person then says "wait, we do have something very similar, but at regular price". Difference between low-ball and bait-and-switch: in low-ball, the price of one item is increased. in bait-and-switch, another product is being offered. Principle of commitment (explanation of this technique)

Deadline (Compliance Technique)

People are told they only have a limited time to take advantage of some offer. Explanations for this technique: - Principle of scarcity. - Norm of reciprocity. - Study: Set-up a tape and sold cupcakes. Told some of the people that the cupcakes were 75 cents each. He told other people that they were $1, but before they could say anything he lowered the price to 75 cents making it look like he was giving them a special offer. In the second setting, more cupcakes were sold (from 40% to 73%).

Social Facilitation

People perform better on a task in the presences of others than when they are performing the very same task alone (in a co-actor situation or passive audience setting). Also seen in animals (e.g., cockroaches run a maze faster when there are people watching then when they are alone; ants dig holes in sand faster when other ants are present; etc.).

Social Inhibition

People perform worse on a task in the presence of others than when they are performing the same task alone (in a judgy situation). Study: college students were asked to learn a combination of nonsense syllables. Condition 1: alone, condition 2: audience. It took the participants longer to learn the made-up words when in the presence of a passive audience.

Drive Theory of Social Facilitation (Robert Zajonc)

Provided an explanation for the contradictory findings of social facilitation and social inhibition. Source of arousal: Mere presence of other people increases our physiological arousal. On well-learned or easy tasks (AKA dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to better performance (social facilitation). On new or difficult tasks (AKA non-dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to worse performance (social inhibition). Study: Researchers watched university students as they played pool in the campus pool (without them knowing that they were being observed). The researchers classified the students as either above average or below average. Next, the researchers asked the student sit they would be willing to compete in a tournament. Most said yes. In the presence of an audience during the tournament, the players who were classified as above average did better, and those who were classified as below average did worse.

Evaluation Apprehension Theory (Nicholas Cottrell)

Provided an explanation for the contradictory findings of social facilitation and social inhibition. Source of arousal: Our concern about being evaluated by others; we become apprehensive because we wonder how they're judging our performance and this increases our physiological arousal. On well-learned or easy tasks (AKA dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to better performance (social facilitation). Since we are used to this task, we can handle this higher level of arousal quite easily, which will increase the level of our performance. On new or difficult tasks (AKA non-dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to worse performance (social inhibition). Since we are not used to this task, we cannot handle this higher level of arousal and this actually impedes our performance. Study: conditions include performing an easy task alone, performing an easy task in the presence of observers (two students watching from a distance of about 6 feet), and performing an easy task in the presence of observers who were blindfolded (just there getting ready for their own participation in this study). The main findings include no differences in performance between the alone condition and condition with the presence of blindfolded observers, and facilitation effect in the condition with observers watching from 6 feet away.

Distraction-Conflict Theory (Robert Baron)

Provided an explanation for the contradictory findings of social facilitation and social inhibition. The presence of other people is distracting, even when they're not evaluating our performance. Source of arousal: When others are around, we divide our attention between the audience and the task at hand; this leads to conflict which, in turn, increases our physiological arousal. On well-learned or easy tasks (AKA dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to better performance (social facilitation). On new or difficult tasks (AKA non-dominant responses), higher levels of arousal lead to worse performance (social inhibition). This theory can now be applied to animals as well since conflict is a well-documented phenomenon.

Social Loafing

Reductions in effort when individuals work collectively in a group compared to when they work individually. Study: Researchers asked 6 college students to sit in a semi-circle. Their task: clap their hands and cheer/yell as loud as they can. All of the students were wearing blindfolds and wearing headphones portraying crowd cheering sounds (loudly). Only one student was an actual participant (others were confederates). When the students thought they were cheering alone, they were clapping and cheering loudly and intensely. When they thought they were cheering with others, they were less intense in their cheering/clapping. Reasons social loafing happens: 1) We do not believe that our efforts are not going to benefit the task at hand whatsoever (thinking we have nothing good to offer). 2) We do not believe that anyone will know that we did not put that much effort in a task (e.g., professor will not know that I did not put as much effort as others in my group on this assignment). - Free rider effect: the tendency to contribute less to a collective task when one believes that other group members will compensate for one's lack of other effort. 3) Sucker effect: The tendency to contribute less to a collective task when one believes that other group members are not going to be contributing their fair share. - Since my other group member isn't putting enough effort on our collective task, I will slack off as well because I do not want him to benefit from my hard work (don't want to give the other person a free ride).

Schism

Splintering of a group into distinct factions

Bargaining (Strategy for Resolving Conflict)

Strategy in which opposing sides exchange offers, counteroffers, and concessions, either directly or through representatives.

Entitativity

The extent to which a group is perceived as being a distinct (or coherent) entity (or unit) rather than simply a collection of individuals (a group can either be high or low in entitativity). High (e.g., family, sports team, friendship group, etc.): Group members interact with each other frequently, the group is seen as important to its members, group members share common goals, and group members perceive themselves as similar to one another in important ways. Low (e.g., group waiting for bus, group of people in a store, etc.).

Transactional Justice

The extent to which we are given clear an rational reasons for why rewards were divided as they were.

Reactance

The feeling that our personal freedom is being restricted, and that we should resist strong pressure to conform to maintain our individuality.

Honour Killings

The killing of female family members because they: * Refused to enter an arranged marriage. * Dated/married outside their family's ethnic or religious community. * Had sex outside of marriage. * Sought a divorce. * Committed adultery. * Were the victim of rape

Weapons Effect

The mere presence of a weapon can increase the likelihood of aggression occurring in response to negative feelings.

Low-Ball (Compliance Technique)

The person secures agreement with a request but then increases the size of that request with hidden costs. Example: You just decided that you are going to buy a brand new car. While searching for the perfect car, you finally found the car of your dreams. With the help of a car salesman, you agreed on a very good price. The salesman then says "I am going to go do some paperwork". While he is gone, you fantasize about that car. He then comes back, he says that he cannot include all of the options at the price that you had previously agreed upon. This then encourages you to accept this new higher price. Study: asking psych students to participate in a study for extra credit. In one condition, students were told up front the experiment was scheduled to start at 7AM (only 25% volunteered and actually showed up on time in this condition). in the second condition, the students were low-balled, they were asked to participate in the study and once they had already signed up, they were told it was scheduled to start at 7AM (55% volunteered and nearly all actually showed up on time in this condition). Principle of commitment (explanation of this technique): already committed to the car, so they don't want to let go of that fantasy.

Ideology

The philosophical and political values of a group.

That's-Not-All (Compliance Technique)

The requester begins with an inflated request and then before the person has a chance to respond, they decrease their offer or offer bonus.

Group Polarization

The tendency for group discussion to enhance the initial leanings of the individual members prior to discussion. Pervasive arguments explanation: during group discussion, group members hear persuasive arguments that support their own views, including points they hadn't previously considered. Social comparison explanation: individual group members' desire to fit in with and be perceived favourably by their group.

Narcissism

The tendency to believe that they are better than everyone else and crave attention. They also have a very high, but very fragile, self-esteem. So when someone threatens their perception of themselves, they tend to react aggressively in order to protect their sense of superiority.

Conformity (Type of Social Influence)

The tendency to change our attitudes, beliefs or behaviours in ways that are consistent with those around us (e.g, listening the same type of music as our peers, having the same hairstyle, etc.). Study Solomon Asch (1950s) "visual judgement": Participants are shown a standard line first, and then are shown three comparison lines (one shorter, one longer, and one exactly the same as standard). They are then asked to identify which line matches the standard line. They are asked one after the other in order of seating. The only real participant is the second to last person who will answer this question. All of the others purposely identify the wrong comparison line, and the others answer the same line. There is also a control condition where the participants are asked to do this alone (not in a room with other people). Results: more than 3/4 (76%) of the participants went along, at least once, with the others' incorrect answers. Of those participants, 37% went along with the others all of the time. Factors that influence conformity (in study): 1) Group size — conformity rates level off after about 3 or 4 confederates. 2) Unanimity — having one confederate break with the others drastically reduced conformity. 3) Writing down answers — conformity almost completely disappeared. 4) Attractiveness of group — we conform more when we have a strong desire to belong to the group. 5) Age — conformity is highest in adolescence. 6) Gender — people with a more masculine gender roles (regardless of gender) conform less than people with more feminine gender roles. 7) Culture — people form Western (individualistic) cultures are less likely to conform than people from Eastern (collectivistic) cultures. Why people conform: 1) Normative social influence — going along to get along (e.g., to be liked, accepted and approved of by others). - Public conformity — publicly agreeing with others, without necessarily believing them. - Private acceptance (AKA private conformity) — agreeing with others and genuinely believing them to be right. 2) Informational social influence — going along to be right (when we do not know what is right or wrong, so we follow the collective wisdom of others). - Minority influence — process whereby a small number of people in a group lead to an overall change in the group's attitudes, beliefs, or behaviours (imperative for them to express that view over and over again, persistence).

Hostile Attributional Bias

The tendency to interpret ambiguous behaviour in terms of hostility and aggression.

Cyberbullying

The use of information and communication technologies as means of engaging in deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour that is intended to harm others.

Social Norms

Unspoken, but shared, rules about common, everyday behaviours. Two kinds of social norms: 1) Descriptive — what other people do; how most people in a group typically think, feel and behave. 2) Injunctive — what other people approve/disapprove of; what is typically approved or disapproved of in a situation. Example: Seeing another student cheat (descriptive = don't snitch on other student; injunctive = prof approves of snitching, while students do not).

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

When groups are competing for scarce resources, prejudice and hostility between groups will result. Study (1960s) Robbers Cave Study by Muzafir Sherif: Involved two groups of white middle-class eleven 12 year-old boys. They arrived at camp in different sections. one group called themselves the Rattlers and the other, the Eagles. Stage 1(bonding): groups had no contact with each other. For the first week, they didn't even know the other group existed. Engaged in group building activities (e.g., hiking, canoeing, group meals, etc.) — done to develop a strong sense of cohesiveness within the group. Researchers then arranged for the two groups to accidentally (on purpose) meet on the ball field and told it was a mistake in scheduling. Stage 2 (competition): conflict between groups introduced. A series of competitive events between the Rattlers and the Eagles (e.g., baseball games, tug-of-war, etc.) with prizes awarded to the members of the winning group. Led to intergroup rivalry and hostility (name calling, raids on each other's cabins, stereotyping, etc.). Stage 3 (reducing friction): intergroup contact to reduce rivalry and hostility; bring groups together to play games, watch films, eat meals, etc. Each of these interactions just made matters worse instead of reducing the friction; mere contact was not enough to reduce hostility (e.g., when sharing a meal, food fights occurred). Superordinate goals: goals that neither group could achieve by itself but that could be achieved if both groups worked together (researchers instilled this). E.g., a truck got stuck in the mud, and when both groups worked together, they were able to pull the truck out with a rope. Researcher found that 70% of the boys' friendships were still between their own group (a reduction from the 93% after stage 2). Findings: in order to reduce hostility and stereotypes, mere contact with members of two groups is not enough. Cooperation is needed in order to achieved this, and takes several of these encounters before group relations begin to improve. These operations needed to end in success to reduce the hostility among groups, because they could have started blaming the other group for their failure, which would have increased the stereotyping and hostility. Other conditions need to be satisfied as well other than superordinate goals (e.g., members must be of equal status, they must socialize with each other, etc.).

Negative interdependence

Where if one person obtains a desired outcome, others cannot.

Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Where in-group critics are generally responded to more positively than out-group critics.

Normative Focus Theory (Cialdo, Reno, & Kallgren)

this theory suggests that norms will influence behaviour only to the extent that they are salient (i.e., relevant/significant) to the people involved at the time the behaviour occurs. In other words, people will obey injunctive norms only when they think about them and see them as applying to themselves and their actions.