Exam 3 Flashcards
Group influence
- Social Facilitation
- Social Loafing
- Deindividuation
Social facilitation might look like…
muscian/actor performing better in front of audience
work better in a library vs at home
weightlifters can lift more in front of others
Norman Triplett (1898)
Considered the first social psych experimentation
archival research on competitive cyclers
- compared times across 3 races (fastest? slowest?)
- races
- paced racers
- unpased racers (riding alone)
children + wind up fishing task (alone vs comp) –> times faster when in competition for MOST trials
- interesting patterns
Triplett patterns from Children fishing task
- better: energized (~20)
- worse: overstimulated (~10)
- no difference: unaffected (~10)
current definition of social facilitation
the strengthening of the dominant response in the presence of others
The Resolution: Robert Zajonc (1965)
The arousal principle
The arousal principle
Robert Zajonc
Dominant response –> most likely response (likely to be the correct repsonse when the task is simple)
- simple/well learned task vs hard/new tasks
- ex: someone throws a ball at your –> you try to catch or duck
Home team advantage with Group influence
Social facilitation: home team wins vs. loses, teamwork-focused sports, reliable over time across sports
Other contributing factors: travel fatigue, jetlag, knowing the court/field
how does social faciliation occur
- mere presence
- Evaluation apprehension
- distraction
mere presence
Any presence of others is arousing
- even if no evaluation or distraction
- it could be an innate social arousal mechanism
- support comes from non-human studies (cockroaches in a maze alone vs with others)
Evaluation apprehension
concern for how we are being evaluated
- is the dominant response more likely to occur in certain circumstances?
Distraction
distracted by the presence of others
- attentional conflict: divided attention between watchers and the task
- motivates task completion
attentional shift (small) –> increases arousal (easy vs hard)
being in a crowd…
- enhances arousal
- intensifies positive and negative reactions
- friendly and unfriendly people (depends on group influence)
Social Loafing
tendency to exert less effort when in a group when you pool your efforts together
free riders
free riders
people who benefit from the group’s work while they do little work
ringlemann + latane
ringlemann (1913)
rope pulling task –> less and less effort with more people added to the effort
- pulling alone –> most effort /strength exerted
latane et al (1979)
shout and clap
- clapping by themselves vs others (they think this but they’re really alone)
- ppl produce less noise when they think others are doing so
- DV = individual effort (loudness IV = group size
- blind folded and noise cancelling component (?)
social loafing potential factors
- gender (mean loaf more, small differences)
- culture: more in individualistic cultures (US + individuality)
- Field evidence: evidence in the field that is similar to the lab (classrooms/organizations)
less social loafing when:
- evaluation of individual
- challenging/appealing task
- friends/cohesiveness
evaluation of the individual
if there is a way of identifying people and showing accountability there is less tendency to socially loaf
challenging/appealing task
ex: team sports (everyone wants to win
friends/cohesiveness
gemini: loafing is more likely when group = strangers
- loaf less with friends
Deindividuation
doing together what we wouldn’t do alone
- group situations foster responsiveness to group norms
- often studied in context of -/deviant behavior (mob mentality)
- looting/rioting (R. King), lynchings, witch hunts, jan 6, charging the field/court after win/loss, throwing trash
Disconnect between B and A
situations of diminished self-consciousness/awareness
- drinking at a crowded bar
characteristics of deinviduated people
(BESIDES LOW SELF AWARENESS)
- Increased agressive/antisocial behavior (not always the result)
- depends on: norm of group, situational cues,
can be positive –> like-minded volunteers plant trees to help combat climate change.
- camraderie/cooperative group spirity –> make them plant more trees
or GOFUNDMEs
Factors that affect deindividuation
- group size
- anonymity
- arousing + distracting activities
Group size on Individuation
- Attentional focus is on the group norm rather than self-awareness
- anonymity
- repsonsibility
“everybody is doing it” mentality
anonymity on individuation
masks, uniforms, disguises, technology/screens, physical anonymity and cues
Zimbardo 1970
Zimbardo 1970
The milgrim shock study but with women wearing regular clothes (control) vs KKK like robes (negative cues)
- DV = shock/reaction to costume
- Women held the shock button 2x longer than the control when the robes were being shocked
Being in a group and anonymous
Diener 1976
diener 1976
Halloween study
- 27 women were asked to give out sweets to 1,000 trick-or-treaters
- 2 IVs (anonymous vs identifiable + group vs alone)
- I or A? –> women asked kids questions (researcher manipulated)
- DV = percentage transgression (kid)
- A + G: 55% –> highest
- A + A: 23%
1 + G: 22%
I + A: 8%
Confederates chat with children, phone rings, given strict instructions to take one piece.
More likely to transgress when you are anonymous and in a group
Arousing and distraction activities on Individuation
Group shouting, clapping, cheering, dancing, loud music, dark/dimly lit areas
- arousal + energy (higher)
- inhibitions (lower)
- self-awareness (at the group level)
Ex: January 6th
- “stop the steal”
- large crowds, more anonymous, wins and losses influence
To decrease deviant behavior
increase self-awareness + decrease diffusion of responsibility
- mirror
- bright lighting
- name tags
- cameras everywhere
diffusion of responsibility
spreading the responsibility we have out to others (making us less responsible)
risky shift phenomenon
group and individual decisions are riskier after group discussion
stoner 1961
Make decisions about real-life situations individually and then after discussion with others
- strengthening of group member’s average/initial inclination after discussion
- discussion enhances group members’ initial leaning
The group polarization hypothesis
discussion will strengthen an attitude shared by a group
favor: + pov before discussion increases to become more + after discussion
oppose: - pov before discussion decreases to become more - after discussion
myers + bishop 1970
- high school students
- looked at high and low prejudice participants’ attitudes before and after group discussion (like-minded people)
- HP ppl became even more prejudiced after discussion
- LP ppl became even less prejudice after discussion
- Group polarization hypothesis
group polarization in the real world
- in communities (ppl self-segregate)
- in politics (political echo chambers)
- on the internet (selective exposure)
- terrorist organizations in war
Why does group polarization happen (what drives it)
Informational and normative influence
informational influence
reason for group polarization
in a group with like-minded ppl + discuss results in additional information that strengthens the initial view
pushes our values to the extreme
normative influence
reason for group polarization
- do not want to feel like the odd man out
- desire to fit in + be liked by everyone
Collective information sampling bias
optimal decisions
- rely on access to (best) all available information
- not everyone is willing to share information
Why collective information sampling bias?
probability
social reasons/factors –> shared infor leads to enhanced liking
important factors of the collective information sampling bias
- expertise (they know a lot about a topic so they aren’t concerned with proving their intelligence or being judged)
- status (they are not concerned with establishing privileged connections because they already are privileged) (wealth + title)
groupthink
many heads, one mind
Irving Janis = original definition
concern for group harmony overrides realistic decision making
foundations of groupthink
- amiable, cohesive group
- relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints
- directive leader who signals what decision they favor
- Janis’ 8 symptoms of groupthink
Janis’ 8 symptoms of groupthink
overestimation of group’s “might and right”
1. illusion of vulnerability
2. unquestioned belief in the group’s morality
closeminded
3. rationalization
4. stereotyped view of opponent (assume weak)
Pressured toward uniformity
5. conformity pressure
6. self-censorship
7. illusion of unanimity
8. mindguards
self-censorship
internal suppression to avoid conflict or disapproval
mindguards
external supression of what information reaches the group
- gatekeeper
- dont want to disrupt consensus
- potential ulterior motive
US Historical examples of Groupthink
- pearl harbor
- vietnam war
- challenger space expedition/explosion
- bay of pigs (cuba)
critiques of groupthink
- self-selected cases
- retrospective
follow up studies support some of Janis’ theory
experimental work
- directive leadership is associated with poor decisions
- groups do prefer supporting over challenging info
- when members look to a group for acceptance, we may suppress disagreeable thoughts
successful group decisions
- diverse perspectives vs like-minded experts (performance)
- distributed conversations and social attuned members
- depends on member knowledge but also how effectively information is shared
janis’ recommendation to prevent groupthink
- be impartial
- encourage critical evaluation
- occasionally subdivide the group (reunite to discuss)
- welcome critiques (especially outside experts)
- call “second chance” meeting to air lingering doubts
even good group procedure may still yield mad decisions
stereotypes
generalized beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of members of various groups (Hilton + von Hippel, 1996)
- overgeneralized
- resistant to new info
- inaccurate (accurate)
examples of stereotypes
Model minority stereotype –> asian ppl = smart in math/science
college students are lazy
CGS = Crayons, glue, scissors
COM = College of optional math
problems that arise from stereotypes
overapply/exaggerate differences
stereotypes are just wrong
why do we use stereotypes
simplify complex info from the social environment (reduce cognitive effort)
- mental shortcuts (heuristics)
- helps achieve cognitive efficiency
we are lazy, cognitive misers and we dont want to expend more effort than necessary
- importance of generalization –> advanced thinking, intelligence, processing strength
- ppl who cannot generalize
stereotype accuracy
Jussim, 2012 - alternative pov
- many stereotypic views often are relatively accurate
- many ppl apply stereotypes in rational ways
- what is required to conclude that stereotypes are inaccurate?
Jussim’s view on stereotyping
his work and arguments are compelling
- data suggests we are (often) accurate
- caution in conclusions drawn from early research (stereotypes x= biased thinking)
- must consider: accuracy and bias are not mutually exclusive and accurate x= optimal/healthy
accuracy + social factors
stereotypes might be “accurate” through socialization (factors like conformity/norms)
strong gender/racial/ethnic stereotypes
prejudice
attitude (evaluative judgments)
- primarily affectively-based (emotionally)
discrimination
behavior (based on prejudiced attitudes)
racism
prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors toward people of given race
sexism
prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors toward people of given sex
individual vs institutional level racism
salesperson accuses a black teen of stealing vs government/hospitals offering fewer medical treatment options to patients of color OR profiling w cops
institutional level
institutional practices that subordinate people of a give race or sex
Individual vs institutional sexism
Individual
- viewing a female employee as deceitful
- assigning a women the job of greeting
- harassing a women for dress gender incongruent
institutional
- organizations give less parental leave time to fathers
- until 70s, banks often refused credit cards to unmarried women (husband or father’s signature)
dual attitude system
different explicit (conscious) and implicit (automatic) attitudes toward the same target
prejudiced and sterotypic evaluations can occur outside people’s awarness
*even when explicit attitudes change dramatically with education, implicit attitudes may linger
IBM - Implicit Bias Measure
Assess the degree to which concepts are associated with one another in memory
(work w participants awareness of WHAT is being measured)
implicit association test
implicit association test
measure the strength of associations between concepts
- associating category membership (ex race) with evaluations (good or bad)
OR
associating category membership (gender) with stereotypic beliefs/traits (leadership traits)
premise: a “correct” response is easier when closely related items share the same response key
black and bad –> the stereotype will share a key and be clicked faster bc of it
Is racial prejudice declining?
overt racial prejudice has declined over time in the US
- interracial marriage approval
- voting for non-white candidates
racism has declined but…
overt racism still exists
subtle racism is pervasive and hard to detect
perceptions of racial progress may differ due to… - the persons race
- the reference to the starting point
racial discrimination examples LAW ENFORCEMENT
- stopped, searched, arrested, and excessive force (black/latino > white)
- POC disproportionately incarcerated and killed by popo
Racial discrimination HEALTH
Disparities across health domains
increases in hate crimes (FBI 2020) and continued to increase against marginalized groups
refusing treatments to POC
racial prejudice EMPLOYMENT
Dovidio + Gaertner 2000
participants judge candidate resumes
2 IVs
- race (b or w)
- credentials (strong, weak, unclear)
results
- rlly strong or weak –> no race effect
- unclear –> white > black candidate
Racial discrimination NAMING
Applicants with India, Pakistani, or Chinese names were 28% less likely to get an interview request then Anglo names with identical credentials
Kang et al 2016
2x as likely to receive call back if they “whitened” teir resumes…“make it less foreign”
racial discrimination TREATMENT BY OTHERS
exaggerated reactions to marginalized groups
patronizing behavior (may feel singled out)
- white students went out the their way to avoid looking prejudiced towards Black students
when the essay was bad they gave more positive ratings; less harsh criticism given to “black” vs “white” writer
gender stereotypes
beliefs about how women and men behave (and the attributes they hold)
- prescriptive= how they should behave
- descriptive= how they do behave
- very strong
- oftern internalized by members of the group
87% agreed m + w were “basically different”…
gender prejudice/stereotype examples
- women are overly emotional
- women are bad drivers
- men are aggressive
- men do not cry
gender stereotypes in sports
- throw like a girl
- shoot like a girl
- do pushups like a girl
- fight like a girl
other examples of gender stereotypes
- 1920s red/blue
- Target and gender-neutral displays of Toys 2015
Are gender stereotypes accurate?
Many times yes but gendered beliefs can be mostly accurate and still lead to biases
other considerations
do gender stereotypes change over time?
some have: competence + intelligence (US data)
others have persisted:
- men are more outgoing
- women more agreeable
(data from 27 different countries)
has gender prejudice and discrimination declined
overt sexism has declined –> attitudes abt women in the workforce + more acceptance in male dominated fields
women are perceived more favorably
- they’re kinder, more understanding, helpful
gender stereotypes are declining but keep in mind…
- gender attitudes are often in ambivalent (benevolent + hostile)
- benevolent sexism can still impede gender equality
- sexism is still a big problem (#MeToo movement)
benevolent sexism
subtle sexism hidden under the guise of being respectful and nice but still based in a negative view
- ex: carrying a woman’s luggage because its heavy –> assuming she’s too weak to carry it
Displays of Gender Prejudice and Discrimination
Hostile sexism predicted voting against Hillary Clinton
Hostile sexism beliefs predicted increased gender inequality in the future (57 nation study)
Gender discrimination even before bith
many parents, across the world, prefer baby boys vs girls
1941 = 38%
2018 = 36%
gender and areas of work
book: women and men work is evaluated similarly
data: indicates there are still context where gender prejudice/discrimination is clear (academics)
gender in academics
women + POC
- underrepresented across various degree types and STEM fields
men v. women
- earned > at every rank at every institution type (except 2 year private)
- higher % of tenure position at every institution type (even when majority of faculty positions weren’t men)
Academic settings + minorities
recommendations letters differ for women and POC compared to white men
- confidence = less
- length = shorter
- specificity = vague/general
- superlative = not as many used
milkman et al (2014)
6500 professors at top US unis
- emailed by fitional prospective student to discuss “research opportunities” prior to PhD
- Manipulated names to signal different races + genders
Faculty ignored requests by women + POC at higher rates (STEM fields)
LGBTQ+ acceptance global?
agreement with same sex attractice (94% sweden vs 9% indonesia)
anti-gay attitudes strongest among older, less educated, and males
Straight men who value masculinity: highest prejudice against transgender individuals
anti-gay prejudice and discrimination continue via
- job + healthcare discrimination
- mixed support for gay marriage
- harrassment
- rejection by friends or family
does LGBTQ+ prejudice cause harm?
- state policies predict gay ppl’s wellbeing (higher reates of mood disorders in states w/o anti gay protection laws)
- community attitudes also predict LGBT health (high antigay prejudice –> high LGBT suicide/cardiovascular death)
- Quasi expo: increased mental health issues in states that had banned same sex marriage
some evidence that… (LGBT)
teen suicide rates declined among states legalizing same sex marriage (the year following)
- tentative needs more long term research
stereotype threat
steele + aronson
disruptive concern, when facing negative stereotypes, that one will be evaluated on that stereotype
stereotype threat as a self fulfilling prophecy
a women taking a driving test may feel anxiety that she’ll confirm the belief that women are bad drivers, and as a result, performs poorly
stereotype threat background
steele (1995) noted a race gap in achievement
causes:
- innate differences (debunked)
- socioeconomic disadvantage
- enduring discrimination
- culture
starr et al 2022
gender stereotype about math over time
examination of longitudinal datasets (1984-2009)
across datasets, parents believed boys > girls
- white parents more so than black/latino parents
spencer et al (1999)
Controls
- no gender difference (stereotype deactivated)
- control condition (threat is in the air)
compared to men, women performed
- equally well in the “no gender difference” condition
- worse in the control
aronson et al (1999)
growing gap between white and Asian people in math + sciences (cover story_
- threat < no threat
Shih et al 1999
Multiple identities and competing stereotypes
- remind asian-american women of their identities through questionnaire
- asian identity (did best)
- gender identity (did wost)
- nothing (control was inbetween)
performance was affected by the type of identity that was made salient
sources of prejudice?
SOCIAL
- social inequalities (unequal status)
- Socialization
- authoritarian personality
- conformity
- religion/racial prejudice
- systemic supports/institutions
authoritarian personality
cause of prejudice
- has an intolerance for weakness, a punitive attitude, and a submissive respect for their group’s authorities
How does stereotype threat reduce performance
varied support
- lowered anxiety
- lowered expectations
- dejection
- reduced effort
- reduced self-control
how does ST impair performance
- stress impairs brain activity
- self-monitoring–worrying about making mistakes disrupts focus
- suppressing unwanted thoughts and emotions takes energy disrupting working memory
are ST effects valid
despite broad support, the concept faces criticism
“stereotype threat is overcooked, overstated, and oversold”
- Jussim
Criticisms of ST research
- other theories/explanations are simpler (test anxiety Jensen)
- publication bias (false +) –> overestimated in the real world
- fiels studied often failed to replicate labs (whaley 2017) –> external validity
how robust and valid is ST effects in academic settings? there are questions
do stereotypes bias judgments of individuals and events
yes but keep in mind
- our stereotypes mostly reflect reality
- ppl often validate individuals more + than the individuals’ group (especially when u know someone well or have given persn info)
– strength of the stereotype matters (strong –> more bias judgments)
Nelson et al 1996
Stereotypes bias judgements of individuals
pictures and descriptions of nursing/engineering students
- pictures of females (guessed nursing)
- pictures of males (guessed engineering)
- equal #s of males and females in each field (p’s knew)
can we reduce prejudice and discrimination?
cognitive and motivational challenges
cognitive challenges in reducing prejudice
stereotypic thinking arises oout of ordinary cognitive processes
- makes stereotypes inevitable to some extent
- we rely on stereotypes when we have little time, are tired, or happy
- prejudice involves preconceived judgments may be self-perpetuating
motivation challenges in reducing prejudice
motivation to feel good about ourselves
- we derive part of self-esteem from our group memberships + social identities
motivation to avoid prejudice
- breaking the prejudice habit is not easy but prejudicial reactions are not inevitable. if motivated to avoid prejudice:
- people may modify thoughts and actions (especially is its internal)
- how you should vs do feel can lead to guilt (dissonance)
reducing prejudice and discrimination cont.
no simple remedy exists, but we can anticipate techniques for reducing prejudice
- seek to create cooperative, equal status relationships (superordinate goals + cooperative learning)
- mandate nondiscrimination + remove institutional supports
- facilitation social norm of inclusivity/diversity
- personalize homogeneous members of out groups
- use guilt over our automatic prejudices to motivate ourselves to break habit (make salient, drive guilt, change attitude)
be a good advocate and good ally…
moving walkway in an airport
- active racist = walking fast on the conveyor
- passive racist = standing still on it
- active antiracist = walking fast against the conveyor
Beverly Danial Tatum, Educational Leader
when we encounter information in the environment that is inconsistent with our stereotypes…
subtyping and subgrouping
subtyping
when we gain new info from the external environment that is not congruent with our stereotypes we categorize it as the exception in our minds.
the stereotype remains intact
ex: encountering a women who is really good at math
humor in dating ads
tactic for dating ads
humor IS important for attraction BUT there are gender differences
- men seek someone to laugh at their jokes
- women seek someone who can make them laugh
what drives relationships?
need to belong–fundamental
need to belong
drives relationships
- motivation to form and maintaain strong, stable interpersonal relationships
gender differences: men not socialized to “need” someone
associated with health + happiness
Social rejection
ostracism undermines the need to belong
- socially painful
- even when we are rejected by bad groups, the rejection affect self-esteem/wellbeing
(pain/hurt even when rejected groups reject us)
social rejection & physical pain
- some of the same neural regions activated
- more introverted/anxious more easily susceptible to pain as a response to rejection
is there a remedy?
- you can take medicine (Tylenol/IB Prophen) it will help bc it targets the same brain regions
common behaviors of ostracized ppl
- prosocial
- antisocial/agressive
ostracism + negative behavior
- self-defeating behaviors (alc abuse)
- aggressive tendencies (cheat, steal, disparage)
exp work
ostracism + prosocial
- increased cooperation
- increased interest in new group reaffiliation
exp work
social pain duration/intensity
age ==> younger hurt more
anxiety ==> more hurts w high anxiety
loneliness
feeling socially disconnected from others
- perception is key
- how do YOU feel?
Loneliness is related to…(health correlates)
- poor immune function
- depression fatigue
- reduced cog. capacity (thinking)
- increased food intake
- more cold symptoms (cold virus)
what leads to friendship and close relationships?
- Proximity
- Physical attractiveness
- Similarity vs complementarity
- We like those who like us
- rewarding relationships
Proximity
geographical nearness prompts relationship formation
- living close, visiting the same spaces, working at the same company
- functional distance
Why?
- enables interaction (more likely to be friends)
- anticipator interaction (adaptive)
- familiarity (mere exposure) breeds fondness
proximity and the internet
reduces psychological distance between people (has become common)
- integrate into ppls’ lives
- stable
- foster intimacy (women > men)
Similar to traditional relationships
- improve over time
- fewer differences as they mature
- traditional has more depth
Online dating and PEW
6000 US adults (2022)
- 3/10 have used online dating apps
- Tinder overall most popular (LGBTQ too)
- Match most popular for older ppl
- 52% skeptical and had untrusting experience
downsides to online interactions
- emotional loneliness can be high
- may not be good for all (social anxious experience more detriments)
- may lack nuances of real-time communication
PA predicts…
dating frequency (for women and men)
gender differences in PA
Early data: men (by small majority) prioritize it more
recent data = more mixed/equal
*reporting bias (women might be socialized to say PA doesn’t matter)
meta analysis 2014
bbc internet survey (^220000)
LT heterosexual couples
wife’s PA predicts husbands marital satisfaction better than the husbands PA predicts wife’s
gay men value appearance more than lesbian women
PA becomes less important as people get to know each other
voting
voters prefer competent, good looking candidates
women more likely to vote for approachable looking male candidates (Kennedy vs Nixon)
how do people pair off?
matching phenomenon
matching phenomenon
tendency for men and women to choose partners who are a “good match” in attractiveness (+other traits)
physical attractiveness stereotype
presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desireable traits as well
- we guess beautiful ppl are happier, more outgoing, intelligent, and successful BUT NOT HONEST (selectiveness of traits)
AFTER MORE COSMETIC SURGERY, WOMEN OFTEN JUDGED MORE ATTRACTIVE BUT ALSO KINDER/MORE LIKEABLE
Clifford + hatfield
teachers rated “better looking” kids as more intelligent + successful
attractiveness + income correlate
for each 1-unit addition on attractiveness scale –> m + w earned significantly more money annually
- Economist Daniel Hamermesh (2011) argued good lloking men = 1.5+ years of schooling
is PA stereotype accurate?
attractive children and young adults are somewhat mroe:
- relaxed
- outgoing
- popular
- socially polished
- gender congruent
differences are small maybe due to self-fulfilling prophecy
who is physically attractive?
cultural standards/norms vary and change over time
SYMMETRY
who is physically attractive: Evolutionary pov
assumption that beauty signals biologically important information
- health
- youth
- fertility
men seek beauty
women seek men providing resources
who is physically attractive? social pov
social comparison influences evaluation of strangers, our partners, and ourselves
- creates contrast
- who you find attractive is not all hard-wired
CONTRAST PRINCIPLE
Contrast principle
present two things one after the other that are different. now they seem more different from one another vs presented each seperately
- stronger for women than men (affects them more)
VS models vs urself
evidence:
- men rate partners less attractive after seeing beautiful woman
- men rate partner less after porn
- we rate ourselves less after same sex pa pics
Good news: the attractiveness of those we love
we perceive attractive ppl as likeable and likeable ppl/ppl we love as attractive
the more in love we are with another, the more physically attractive we find them (starts to matter less)
attractiveness on impressions
- quick, hard to change
- 0.13 exposure to a face allows ppl to predict attractiveness
couples that dont match?
less attractive person often has compensating qualities that make it an “equitable” match
ex: Trump has the $ that equates melania’s beauty
