lecture 6 Flashcards
when is dehumanization more likely?
when we are strong committed to a group
(ex. political party, ethnic group, sports team, gender, university)
what is the paradox of social inclusion
we engage in social exclusion of others in order to protect our own sense of inclusion
T/F student study shows that we are more likely to dehumanize someone (non-US citizen) when they’re not sitting next to a friend
false: more likely to dehumanize when sitting next to a friend
emphasizing group identity -> friendship -> activated the “us” vs “them” schema -> aggression increased
how do we reverse dehumanization?
humanizing
empathy
relating
expanding our definitions of “in-group”
focus on similarities between groups
what is out group homogeneity
- everyone in the outgroup is “the same”
- makes it easier to dehumanize the whole group
- finding common ground and combatting perceptions of out-group homogeneity can reduce dehumanization
what is the identifiable victim effect
technique of persuasion describes the likelihood that we feel greater empathy
“the death of a single russian soldier is a tragedy. the death of a million soldiers is a statistc”
jospeh stalin
what is face-to-face communication and it’s implications
it’s easier to dehumanize people who are not directly in front of us
face-to-face communication leads to greater resolution between those in conflict
T/F forgiveness reduce aggression
True: even imagining forgiveness can lead to improved conflict resolution
define altruism
selfless behaviour that benefits others without regard to personal consequences
3 motives for helping
1.) Social reward (selfish)
2.) Reduce personal distress (selfish)
3.) Empathetic concern (selfless)
empathetic concern traits:
- fast
- intuitive
- selfless
- pure altruism
how can generating empathetic concern be a solution to world peace?
look at past situations where empathic concern has been witnessed and try to learn about how it came to be (ex. WWII)
“Righteous Among Nations” criteria
- helping a family member doesn’t count
- helping a jewish person convert to Christianity did not count
- assistance had to be substantial (without expectation of reward)
common theme of real life “heroes”
- altruism + compassion had always been family values
- altruism was explicitly discussed as a virtue/family value
what are the situational determinants of altruism
- time and resources
- presence of others
the good samaritan study
- participants = seminary students
- invited to give a speech to students
- speech was randomly assigned as “The Good Samaritan Story” or “Jobs for Seminary Students”
- conditions = ample time, small time crunch, already late for the speech
- participants were to walk across campus to get to the room where they would give the speech
- would encounter a man in distress needing help
will the speech topic influence who helps?
does the time available condition influence who helps?
RESULTS:
- speech topic did not make a difference, time dud
- those not in a rush were 6x more likely to help
what reduces helping behaviour in the presence of strangers?
- diffusion of responsibility
- anonymity
- costs and benefits
- social blunders due to ambiguity/uncertainty (is helping the right response?)
avoiding social blunders is the strongest reason (results from pluralistic ignorance)
if you are in need of help, what should you do?
- make it very clear ex. “help, i’ve fallen and i can’t get up”
- pick out a specific individual and ask them for help
stereotypes and prejudice can serve as ___ that influence the likelihood of offering help to others in need
construals
Brian Sinclair case
- 45 yr/o indigenous man in Winnipeg
- waited in the ER room for 34 hours and no one helped him
- fell unconscious and died and still received no help
- hospital staff assumed he was drunk and sleeping it off in the ER
- never examined by medical staff
- he vomited and urinated, cleaning staff were notified and yet no one helped
construals in play:
- homelessness and social class
- race
- substance abuse
- disability
individuals in rural areas are ___ likely to help strangers than those in urban communities
MORE likely
the greater the population, the less helping behaviour
lights, sounds, navigating people and cars makes people more self-focused therefore greater diffusion of responsibility
larger cities have more diversity, people are more likely to help those who are similar
Priming study
- participants either saw religious or neutral words
- gave them a chance to share $10 with a stranger
- religion prime more likely to give half than neutral prime
what is the panopticon effect
creates the feeling of being watched
what is one of the most difficult human behaviours for evolutionary theory to explain
altruism
what are the theories for altruism from an evolutionary theory perspective
1.) kin selection (if we are helping or kin, - genetic relatives - it’s worth the risk)
2.) reciprocity (trying to explain why we help non-kin) (cooperation, reciprocal altruism [helping others with the expectation they will help you], social rewards)
no explanation is completely altruism. maybe we see everyone as our kin?
