PSY 210 EXAM 3: Chapters 9, 10, 11

Direct Provocation

(criticism, sarcasm, condescension) (Teasing, physical assault) actions stemming from malicious intent, leads to aggressive behavior -frustration leads to aggression

Stanford Prison Study (role playing in groups)

- people were assigned as either a "prisoner" or a "guard" and since the guard had higher status they began to abuse the prisoners -prisoners lost sense of identity (due to lower status)

Recent examples of failed groupthink

-Coca Cola decided to reintroduce Coke classic -Challenger shuttle launched with school teacher even though it was too cold -Bush/Chaney launched Iraq war and millions died

Collectivism vs. Individualism

-Collectivism - a cultural schema in which the norm is to maintain harmony among group members, even if doing so might entail some personal costs -Individualism- a cultural schema in which the norm is to value standing out from the group and being different from others

Bystander Effect

-Darley and Latane study, staged participant has a seizure and as bystanders increased, less people would help and more time elapsed before help was given -Diffusion of Responsibility- the greater # of witnesses to an emergency, the more people will assume that someone else will help (so they don't help -also due to fear of social blunder

Methods of reducing Loafing

-Each output is identifiable -Member's commitment is increased -Increase importance of task -Contribution seen as unique -Compare own input to others -Increase group cohesiveness

Social Facilitation

-Effects upon performance resulting from the presence of others -Either better or impaired task performance results -Triplett noticed the effect of competition (you compete faster, run faster, if going against someone)

Gender and aggression

-Men more likely to react when provoked, than women (disparity decreases w/o provocation) -Men more likely than women to engage in direct aggression (aimed directly at a target)...very small differences in indirect aggression, but more for females -Over time, it appears that women are becoming more aggressive (men maintaining high levels)

Causes of Arousal

-Mere presence of others biologically triggers arousal (cockroaches completed maze faster with others watching, since it is a learned action) -Evaluation Apprehension- its not their presence but their thoughts on you that arouses(blindfolded audience= no facilitation, when people are watching you, there is) -Distraction Conflict Theory (the distraction of the audience divides attention, thus creates conflict)...increases arousal, narrows focus

Drive Theory of Social Facilitaion

-Other people leads to arousal -your body responds to the arousal if you are comfortable with the action (dominant response) with facilitation -if it is a new action, the arousal leads to inhibition

Social Exclusion

-Rejection can trigger aggression -Negative emotion does not -Hostile mind-set causes us to see neutral action by other as hostile oMisattribution- rejection activates cognition that leads us to perceive neutral actions by others as hostile and perceive aggression as common interactions/ appropriate reactions Ex/ study where participants were told they had been rejected, and then would respond to nonaggressive word fragments, perceiving them as aggressive -Cognitive factors produced by rejection (NOT emotional) are responsible for the aggression

Altruistic Personality factors

-Self-concept including empathy -Belief in Just World hypothesis, everybody gets what they deserve -High in Social Responsibility (sense of duty) -Internal Locus of Control -Low in Egocentricism

Causes of Aggression

-Social Determinants (frustration, provocation, exclusion) -Displaced Aggression -Priming and Misattribution

Deciding who needs help

-Victim responsibility -Blaming the victim -Conservatives vs. liberals (Type I and II error) • Type I = False positive, Type 2 = false negative • Liberals are more concerned about making type 2 errors (people -Prior Commitment • Beach Blanket study • Neighborhood watch in these studies, the subjects would only protect if they committed to doing so before the study

Benefits of groups

-acquire knowledge -increase status -accomplish goals/social change

eliminating groupthink

-all members list potential problems -encourage careful questioning of options -someone plays devil's advocate -break into subgroups -second chance meeting -use Nominal Group Technique

Situational Factors that influence helping

-attraction (more likely to help a good looking person) -similarity (more likely to help someone w/ something in commom...mothers help mothers) -Attribution of Responsibility -Prosocial Role Models -Perceived Cost of Helping (you may not want to help because it slows you down, is gross/dangerous etc.) -Scent

Why Join a group?

-belonging/attention -to achieve a goal -provide knowledge -security -social identity/self-concept

Emotional factors that influence helping

-emotions exert strong effects on tendency to help others (positive affect = greater tendency to help) -feelings of elevation (being inspired by other's acts) increase tendency to help

groupthink antecedent conditions

-high cohesiveness -isolation from outside info -directive leadership -stress from external threat -lack of methodical search

symptoms of groupthink

-illusion of invulnerability ex/Iraq war is easy win -Certainty of groups morality -Collective rationalization -Stereotyped view of opponents

Historical Perspectives to aggression

-long recognized that humans are most aggressive species -instinct approach gave way to drive reduction theories and GAM

Group Decision making schemes

-majority -truth (data, science) wins -two thirds (super majority) -First shift rule -unanimity (ex/ death penalty)

Empathy Altruism Hypothesis

-some prosocial behavior is motivated solely by desire to help someone in need -when we help others, we are really doing it to make us feel good

decline in empathy due to

-media violence -adults emphasizing unearned self-esteem -reality TV (ruthless behavior) -Social media reduces face-to-face

costs of groups

-membership limits personal freedom -groups make demands -members can disapprove of group's policies (ideology)

Five step model for bystanders

-notice something unusual -interpret situation to see if help is needed -assume responsibility -decide what action to take -take action

Pluralistic ignorance

-people depend on others interpretations of the situation to understand it (so when bystanders don't act, no one will) Ex/ subject taking a quiz in a room that starts to fill with smoke will question the smoke. If there are 3 people in the room nothing is said

Bystander Effect is strongest if

-situation is ambiguous (not sure what the proper response is) -bystanders are anonymous strangers (you're more likely to help someone you know you will see again)

Competitive altruism

-used to gain status Ex/ giving a big donation to look like a nice person. No dependence on emotion

Attribution of Responsibility

-we are less likely to help a victim who we believe is to blame ex/if you see a man passed out in a suit, you are more likely to help him than if you see a regular guy passed out drunk

Group

2 or more interacting people w/ common goals, have a stable relationship, are somehow interdependent, and perceive that they are part of a group

Temperature and aggression

A curvilinear relationship (violence increases as it gets warmer (especially with provocation), until a peak (85 degrees) which violence will start to drop

Priming and Misattribution

A weapon primes aggression-related thoughts. (ex/ give a boy a baseball bat) Bushman and Anderson- children played video games •Aggressive= Mortal Kombat •Nonaggressive= pinball -Participants who played the violent video game thought that characters in ambiguous stories would act and think more aggressively than the others

Kinds of tasks

Additive- contributions of each are combined, like different Girl Scouts selling cookies Compensatory- contributions are average in as a group (like investors managing a fund) Disjunctive- final product determined by most competent person as in a team solving puzzle (if one person has the answer, everyone gets it Conjunctive- final product determined by weakest link as in mountain climbing (you can only walk as fast as grandma walks)

Batson study

Boring task or chance to win raffle ticket....You get 1, other participant gets 1 Everyone agreed was the moral thing to do was give the other person the chance to win But, 80% took the good thing for themselves Coin toss option- you can decide who gets task or flip coin. Flipping coin is more moral. But in the end, 70-80% lied about the coin result to get the good result

Other methods to prevent aggression

Catharsis- providing angry people w/ opportunity to express aggressive impulses in safe ways (often backfires) -forgiveness -exposure to non-aggressive models -social skills training (faulty attributions -generating an incompatible response

fight against evil

Evil deeds are not always the work of evil people. Too often evil is what good people do when they get too self-righteous and too full of their own goodness

Gratitude

Expressed gratitude increases future prosocial action • Self-efficacy: the helper starts feeling more capable when reinforced •Self-worth: the helper feels more valuable •You recognize and are thankful for the blessings of life, it puts you in a better mood

Entiativity

Extent to which a group is perceived to be a cohesive entity, enhanced by... -face to face interaction -group importance to members -common goals/traits -can vary from low (bus stop) to high (family)

Instinct/Biological

Freud and Thanatos- aggression stems from Thanatos • Thanatos = Death Instinct, Eros = Life instinct -Konrad Lorenz and the Fighting Instinct- only the strongest males will obtain mates and pass their genes on (so men try to be more aggressive) -Sociobiology (today the Evolutionary Perspective)- aggression due to competition with other males

Defensive Helping

Helping an "outgroup" member to reduce a threat they pose to one's status or their "ingroup's" status

Prosocial vs. Aggressive video games

If you play a prosocial (about helping others) video game, more likely to help. Aggressive video game, more likely to be aggressive (it is the nature of the game that has an effect on future actions)

Cooperation research techniques

Negative interdependence= situation where if one person has something, the other cannot -prisoner's dilemma (do you rat?) -Madsen Board (people compete to win instead of cooperating to both win) -auction of nickels

Displaced Aggression

The moderating effect of trivial triggering provocation on displaced aggression EX/ after sitting in traffic you might yell at the first person you see ex/Provocation in study included difficult anagrams, loud distracting music and the trigger was a slightly negative evaluation -Participants would have been randomly assigned to one of 4 independent groups, the conclusion focuses on the interaction b/t two IV's (provocation and trigger). It is revealed that these are not parallel -In the absence of provocation, a mild triggering event did not lead to high level of aggression -After provocation, a mild triggering event led to a high level of aggression

Social loafing

The more people who are working together, the less work each will do (on additive tasks) -Because you may feel dispensable, dissimilar to other students, or like it is fair to do less work Ex/ people clapping (With headphones on) would clap much louder when there are less people in the room. As the room fills up, you feel less of a need to clap...Bystander Effect ex/more people pulling rope=less individual effort

Media Violence

Violent media causes more violence (by priming?) and violence sells to the viewers It (1) teaches new techniques (2) can prime aggressive thoughts or memories (3) DESENSITIZES!! viewers to the effects of violence and reduces empathy for the victim (4) it weakens inhibitions Follows GAM -Constant exposure to media violence creates a hostile expectation bias that others will behave aggressively, thus causing individuals to act aggressively and perceive aggressive actions even when they don't exist

Personality factors in Aggression

Type A personality (highly competitive, time urgent, hostile Hostile Attributional Bias Narcissism- Authoritarian personality / ego threat -unearned self esteem/love -ex/ people high in narcissism report higher rates of being offended

Violent video games

Violent video games (meta-analysis) showed to increase AGGRESSION (cognitions, feelings, behavior), reduces empathy/prosocial actions oIt is not the violence of video games that attracts it is the sense of AUTONOMY and COMPETENCE. Teenagers crave REACTANCE (an illusion of control) without harming society.....this could be due to over controlling parents

Deindividuation

a loss of self-awareness caused by situational factors like presence in a large group -other possible factors ex/wearing a mask ex/being in a strange town -may engage in behavior they wouldn't normally, to fit in. once deindividuated, you are more responsive to group norms

Prosocial Behavior

actions by individuals that help others with no benefit to the helper

Drive Reduction Theories

an unmet need, followed by a drive state, then an effort to reduce the drive • suggest aggression stems from external conditions that arouse the motive to harm or injure others

Animal behavior

behavior that may be to its disadvantage, but benefits others of its kind (ex/ warning cry that reveals location to predator)

Frustration Aggression Hypothesis

blocking of goal directed behavior --> frustration-->Aggression (or meditation, turn cheek) Frustration: the negative emotional state we experience when someone/something blocks our goal directed behavior this is no longer used, now we use GAM

empathy

capacity to experience other's emotional states, and want to reduce their negative feelings (compassion) -emotional empathy = ability to share feelings -empathic accuracy = correctly perceiving other's thoughts/feelings (if you have this you respond effectively to others, making good social adjustments) -empathic concern = level of concern for other's well being

Situational factors in the GAM

frustration, attack, aggressive model, aggression cues, a weapon, discomfort

Moral Motives

generativity- adults concern and commitment to the well-being of future generations stagnation- self-interest is the motivation to engage in whatever behavior provides greatest satisfaction moral integrity- motivation to be moral and to actually engage in moral behavior moral hypocrisy- motivation to appear moral while doing one's best to avoid the actual costs involved with being moral

Genetic Determinism Model

help others who are similar to us in effort to preserve gene pool (sociobiological) -similarity increases emotional empathy (not necessarily accuracy) Kin Selection Theory- goal is to get our genes passed on, so we help others who share our genes -more likely to help a female who is still reproducing in your family than not -help other's who don't have same genes in hopes of them reciprocating

Personality factors for GAM

individual differences across people -irritability, violent, values masculinity, Type A, Hostile Attribution

Aggression

intentional infliction of harm on another person (including w/ words) -does not include accidental harm or harm to inanimate objects or animals, unless it is w/ intention to hurt someone else -in research, we must decide how we will define and measure each variable -We operationalize our variables -ex/ operationally define aggression in traffic as beeping horn or flipping drivers off, while in other studies it could just be pushing a shock button

Self Regulation

internal mechanisms for restraining anger ex/-Thinking prosocial thoughts -Having positive attitudes toward regulation -If cognitive resources needed by these processes are depleted, aggression is more likely

General Aggression Model

modern theory suggests that aggression is triggered by a wide range of input variables that influence arousal (physiological), states (hostile feelings), and cognitions (hostile thoughts) which lead to appraisals and decisions to make aggressive actions

Types of Aggression

o Physical o Verbal o Passive o Internet o Instrumental- primary goal is not to harm, but to attain something else

factors related to cooperation

reciprocity- if you compete with me I will compete, if you cooperate I will. Personality- some naturally more cooperative Communication- do you get to talk about your decision first?

Punishment

reduces aggression only i it is -prompt -certain -unpleasant -seen as justified by recipient

Components of groups

roles= responsibilities/self-concept status- ex/height, age norms- expected behavior, ex/ collectivism vs. individualism cohesiveness

Negative State Relief Model

seeing others in need induces negative feelings in us, Prosocial behavior is motivated by desire to reduce negative state (negative reinforcement) ex/after failing a test, your displeasure motivates you to help someone, to bring your emotional state up ex/ Miami beach study EMPATHY IS NOT NEEDED

Bullying

singling out others w/ less power for repeated abuse o Why people bully -Boys- to gain power -Girls- aggress against someone who can't retaliate to reduce depression o Personality of bullies and victims -Bullies think people act the way they do because of lasting characteristics, victims perceive other's actions as responses to external conditions -BOTH have low self-esteem (aggression in effort to boost self-image)...bullies adopt ruthless, manipulative approach b/c they don't trust others

Alcohol and Aggression

study drunk people shocking patients?? -First variable= aggressiveness -Second= how drunk? -Dependent variable = level of shock used -An interaction effect between personality and alcohol consumption • People low in aggressiveness become more aggressive, high aggressors become less (paradox) -Alcohol reduces capacity to process information (ability to evaluate other's intentions, eliminates inhibitions, more impulsive action)

altruism

the principle/practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others -opposite of egoism -helping is a subset of prosocial behavior, altruism is a subset of helping (in case of emergency is another subset)

Group Polarization

the tendency of group members to shift toward a more extreme position than initially held by those individuals as a result of group discussion. this happens because -Social Comparison -Persuasion -Arguments -Desire to be (most) correct -originally Risky Shift theory (that groups are riskier) but later found that discussion leads to polarization leads to risky decision making

Groupthink

the tendency of the members of highly cohesive groups to assume that their decisions can't be wrong, all members must support the group's decisions strongly and that information contrary to it should be ignored -often occurs because groups focus on info that they all already know (not what only some individuals possess) and decisions reflect this

Cohesiveness

varies by group -highly cohesive groups are more supportive, cooperative, higher morale, better performance -difficult initiation increases commitment and cohesion through cognitive dissonance (we change our attitude to say that pledging is worth it)

Prosocial Role Models

when everyone is doing nothing, we all do nothing (reluctant to stand out) but when one person helps we all start helping... social comparison •Ex/ people much more likely to stop and help someone with car trouble if they just drove by someone pull over to help another car •Ex/ companies will put money in their own donation jars to increase social comparison

Conflict

when individuals/groups perceive other's interests as incompatible with their own ...due to..... -faulty attributions (or communications) -social categorization problems (double standard, if they do it its wrong, if we do it its rational) -type A -resolving conflict = either by bargaining or setting Superordinate Goals (we're all in this together)