LO11 - Social Psychology 2 Flashcards
Aggression
Behaviour intended to harm another individual. Extreme aggression is violence.
It has an adaptive value but can also have negative/disruptive consequences.
Indirect aggression is not done face-to-face or can be aggression carried out on the behalf of someone else.
Proactive depression has a purpose e.g. defending yourself. Harmful behaviour can still have a purpose.
Hostile aggression
Motivated by hostility. Goal is to cause harm.
It is emotional and impulsive (heat of the moment) aggression. It can also be calm (revenge)
Biological model of aggression - heritability and genetics
Looks at genetics - heritability is around 0.3-0.6 when looking at mono and dizygotic twins.
Specific genes are looked at e.g. MAOA predicts behavioural aggression following provocation. This gene codes for enzymes that catabolise various neurotransmitters.
This has been called the criminal gene
Animals can be bred for aggression which supports a biological approach.
Biological model of depression - hormones
Hormones can also be linked to aggression. Testosterone is associated with aggression in both men and women.
Correlational studies have also shown that cortisol is important in reacting with testosterone.
Brain physiology
The amygdala is a structure involved in emotional processing.
When it is stimulated in animals they show aggressive outbursts.
The prefrontal cortex shows impaired functioning which can disrupt executive functioning (top-down processing). This is one reason people can’t inhibit their impulses.
Environmental factors affecting aggression
heat/hot weather and crowding reliably predicts aggression.
Experimental research done with heat has shown that people in uncomfortably hot rooms tend to do more aggressive acts.
Correlations have been found in sports
Environmental factors causing aggression - Social provocation
Insults or social rejection predicts aggression - negative affect.
Environmental factors causing aggression - social learning
We learn to be aggressive via behaviour modelling (watching other people be aggressive.
Growing up in an aggressive home is likely to make you more aggressive.
We learn to be more/less aggressive through rewards/punishments.
Bandura’s Bobo Doll Studies
He developed a theory of aggression that said kids would act aggressively when they watch models be aggressive.
Children are randomly assigned to different experimental conditions. Those who watched the aggressive adult were far more likely to carry out the same aggressive acts they had seen.
They even carried out new aggressive techniques. When the model was praised for aggression this increased aggressive acts.
When the model was punished this reduced aggression
General Aggression model
Comprehensive model of aggression. It is the idea that there are person factors (traits), biological factors, childhood experiences and locus of control.
There are also situation factors which could increase the likelihood of aggression E.g. being late/hot weather.
The two components interact and can have additive effects.
There is a trigger event and the background info results in the tendency to be aggressive/not.
Pro-social behaviour
Actions intended to benefit others. What motivates people? Egoism, Altruism, Reciprocal altruism or the Reciprocity Norm?
Egoism (pro social behaviour)
We help people to increase our own welfare/self-interest. Perhaps to be seen in a positive light or feel good about yourself.
Altruism (pro social behaviour)
We help others to increase another person’s welfare. We have genuine concern for others.
We want to benefit others without expecting anything in return.
Is true altruism possible? It feels good to help, comfort, share and cooperate.
There is a cost to helping and not helping.
Reciprocal altruism (prosocial behaviour)
Actions that benefits others (despite some immediate risk or cost) are repaid in kind in the long-run.
Evolutionary theory can help us explain why we help people who are related to us. We want our genes to be passed down.
We help those who we don’t know as we expect them to help us in the long run.
We observe this in other species like chimps who share food expecting food will be shared back with them in the future.
Reciprocity norm (prosocial behaviour)
This is a rule of social interactions: if someone helps us, we should help in return. We get dissatisfied when there is no reciprocation.
In short-term relationships, reciprocation is expected right away or soon but in lasting relationships, no score is kept and reciprocation is expected over the long-run.
Even when given something unwanted, we feel indebted which triggers the need to reciprocate.
Bystander effect (Kitty Genovese)
She was murdered outside her building and it was depicted in the media that 37 people saw the murder but didn’t call the police.
She was attacked twice and eventually police were called but it was too late to save her.
Bystander effect is the idea that the more people that there are, the less likely we are to help.
Bystander effect (lab experiments)
Hypothesis - responsibility is diffused among people.
Participants were in a single cubicle where they communicated with another participant through a headset.
The research manipulated whether the participant was alone or if a second true participant was connected.
There was a clear emergency situation and the question was how many people helped and how long it took.
80% of single people helped within in a minute.
In a group of 4, only 30% helped. By 2 1/2 minutes everyone helped by themselves but in the group of 4, only 40% had helped.
They are aware of the others, they are in conflict between helping and not.
Pluralistic ignorance
The tendency to misinterpret social cues and rely on the overt reaction of others in ambiguous situations. This leads to inaction.
E.g. you see someone fall but nobody else reacts so you don’t act.
They don’t perceive it to be an emergency and you misinterpret their cues. In reality they are doing the same as you.
Decision model of helping (Darley and Latane)
Emergency - notice the event - interpret event as an emergency - take responsibility - decide how to help - provide help.
If you interpret it as an emergency then you have to take responsibility. When people are given responsibility they are much more likely to help.
Stereotypes
Beliefs, schemas or associations that link whole groups of people with certain traits or characteristics. We project these group characteristics only individuals.
They are automatic associations/mental representations.
Stereotypes as overgeneralisations
They can be very inaccurate, positive or negative. They are sometimes accurate but more often are inaccurate.
They are formed and perpetuated by the experiences we have in life, along with the media.
Stereotypes lead to discriminatory behaviour
Prejudice
Attitudes or affective responses toward or about a group and its individual members.
It involved prejudging people based on group/category membership.
Prejudice can be positive or negative but negative ones get attention as this has destructive consequences.
Discrimination
Behaviours directed against people because of their group membership - it is differential treatment such as not hiring someone.
Stereotyping is more of a cognitive process, prejudice is more affective and discrimination is more behavioural.
They often go hand in hand. It is possible to do one without the other.
Social categorisation
We categorise people into different groups based on shared characteristics or common attributes.
Groups can be formed based on physical characteristics, shared attitudes, religious affiliation, common ideologies etc.
This is at the root of stereotyping, discrimination and prejudice.
Adaptive features of social categorisation
Social categorisation saves time and mental energy. It is often accurate.
It simplified our environment and information to be processed. Allows us to process information and make inferences about others quickly. Helpful predictions can be made.
Costs of social categorisation
It is often not accurate and blinds us to the reality that people are diverse and unique.
We tend to overestimate differences between groups and underestimate differences within groups.
Prejudice + discrimination results in phenomena like racism/sexism
Prejudice is learned through parents, peers, culture, environment and media.
Society is changing over time and explicit (old fashioned) forms of racism are in decline as it is no longer socially acceptable to hold these views and it is illegal.
Modern racism takes a more subtle form (negative implicit attitude towards a racial group which surfaces in socially acceptable ways that can be rationalised)
People reject that they hold racist views and have excuses to justify racism. They are unaware they are being racist.
It is likely driven by implicit attitudes/stereotypes.
Okonofua and Eberhardt (prejudice and discrimination)
Black children are disproportionately disciplined in schools.
In the study, teachers gave out the same punishments to black and white kids after the first infraction.
However, after the second time, teachers were more irritated at black children and would punish them more severely.
This is modern/masked racism. People are unaware that they hold implicit biases
Robber’s cave study (Sherif)
Wanted to examine how prejudice and discrimination might develop and how it might be reduced.
Three phases: bonding, competition and reconcilliation.
Contact isn’t enough to reduce prejudice and discrimination and mutual interdependence is required (working towards a common superordinate goal)
Why do people discriminate at the group level? (Economic explanation)
Realistic conflict theory: Economic explanation (less psychological). We discriminate simply because there are limited resources and we have to compete for these. Conflict is created through competition which breeds hostility.
Why do people discriminate at the group level? (Social identity theory)
A person’s self-concept and self-esteem derives from status and accomplishments or various groups to which the person belongs.
We tend to like members of our group more (favouritism)
Prejudice and conflict arise from in-group favouritism and from threats to one’s group’s world views and values.
This is a more psychological/motivational explanation.
Relationship and attraction - need to belong
Baumeister and Leary believed in this fundamental human need to belong. We are motivated to form meaningful connections that are repeated and help us to function normally.
Evolutionary basis for the tendency to seek out relationships. The need is adaptive - for survival and reproduction.
Attachment bonds between children and parents aid survival and bonds between adults helps group survival and mating.
We start to not function properly without proper social connection.
We feel joy meeting new people and being accepted by groups. We feel down/anxious/depressed when bonds are broken.
Relationship and attraction - interpersonal attraction
This is a positive orientation towards someone, not necessarily romantic/sexual.
The same factors that predict if we will like someone are the same factors that predict if we are romantically interested in people.
Factors influencing initial interpersonal attraction
Proximity - we are more likely to get together with someone when they are physically nearby.
Familiarity - we tend to kind people who are known to us. The more you see a novel stimulus, the more you like it as it is easier to cognitively process familiar stimuli.
Similarity - we tend to like similar people to us in terms of personality, attitudes, values and interests.
Reciprocity - we like those who like us as it is validating
Physical attractiveness - a rewarding visible and immediate stimulus (we have a bias for beauty - Halo effect). This even predicts non sexual likings.
Romantic/sexual attraction
Physical attractiveness is the strongest predictor of romantic interest despite many other factors going into romantic and sexual attraction.
Evolutionary explanation - signal of health, reproductive fitness and power.
Bilateral asymmetry is linked to health problems (evidence).
It is adaptive to be interested most in those who are attractive.
Investment theory - romantic attraction
Women invest much more in romantic relationships so they should be much more selective. They look for partners who can provide for them and protect them (strength and dominance cues).
Men can invest almost nothing in reproduction so they should value attractiveness in the sense of fertility and health.
Buss’s study on romantic attraction
Carried out a cross cultural study. Provided evidence for the evolutionary theory.
Participants reported their preferred partner preferences. Men report physical attractiveness is more important.
Women report that good financial prospects are more important.
The greater the gender equality, the less importance women place on earning capacity. However, this does not affect how much importance men place on female beauty.
Attachment theory (close relationships)
Bowlby and Ainsworth developed a theory of attachment that stated that human infants develop intensely strong emotional bonds with caretakers as a survival strategy.
Infants are helpless and need caretakers to meet their needs.
Children develop internal working models of how relationships function. These give rise to attachment styles.
Early attachments can shape relationships for the rest of our lives.
Adult attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver)
Adults continue to develop attachment bonds throughout life. One has attachment styles for romantic partners and close others.
Humans seek others and protest being separated from others.
The relationships are similar and have overlap in terms of intimacy.
More securely attached people tend to have happier and more satisfying relationships.
Different attachment styles - secure
Secure - low abandonment anxiety and low intimacy avoidance. Tends to be trusting, feels worthy of love and comfortable with intimacy.
Positive view of self and others.
Different attachment styles - dismissive (avoidant)
Dismissive/avoidant - low abandonment anxiety but high intimacy avoidance. Tends to be distrustful of others and self-reliant.
Positive view of self and negative view of others.
Different attachment styles - fearful (avoidant)
Fearful (avoidant) - high intimacy avoidance and high abandonment anxiety. Tends to be distrusting. They want others to like them but they fear rejection.
Negative view of self and others.
Different attachment styles - preoccupied (anxious-ambivalent)
Preoccupied - high abandonment anxiety and low intimacy avoidance. They depend on others for approval to feel good, fear rejection, are vigilant of relationship threats and are needy, jealous and clingy.
Negative view of self, positive view of others.
Gottman and Levenson - communication patterns that destroy trust in relationships.
Lab study that involved couples talking about a conflict and trying to resolve it.
4 communication styles that are destructive to relationships were found which predict breakups very accurately. The couples were tracked 1-2 years later.
It isn’t how much conflict you have but how you deal with it that is the problem.
Gottman and Levenson - 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse
Criticism - personal attacks on the partner’s character. Tries to make the other person feel rejected.
Antidote - talk about your feelings and use gentle startups
Contempt - Dismissing and disrespecting someone (eye rolling) makes them feel worthless.
Antidote - fostering a culture of appreciation
Defensiveness - playing the victim and denying responsibility (finding excuses)
Antidote - take responsibility
Stonewalling - withdrawing from conversation/relationship to avoid conflict. It is a response to criticism.
Antidote - Ask for a break, get grounded then return to conversation.
Gottman and Levenson - Golden ratio
This is a ratio of positive to negative communications.
5:1 is linked to satisfying relationships. The moment it dips, we feel dissatisfied with the relationship.
