exam 3 social psych

8/11/2019 Exam 3 Social Psych

1/46

Chapter 13Aggression 4/22/2014 8:08:00 AM

Chapter 11

Three general perspectives for prejudice

Economic perspective

o Identifies roots of much intergroup hostility in the competing

interests that set many groups apart from one another

Motivational perspective

o

Emphasizes the psychological needs and wishes that lead tointergroup conflict

Cognitive perspective

o Traces the origin of stereotyping to the same cognitive

processes that allow people to categorize, say, items of

furniture into distinct classes of chairs, couches, and tables

o Takes into account the frequent conflict between peoples

consciously held beliefs and values and their quick, reflexive

reactions to members of specific racial, ethnic, occupational,

or other demographic groups

These are just perspectives, not sharply defined categories

Not competing accounts but complementary elements of a more

complete analysis

Categorizing intergroup bias

Stereotypes

o Belifs that certain attributes are characteristic of members of

particular groups

o

Can be positive or negativeo True or false

o They are a way of categorizing people

o Involves thinking about a person not as an individual, but as

a member of a group, ad projecting what you think you know

about the group onto your expectations about the individual


2/46

Prejudice

o A negative attitude or affective response toward a certain

group and its individual members

o Negative atitudes have received the most attention, but there

can be positive prejudiceo Prejudging others because they belong to a specific category

Discrimination

o Negative or harmful behavior directed toward members of

particular groups

o Unfair treatment of others-based on their memberships in a

group

Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination refer to the belief,

attitudinal, and behavioral components, respectively, of negative

intergroup relations

o They all usually go together

o Ingroup favoritism can arise in the absence of outgroup

enmity

I have nothing against them, but

Not wanting your kids to marry out of your ethnicity bc

you dont want to lose your culture

Its possible to be prejudice but not discriminate, especially if a

culture frowns on discrimination.Modern racism

Prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists alongside

rejection of explicitly racist beliefs (e.g. that there are genetic

differences between racial groups in intelligence) while maintaining

an enduring suspicion of, discomfort with, or animosity toward

African-Americans

Some of our reactions to other groups are unconscious and

automatic, and these responses may differ from our more

thoughtful beliefs and attitudes

Experiment

o They come to the aid of the black person when they were the

only ones that could help but when they thought that other

people were present, they didnt come to the aid of the black

person as often


3/46

o

Benevolent Racism and Sexism

Some of my best friends are

Im not sexist; I love women!

ambivalent-positive and negative parts Benevolent sexism

o A chivalrous idealogy that offers protection and affection to

women who embrace conventional roles

o Coexists with hostile sexism (dislike of women who are

viewed as usurping mens power)

o Even the partly positive stereotypes arent necessarily benign

Ambivalent sexist or racist attitudes may be particularly resistant to

change

Favorable features allows stereotype holder to deny any prejudice

Be rewarding women and minorities for conforming to the status

quo, benevolent sexism and racism inhibit progress toward equality

o Those who hold ambivalent attitudes tend to act positively

toward members of out-groups only if they fulfill their

idealized image of what such people should be like

Happy housewife, playboy centerfold

Measuring attitudes about groups

Most straightforward way: ask them People are unwilling or unable to express their convictions

accurately

o Many forms of prejudice are ambivalent, uncertain or hidden-

even from the self- they are not likely to be revealed through

self-report

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

o Technique for revealing nonconscious prejudice toward

particular groups

o Technique for revealing subtle, nonconscious prejudices, even

among those who advocate universal equality and high regard

for all groups

Priming and implicit prejudice

o Priming


4/46

Procedure used to increase the accessibility of a concept

or schema (e.g. a stereotype)

Mental activation

If I show you the word butter than ask you tell me, as

quickly as you can, whether a subsequent string ofletters is a word, youll recognize that bread is a word

more quickly than youll recognize that car is a word bc

of your preexisting association between bread and

butter

The economic perspective

Groups develop prejudices about one another and discriminate

against one another when they compete for material resources

Religious groups, racial groups, and cultural groups all stand ready

to protect and promote their own interests by lashing out at those

they perceive to be threatening by them

Realistic group conflict theory

o A theory that group conflict, prejudice, and discrimination are

likely to arise over competition between groups for limited

resources

o Theory predicts correctly that prejudice and discrimination

should increase under conditions of economic difficulty

o

Predicts that prejudice and discrimination should be strongestamong groups that stand to lose the most from another

groupss economic advance

o Specifies some of the ways that conflict between groups is

likely to play out

Ethnocentrism

Glorifying ones own group while vilifying other

groups

An opponent whose antics seem intolerable

instantly seems more likable once that person

becomes a teammate

People in the outgroup are often thought of in a

stereotyped ways and are treated in a manner

normally forbidden by ones moral cod

The Robbers Cave Experiment


5/46

o 22 fifth grade boys were taken to robbers cave state park for

summer camp

o divided into groups of 11 and taken to separate areas of the

park and neither group even knew of the others existence-

initiallyo first phase

two groups independently engaged in activities

designed to foster group unity

each chose to give itself a name- Eagles and Rattlers

o second phase

Eagles and Rattlers were brought together for a

tournament

o Third phase

Making them come together through superordinate

goals

Superordinate goals

Goals that transcend the interests of any

one group and that can be achieved more

readily by two or more groups working

together

o Several lessons

Neither differences in background nor differences inappearance nor prior histories of conflict are necessary

for intergroup hostility to develop

Competition against outsiders often increases group

cohesion

To reduce hostility that exists between certain groups,

policy makers should think of ways to get them to work

together to fulfill common goals

The motivational perspective

Develops in the absence of competition

The existence of group boundaries among any collection of

individuals can be sufficient to initiate group discrimination

The minimal group paradigm

o An experimental paradigm in which researchers create groups

based on arbitrary and seemingly meaningless criteria and


6/46

then examine how the members of these minimal groups are

inclined to behave toward one another

Social identity theory

o A theory that a persons self-concept and self-esteem derive

not only from personal identity and accomplishments but alsofrom the status and accomplishments of the various groups to

which the person belongs

o Boosting the status of the ingroup

Feeling better about the group leads us to feel better

about ourselves

o Basked in reflected glory

The tendency for people to take pride in the

accomplishments of those with whom they are in some

way associated, as when fans identify with a winning

team

were number 1

the inclusive we was used significantly more often after

a win, and the more restrictive they was used more

often after a loss

o degrading outgroups to bolster self-esteem

stereotyping and derogating members of outgroups

appear to bolster self-esteemo Frustration-Aggression Theory

Theory that elaborates the idea that frustration leads to

aggression

If the source of frustration is the very group to which

prejudice and discrimination are directed- that is, if

outgroup members are perceived as getting in the way

of the individuals goals- frustration-aggression is both

an economic and a motivational account

From generalized to targeted aggression

By itself, the link between frustration and

aggression cannot explain the origins of

prejudice and discrimination because

frustration leads to generalized aggression


7/46

Frustration leads to aggression that tends to

be displaced toward relatively powerless

groups

o Evaluating the motivational perspective

Strength of the motivational perspective is that it buildson two undeniably important elements of the human

condition

Draws the us/them distinction and the various

groups to which an individual belongs are

intimately connected to the motive to enhance

self-esteem

People tend to react to frustration with aggression

and often direct their aggression at the safest and

least powerful targets in a given society

The cognitive perspective

Stereotyping is inevitable- stems from ubiquity and necessity of

categorization

People categorize everything

o Purpose: simplifies the task of taking in and processing large

amounts of stimuli

Stereotypes and the conservation of mental reserves

o

People are most likely to fall back on mindless stereotypeswhen they lack mental energy

Construal processes and biased assessments

o Stereotypes conserve cognitive resources

o What is gained in efficiency is paid for by occasional

inaccuracy and error

o Invoking the stereotype may save time and effort, but it can

lead to mistaken impressions and unfair judgments about

individuals

Accentuation of ingroup similarity and outgroup difference

o Dividing a continuous distribution into two groups leads

people to see less variability within each group and more

variability between the two

o Participants consistently assume that their beliefs are more

similar to those of another ingroup member than to those of


8/46

an outgroup member- even when group membership is

arbitrary

o People make such assumptions even when the groups are

formed arbitrarily or when they are formed on the basis of a

dimension (e.g. skin color) that may have no bearing on theparticular attitude or behavior under consideration

The pure act of categorization distorts our judgments

The outgroup homogeneity effect

o The tendency for people to assume that within-group

similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups

o They all think, act, and look alike. We dont.

o We have more contact with fellow members of na ingroup

than with members of an outgroup, so we have greater

opportunity to encounter evidence of divergent opinions and

habits among ingroup members

o Sometimes all we know about outgroups members is what

their stereotypical characteristics are reputed to be.

o Because we belong to an ingroup membership, we do not

treat an ingroup member as a representative of a group

Distinctiveness and illusory correlations

o People sometimes see correlations between events,

characteristics, or categories that are not actually related(illusory correlation)

o By definition, minority groups are distinctive to most

members of the majority, so minority group members stand

out

o Negative behaviors are also less common than positive

behaviors

o Negative behavior on the part of members of minority groups

is therefore doubly distinctive and doubly memorable, and

because negative behavior by the majority or positive

behavior by the minority is not nearly as memorable,

negative actions by the minority are likely to seem more

common than they really are


9/46

Minority groups are therefore often thought to be

responsible for more problematic behavior than they

actually engage in

o Paired distinctiveness

Pairing of two distinctive events that stand out evenmore because they co-occur

Expectations and biased information processing

o Because of the outgroup homogeneity effect, people are more

likely to assume that an individual action is typical of a group

if the group is not their own

Explaining away exceptions

o Subtyping

Explaining away exceptions to a given stereotype by

creating a subcategory of the stereotyped group that

can be expected to differ from the group as awhole

o Concrete vs. abstract construal

The more concrete the description, the less it says

about the individual involved

If peoples evaluations are guided by their preexisting

stereotypes, we might expect them to describe actions

that are consistent with a stereotype in abstract terms

(Thus reinforcing the stereotype), but to describeactions that are inconsistent with it in concrete terms

(thus avoiding the potential challenge to the

stereotype)

Automatic and controlled processing

o Subtyping is conscious

o Our reaction to different groups of people are to a surprising

degree guided by quick and automatic mental processes that

we can override but not eliminate

o What separates prejudiced and nonprejudiced people is not

their knowledge of derogatory stereotypes, but whether they

resist the stereotypes

o Automatic negative stereotypes associated with members of

various stigmatized groups appear to be more easily activated


10/46

among prejudiced individuals than among nonprejudiced

individuals

o Participants were faster to identify a weapon as a weapon

when it was preceded by an African-American face and faster

to identify a hand tool as a hand tool when it was preceded bya white face.

Evaluating the Cognitive Perspective

o Seeing someone who belongs to a particular ethnic group

may automatically activate our stereotypical associations to

that group, but the activation is typically brief

o We all tend to stereotype and that we all have the capacity to

harbor troubling prejudices- prejudices we are often unaware

we have

Becoming a member of a stigmatized group

Two burdens that come with knowning that others may be

prejudiced against ones group

o Attributional ambiguity

Members of stigmatized groups cant tell whether many

of their experiences have the same causes as those of

everyone else or whether they are the result of

prejudice

When someone has to wonder whther anaccomplishment is the product of an affirmative action

policy, it can be difficult to completely own it and reap

the full measure of pride it would ordinarily afford

Members of stigmatized groups live in a less certain

world, not knowing wheteher to attribute positive

feedback to their own skill or to others condescension

and not knowing whether to attribute negative feedback

to their own error or to others prejudice

o Stereotype threat

Peoples fear of confirming the stereotypesthat others

have regarding a group of which they are a member

Appears to undermine performance in a number of

ways


11/46

Leads to increased arousal, which can directly

interfere with performance on complex tasks and

serve as a source of distraction that interferes

with concentration on the task at hand

Knowing that ones group is suspect in the eyes ofothers tend to elicit negative thinking, which can

both directly undermined performance and lead

individuals to play It safe by being obsessed

with avoiding failure than reaching for success

The vulnerability of African Americans has

particular potential for damage

Can result in poorer overall academic

performance, which undermines confidence,

rendering the individual still more

susceptible to stereotype threat

Vicious cycle can result in disidentification

from academic pursuits, as students who

feel the threat more acutely opt out of

academics altogether and identify other

areas in which to invest their talent and

energy and from which to derive their self-

esteem Self-fulfilling prophecies

o People act towards members of certain groups in ways that

encourage the very behavior they expect

Reducing stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination

When people interact frequently, it becomes easier to see one

another more as individuals and less as representatives of

particular groups

Contact between different groups is likely to be more positive and

more productive if certain conditions are met

o The different groups need to have equal status

If one group feels superior and the other resentful, then

harmonious, productive interactions are unlikely to be

the norm


12/46

o Productive intergroup interactions are facilitated if the

different groups have a shared goal that requires their

cooperative interaction- and thus promotes a common

ingroup identity

o

A communitys broader social norms need to supportintergroup contact

o The contact should encourage one-on-one interactions

between members of different groups

Chapter 12


13/46

Chapter 12

Two camps

Individualistic approach

Collectivist/groups approachLimitations of cooleys model

Good start, but prolly too simplistic

Two newer and more nuanced approaches

o Theories of entitativity

Can be thought of as an index of groupiness

Groups can var along a continuum in terms of whether

a mere collection of individual are psychologically

connected or not

High entitativity -> very connected: members feel as

though they belong to a meaningful group

Low entitativity -> not connected: members do not feel

as though they belong to a meaningful group -> not a

very groupy group

What factors make a group high vs. low in entitativity?

Similarity

Common fate (goals)

Proximity Resistance to intrusion (permeability) ->

the us supreme court is relatively resistance

to intrusion -> its not that permeable

royalty is not that permeable either

one limitation of entitativity approach

doesnt address the manner in which the groups

are formed per se

arrows model is more explicit on this point

o Arrows et al model of planned vs. emergent groups

Planned

Core feature: dediberately formed by the

members themselves, or by an outside entitity.

Planned groups can be broken down into two

types:


14/46

Concocted

o Planned by individuals outside of the

group (e.g. production lines, task

forces, crews, professional sports

teams) Founded

o Planned by individuals who remain

within the group (e.g. study groups,

small businesses, clubs, associations)

Emergent

Core feature: groups that form spontaneously

(more or less) as a function of common goals

Can be broken down into further subsets

Circumstantial

o Emergent, unplanned groups arising

when external situational forces set

the stage to join together, often only

temporarily, in a unified group (e.g.

waiting lines, crowds, mobs,

audiences, bystanders)

Self-organizing

o

Emerge when interacting individualsgradually align their activities in a

cooperative system of

interdependence (e.g. occupy wall

street)

The darker side of groups: Mobs, Gangs, Riots

The older theoretical perspective

Phenomenal experience in a group per se -> anti-social behavior

Newer view

the critical issue- the most direct predictor of anti-social behavior is

deindividuation followed by decreased self-regulation

such decrease can be driven by lots of things- including, but not

limited to, being in a group

large groups, nightfall, ability to disguise face, other factors

promoting anonymity -> deindividuation -> decreased self-


15/46

regulation; lessened concern with how others evaluate the self

(stimulus overload and increase physiological arousal can also

result in decreased self-regulation)

Implications, tests and extensions of the deinidivduation model

o

According to this new view, it should be easier for people tolet go of the usual prohibitions against barbarity when they

feel anonymous and unaccountable for their actions

Also supporting this mode; reports of what people would do if they

were indivisible

o Dodd had participants tell researchers what they would do If

they were invisible for a day

o In his original study, Todd had 2 groups do this task: college

students and convicted felons

And they found no difference between the two!

Reversing deindividuation effects

o If deinvididuation leads to anti-social behavior, then how does

the opposite experience- feeling individuated make people

act?

o This question is relevant to the self awareness paradigm

o Main finding: self-standards effect

Tendency of people to act In a more consistent manner

thats consistent with their underlying self-standards More on self-awareness and self-consciousness

o As we have noted, there are situational differences in self

awareness and there are important individual differences too

o By and large, though, and in normal situations (i.e. not in

riots; not drunk, etc), people generally maintain fairly high

levels of self awareness/consciousness

o In fact, there is evidence suggesting that people that people

that people somewhat overdo their experience of self

awareness/consciousness, at least in terms of overestimating

the extent to which people are paying attention to the self

o

Barry Manilow t-shirt study

o Participants that wore the shirt thought a lot of people were

looking at the t-shirt (50% of participants thought this)


16/46

o 80% of other participants didnt notice the t-shirt

Do people perform tasks better alone, or in groups?

People perform tasks faster in group than alone

Stage 1: participants pronounce words between 1 and 16 times Creates dominant response

o Words pronounced most frequently= dominant

Stage 2: words flashed very quickly: 1/100 second

Participants must guess word

Did task alone or while being watched

Main finding: participants guesses were more likely to contain the dominant

words if they were being watched than if they were not

Stereotypes as dominant (well learned) responses

Recall that lambert found greater evidence of stereotyping when

particiapnts performed the task in public, compared to private

Note that this represents a kind of social facilitation effect

o Stereotypes: well-learned association between a category and

a particular set of traits/affective reaction

o The social facilitation would predict greater evidence of

stereotyping in public, which Is what we generally found

Research and theory on group decision making

Are groups less risky in their decision making?

On an intuitive level, youd think that groups would take fewer

chances (be less risky) than individuals

o This is ,one would think that

Groups balance idiosyncratic viewpoints out

o Especially given that most groups have decision making rules

that tend to discourage one dominant point of view

Groups make more risky decisions -> research by stoner

o His viewpoint is a little premature

Group polarization

Theoretical explanation for the group polarization effect

Persuasive argument hypothesis

Social comparison hypothesis


17/46

A caution about group polarization effects (GPES)

Just because groups are getting more polarized doesnt mean that

theyre making good or bad decision -> they can be good or bad

Theory and research on groupthink

Produces worse decisions Groupthink defined

o The mode of thinking that persons engage in when

concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-

group that it tends to over-ride realistic appraisals of

alternative courses of action.

Historical examples

o Bay of Pigs incident (1961)

US encouraged group of Cuban expats to overthrow

Fidel & we were supposed to lend them air support but

then we didnt and they got caught

Antecedents (elements that tend to breed groupthink)

o Group is already cohesive

o Isolated

o Directive leader

o Stress

o Poor decision-making rules

Symptoms of groupthinko Illusion of invulnerability

o Collective rationalization

o Belief in inherent morality

o Stereotyped views of out-groups

o Self-censorship

o Direct pressure on dissenters

o Illusion of unanimity

Specific outcomes (consequences) of groupthink

o Incomplete survey of alternatives

o Failure to examine risks of preferred choices

Hindsight bas

Once we know the outcome (e.g. the challenger blew up!) are we

just spinning events to fit the theory?

Is the idea of a wise crowd inherently contradictory?


18/46

Could it be that crowds are, in fact, wise?

Class example from sir francis galton: the guess the weight of the

ox event

o

Collective guess was almost right on targetThe wisdom of crowds

Four key conditions that characterize wise crowds

o Diversity of opinion

Each person should have some private information,

even if its just an eccentric interpretation of the known

facts

o Independence

Peoples opinions are not determined by the opinions of

those around them

o Decentralization

People are able to specialize and draw on local

knowledge

o Aggregation

Some mechanism, like wall street or a casino, exists for

turning private judgments into collective decision

Connection to Nate Silvers Big Data perspective

Book Notes

The Nature and purpose of group living

A group has been described as a collection of individuals who have

relations to one another that make them interdependent to some

significant degree

Social facilitation

Initial research

o Children turned fishing reel faster in presence of other

children

o Social facilitation

Initially a term for enhanced performance in the

presence of others; now a broader term for the effect-


19/46

positive or negative- of the presence of others on

performance

Zajoncs theory

o The presence of others tends to facilitate performance on

simple or well-learned tasks, but it hinders performance ondifficult or novel tasks

o 3 components

the mere presence of others makes a person more

aroused

arousal tends to make a person more rigid, in the sense

that the person becomes even more inclined to do what

he or she is already inclined to do

arousal makes a person more likely to make a

dominant response

in an individuals hierarchy of responses,

the response he or she is most likely to

make

third component links the increase in dominant

response tendencies to the facilitation of simple tasks

and the inhibition of complex tasks

for easy or well-learned tasks, the dominant

response- your reflexive response- is likely to bethe correct response

so, the presence of others, by facilitating your

dominant response, facilitates the correct

response & improves performance

for difficult or novel tasks, the dominnt response

is unlikely to be the correct response

Mere presence or evaluation apprehension

o Evaluated apprehension

Peoples concern about how they might appear in the

eyes of others- that is, about being evaluated

o It is the concern about others as a source of evaluation, not

their mere presence, that is responsible for social facilitation

o Distraction-conflict theory


20/46

A theory based on the idea that being aware of another

persons presence creates a conflict between attending

to that person and attending to the task at hand, and

that this attentional conflict is arousing and produces

social facilitation effectso Social loafing

Tendency to exert less effort when working on a group

task in which individual contributions cannot be

monitored

Group decision making

Groupthink

o A kind of faulty thinking by highly cohesive groups in which

the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the issues at

hand is subverted by social pressures to reach consensus

o Symptoms and sources of groupthink

Strong directive leaders who make their preferences

known sometimes intimidate even the most

accomplished group members and stifle vigorous

discussion

Issue that must be decided is so stressful that groups

seek the reassurance and comfort of premature or

illusory consensus both strong leaders and drive to find consensus breed

self-censorship

the tendency to withhold information or opinions

in group discussions

o preventing groupthink

more vigorous discussion is likely to take place if the

leader refrains from making his or her opinions or

preferences known at the beginning

making sure the group is not cut off from outside input

designate one person to play devilsadvocate- to be

given every incentive to name any and all weakness in

the groups proposed plan of action

o groupthink in other cultures


21/46

the drive toward harmony is greater in east Asian

cultures such as japan than in the US

groupthink can be so great in those places that

even at scientific meetings there is rarely true

debate or any other exchange that might appearconfrontational or cause anyone to lose face

in japan, they find out what each member think before

the general meeting so that in the meeting, everyone is

in consensus

group decisions: risky or conservative?

o Risky shift

The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than

individuals would

Group polarization

o Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those

made by individuals. Whatever way the individuals are

leaning, group discussion tends to make them lean further in

that direction

Group decision has the effect of making people more

inclined to go in the direction they are already

predisposed to go

o

Two causes work in concert to produce group polarization Persuasiveness of the information brought up during

group discussion

You tend to have more arguments to whichever

side youre predisposed to- risky vs safe

The group discussion tends to expose the average

person to even more arguments in favor of he

position that the average person was already

inclined to take

Peoples tendency to try to claim the right position in

the distribution of opinions within the group

Humans have tendency to compare ourselves with

everyone else


22/46

People tend to think that they are farther out on

the correct side of the opinion distribution on

most issue

o Valuing risk

People must typically value risk over caution A risky shift after group discussion should occur more

often among U.S. participants than among participants

in other cultures that do not value risk as highly

Polarization in modern life

o When homogeneous groups come together, their discussions

are likely to lead to even stronger attitudes than the ones the

group members came in with

Leadership and power

Social hierarchies are a natural part of group life, as are leaders and

people who are led

Groups evolve into hierarchies because having leaders heps solve

some of the difficulties inherent in group living

Who becomes a leader?

o Expertise and skill relevant to the goals of the group

o Individuals who have the social skills to build strong,

cooperative relations among group members also increase

their chances of rising to positions of leadershipo An individual who can provide rewards to the group is more

likely to rise to positions of leadership

o Individuals who selflessly share resources with others are

actually more likely to rank highly in social hierarchies

What is power?

o Power is the ability to control our own outcomes and those of

others; the freedom to act

Related, but not synonymous with three other kinds of

social rank

Status

The outcome of an evaluation of attributes

that produces differences in respect and

prominence, which in part determines an

individuals power within a group


23/46

It is possible to have power but not status

(corrupt politician)

And it is possible to have status without

relative power (religious leader in a slow-

moving line at the department of motorvehicles)

Authority

Power that derives from institutionalized

roles or arrangements

Power can exist w/o formal roles (within

informal social groups)

Dominance

Behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring

or demonstrating power

Power can be attained w/o any attempt to

establish dominance

How does power influence behavior?

o Approach/inhibition theory

Theory that maintains that high-power individuals are

inclined to go after their goals and make quick

judgments whereas low-power individuals are more

likely to constrain their behavior and attend to otherscarefully

Yields two hypothesis

First concerns the influence of power on how

people perceive others

High-power individuals are predicted to be a

little less systematic and careful in how they

judge other people

High-power individuals are more likely to

thoughtlessly stereotype others, rather than

carefully attending to individuating

information

Experiment with drawing the E: individuals

feeling a surge of power were much less

likely to spontaneously draw the E in a way


24/46

that took the other persons perspective-

power reduces the ability to empathize

Power should make people behave in disinhibited

(less constrained) and at times more

inappropriate ways Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac

low-power individuals tend to inhibit themselves

in a variety of ways

individuals with little power often constrict

their posture and dampen their expressive

behavior

they tend to refrain from speaking up:

inhibit their speech and clam up and

withdraw during group interactions

elevated power is associated with increased antisocial

behavior

high-power individuals are more likely to violate

politeness-related communication norms- they

are more likely to interrupt, speak out of turn,

and act rudely at work

high-power individuals are more likely to tease in

a hostile fashiono power seems to encourage individuals to express their

underlying inclinations, both good and bad

if the person inclined toward malevolent or competitive

behavior, power will increase the likelihood of such

behavior.

If the person is more ethical and concerned about the

public good, power will amplify the expression of those

tendencies

o Power corrupts the corruptible

Deinviduation and the psychology of mobs

Deindividuation and the group mind

o Emergent properties of groups

Behaviors that emerge only when people are in groups

o Individuation


25/46

The reduced sense of individual identity accompanied

by diminished self-regulation that comes over people

when they are in a large group

A model of deindividuation

o

A deindividuated person is less aware of the self, morefocused on others and the immediate environment, and hence

more responsive to behavior cues- for good or for bad

o People are more likely to engage in a host of impulsive

behaviors because there is more of a push to do so, and

because the constraints that usually pull them back from

such actions are weakened

Suicide baiting

o Suicide baiting was more than twice as likely when the crowd

size exceeded 300

o More than four times as likely if the episode took place after 6

p.m.

o As people feel more anonymous, either by being lost in a

large crowd or under the cloak of darkness, they are more

inclined to taunt and egg on a potential suicide

The conduct of war

o Among cultures whose warriors changed their appearance

before battle, 80% were deemed particularly aggressiveo When warriors are disguised in battle, they fight more

ferociously

Self-awareness and ndivudation

o Individuation

An enhanced sense of individual identity produced by

focusing attention on the self, which generally leads

people to act carefully and deliberately and in

accordance with their sense of propriety and values

o Self-awareness theory

A theory that maintains that when people focus their

attention inward on themselves, they become

concerned with self-evaluation and how their current

behavior conforms to their internal standards and

values


26/46

o Anything that focuses attention on the self, such as being in

front of a camera, seeing ourselves in a mirror, or wearing a

name tag may lead to individuation and make us particularly

inclined to act carefully and in accordance with our sense of

propriety

Chapter 13


27/46

Are human beings more aggressive than other species?

No

Hostile Aggression

Any act of aggression whose primary motive is to inflict pain

Instrumental aggression Any violence or aggression is being observable toward a larger goal

American football, rugby, etc

The distinction can blur in some cases

In hockey, they let them fight until they get to the ice

Antecedents (predictors) of aggression

Heat

o The hotter it is, the more violent/aggressive people are

Gender

o Men are more aggressive

Frustration

Alcohol

o Does it indirectly

o Alcohol is a disinhibitor

Mere exposure to violent stimuli

Media effect

o will playing violent video games make you more aggressive or

violent?A note on the survival value of aggression

In social psychological research- with humans- we are generally interested in

(relatively) more subtle cues that may lead people to aggressions

Mere exposure effect

Overview of the berkowitz and page paradigm (modified milgram

paradigm)

o Real subject (who is designated to be the teacher) is given

initial demonstration by experimenter of shocking apparatus

One initial demo shock (not angered)

Seven initial demo shocks (angered)

o High vs. low anger towards experimenter

Control

You and button youre hitting and thats it


28/46

Associated weapons

Unassociated weapons

Does catharsis work?

Original Freudian perspective

o

Participation in violent sports should lower your aggressionlevel

What the data generally say

o Three different types of studies

Participation in violent sports

Observing sports

Direct aggression toward original source

o Participation in violent sports make people MORE aggressive

o So Freud was incorrectagain

So: Venting is NOT A reliable way to reduce anger

Well what does work?

o Sounds corny, but its true: count to 10

o Explaining/communicating emotion to other person, not

venting

o Self awareness

o Diffusion of anger through apology

A preliminary remarks about media effects and violence

Does playing violent video games make people more violent?o A lot of teen boys play violent video games don t turn out to

be mass murderers

Representative experimental study by Anderson and bushman

Stage I: Participants randomly assigned to play violent video game

vs. golf simulation video

Stage 2: (ostensibly unrelated) competition with opponent in

laboratory, with option to punish him/her on each trial

Dependent variable: duration and intensity of white noise bursts

Everyone acted in a more aggressive way

Correlational approaches

Examined correlation between amount of time playing violent video

games (outside of a laboratory) and aggressive delinquent

behavior (e.g. vandalism)

R= 0.46


29/46

In such experimental designs, researchers often find additive effects of

three variables

In other words, three variables contribute to aggression, working

on top of one another

o

Gender (males typically more aggressive than females)o Pre-existing trait aggression (people who score high are more

aggressive than those who score low)

o Media exposure (aggression higher when exposed to violent

content)

Rape and pornographic media

Alternative perspectives on the antecedents of aggression

The possible role of social rejection

Basic idea:

o Rejection-> threat-> psychological pain-> self-protective

motive -> aggression

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Original version of theory

o Frustration-> aggression

Levels of aggression related to:

o How desirable the goal was

o How much the goal has been thwarted

o

Past history of having the goal thwartedo How close the person was to achieving the goal

A threshold model of aggression

Not a formal theory, just a way of understanding how things can

lead to behavior

The aggression tank

o The more its filled, the more likely you are to act in an

aggressive manner

o Gender

If youre male, your aggression tank is higher

o Personality

o Recent experience with violent video games

o Adding to the tank of aggressiveness could make it more

likely that you reach a critical threshold of aggression needed


30/46

to elicit a particular aggressive act (e.g. yelling at the clerk in

a store)

In theory, at least, any given person has his or her own

thresholds for certain aggressive acts

o

But these thresholds are likely to be very different fordifferent people

warning!

o This is NOT a formal model of aggression; this vastly

oversimplifies many things

o Rather, this is merely to highlight a number of general ideas:

build up effects

thresholds for action

individual differences

within-culture differences: the culture of honor

the culture of honor

o a culture that is defined by strong concerns about ones own

and others REPUTATIONS, leading to sensitivity to slights

and insults and greater willingness to use violence to avenge

perceived wrongs or insults

o The Duel

Although duels are no longer common (at least as they

once existed) the culture of honor can be seen in otheraspects of our society (past & present)

Overall, there is one segment of our society, in which,

historically, one can see lingering evidence of the

culture of honor: the south (and southwest).

o Blumenthal et al.

To what extent does a man have the right to

Kill another man in self efense

Nonsouth-> 57%

South -> 70%

Kill another person oto defend his family

Nonsouth-. 67%

South -> 80%

Kill a person to defend his house

Nonsouth-> 18%


31/46

South -> 60%

Extensions of the culture of honor construct

o sins of the father scenarios

jealousy

male sexual jealousyo almost half of the 1156 women murdered in NYC between

1990-1994 were killed by husbands or boyfriends

o male sexual jealousy appears to be key factor in spouse

abuse

Daly & Wilson (1988) argued that males will use

violence and threats as strategies to limit their partners

autonomy and so decrease the chance of infidelity.

o Spousal homicide is common, especially for women who

Have left their partners

Have threatened to do so

Have been suspected of planning or actually committing

adultery

Sexual jealousy- an evolutionary explanation of the differences

beween male and female

o Sex differences in jealousy

Threats to ancestral man

Cuckoldry The possibility that you (the man) are

unwittingly investing parental effort in

offspring that are not your own

Uncertainty in paternity

Extending scare resources on another mans

offspring

Threats to ancestral woman

Lost of resources because of cheating mate

Loss of emotional involvement

o Scenario

What would upset or distress you more

Discovering that your partner is forming a deep

emotional attachment an confiding and sharing

confidences with another person


32/46

Or

Discovering your partner is having mind blowing

sex with another person

Forced choice method

70% of women indicate emotional infidelity to be moredisturbing

40-60% of men report sexual infidelity would be worse

Book notes

Hostile aggression

Behavior motivated by feelings of anger and hostility and whose

primary aim is to harm another, either physically or psychologically

Genocide in Rwanda

Instrumental aggression

Behavior that is intended to harm another in the service of motives

than pure hostility

People harm others to gain status, attract attention, acquire wealth,advance political and idealogical causes

Many acts of aggression involve a mix of hostile and instrumental motives

Situational determinants of aggression

Certain circumstances and situations release peoples aggressive

tendencies

Factors that give rise to violence

Heat

o Anger literally raises the temperature of the body because of

increases in blood pressure and the distribution of blood to

certain parts of the body, such as the hands

o As the temperature of the earth rises, people might expect to

see increases in violence throughout the world

o Misattribution perspective


33/46

People are aroused by the heat, but they are largely

unaware that it is the source of their arousal

They blame the person, not realizing its the heat

o Another possibility: heat triggers not just undifferentiated

arousal, but specific feelings of anger in particular Media violence

o Exposure to media violence increases aggressive behavior

o Copycat violence

Imitation of specific violent acts depicted in the media

o People tend to be more aggressive after seeing films in which

they identify with the perpetrator of the violent act

o People are also more likely to be aggressive after watching

violent films that portray justified violence- that is violence

perpetrated against bad people

o When participants are led to direct their attention away from

the aggressive content of the violent film they are less likely

to be aggressive

Violent video games

o Increases aggressive behavior

o Reduces prosocial behavior, such as helping or altruism

o Increases aggressive thoughts

o

Increases aggressive emotionso Increases blood pressure and heart rate, physiological

responses associated with fighting and fleeing

Social rejection and aggression

Hearing someone gossip about us, seeing an acquaintances

sneer or a contemptuous eye roll acquired the power to

trigger this threat defense system and its associated feelings

and tendencies, including the tendency to act aggressively

o Chronic social rejection sets in motion a set of feelings that

can lead to extreme aggression

o Social rejection stimulates feelings of pain

o Social rejection increases likelihood of aggression

o People who report a chronic sense of rejection are more likely

to act aggressively in their romantic relationships, even

resorting or physical abuse


34/46

Income inequality

Construal processes and aggression

The frustration-aggression hypothesis Frustration

o The internal state that accompanies the thwarting of an

attempt to achieve some goal

Individuals act aggressively when they feel thwarted in their

attempt to reach that goal

Aggression increases in direct proportion to

o The amount of satisfaction the person anticipates receiving

from meeting the goal (before it is blocked)

o How completely the person is prevented from achieving the

goal

o How frequently the person is blocked from achieving the goal

o How close the individual believes he or she is to achieving the

goal

Target who was second in line and was cut by confederate was

much more aggressive in response to the confederate who cut in

line than the person who was 12thin line

Critiqueso 1stcriticism has called into question the hypothesis that all

aggressive behaviors follow from frustration, or the perceived

thwarting of goal-directed activity

o 2ndcritique is that frustration does not necessarily lead to

aggression -> frustration can lead to other responses,

depending on how the individual construes the source of

frustration

learned helplessness

passive and depressed responses that individuals

show when their goals are blocked and they feel

that they have no control over their outcomes

A neo-associationistic account of aggression


35/46

Its not just having our goals blocked that leads to aggression; it is

how we interpret the events that seem to have prevented us from

reaching those goals

Acts that we construe as intentionally harmful are more likely to

make us aggressive than equally harmful acts that we construe asaccidental

Aversive event (pain, heat, goals blocked) -> anger (perceived

injustice, thoughts of attack, elevated arousal) -> aggression

(attacking physically, harming someone emotionally)

Weapons and violence

Guns serve as powerful cues that prime anger-related construals

In experiment, participants who were primed to violent

thinking/were shocked more in turn shocked the experimenter more

Culture and aggression

Culture of honor

A culture that is defined by its members strong concerns about

their own and others reputations, leading to sensitivity to slights

and insults and a willingness to use violence to avenge any

perceived wrong or insult

Prevalent in the U.S. South

Cohen and Nisbett found that some southern employers actuallyexpressed a good deal of warmth toward a potential job applicant

who confessed to having been convicted of manslaughter after

defending his honor

Members of cultures of honor were frequently herding cultures in

the past

Rape-prone cultures

They used rape as

o An act of war against enemy women

o A rituall act- as part of a wedding ceremony or of an

adolescent males rite of passage to adulthood

o A threat against women so that they will remain subservient

to men


36/46

Rape-prone cultures were more likely to have high levels of

violence, a history of frequent warfare, and an emphasis on

machismo and male toughness

Rape is more prevalent in cultures whose women have lower status

Evolution and aggression

Violence in stepfamilies

Inclusive fitness

o The evolutionary tendency to look out for ourselves, our

offspring, and our close relatives together with their offspring,

so that our genes will survive and be passed on in future

generations

Relations between stepparents and stepchildren tend to be more

distant and conflict laden, and less committed and satisfying than

relations between parents and their genetic offspring

Gender and aggression

Women see to exceed men in relational aggression

o They gossip, form alliances, and exclude others

o Hurtful emotionally

Men have greater levels of physical aggression

Men are 20 times as likely to kill other men as women are to kil

other women

Conflict and peacemaking

Misperception

Dehumanization

o The tendency to attribute nonhuman characteristics to groups

other than ones own- for example, by referring to them as

rats, dogs, pigs, or vermin

They tend to think of their own group as moral and good, and the

other side as immoral and evil

This is bad, because it

o Justifies aggression

o Leads opponents to overlook areas of agreement with each

other


37/46

Reactive devaluation

o The tendency to attach less value to an offer in a negotiation

once the opposing group makes it

Simplistic reasoning and rhetoric

The complexity of a position in a conflict is defined by two qualitieso The level of differentiation, or the number of principles and

arguments in the position

o The level of integration or connections drawn between the

different principles and arguments

o Simplistic reasoning can lead to simplistic rhetoric which can

contribute to escalating conflicts on the international stage

Communication and reconciliation

Simply allowing adversaries to communicate reduces levels of

competition and aggression and increases the chances of finding

satisfying resolutions to many kinds of conflict

Moving toward a less violent world

We are enjoying one of the least aggressive, most cooperative

periods in human history

One explanation for our broad cultural shifts in violence and the

more humane treatment of our foes

o The world has become substantially more interconnected: our

interests are more intertwined with those of people fromother communities, states and nations

o This expanding interdependence has given rise to greater

cooperation among nations, states, and communities

Cooperation has short-circuited more aggressive tendencies and

given rise to greater prosocial behavior.


38/46

Altruism and Cooperation 4/22/2014 8:08:00 AM

Chapter 14


39/46

Class notes

Altruism

Commonly defined as selfless concern for the welfare of others

Models of altruism Social rewards motive

o Being altruistic helping others can often yield extrinsic

rewards for the self

Personal distress model

o We may help others to alleviate our own distress

Emphatic concern motive

o The more pure form of altruism

Is there a genetic basis for seemingly pure levels of altruism? (altruistic

behavior that puts the self at grave harm with no apparent personal benefit)

How can evolutionary theory explain such actions?

How can evolutionary theory explain any action that seemingly

reflects selfless

The Selfish Gene View

According to Richard Dawkins, apparent acts of self-sacrifice can be

seen as ultimately selfish from the standpoint of your genes

S ,this puts the apparently self-sacrificing behavior of the father

in a new light!o So by sacrificing his own life to save the life of his son, one

could argue that this act is selfish from the standpoint of

ones own genes

o In other words, the father is, in a sense, attempting to

preserve the life of his own genetic codes, which are sternly

shared with his son

o It is the fathers genes that are programmed t survive, not

the fathers individual body per se

o This gene-centered view is sometimes referred to as the kin

selection perspective

Caveat (1)

o No one is suggesting that altruism is completely under control

of genetics. Social learning/norms play an important role too

Caveat (2)


40/46

o Its not simply a matter of predicting self sacrifice whenever

you share a great deal of genetic overlap with someone

o Most theorists would agree that the programming of our

genes is contextualized within the overall goal for replication

which we accomplish (in our lumbering-robot sort of way)through various behaviors such as sex and child rearing, etc

Situational determinants of altruism: the legacy of the kitty Genovese case

The bystander intervention effect

o Involves at least 3 distinct components

Attention

People may not notice the emergency

Construal

People may not necessarily interpret it as an

emergency, as such

Diffusion of responsibility

Even if people notice, and do construe it as an

emergency, they may infer that someone else has

already done something

o Five crucial stages to L&D model

Notice the event?

Does the person notice that something unusual is

taking place? The good Samaritan study

Interpret the event as an emergency?

Pluralistic ignorance

Special case of conformity (informational)

The smoke-filled room study

Assume responsibility?


The seizure study

Know the appropriate form of assistance?

Implement decision to act?

All 5 stages need to be met or else no assistance is

rendered?

Situational determinants of altruism: urban vs rural settings


41/46

People are friendlier and more likely to help in rural settings

Why are people more likely to help in rural areas?

o Socialization hypothesis

o Urban overload hypothesis

Population density mattersOn the role of gender

Women are more likely to receive help from others

o Especially if shes attractive and dressed in more feminine

ways

o People may assume women may need more help than men

o Male helpers may be more willing to help an attractive woman

bc offering help may be a way to get romantically involved

with her

Inclusive fitness and kin selection, redux

Kin selection, selfish gene evolutionary approach -> all the same

o Food selection is more common amongst close relatives

o Political alliances between kin are more stable than those

formed between distantly related or unrelated individuals

o The passing on of wealth to lineal descendants (excluding

spouses) is far more common than giving to less closely

related or unrelated individuals

o

Close relatives are preferentially sought out in times of needand such help is likely to be reciprocal

o Relatives typically receive more expensive presents

o How much pain will you suffer for your kin?

o Facial similarity and trust

o Human adoption

Book notes

Altruism

Unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to

consequences for the self

When do we act altruistically, and when dont we?


42/46

Emphatic concern: a case of pure altruism

First selfish motive: social rewards motive

o Benefits like praise, positive attention, tangible rewards,

honors, and gratitude that may be gained from helping others

Second selfish motive: personal distresso A motive for helping those in distress that may arise from a

need to reduce our own distress

Emphatic concern

o Identifying with another person-feeling and understanding

what that person is experiencing- accompanied by the

intention to help the person in need

Empathy vs. personal distress

Empathic concern and volunteerism

o Feelings of empathic concern and sympathy increase the

likelihood that people will act altruistically, helping those who

suffer

o Volunteerism

Nonmonetary assistance an individual regularly provides

to another person or group with no expectation of

compensation

Situational determinants of Altruism The later you are, the less likely you are to help

Bystander intervention

o Giving assistance to someone in need on the part of those

who have witnessed an emergency. Bystander intervention is

generally reduced as the number of observers increases,

because each person feels that someone else will probably


o A reduction of the sense of urgency to help someone involved

in an emergency or dangerous situation under the assumption

that others who are also observing the situation will help

Presence of friends increase altruistic action

People are most likely to help when the harm to the victim is clear

and the need is unambiguous


43/46

The greater the costs associated with helping, the less likely people

are to act altruistically

Women tend to receive more help than men

o more attractive women and women dressed in conventionally

feminine attire tend to receive more help from passersby people are more likely to help similar others , including those from

their own racial or ethnic group

construal processes and altruism

helping in ambiguous situations

o when youre not sure whether the situation is dangerous or

not, you tend to ignore it

o pluralistic ignorance occurs when people are uncertain about

what is happening and assume that nothing is wrong bc no

one else is responding or appears concerned

combating pluralistic ignorance

o bystanders are less likely to fall prey to pluralistic ignorance

when they can clearly see one anothers initial expressions of

concern

o how to get help

make your need clear : Ive twisted my ankle and I

cant walk, I need help

select a specific person: you there, can you help me? doing so you prevent people from concluding there is no

real emergency (thereby eliminating the effect of

pluralistic ignorance), and you prevent them from

thinking that someone else will help (thereby

overcoming diffusion of responsibility)

culture and atruism

altruism in urban and rural settings

o people in rural areas report higher levels of empathic concern

social class and altruism

o individuals who have less give more, at least in terms of the

proportion of their income that they give away to charity

religion, ethics, and altruism


44/46

o emphasis on fairness and cooperation and equality, seen In

both religious traditions and secular treatments of ethics, can

do a great deal to elicit prosocial behavior

evolution and altruism

Kin selectiono The tendency for natural selection to favor behaviors that

increase the chances of survival of genetic relatives

o You help your kin

Reciprocity

o Reciprocal altruism

The tendency to help others with the expectation that

they are likely to help us in return at some future time

Reduces the likelihood of dangerous conflict, helps

overcome problems arising from scarce resources, ad

offers a basis for individuals to form alliances and

constrain more dominant individual

Cooperation

Prisoners dilemma game

o Cooperate vs deflect

Situational determinants of cooperation

o The cooperative or competitive outcomes in your relationships

may, without your knowledge, depend as much or more onyour behavior as on the behavior of the people you deal with.

o Competitive people crate more competitive interactions and

thus come to construe their counterparts as also being

competitive

Reputation

The beliefs, evaluations, and impressions people hold

about an individual within a social network

Construal processes and cooperation

o Exposure to the hostile words affected the participants

actions

o Competitive and aggressive images may foster a more

competitive society

Culture and cooperation


45/46

o Interdependence increases peoples cooperation and

generosity

Evolution and cooperation: tit for tat

o Tit for tat strategy

A strategy in which the individuals first move iscooperative and thererafter the individual mimics the

other persons behavior, whether cooperative or

competitive

Five factors make it especially compelling

Its cooperative

Encourages mutually supportive action

toward a shared goal

It is not envious

It is not exploitable

It is not blindly prosocial. If you defect on

the tit-for-tat, it will defect on you

It forgives

Willing to cooperate at the first cooperative

action of its partner, even after long runs of

defection & competition

Easy to read

It should not take long for others to knowthat the tit-for-tat strategy is being played


46/46

exam 3 social psych

Documents