8. Antisocial behaviour Flashcards
Explain the concept of out-group homogeneity.
Seeing all members of the outgroup as being the same. People see members of the outgroup as being more similar to one another than ingroup members are.
Park et al conducted a study of 90 women, each of whom was a member of one of three sororities. Each participant was given a list of ten characteristics that could potentially describe a young person- two of these were favourable and 8 were unfavourable. Participants were asked to rate how applicable each of these were to members of each sorority, including their own, and how similar members of each sorority were to each other with regards to those characteristics. This tested both ethnocentrism and outgroup homogeneity.
It was found that each group gave their own group higher scores on favourable characteristics. Each group rated their own group as least likely to possess these unfavourable characteristics. Participants viewed members of their own group as being relatively dissimilar to one another but participants of other groups as being similar.
What are some suggestions for why outgroup homogeneity occur?
We see our own groups as being more diverse because have have greater contact with and exposure to them- the differences are more visible to us.
Seeing the ingroup as being less similar provides us with a means of bolstering our own individuality- if we think there’s greater variability within the group then we can see ourselves as bringing something unique to the group. If everyone is bringing something new it makes them feel more valued with regards to their contribution to the group.
It serves us well to see the outgroup as a faceless horde and to dehumanise them because it then becomes easier to perpetrate violence against the outgroup. If we see the outgroup as all being the same, we don’t feel bad about being nasty to them
It may be that perceiving the outgroup as being more similar allows us to portray them as being more predictable and so we feel less anxious about their behaviour because we feel like we know what they’ll do because they’re all the same.
Explain research into motivation and stereotypes.
The idea that the outgroup becomes more predictable when we see them as being more similar suggests that outgroup homogeneity is linked to information processing. This links to the view of people as being ‘cognitive misers’- we want to be able to simplify everything so we can process information effectively and efficiently.
We hold simplistic views of people because we don’t have enough mental resources to devote to understanding each person and each group as fully as we might do.
It could be argued that people simply have less motivation to understand the other group because they have less interaction with them.
If people become more motivated can they then override the tendency to rely on stereotypes?
A study aimed to evaluate this in the domain of stereotypes towards elderly women. 60 undergraduate participants were told the experiment was in investigation into how people solve problems and that shortly they would start working with a participant who was a 65 year old woman named Hilda. They’d be working with them on a series of word puzzles. Half of the participants (the outcome dependent group) were told that a prize of 20 dollars would be given to each team that provided the best solutions to the puzzles, and so whether or not the participant won the prize would be based on how well they worked with the 65 year old woman. The other half of participants (the outcome independent group) were told they would be assessed on their own individual contribution to the task and the prize would be given to the best performing individual.
Participants next had to write a short personal profile as a means of breaking the ice between them and Hilda. Once they had finished their own profile, the researcher left to supposedly give the profile to Hilda and returned and told participants that Hilda had completed her profile but had terrible handwriting and so it had to be transferred onto a computer screen. Half of the participants were put under a cognitive load- they were asked to rehearse an 8 digit number which they would need to repeat back at the end of the task while the other half were put under no cognitive load. Then, each participant had to read Hilda’s profile on the screen. The profile was made up of 24 characteristics. It included information on three characteristics which are commonly seen as being stereotypical of elderly women (intolerant, prudish, and critical) and three of them were counter stereotypical (optimistic, aggressive, and competitive). Participants were asked to rate Hilda on each of those characteristics and having done that were asked to recall as much about Hilda as they could in a five minute period.
Being output depended on another person should increase your motivation to accurately process information about that person. Being under a cognitive load should decrease your ability to process information accurately.
Researchers were interested to see whether those who were outcome dependent and not under cognitive load would be least likely to view Hilda in a stereotype-consistent way.
It was found that those who were outcome dependent (most motivated) and under no cognitive load were the ones who rated Hilda in the least stereo-type consistent way.
This suggests that one of the reasons we rely on stereotypes is that they are simply easier for us to process- stereotype consistent judgements require fewer resources and allow us to use those resources on other activities instead. When people are motivated and have the mental resources to do so, they are less likely to rely on stereotypical thinking.
Explain research into controlling our thoughts.
There are situations in which people want to stop themselves thinking in stereotypical ways.
A study asked participants to complete a ‘think-aloud’ task- they had to speak out loud everything they were thinking for five minutes. This was all captured on a tape recorder.
Half the participants were instructed to think about white bears (the expression task) and the other half were instructed to try and not think about white bears (suppression task).
Five minutes later, those in the expression group had to do the suppression task and vice versa. They had to ring a bell every time they thought about white bears and researchers found that the bell was rung the most times among those people who initially suppressed their thoughts of white bears and then were allowed to express them.
This tells us that people can successfully inhibit unwanted thoughts, in our case thoughts in line with stereotypes, but when we feel able to express them again these thoughts come back even stronger than before.
This is thought to happen because of a process called ironic monitoring, whereby our thought monitoring system has to activate the thought we are trying to suppress in order to be aware of it and so try to suppress it. We get trapped in a cycle where we can’t get rid of a thought we are trying desperately not to think.
Can people change their stereotypic beliefs?
We typically engage in a process called subtyping, whereby we treat people who are part of a stereotyped group as being not representative of that group.
E.g. if you believe that young adults are lazy, but then see a young adult working hard instead of changing your beliefs, you might think this young adult is an exception to the general rule.
What is a sterotype?
A simplified but widely shared belief about a characteristic of a group and its members.
We engage in these as they require minimal cognitive effort and can also be adaptive- if we have a negative stereotype for people with guns we can know to avoid them. However they can be maladaptive which can lead to discrimination.
Explain what a stereotype threat is and research into this phenomenom.
Stereotype threat is where people who are a member of a group who is the object of a negative stereotype perform ironically worse on a particular task because they are trying to disconfirm the stereotype that says they perform badly on that task.
If a negative stereotype exists, then a person who is steroetyped against can either conform in terms of their behaviour or actively try and display behaviour which goes against the stereotype. However, this might negatively impact the quality of their performance and result in them conforming to the stereotype anyway.
Claude Steele studied the effect of worrying about conforming to stereotypes on the behaviour of those from the stereotyped group. He looked at black americans facing the stereotype of performing less well on academic tests.
Black and white university students completed a procedure which involved an academic test. In the diagnostic condition (stereotype threat), participants were told the test would identify various personal factors involved in performance on verbal reasoning abilities and were told they will be given feedback that ‘may be helpful in familiarising you with some of your strengths and weaknesses in verbal problem solving’. They’re anticipating taking a test that is diagnostic of their intellectual ability. The non-diagnostic (no stereotype threat) group were told that the scores would help identify the problems people have in general on the test- they were not expecting the test to be diagnostic of their intellectual ability.
Researchers were interested in the accuracy of test responses and how many items on the test would be completed.
It is assumed black participants in the diagnostic condition will be facing the stereotype that they don’t perform as well as their white counterparts on tests.
It was found that white participants performed better than black participants in the diagnostic condition- they scored lower and completed fewer items on the test. However, in the non-diagnostic condition, there was no difference in performance of black and white participants.
These findings support the stereotype threat hypothesis that those people who feel the burden of having to battle against a negative stereotype are ironically likely to perform more poorly on tests that are relevant to that stereotype because they are preoccupied with worrying about being seen to be conforming to the negative stereotype.
Explain the theory underpinning stereotype threat.
The theory proposes that the mechanism that leads black people to perform more poorly than their white counterparts on tests they have been told are diagnostic of their intellectual ability is that black participants are more preoccupied with worrying about conforming to a negative stereotype.
Researchers then studied the cognitive processes which are activated under stereotype threat conditions.
There were 3 conditions; in the first two, participants were told they’d complete tests of either recognition and processing of words or of their verbal ability.
In the first condition, the diagnostic one, participants were told researchers wanted an accurate measure of their ability and would be giving feedback at the end of the study on their strengths and weaknesses- they were expecting to complete a test which would diagnose their intellectual ability.
In the non diagnostic condition, they were told their ability was not being evaluated but they could receive feedback on their scores if they wanted it.
In the control group, no test was taken. They were told the experimenter wasn’t available and so had left a set of measures for them to complete.
The test was a set of 80 word completion tasks which took the form of incomplete words where participants had to fill in the blanks. 12 of these words were chosen because they tapped into stereotypes of black people such as being lazy and another seven reflected self-doubts and competence and ability e.g. the word loser.
The researchers were interested in whether participants in the diagnostic condition would be more likely to be thinking about themselves and the stereotype- if so then they should complete the fill in the blanks with words that are associated with their ethnicity and stereotype. This is an implicit measure of the activation of stereotypes and self-doubt.
It was found that in the stereotype diagnostic condition there was an increase in racial word completions for black participants but not white ones. This was the same for the self-doubt word completion measures in the diagnostic conditions.
This demonstrates the effect of stereotypes on those who are stereotyped- where stereotypes portray members of a group as performing in a particular negative way, when performing on tasks that are relevant to that stereotype, those who are a member of the group may worry about how their behaviour will come across to other people and whether or not it will be seen to confirm the stereotype. This leads to a fulfilling prophecy because if you are worrying about your performance on something, the cognitive burden that is placed on our mental resources arising from that worry can lessen the amount of resources we have available to use on completing the task. This results in the confirmation of the stereotype, thus solidifying and strengthening the perception people hold of members of the stereotyped group.
What is modern racism?
A much more subtle version of racism where people are not overtly hostile towards people of other ethnicities but what would usually be an understandably negative response to another person is heightened due to their race or ethnicity. This is covert racism.
Explain research into modern racism.
A study by Dovidio et al recruited white participants who completed a task which they were told was about how quickly and accurately people categorise objects and people. They were told that they’d see either a letter string of P, which they should interpret to refer to the category of people, or H which they should interpret to refer to the category of houses. They were then shown a test word and asked to indicate as soon as possible if the words could be used to describe a person; these words were either positive or negative. Participants believed this was about cognitive interference and the impact of being primed with a letter string. However, prior to the letter string appearing, participants were shown the image of a black person’s face or a white person’s face (the control group was just shown the letter x).
Researchers were interested in whether exposure to a black face to participants in the condition in which they had been primed with a string of Ps would result in them responding slower to indicate that the positive characteristic could represent a person and quicker for the negative one. The underlying assumption is that if there is implicit racism then black faces should prime a stereotype of bad people. That stereotype should make negative characteristics more accessible in memory, meaning participants are quicker to identify if a negative word can be used to describe a person.
It was found that for positive traits, being primed with a white face made participants respond more quickly than when there was no prime. Being primed with a black face resulted in a quicker response for positive traits than the control group however this response was slower than it had been for white faces.
People were quicker to identify negative traits as potential characteristics of people when they had been primed with a black face.
This study gives us an insight into the implicit processes that sustain prejudice and discrimination in society; people tend to hold stereotyped views for other races.
Dovidio et al argued for a distinction between explicit and implicit racism.
What is aggression?
Behaviour which is primarily intended to harm another living being.
It can be physical or social- intended to harm another’s social or emotional well-being without any physical injury.
Hostility, anger and verbal aggression are also forms of aggression.
Why do people engage in aggressive acts according to the evolutionary explanation?
Evolutionary explanation: humans and most living beings are predisposed ot be aggressive because it is useful for propagating one’s own genes. Aggression holds value for gene replication.
The aggressive displays people display to one another are vital- they tell us whether or not to stay and fight or to run away.
However, evolutionary arguments seek to explain what has already happened rather than why it happens. It doesn’t explain why some people are more aggressive than others.
Why do people engage in aggressive acts according to the biochemical influences explanation?
People who are aggressive might have higher levels of testosterone which results in higher physical aggression.
A study found that higher testosterone levels in prisoners is associated with higher violence levels of crime, more disciplinary incidents for having broken prison rules and tended to be rated as tougher by other prisoners.
However, correlation cannot be seen as causation. There may be an identified third variable.
Explain Lorenz’s explanation of aggression.
Lorenz argued that we’ve developed a fighting instinct that cause us to be violent to other humans. He suggested that aggression is a drive which is just as important as the drive to eat and drink. He described this drive as a kind of energy that builds up and requires release; if we don’t release it then the drive becomes more intense. We potentially release our store of pent up aggression when external circumstances allow us to. E.g. when we’re in a frustrating situation, we release all our aggression that has built up to that particular point.
Explain catharsis and research into it.
Catharsis is the release of pent up aggression through vicarious or symbolic acts of aggression. Underlying this notion is the idea that because we have a store of aggression that needs to be released, we need to find a way to release it that doesn’t cause harm to other people. If we can release it in a safe way, then we’ve successfully discharged our aggressive energy and won’t feel it anymore and it won’t hurt anyone.
A study by Bushman recruited 600 participants who took part individually in what they were told was a study of first impressions between 2 people. They were told that they were going to have to work with another person on a task but before they did that they were told they had to write a short essay on abortion according to their own beliefs. They then handed their essay to the experimenter who pretended to take it to the other participant for feedback. The experimenter returned with what was supposedly the other participants essay but was actually a pre-written essay for the opposite view on abortion to the one expressed by the participant. The participant was then told to evaluate the other person’s essay. The experimenter gave participants feedback on the essay they had written which had supposedly come from the other participant; the feedback was deliberately negative, unfair and insulting. They had also hand-written a comment saying it was one of the worst essays they had ever read.
Next participants were given a list of potential activities they could do next and they had to rate them based on what they wanted to do most- one of these activities was punching a punch bag. Then they were provided with a punch bag and asked if they would be willing to hit it.
Participants were then told that because physical appearance can influence their impression of their partner, a coin would be tossed to determine whether or not they would be able to see a photo of their partner during the punchbag session or not.
The coin toss was actually used to assign participants to a condition: in the rumination condition participants were shown a photo of the supposed other participant while having access to the punch bag and those in the distraction condition were told they wouldn’t see a photo of their partner and were told to think about becoming physically fit while punching the punchbag.
The researchers were interested in how aggressive participants would be. They used an intercom system to determine how many times the punch bag was hit and also asked participants to rate how much they enjoyed hitting the punch bag and how hard they hit it and completed measures relating to anger and to feeling good. They were then told the main task was a competitive reaction time task with their partner and that the person who replied quicker would be able to deliver a short blast of noise ranging between 0 and 150 decibels to the partner- this was taken as a measure of aggression. The louder the noise they chose to deliver, the more aggressive they were feeling.
It was found that there was no difference in mood among the conditions: contrary to the catharsis hypothesis, those who had ruminated (punched the punch bag while looking at a photo of their partner) didn’t feel any better than people who hadn’t had that opportunity. In terms of anger, those who had ruminated had the greatest levels which counters the catharsis hypothesis- punching the bag while looking at their partner actually made them more angry. There was no difference in aggression between the rumination and distraction group but the rumination group was more aggressive than the control group.
These results suggest that thinking about someone else while punching a punch bag made participants more angry. The researcher suggests that contrary to the catharsis hypothesis that letting off steam like this releases anger, it actually feeds the flame of aggression. It suggests that letting your anger out onto a safe target does not always make people feel better and can actually increase subsequent aggressive responses.
