Exam 3 - Chapter 9 - 13 Flashcards
Prejudice
A preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members.
Stereotypes
A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information (and sometimes accurate).
Racism
(1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race
(2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given race.
Sexism
(1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given sex
(2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given sex.
Discrimination
Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or its members.
ABCs of attitudes:
- A - Affect (feelings)
- B - Behavior tendency (inclination to act)
- C - Cognition (beliefs)
Problem with stereotypes come when
overgeneralized or plain wrong
Difference between prejudice and discrimination
Prejudice is a negative attitude
discrimination is negative behavior
Racism and sexism are
institutional practices that discriminate even when no prejudicial intent
Prejudiced attitudes don’t have to breed
hostile acts
Prejudice illustrates
our dual attitude system
Implicit biases modestly predict behaviors
from the act of friendlessness to work evaluations
Prejudiced and stereotypic evaluations can occur
outside of one’s awareness
Molecular biologists see skin color as
trivial human characteristic controlled by minuscule genetic difference
Is Racial Prejudice Disappearing?
no
Explicit prejudicial attitudes can
change quickly
Progress toward racial equality in blacks and whites
- Blacks - Compare world to fair world = no progress
- Whites - Compare world to past world = progress
Since 1975, Canadian opposition to immigration has fluctuated with the country’s unemployment rate. This opposition exemplifies
realistic group conflict theory
What is infrahumanization?
the process of attributing non-human qualities to outgroups
Carl is always yelling at his children. When his wife asks him about this behavior, he tells her the most important thing children can learn is respect for authority. He loves their kids and wants them to learn this lesson early. How can we best characterize Carl’s personality?
authoritarian
Indeed, people high in ______ often avoid jobs such as social work, that, by virtue of their aid to disadvantaged groups, undermine hierarchies.
SOCIAL DOMINANCE
Beliefs are to _______ as attitudes are to ______
Beliefs are to stereotypes as attitudes are to prejudices
Subtle prejudice is also called
“modern racism” or “cultural racism”
Prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior surface when
people can hide behind the screen of others motives
Unconscious associations may only indicate cultural assumptions
perhaps without prejudice
Those who display implicit prejudice on the IAT
more likely to favor treatment of whites
Implicit prejudice and behavior
can leak into behavior
Joshua and Anthony Greenwald on implicit attitudes and behaviors
More people shoot black people mistakenly more than whites
When primed with a black rather than white face people think
guns
When people are fatigued or feel threatened
more likely to mistakenly shoot a minority person
- Amygdala facilities automatic responding
Findings on stereotype studies
- Strong gender stereotypes exist
- Members of the stereotypes group accept stereotypes
Stereotypes vs. prejudices
Stereotypes are not prejudices
- Stereotypes may support prejudice
Attitudes toward women changed
rapidly as racial attitudes
Women vs. other groups on behavior.
- People don’t respond to women with gut-level negative emotions as they do minorities
- People like women more than men
- Women are more understanding, kind, and helpful
Downsides of being men
- More likely to commit suicide
- More likely to be murdered
- Majority of battlefield and death row casualties
- Die 5 years sooner
- More intellectual disability
The upside of being men
Women saw greater value In men work
Gender discrimination less subtle in
non-western world
People prefer having babies of which gender
boys
More orphanages have girl children
Female shortage in children contribute to
- Increase
- violence
- Crime
- Prostitution
- Trafficking of women
Parents gender type of children
- Want boys to be smart
- Want girls to be beautiful and spend
Heterosexual men who value masculinity
express most prejudice against transgender individuals
In the west gay people face
- Job discrimination
- Gay marriage support is mixed but increasing
- Harassment
- Rejection
What predicts LGBT health
- State policies
- Community attitudes
- Gay stigma
Social dominance orientation
A motivation to have one’s group dominate other social groups.
Ethnocentric
Believing in the superiority of one’s own ethnic and cultural group, and having a corresponding disdain for all other groups.
Authoritarian personality
A personality that is disposed to favor obedience to authority and intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status.
Unequal status breeds
prejudice
Powerful men who stereotyped female subordinate gave
praise but fewer resources
- which undermined performance and allowed men to maintain their power
Peter Glick and Susan Fiske ways we see others
- Competent
- Likable
Those high in social dominance orientation
the people in terms of hierarchies and support policies that maintain hierarchies
Prejudice springs from
equal status and acquired values and attitudes
Tendencies of ethnocentric people
- Intolerance for weakness
- Punitive attitude
- Submissive respect for their group’s authorities
If a person is sexist it is safe to assume they may also be
racist
Authoritarian people as children
faced harsh discipline
The insecurity of authoritarian individuals predisposes them to
excessive concern with
- Power
- Status
- Inflexible right-wrong way of thinking
In most countries, leaders invoke religion to
justify present order
Use of religion to support injustice explained
- White church members have expressed more racial prejudice than nonmembers
- Those professing fundamentalist beliefs have expressed more prejudice than non-professing progressive police
Correlation between religion and prejudice
- May no causal connection
- Prejudice causes religion
- Religion causes prejudice
The argument for why religion doesn’t cause prejudice
- Faithful attenders are less prejudiced
- Intrinsically religious are less prejudiced
- Clergy are less prejudiced
Once established prejudice is maintained by
inertia - tendency to do nothing
Those who conformed most to other social norms
were most prejudiced
Hate speech can be
socially toxic
- frequent hate speech leads to desensitization
Presidents have the power to
influence norms
If prejudice isn’t deeply ingrained in the personality then
then change and new norms evolve and prejudice can diminish
Social institutions can bolster prejudice by
- overt policies
- passively reinforcing the status quo
Institutional support for prejudice is often
unintended and unnoticed
Frustration feeds
hostility
- when the cause of frustration is unknown we redirect hostility
Displaced aggression contributed to
lynching of black in south after civil war
When living standards high
societies more open to diversity
What fuels prejudice
- Passion
- Competition - group conflict theory
Group conflict theory
The theory that prejudice arises from competition between groups for scarce resources.
Social identity
The “we” aspect of our self-concept; the part of our answer to “Who am I?” that comes from our group memberships.
In-group Bias
The tendency to favor one’s own group.
Self-concept made up of
personal identity and social identity
Tajfel and Turner soil identify theory
- We put people into categories
- We associate ourselves with certain groups - build self-esteem
- We contrast our groups with other groups
When one’s personal and social identity become fused
more willing to fight or die for their group
The simple experience of being formed into groups promote
in group bias
Pros of in-group bias
- Improves a positive self-concept
- Feeds favoritism
More prominent to in-group bias when the group is
small and differs in status relative to out-group
Out-group stereotypes prosper when
people feel their in-group identity most keenly
In-group Bias and discrimination result less from
outgroup hostility than from in-group favoritism
To perceive ourselves as having status
need people below us
If the status is secure
we have less need to feel superior and express less prejudice
Thinking about death can
- Provoke insecurity to intensify in-group favoritism and outgroup prejudice
- Heighten communal feeling
- Affect support for important public policies
The connection between self-image and prejudice
- Affirm people and they will evaluate an outgroup more positively
- Threaten self-esteem and they will restore it by denigrating an out-group
When the need to belong is met
people more accepting of out-group
Motivation to lead people to
be prejudice and avoid prejudice
People low and high in prejudice
have similar automatic prejudicial responses
- unwanted thoughts and feelings often persist
Motivation to avoid prejudice can
lead people to modify thoughts and actions
Out-group homogeneity effect
Perception of outgroup members as more similar to one another than are ingroup members. Thus “they are alike; we are diverse.”
The way we simplify our environment
to categorize its
Judging people in outer and inner groups
judge people in outer groups quickly take longer to form impression for those in inner groups
Own-age bias
the tendency for both children and adults to more accurately identify faces from their own age group
We often rely on stereotypes when
- Pressed for time
- Preoccupied
- Tired
- Emotionally aroused
Two powerful ways of categorizing people
ethnicity and sex
Categorizing someone by race
not prejudice but a foundation for prejudice
When we assign people to groups we are likely to
exaggerate similarities within the groups and differences between two groups
Greater familiarity with a social group
more we see its diversity
When looking at a face from another racial group
attend to group (black) rather than individuals features first
When someone in a group is made conspicuous
we see that person is causing whatever happens
Distinctiveness can feed
self-consciousness
Fundamental attribution error
we attribute others behavior so much to their inner dispositions that we discount important situational forces
Group-serving bias
Explaining away outgroup members’ positive behaviors; also attributing negative behaviors to their dispositions (while excusing such behavior by one’s own group).
Just-world Phenomenon
The tendency of people to believe that the world is just and that people, therefore, get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
Sub-typing
Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s stereotype by thinking of them as “exceptions to the rule.”
Stereotype threat
A disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype. Unlike self-fulfilling prophecies that hammer one’s reputation into one’s self-concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects.
Given a limited experience with a particular social group
we recall examples of it and generalize from those
Cons of generalizing from a single experience about the whole group
Seldom represents larger group
Those more distinctive may
overestimated by majority
Vivid cases distort
judgments and create stereotypes
Stereotypes assume a correlation between
group members and individuals presumed characteristics
Features that most distinguish a minority from a majority
are those that become associated with minority
Fundamental attribution error and in and outer groups
- Outer group =
- Negative behavior - it’s a person not situation
- Positive behavior - often dismissed
- In-group =
- Negative behavior - it’s the situation
- In-group =
Disadvantage groups and groups that stress modesty
exhibit less group serving bias
Blaming occurs when people
attribute an outgroup’s failure to its members’ flawed disposition
Merely observing another innocent person being victimized is
enough to make the victim seem less worthy
- stems from the need to believe we like in just world
Just-world phenomenon colors
our impression of rape victims
Those who assume a just world believe
- Rape victims must have behaved seductively
- Battered spouses must have provided their beatings
- Poor people don’t deserve better
- Sick people are responsible for their illnesses
- Teens who are bullied online deserve it
- Successful people deserve what they have
Just-world assumption leads to
- Discounting uncontrollable factors that can derail good effort of talented people
- Justify their culture’s familiar social systems
Prejudgments guide
our attention and memories
After we judge an item as belonging to a category
our memory for it later shifts toward the features we associate with that category
Prejudgments are
self-perpetuating
When information doesn’t fit a stereotype
- We often say it was special to the situation
- If strikingly inconsistent - we notice but less impact
High-prejudice people tend to subtype
positive outgroup members
Low-prejudice people tend to
subtype negative outgroup members
Different way to accommodate inconsistent information is
form new stereotypes for those who don’t fit
If victimization takes a toll
people can use the results to justify discrimination
Prejudice effects who
its targets
Stereotype threat
A disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype. Unlike self-fulfilling prophecies that hammer one’s reputation into one’s self-concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects.
Being sensitive to prejudice
makes us self-conscious when living as numerical minors
Stereotype threat can hamper
the persons performance
Students who are allowed to think they have benefited from gender or race-based preferences on getting to college
tend to under perform those who are led to feel content
What helps combat stereotype threat
values affirmation
- getting people to affirm who they are
How does stereotype treatment undermine performance?
- Builds stress
- Self-monitoring
- Suppressing unwanted thoughts and emotions
Negative and positive stereotypes and performance
negative stereotypes disrupt performance
positive stereotypes facilitate performance
Do Stereotypes Bias Judgments of Individuals?
yes
stereotypes mostly reflect
reality
People often evaluate individuals more
positively than the individual groups
When do most believe stereotypes and ignore them
people often believe stereotypes yet ignore them when giving personalize anecdotal information
Wrong stereotypes color
our judgment of individuals
Stereotypes can bias our
interpretations and memories of people
When stereotypes are strong and information about someone ambiguous
stereotypes can subtly bias our judgement of individuals
We evaluate people more extremely when
behavior violates our stereotype
Aggression
Physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone. In laboratory experiments, this might mean delivering electric shocks or saying something likely to hurt another’s feelings.
Physical Aggression
Hurting someone else’s body.
Social Aggression
Hurting someone else’s feelings or threatening their relationships. Sometimes called relational aggression, it includes cyberbullying and some forms of in-person bullying.
Hostile Aggression
Aggression that springs from anger; its goal is to injure.
Instinctive
An innate, unlearned behavior pattern is exhibited by all members of a species.
Instrumental Aggression
Aggression that aims to injure, but only as a means to some other end.
“Selfish gene” theory
evolutionary psychologist theory of the relationship between genetic relatedness and aggression. This explains why men are more likely to harm stepchildren than genetic children
Frustration-aggression theory
The theory is that frustration triggers a readiness to aggress.
Frustration
The blocking of goal-directed behavior.
Displacement
The redirection of aggression to a target other than the source of the frustration. Generally, the new target is a safer or more socially acceptable target.
Relative deprivation
The perception that one is less well off than others with whom one compares oneself.
Social Learning Theory
The theory is that we learn social behavior by observing and imitating and by being rewarded and punished.
Rape myth
some women would welcome sexual assault and that “no doesn’t mean no”
Prosocial behavior
Positive, constructive, helpful social behavior; the opposite of antisocial behavior.
Social Scripts
Culturally provided mental instructions for how to act in various situations.
Hydraulic model
implies accumulated aggressive energy needs a release. Emotional and physical
Scapegoat theory
If we are prevented from reaching a goal, oftentimes we become hostile, and if we cannot pinpoint the source, we often display displaced aggression.
Two categories of Aggression
- Physical aggression
- Social aggression
Dan Owlets and Kyrre Breivik consequences of bullying
“the opposite of well-being”
What isn’t included in social psychology definition of aggression
micro aggressions
What is mostly instrumental aggression
- Terrorism
- War
What is mostly hostile aggression
murders
Sigmund Freud on aggression formation
from a self-destructive impulse redirected towards others
Konrad Lorenz on aggression formation
adaptive rather than self-destructive
Critiques of the idea that aggression is instinctive
- Fails to account for variations in aggression
- Not all human behaviors are instinctive
The reasoning for the idea that aggression is instinctive
aggression sometimes rooted in basic evolutionary impulses
- especially in men
Male related aggression occurs when
males competing with other males
When social status is challenged - especially in face-to-to confrontations
Brain biology of more aggressive people
- Smaller amygdala’s
- Prefrontal cortex less active in murderers and antisocial men
People with mental illnesses more likely to be
victims of violence than perpetrators
Heredity influences
the neural system’s sensitivity to aggressive cues
Gene linked to aggression
MAOA-L “warrior gene”
- nature and nurture still interact
Alcohol unlocks aggression when
people are provoked
- by reducing people’s self-awareness
Human aggressiveness and testosterone
correlates with each other
To lower aggression eat a diet high in
- Omega-3 fatty acid
- Low in trans fat
- Without sweetened drinks
Relationship between biology and behavior
bidirectional
Fans of ____ team commit more postgame assaults
winning rather than losing
What influences predispose people to react aggressively to conflict and provocation
- Neural
- Genetic
- Biochemical
Frustration grows once
- Motivation to achieve very strong
- We expected gratification
- The blocking is complete
Cyberbullying often rooted in
frustration
When others might disapprove or punish we
redirect hostilities to say for target
-Explains why someone already angry will lash out more readily later
Who especially vulnerable to displaced anger
our group target
Results of lab test of frustration-aggression theory
Sometimes frustration increased aggressiveness
- sometimes lead to irritation
A revised version of Frustration-aggression theory
frustration produces aggression only when people become upset
Frustrated people are likely to lash out when
aggression cues pull the cork releasing bottled up anger
Frustration arises from the gap between
expectations and attainments
Relative deprivation explains
why happiness is lower and crime rates higher in countries with more income inequality
One source of frustration today
affluence depicted in TV
Rewards of aggression
- Can feel satisfying
- Instrument in achieving certain rewards
Albert Bandura aggression formation
social learning theory
- watching people’s behavior and learning from their consequences
Observing aggressive behavior
lowered inhibitions and taught ways to agrees
institutions that decreased US aggressive acts
- Economic trade
- Education
- Government policing and justice
The US has seen declines in aggression and violent acts such as
- Lynchings
- rape
- corporal punishment
- anti-gay attitudes and intimidations
People sensitive to disgust
less aggressive
Aggressive behavior spreads in social groups through
modeling
Physically aggressive children tend to have had
physically punitive parents
In communities were “macho” images admired
aggression readily transmitted to new generations
Men from where more likely to bagel aggressively
- Non-democratic areas
- High in income inequality
- Focus on teaching meant to be warriors
- Gone to war
American cities populated by southerners have higher
average White homicide rates
People learn aggressive responses by
experience and observing aggression models
Pain heightens
aggressiveness
Temporary climate variations can affect
behavior
Offensive odor’s linked with
aggressive behavior
Heat and aggression
heat may frustrate people but not lead to aggressive tendencies directly
Intentional attacks breed
retaliatory attacks
- Being intact or insulted breeds aggression
A state of arousal can be interpreted in
different ways depending on the contacts
What intensifies any emotion
being physically stirred up
- arousal fuels emotions
Arousal can amplify
another form of arousal
Violence is more likely when
aggressive cues release pent up anger
- The sight of weapon is a qua
Risk of guns at home
a gun in the house is 12 times more likely to kill household member than an intruder
Gun serves as
- aggressive cues
- psychological distance between aggressor and victim
Viewing fictional scenes of men overpowering and arousing women can
- Distort men’s perceptions of how women actually respond to sexual coercion
- Increase men’s aggression against women
Those who view sexual violence
more likely to believe the rape myth
- expose to porn
Exposure to erotic films
- Decrease attraction to one’s partner
- Increase acceptance of extramarital sex
- Increase men’s perceiving women in sexual terms
- Increase physical force, verbal coercion ,and harassment
Who reports using porn at unusually high rates
- Rapists
- Serial killers
- Child molesters
Exposure to violent porn increases
punitive behavior towards women
average US house TV usage
7 hours a day
Heavy viewing of aggressive TV
more aggressive
Those who watch more violence in childhood
more likely to have been convicted of a crime
8-year-olds violence viewing predicted
spouse abuse as adult
Adolescent’s violence viewing predicted
engaging in assault and robbery
Elementary school children’s violent media exposure predicted
how often do they get into fights 2 - 6 months later
Media viewing Experiments confirm
viewing violence amplifies aggression
Viewing violence increase violence for those
- with aggressive tendencies
- when an attractive person commits justified realistic violence that goes unpunished
Why does media viewing affect behavior
- Arousal it produces
- Disinhibits
- Evokes imitation
Media violence exposure decreased feeling of
empathy for other
We rely on social scripts when
we are new situations and don’t know how to act
The more sexual content adolescents view
more likely they are
- to perceive peers as sexually active
- Develop sexually permissive attitudes
- Experience early intercourse
Those who watch much TV see the world as
scary place
Watching violent TV primes
aggression-related ideas
Who plays violent video games
Older and younger children
Concerns of video games heighten after
teen assassins in serval mass shooting
Reasons why violent games have more toxic effect than watching TV
players
- Identify with a violent character
- Actively rehearse violence
- Engage in a whole sequence of enacting violence
- Engaged with continual violence
- Repeat violent behaviors
- Rewarded for violent acts
Playing violent video games
increase aggressive behavior and thoughts
Effects of playing video games
- Increase in aggressive behavior
- Increase in aggressive thoughts
- Increase in aggressive feelings
- Habituation in the brain
- Greater likelihood of carrying a weapon
- Decreases in self-control and increase in antisocial behavior
- Decrease in helping others and in empathy for others
- Less time on schoolwork
After violent video games people more likely to
exploit than to trust
Pros of video games
- Improve hand-eye coordination, reaction time, spatial ability and selective attention
- Fulfill a need for competence, control and social connection
Those who play prosocial video games
- helped others
- shared
- correlated more
Parents and video games
encourage parents to discover what kids are ingesting to ensure healthy media diet
Groups can amplify aggressive reactions by
diffusing responsibility
Diffusion of responsibility increases with
distance and numbers
As group identify develops
conformity and deindividuation increases
Increased aggression predicted by
- Being male
- Aggressive or anger-prone personalities
- Alcohol use
- Violence viewing
- Anonymity
- Provocation
- Presence of weapon
- Group interaction
Hydraulic model example
people paying to go to smash rooms
Catharsis credited to
Artistotle
If lead to believe that catharsis effectively vents emotions
people react more aggressively to insult as a way to prove mood
Psychologists view on catharsis
therapeutic
An effective way to reduce aggression
doing nothing more than hitting a bag
Cruel act breed
cruel attitudes
Retaliation reduces
tension and provides pleasure
Should people bottle up anger and aggressive urges?
no
- People can be assertive without aggressive
If aggression behavior is learned then
hope for controlling it
Aversive experiences predispose
hostile agression
Anticipated rewards and costs influence
instrumental aggression
Threaten punishment can
deter aggression only under ideal conditions
Limits to effective punishments
Mortal aggression = severely punish afterward
Prevent aggression
before it happens
-Model and reward sensitivity and cooperation from an early age
Ostracism
Acts of excluding or ignoring. Counteracts need to belong
Proximity
Geographical nearness. Proximity (more precisely, “functional distance”) powerfully predicts liking.
Functional distance
How often people’s paths cross
Mere exposure
The tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more or rated more positively after the rater has been repeatedly exposed to them.
When humans belong we tend to be
- Healthier
- Happier
- A deep sense of well-being = paired with autonomy & competence
Bullying vs. Ostracized
Ostracized worse because doesn’t acknowledge your existence
People who are socially rejected by those close to them
engage in self-defeating behaviors
Ostracized people brain function
- Deficits in brain mechanisms that inhibit unwanted behavior
- Heightened activity in brain cortex that activates in response to physical pain
Ostracism effect of a person
- Increases aggression
- Depressed heart rate
What can reduce hurt feelings
- Tylenol
- sending light electrical current to brain region related to rejection
Feeling love activates
brain reward systems
Proximity can breed
- Friendships
- Hostility
- Liking
Interaction or functional distance allows people to
explore similarities
Why does proximity breed liking?
- availability of that person
- Enables people to discover commonalities and exchange rewards
- The anticipation of interaction boosts liking
Too much exposure - if receptions are incessant - liking
eventually drops
Mere exposure breeds
- More positive attitudes of social groups
- Pleasant feeling
Mere exposure has a stronger effect when
people receive stimuli without awareness
Emotions vs thinking speed
Emotions are often more instantaneous than thinking
The negative side to mere exposure effect
wariness of unfamiliar
A good predictor of how frequently humans date
their attractiveness
In dating for men what is important
attractiveness
In dating for women what is important
- Honesty
- Humor
- Kindness
- dependability
Attractive wives led to
happier husbands
When it comes to short interactions attractiveness is important to
men and women
- speed dating
People tend to select people to be close with based on
- How similar they are in
- Popularity
- Self-worth
- Attractiveness
- Intelligence
Matching Phenomenon
The tendency for men and women to choose as partners those who are a “good match” in attractiveness and other traits.
Physical-attractiveness stereotype
The presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits as well: What is beautiful is good.
When couples are similar in attractiveness
relationship grows
A less-attractive person in a relationship often has
compensating qualities
Does the attractiveness effect spring entirely from sexual attractiveness?
No
Seeing photos of facially disfigured people judged them as
- Less intelligent
- Less emotional stable
- Less trustworthy
Humans believe beautiful people are
- more Happier
- more Sexually warmer
- more Outgoing
- more Intelligent
- more Successful
- Less honest
Women who have had cosmetic work done were perceived as more
- Kinder
- Sensitive
- Sexually warm
- Responsive
- Likable
Most affects first impressions
attractiveness
Attractiveness better predicts what in urban settings
happiness and social connections
Attractive children and young adults are somewhat more
- Relaxed
- Outgoing
- Socially polished
- More popular
- More gender-typed
Attractiveness
whatever people of any given place and time find attractive/
For cultures with scarce resources what is attractive
plumpness
For cultures with abundant resources what is attractive
slimness
Attractiveness influences life outcomes less in cultures where
relationships are based more on kinship or social arrangement
To be really attractive is to be
- perfectly average
- Symmetrical
Beauty signals biologically important information
Women emphasis on men’s physical attractiveness depends on goals
- Short-term relationship = Prefer more symmetrical men
- Long-term relationship = attractiveness less important
Men everywhere are most attracted to women whose
waists are 30% narrower than hip
- sign of peak sexual fertility
Circumstances that reduce a woman’s fertility and change shape
- Malnutrition
- pregnancy
- menopause
Men who find beauty standards on magazines find average women
less attractive
Complementarity
The popularly supposed tendency, in a relationship between two people, for each to complete what is missing in the other.
Being sexually aroused temporality makes a person of the other sex seem
more attractive
After viewing a very attractive person of same-gender people rate themselves
less attractive
We perceive likable people as
attractive
The more in love a woman is with a man
the more physically attractive she finds him
The greater similarity between a couple
happier they are and less likely to divorce
The more similar someone’s attitudes are to your own
the more you will like the person
We tend to see those we like as
being like us
Dissimilar attitudes
depress linking more than similar attitudes improve it
Whenever one group regards another as “other”
potential for conflict is high
“Cultural racism” persists because
cultural differences are a fact of life
We are physically attracted to people whose scent suggests
dissimilar enough genes to prevent inbreeding
We like people similar to us in
- Popularity
- Aggressiveness
- Academic performance
- Attitudes
- Needs
- Personalities
Influence our initial attraction to someone
proximity + attractiveness
Ingratiation
The use of strategies, such as flattery, by which people seek to gain another’s favor.
Reward theory of attraction
The theory is that we like those whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we associate with rewarding events.
Passionate love
A state of intense longing for union with another. Passionate lovers are absorbed in each other, feel ecstatic at attaining their partner’s love, and are disconsolate on losing it.
Influences longer-term attraction
similarity
We tend to like people who
- are like us
- Rewarding to be with
- Associate with a good feeling
If praise violates what we know
we may lose respect for flatterer and wonder if compliment springs ulterior motives
We perceive criticism to be
more sincere than praise
Constant approval can
lose value
If a relationship gives more reward than the cost
we will like it more and want it to continue
If a relationship is going to survive it is important to associate the relationship with
good things
Reward theory of attraction explains why
- Proximity is rewarding
- We like attractive people because we perceive that they offer desirable traits
- If others have similar opinions we feel rewarded because we think they like us in return
- We like those who like us
Robert Sternberg view on love
triangle consisting of
- passion
- intimacy
- commitment
Common elements of love in loving relationships
- Mutual understanding
- Giving and receiving support
- Enjoying loved one’s company
When experiencing passionate love we express it
physically and want it to be exclusive
Two-factor theory of emotion
Arousal × its label = emotion.
Companionate love
The affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined.
Secure attachment
Attachments are rooted in trust and marked by intimacy.
Elaine Hatfield on passionate love
a state of intense longing for union with another
Passionate love is the psychological experience of
being biologically aroused by someone we find attractive
The two-factor theory of emotions explains being aroused by any source should
intensify passionate feelings
Passionate love engages
dopamine-rich drain areas associated with reward
Passionate love =
lust + attachment
Who tends to fall in love more readily
men
Once in love women are more
- emotionally involved as their partner or more
- Feel more euphoric
- The Intimacy of friendship and concern for partner
Men in relationships think about
playful and physical aspects of relationship
The pattern of passionate love
burns hot then simmers down once a relationship reaches stable orbit and settles at companionate love
Divorce rate peaks at
year 4 of marriage
The cooling of intense romantic love triggers a period of
disillusion
Genes associated with vasopressin activity predict
martial stability
Under conditions of extreme neglect, children become
- withdrawn
- Frightened
- Silent
The intense love of parent and infant is a form of
passionate love
Securely attached adults find it easy to
- Get close to others
- don’t fret about getting dependent or being abandons
- Enjoy sexuality within the context of a secure committed relationship
- Relationships need to be satisfying and enduring
Avoidant attachment people in relationships
- More likely to leave a relationship
- Less invested in relationships
- Avoid closeness
- More fearful and engage in uncommitted hookups
- More likely to be sexually unfaithful to a partner
College students in the US attachment style 2010
more dismissive attachment style
- caused by changing family structures and increased emphasis on individualism
Avoidant attachment
Attachments are marked by discomfort over, or resistance to, being close to others. An insecure attachment style.
Anxious attachment
Attachments marked by anxiety or ambivalence. An insecure attachment style.
Equity
A condition in which the outcomes people receive from a relationship are proportional to what they contribute to it. Note: Equitable outcomes needn’t always be equal outcomes.
Anxious attachment people in relationships
- Less trusting
- fearful of partners becoming interested in someone else
- more possessive and jealous
- break up repeatedly with the same person
- get emotional and angry when discussing conflicts
- self-esteem fluctuates based on feedback from others
Parental responsiveness is correlated with
varying attachment styles
attachment style combinations that are best and worst
- Best = to securely attached partners
- Where is = anxious woman and avoidant man
Strangers or casual acquaintances maintain equity by
exchanging benefits
Those involved in an equitable long-term relationship are
unconcerned with short term equity
As people observe their partner being self-giving
sense of trust grows
Tit for tat exchanges boosted peoples liking when
the relationship was relatively formal
disclosure reciprocity
The tendency for one person’s intimacy of self-disclosure to match that of a conversational partner.
Self-disclosure
Revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others.
Those who perceive their relationship as inequitable feel,
- discomfort
- Distress
- depressed
Marital distress exacerbates
the perception of unfairness
Deep companionate relationships are
- Intimate
- enable us to do you known as we truly are
- to feel accepted
as the relationship grows self-disclosing partners
reveal more of themselves to each other
The way to feed intimacy and love is
talking about emotions and views
Rising intimacy will create a stronger sense of
passion
To promote self-disclosure and ongoing dating relationships
write about your feelings and express more emotions to partner
Growth-promoting listeners tend to be
women
Effects of self disclosure
nurtures love
Do you predict a cultures divorce rate need to know
it’s values
In individualistic cultures divorce rate
more divorce than communal cultures
Those who enter a relationship with a long-term orientation and intentions to persist experience
- healthier
- less turbulent
- more durable partnerships
People usually stay married if they
- Married after age 20
- both grew up in stable 2 parent homes
- Dated for a long while before marriage
- Are well and similarly educated
- Live in a small town or on-farm
- Enjoy a stable income from a good job
- Did not cohabitant or become pregnant before marriage
- Similar age faith and education
- religiously committed
Mate ejection module
- Suffering bonds produces a predictable sequence of
- agitated preoccupation
- deep sadness
- beginnings of emotional detachment
- a renewed sense of self
More painful break up one
closer and longer relationship and fewer available alternatives
4 ways of coping with a failing relationship
- Constructive
- Loyalty - await improvement
- Voice - seek to improve relationships
- deconstructive
- Neglect - ignore partner
- Exit - end the relationship
unhappy versus happy couples
- Unhappy
- Disagree
- command
- criticized
- put down
- Happy
- Agree
- approve
- assent
- laugh
Predict a dim martial future
- especially when inhibited men coupled with critical women
Coldness
Hopelessness
Disillusionment
Social-exchange theory
The theory that human interactions are transactions that aim to maximize one’s rewards and minimize one’s costs.
Rewards that motive helping can be
external or internal
What explains this do-good/feel-good effect
helping boosts self-worth
Students who participated in school-based service-learning less at risk for
- Delinquency
- Pregnancy
- School dropout
Volunteering when not forced benefits
- Morale
- Heath
Donating money activates brain areas linked with
reward
Near someone in distress
we may feel distress
The brain of “extraordinary altruists”
- Reacted more strongly to images of fearful faces
- Amygdala larger than average
Negative emotion we act to reduce
distress and guilt
Cultures institutionalized ways to relieve guilt
- Animal and human sacrifices
- offerings of grains and money
- confession
- denial
- penitent behavior
When people feel guilt they will
do whatever can be done to expunge the guilt and restore self-image
Eagerness to do good after doing bad reflects
need to reduce private guilt and restore a shake self-image
More likely to redeemer ourselves with helpful behavior when
others know our misdeeds
Exceptions to the “feel-bad/do-good” phenomenon
when we feel anger & grief
The feel-good do good effect occurs with
people whose attention is on others
What does helping do to moods
- Softens bad mood
- Sustains good mood
Reciprocity norm
An expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them.
Social Capital
Mutual support and cooperation are enabled by a social network.
In a good mood, people are more likely to
have positive thought and self-esteem which leads to helping
Two social norms that motivate altruism
- Reciprocity norm
- The social-responsibility norm
Reciprocity within social networks define
social capital
The reciprocity norm operates most effectively as
people respond publicly to deeds earlier done to them
When people can’t reciprocate they may feel
threatened and demeaned by accepting aid
Social-Responsibility norm
An expectation that people will help those needing help without regard to future exchanges
Kin selection
The idea is that evolution has selected altruism toward one’s close relatives to enhance the survival of mutually shared genes.
Those unable to reciprocate are motivated to help by
social-responsibility norm
People who support social-responsibility norms more
collectivistic cultures
Western countries and social-responsibility norm
- If we attribute the need to the person choices = do not help
- If we attribute the need not the person = we help
Social-responsibility norm compels us to help
those most in need and most deserving
Women offer help to
men and women equally
Men offer help to
attractive women more
Who seeks help more
women
- more collectivistic
Evolutionary genes that breed super-cooperators and why we are helpful
- Kin selection = if you carry my genes, I’ll favor you
- Direct Reciprocity = we scratch each other’s backs
- Indirect reciprocity = i’ll scratch your back, you scratch somebody else’s, and someone will scratch mine
- Group selection = back-scratching group survive
Genes dispose us to care for
relatives
Parents who prioritize children’s welfare are more likely to
pass genes on
What programs us to care about close relatives
nature and culture
In life-and-death situations order of who gets helped
- Children before old
- Family before friends
- Neighbors before strangers
- Kin selection predisposes, ethnic in-group favoritism
Genetic self-interests predicts
reciprocity
- an organisms help another because it expects help in return
Reciprocity works best in
small isolated groups
Groups of mutually supportive altruists
outlast groups of non-altruists
Human societies evolved
ethical and religious rules that serve as brakes on biological bias toward self-interest
Comparing and Evaluating Theories of Helping
Empathy
The vicarious experience of another’s feelings; putting oneself in another’s shoes.
Distress over someone suffering motivates us to
relieve the upset by escaping the distressing situation or helping
When securely attached to someone
more likely to help
When we feel empathy we focus on
the sufferer more than ourselves
When empathic people identify with others positive and negative emotions
- Negative emotions = want to help them feel better
- Positive emotions = want to help them maintain them
To increase empathy we
need to understand what another feels
Presence of more people during critical situations
lowered chances that people would help
As the number of bystanders increases other are
- Less likely to interpret incident as a problem
- Less likely to assume responsibility for taking action
- Less likely to notice the incident
Bystander effect
The finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders.
Illusion of transparency
a tendency to overestimate others ability to “read” our internal states
Misinterpreting an emergency fed by
illusion of transparency
As the number of people known to be aware of an emergency increases
a given person becomes less likely to help
Research ethics in a study on if we would help others
protect participants welfare and give insight into our behavior
Prosocial models promote
altruism
Children learn moral judgments from
- What they hear preached
- What they see practiced
Those not in a rush to an unimportant appointment
stopped to help
People are not likely to help others if
late to an important date
We are more empathic and helpful towards those
similar and familiar to us
When norms for appropriate behavior well-defines whites
don’t discriminate
When norms are ambiguous or conflicting and providing help is more difficult or riskers
racial similarity maybes responses
Effects of personality on altruism
- More socially progressive in political views more readily to help
- Those with Calais traits are less helpful & empathetic
- People who are more sympathetic to victims in emergency situations respond faster when they are the only ones there but slower when they are other bystanders
Less privileged people and helping
- More generous
- more trusting
- more helpful
- Felt less entitled to special treatment
People lower and social status showed
- more action in the brain area link to sensitivity to others
- better at judging others emotions
When facing a potentially dangerous situation in which strangers needed help men
more often help
In safe situations such as volunteering women
slightly more likely to help then man
Gender differences in helping depend on
situation
People who donate more
- Single women more than men
- Men donate more if married to a woman
- Female-headed households donate more
Primed with spiritual thoughts people
- more generous in donations
- Volunteer more hours
- Provide more help to family and strangers
Americans engaged with the faith community reported volunteering
two hours per week
The pro-social effects of religion were strongest in
countries in which religion is based on personal choice
How to undo the restraints on helping?
- Reduce ambiguity and increase responsibility
- Personalized appeals
- Enable guilt and concern for self-image
Reducing ambiguity in an emergency situation
increases responsibility when spoken
Peal appeals are more effective than
Posters and media if come from friends
Personalized nonverbal appeals make one feel
- less anonymous
- more responsible
Later helpfulness increases when
- Identity with the person beforehand
- Smile at person beforehand
- When expects to meet the victim and other witnesses again
The personal treatment makes bystanders
more self-aware
Circumstances that promote self-awareness
- Name tags
- Being watched
- Undistracted quiet
Guilt-laden people are
helpful people
- even if guilt is synthetic
Way to trigger concern for self-image
- Make a person feel guilty
- Ask for a contribution so small it’s hard to say no
- Labeling people as helpful
The saying “Even a penny will help” does what
increase contributions
Moral exclusion
The perception of certain individuals or groups as outside the boundary within which one applies moral values and rules of fairness. Moral inclusion is regarding others as within one’s circle of moral concern.
How can we increase helping?
- Undo the restraints on helping
- Socialize altruism
How to socialize altruism?
- Teach moral inclusion
- Model altruism
- Learn by doing
- Attributing helping behavior to altruism
- Learn about altruism
Rescuers of Jews in nazi Europe and the antislavery movement are what in common
they were morally inclusive
Moral exclusion justifies
harmful actions
When war happens we are more concerned about deaths of
our in-group than maybe larger outgroup
People and numbers of those they are helping
people more willing to help one person than two
By broadening the range of people in our group
the boundaries between “we” and “they” fade
If we see or read about someone helping
we become more likely to offer assistance
Exceptional altruists reported
warm and close relationships with at least one parent who was similarly a strong moralist
Prosocial TV models have
greater effects than antisocial models
Children from less-educated homes who watched prosocial TV more
- Cooperative
- Helpful
- Likely to state their feelings
Prosocial media that helps aid helpful behavior
- Playing protocol video games
- Listening to prosocial music lyrics
Helping increases
future helping
Over-justification effect
When justification for an act is more than sufficient, the person may attribute their actions to the extrinsic justification rather than to an inner motive
When children act helpfully they develop
- Helping-related values, beliefs, and skills
- Stratify the need for positive self-concept
- “Service-learning” woven into school curriculum increases, later citizen involvement
By providing people with just enough justification to prompt a good deed
we may increase their pleasure in doing such deeds on their own
To predispose more people to help in situations in which most don’t
pays to induce tentative positive commitment
The first step to becoming a hero is
recognize social pressures that deter your bystander action
Once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits helping
they become more likely to help in group situations
Peace
A condition marked by low levels of hostility and aggression and by mutually beneficial relationships.
Conflict
A perceived incompatibility of actions or goals.
Social Trap
A situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior. Examples include the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons.
The tragedy of the Commons
The “commons” is any shared resource, including air, water, energy sources, and food supplies. The tragedy occurs when individuals consume more than their share, with the cost of their doing so dispersed among all, causing the ultimate collapse—the tragedy—of the commons.
Non-Zero-Sum Games
Games in which outcomes need not sum to zero. With cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose (also called mixed-motive situations).
A Dilemma forms when
individually rewarding choices become collectively punishing
Most people in the Prisoner’s Dilemma would
confess
Punishment typically triggers
retaliation escalating conflict
Societies where the Tragedy of the commons applies
Both collective and individualist
When resources are not partitioned people
consume more than they realize
Both social traps tempt people to
explain their behavior situationally and their partner’s behavior dispositionally
How do Motive change
- First: people eager to make easy money
- Then: to minimize losses
- Finally: To save gave and avoid defeat
Most real-life conflicts are
non-zero-sum games
Not all self-serving behavior leads to
collective doom
People approach common dilemmas with
cooperative outlook and expect same enabling collective betterment
Residential Stability
when the same families stay in a neighborhood, also strengthens communal identity and pro-community behavior
In everyday life regulation has
cost
Modern societies depend on what to pay for needed things
regulation laws
Ways to resolve social dilemmas
- Est. rules that regulate self-serving behavior
- Make the group small
- To communicate
- Changing payoffs to reward cooperation and punish exploitation
- Invoking compelling altruistic norms
In small commons, each person feels
- More responsible
- More effective
- More identified with groups’ success
Group communication can
- Degenerate threats and name-calling
- Enable cooperation
- Forges group identity
- Devises group norms and pressures members to follow them
Open, clear, forthright communication between 2 parties reduces
mistrust
One who mistrust is sure to be
uncooperative
Lab cooperation rises when experimenters change the payoff matrix to
reward cooperation and punish exploitation
Know what is good doesn’t lead to
doing what is good
To tap into social responsibility feelings
- the influence of a charismatic leader who inspires others to cooperate
- By defying situations in ways that invoke cooperative norms
- Communication
In China those educated during the “planned economy era” make
more cooperative social dilemma game choices
Mao’s Planned economy
An era that emphasized equal wealth distribution in China
The “golden” rule
Whoever has the gold makes the rules
Hostilities arise when
groups compete for scarce
- jobs
- Housing
- Rehouses
Perceived threats feed
- prejudice
- Conflict
- Amplify perceptions of threat
What sets the stage for conflict
group identity & group polarization
Win-lose competitions produce
- Intense conflict
- Negative images of outgroup
- Strong in-group cohesiveness & pride
People perceive Justine as
equity
- the distribution of rewards in proportion to individual’s contributions
Those with social power usually convince themselves and others
that they deserve what they’re getting
Difference between equality & equity
- Equality = same outcomes
- Equity = outcome proportional to people’s contributions
Some non-capitalist cultures define justice as
equality or even fulfillment of need
Many conflicts contain
a small core of truly incompatible goals and bigger problem of misperception of other’s motives and goals
Seeds of misperception of other’s motives and goals in conflict
- Self-serving bias
- Self-justify
- Fundamental attribution error
- To fit preconceptions
- Polarize biasing tendons
- Groupthink tendency to perceive own group as good and outgroup as bad
- In-group bias
- Negative stereotypes of out-group
Mirror-image perceptions
Reciprocal views of each other are often held by parties in conflict; for example, each may view itself as moral and peace-loving and the other as evil and aggressive.
People in conflict often form
distorted image of one another
Opposing sides in a conflict tend to
exaggerate their differences
- bias blind spot
Group conflict is often fueled by
the illusion that the enemy’s top leaders are evil but their people are pro-us
When tensions rise
rational thinking becomes more difficult
When misperceptions accompany conflict it
appears and disappears as conflicts wax and wane
The conflict goes away when
something enables both parties to peel away their misperceptions and work at reconciling actual differences
When in conflict you should
- Not assume that others fail to share your values and marly
- Share and compare perceptions assuming that others perceive situations differently
Conflict ignited by
- Social traps
- Competition
- Perceived injustices
- Misperceptions
Four peacemaking strategies
- Contact
- Cooperation
- Communication
- Conciliation
System justification
The human tendency to approve the way things are
When tension runs high contact may
fuel a fight
Contact predicts
tolerance
- increased contact predicts decreased prejudice
After segregation whites attitudes toward blacks
improved in areas that they mixed
Desegregation can
improve racial attitudes or not
Desegregated neighborhoods may fail to produce integrated interactions why
people can self-segregate
Even within the same race likes tend to
self-segregate
Many efforts to desegregate fail because
people feel others don’t want to desegregate
How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice and increase support for racially quality?
- Reduces anxiety
- Increases empathy
- Humanizes others
- Decreasing perceived threats
Group salience (visibility) helps bridge
divides between people
We are more likely to befriend dissimilar people when
their our group identity is initially minimized
Results of positive and negative contacts
- positive contact boosts liking = greater effect
- negative contacts increase disliking = more commonplace
Equal-status contact
Contact on an equal basis. Just as a relationship between people of unequal status breeds attitudes consistent with their relationship, so do relationships between those of equal status. Thus, to reduce prejudice, interracial contact should ideally be between persons equal in status.
Superordinate goals
A shared goal that necessitates cooperative effort; a goal that overrides people’s differences from one another.
Contact does help build peace when
tension is too high
In conflicts at all levels what breeds unity
shared threats and common goals
Those mistreated become more
cohesive
- misery loves company
To receive discrimination against one’s racial group is to
feel more bonded and identified with such
What strengths in-group solidarity
Fearing extinction of one’s group
Superordinate goals do what for conflict
form unifying power
- make enemies into friends
Cooperative learning promotes
- academic achievement
- improve intergroup relations
- Cross-racial friendships blossomed
Being mindful of our multiple social identities enables
social cohesion
The grandchildren of immigrants feel more comfortable
identifying with their ethnicity
Those in the racial majority group more likely to favor
assimilation
multiculturalism view in multiculturalism vs assimilation debate
- multiculturalism ensures all citizens can keep identities
- Can take pride in their ancestry
- Have a sense of belonging
Assimilation view in multiculturalism vs assimilation debate
- multiculturalism separates people
- Enhanced hostility in threatening situations
- Prompted people to attach meaning to out-group members threatening behavior
- Highlighting genetic differences contribute to violent risk
Alternate common value view on multiculturalism vs assimilation debate
there is no ethnicity here we are all one (all American)
The space between multiculturalism and assimilation lies
diversity within unity
Immigrant countries avoid ethnic war by
forging unifying ideals
Bargain
Seeking an agreement to a conflict through direct negotiation between parties.
Mediate
An attempt by a neutral third party to resolve a conflict by facilitating communication and offering suggestions.
Arbitrate
Resolution of a conflict by a neutral third party who studies both sides and imposes a settlement.
Integrative agreement
Win-win agreements that reconcile both parties’ interests to their mutual benefit.
Conflicting parties can resolve their differences by which communication methods
- Bargain
- Arbitrate
- Mediate
Tough bargaining may
lower other party’s expectations making the other side willing to settle for less or can backfire
A time delay in barging is often
a lose-lose scenario
Mediators help resolve conflict by
facilitating constructive communication
Mediators tasks
- help parties rethink conflict and gain information about others’ interests
- Has each party identified and ranked its goals
Communication often helps reduce
self-fulfilling misperceptions
A key factor in controlled communications of conflict
trust
Hearing an outgroup person criticizing their own group
opens people to outcrop’s perspective
Walking together during conflict
engages people to increase empathy and soften boundary between them
When mediation doesn’t work the next step is
arbitration
When people know they would face an arbitrated settlement if mediation failed
they tried harder to resolve the problem
The threat of arbitration fails when
differences seem large and irreconcilable
GRIT
Acronym for “graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction”—a strategy designed to de-escalate international tensions.
GRIT aims to
reverse the “conflict spiral” by triggering reciprocal de-escalation
GRIT requires one side to
- intimate a few small de-escalatory actions after announcing a conciliatory intent
- Then: initiator to eat. Credibility and genuine by carrying out several conciliatory acts
- Finally: maintaining the retaliatory capability
GRIT’s moto
- Firm: in resisting intimidation, exploitation, and dirty tricks
- Fair: in holding to one’s moral principles and not reciprocating the others in immoral behavior
- Friendly: in the sense that one is willing to initiate and reciprocate corporation
Does GRIT really work?
YES
