Midterm 2 Flashcards
1
Q
Prosocial behaviour
A
positive social behaviour
2
Q
Altruism
A
selfless helping; helping others, behaving prosocially, when there is no possible benefit to the self by doing so
3
Q
Evolutionary account
A
the survival of our own selfish genes; altruism only puts genes at risk so there must be a genetic benefit
4
Q
2 evolutionary theories
A
Kin Selection
Reciprocation
5
Q
Kin Selection theory
A
we want to help our kin (genetically related to); by helping them we are helping our own genes (just in someone else’s body)
6
Q
whose genes should we preserve?
A
relatedness/kinship, age, gender
7
Q
Burnstein, Crandall & Kitayama - Scenario Study
A
Tests who others choose to save in everyday and life or death scenarios
IV: type of scenario; kinship, age, gender
DV: scores on a liklihood of helping index
8
Q
Scenario Study - Relatedness
A
everyday - the more related you are, the more likely you are to help them
life/death - the same is true and the slope deepens
9
Q
Scenario Study - Age
A
everyday - more likely to help those who are helpless
life/death - helping those who are genetically viable (youngest > oldest)
10
Q
Scenario Study - Gender
A
everyday - usually women because they appear more helpless
life/death - same holds true
11
Q
Scenario Study - During a famine (who do you feed)
A
preferentially help the most reproductively viable; old people are at the end and babies wont survive anyways
12
Q
Scenario Study - Cross-culturally
A
there is no difference across cultures
13
Q
Reciprocal Altruism Perspective
A
by helping others, they now have to help us when we need it; when the benefit of helping to the recipient outweighs the cost to the actor
14
Q
Helping in Big Cities vs. Small towns
A
helping is more likely to occur in small towns than big cities because there is a higher chance of reciprocation (more likely to be known in a small town); the person is more likely to inform others of your help
15
Q
Helping in Big Cities vs. Small towns - lost letters
A
higher portions of lost letters get sent back in small towns
16
Q
Helping in Big Cities vs. Small towns - Surveys
A
more people from small towns are liklely to complete surveys
17
Q
Social Exchange Theory
A
cost-benefit analysis - help only if it will get you more than you give; do not help if the cost is higher than the benefit
18
Q
Allen (1971) - NYC Subway Experiment
A
a large, muscular confederate goes onto a subway platform and finds a male sitting alone on a bench and sits next to him and begins to read muscle magazine. Along comes another confederate and trips over the big guy’s feet. He reacts in 1 of 3 ways: shrugs it off (low cost), insults the guy who trips (medium cost), and threatens the guy who trips (high cost). 3rd guy goes up to muscle guy and asks if the train is going north or south and muscle guy gives wrong answer. Who will correct the guy?
19
Q
NYC Subway Experiment - Results
A
50% help in low cost condition
25% help with medium cost
12% help with high cost
20
Q
The Altruism Debate
A
can ‘pure’ altruism exist? can people truly be entirely selfless?
21
Q
Empathy-Altruism Model (EAM)
A
Altruism exists; people help people because they are good people and can empathize with the sufferer
22
Q
Empathy
A
other-oriented emotional response elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of another
23
Q
Eisenburg & Miller - Empathy
A
in situations where empathy was a factor, there was increased helping, more thoughtful helping and help was less fickle (amount and type of help given)
24
Q
Sibucky et al. - learning/shock paradigm
A
We help to Improve our mood
Subject is connected to learner via computer where the learner can ask for a hint and the observer can choose whether or not to give it. Subject is told either that the hints help and increase in helpfulness when they increase in number, or that giving too many hints can penalize the learner later on (helping in the short term may hurt them in the long term). Subject is also told to take notes on either how they think the learner must be feeling on how they go through the experiment (high empathy condition) or on procedures and mechanics of what is going on (low empathy condition).
IVs: Empathy, quality of help
25
Learning/shock paradigm - Results
quality of help does not matter for low empathy people; high empathy people help when quality is high and decrease helpfulness when it is low quality.
26
Batson et al.
Empathy is Generalizable
when the subject empathizes with the target person (drug addict), the subject is more likely to empathize with the group as a whole (charity)
27
Negative-State Relief Model (NSRM)
there is no such thing as altruism; we only help others to improve our mood when there is no other way to do so
28
Egoism
of having the ultimate goal of helping oneself
29
Regan et al - Mall experiment
We help to Improve our mood
Confederate 1 is a university aged male who approaches women who don’t seem to be in a rush. Asks if they would take a picture of him for his assignment. Subjects thinks that rigged camera is broken. Confederate says that its okay and not to worry, or (kindly) indicates that the subject broke the camera. Confederate 2 is a university aged women and crosses the path of the subject (that we just encountered) and is carrying a bag that has a hole in the bag and is spilling. Will the subject help?
IV: guilt versus control.
30
Mall experiment - Results
no manipulation- 20% helped
Control: 18%
guilt: 55%
induced negative state increases helping
31
Cialdini et al. - News segment experiment
We will only help if there is no other way to improve our mood.
participants hear a news segment about a university student who has been in an accident and has broken her legs and cannot get notes and then fill out a survey on the quality of segment. They are then asked if they would donate time to help this student with school etc. Following the survey, they are told wither that they are going to see a new news segment or a comedy program or the experiment is over but the confederate needs help because they have a bad back. Who will help Katie?
IV: news segment/comedy segment/move light box
32
News Segment Expt. - Results
those who are going to hear the news are going to help because this is the only way to improve their mood; those who are going to hear a comedy segment or are going to help the confederate are less likely to help Katie because they have quickly and easily boosted their mood.
33
Cialdini vs. Batson
Cialdini reasons that since feeling empathy is feeling someone's sorrow, then empathy may actually involve inducing a negative state, so that we help to relieve this state; if empathy is a negative state, then it should egoistic helping
34
EAM vs. NSRM (hypothesis)
Need to manipulate empathy AND mood state.
if empathy increases helping equally, regardless of mood, then EAM is supported.
If empathy only increases helping when in a negative state, then NSRM is supported
35
Cialdini Experiment 1 - Personality questionnaire
subjects arrive and fill out personality questionnaire with another confederate (Elaine). Then they do a learning/shock paradigm. High empathy - subject takes notes on how Elaine must be feeling
Low Empathy - subject takes notes on procedure.
Eventually, experimenter decided to take a break when Elaine gets too many shocks.
Experimenter suggests new activity.
Mood Boost - subjects get praised on personality (only for high empathy)
Control - no feedback. Experimenter then says you can either leave now, or can help Elaine by taking her place as the learner for the remaining 8 trials.
36
Experiment 1 - Results: Mood
high empathy with no feedback is significantly sadder than high empathy with praise, which is the same as low empathy with no feedback
37
Experiment 1 - Results: Helping
helping behaviour is significantly higher in high empathy with no feedback than low empathy with no feedback, which is the same as high empathy with praise.
38
Cialdini et al. Experiment 2 - Mood-Altering Drug
subjects arrive and told to take a drug that they think is going to affect their mood and information processing then put into a neutral mood.
Then told to listen to a news segment.
High empathy - take notes on how the people feel
Low empathy - take notes of procedure.
Then they hear a new segment about a student who has broken both her legs and needs help catching up in class.
Fixed Mood: told the drug fixes their mood for a long time
Liable Mood: told nothing regarding the drug/mood.
Then asked to help the injured student.
39
Experiment 2 - Results
low empathy - did not help regardless of fixed vs. liable mood
high empathy - help only if they thought their mood was still liable.
40
Positive States consideration
we can also be in a good mood and help people, but only if we know that the helping will not worsen our mood.
41
Isen et al. - Field Experiment
How long does positive-state helping last?
subjects who are put into a positive state when they encounter a sales man who gives them free stationary. Later they receive a wrong number - subject asked to help and do a favour for this confederate.
42
Field Experiment - Results
immediately following encounter - 85% help
10-16 mins - 50%
20 mins - 10%
control - 10%
43
Theory of positivity
good mood leads to positive thoughts; positive thoughts lead to positive behaviours; positive behaviours lead to a good mood.
44
Situational Factors
Familiarity/Similarity
Having time to help
Having the energy to help
45
Granet - Helping in Subway vs. Airport
confederate falls on crutches in both locations.
people on the subway are more familiar and therefore comfortable in that location; only frequent flyers help because they're familiar
46
Emswiller - Similarity Bias
people were more likley to loan money to those who were dressed similarily, less likely if the person is dressed oppositely (regardless of clothing type)
47
Darley & Batson - Seminary students
would being in a hurry supersede the good samaritan values of seminary students?
regardless of speech topic, those who were in a hurry were less likely to help (blinders)
48
Levine - Cities of different sizes
the higher the population density, the less likely we are to help
49
reasons for not helping in crowded situations
```
feel rushed/tired
sensory overload
pluralistic ignorance
diffusion of responsibility
reciprocation unlikely
```
50
Aggression
intended physical or emotional (verbal) harm to another
51
2 Perspectives of Aggression
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)
| Social Role Theory (SRT)
52
Sexual Strategies Theory
there are large differences in physical aggression; gender differences in reproductive biology and relational aggression
53
Gender differences in reproductive biology
competition for quantity f mates: results in males competing against each other for access to females; the more aggressive ones win and get to reproduce, and therefore pass on the aggressive gene.
54
Gender differences in relational aggression
competition for quality of mates: females competing for mates by putting other women down, usually by besmirching their reputation and gossipping.
55
Social Role Theory
gender roles are socialized, not innate. Boys learn to be physically aggressive through positive feedback,, girls are taught not to be aggressive physically and thus resort to relational aggression
56
If SRT is correct
gender differences should be small, begin after socialization begins, and increase with increasing socialization
57
If SST is correct
gender differences should be largest during period of highest reproductive activity and emerge when very young and not increase with socialization
58
Meta-Analytic Findings
gender differences are largest for physical aggression, appear early and do not increase with socialization, peak between ages 18-30, are consistent across cultures.
59
(Fundamental) Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
if someone is frustrated, they will aggress; if someone has been aggressive, it is only because they are frustrated; aggression is completely irrational
60
Evidence for Heat and Aggression
Heat and Electric shock experiments; archival data documents that riots are more common in higher temperatures
61
Reifman et al. - Baseball violence
batters hit by pitch vs. temperature of the day of the game
| found high correlation between heat and batters hit by pitch
62
Kenrick & Macfarlane - Horn Honking Field Experiment
at a one lane intersection, stalled when the light turned green; operationalized horn honking as aggression; considered all social factors including windows rolled up (air conditioning)/down; honking significantly correlated with heat; those without air conditioning alone had an extremely high correlation
63
Evidence for Pain and Aggression
Animal literature: when animals were caused pain they were aggressive
Human literature: pain patients, anger and aggression; chronic pain is frustrating and is taken out on those surrounding.
64
Berkowitz et al. - Ice Water Experiment
subjects to complete the experiment with their hands fully submerged in either lukewarm (not painful) or ice water (painful); asked to mark a series of business questions (completed by a confed.) with either a reward or punishment
65
Ice Water Experiment - Results
those who were in pain were less likely to administer rewards and more likely to dish out punishment, but the fact that they still could recognize a good idea suggests that the individual was behaving reasonably and thinking rationally.
66
Effects of Rational Thought
justification, inent, mitigating information, compromised judgement
67
Justification
affects the extent to which frustrating events produce anger
68
Pastor - Scenario Exercise (Justification)
subjects were presented with a series of frustrating scenarios with either just or unjust causes and asked to rate how angry they would be
69
Scenario Exercise - Results & Interpretation
anger was significantly higher in the unjust condition than the just condition (where anger was neutral)
anger is correlated with aggression but does not cause it; anger is an emotional state that can predict aggression; subjects use rational thought processes to reduce anger
70
Intent
affects response to frustrating events (it is frustrating when someone intends to frustrate us)
71
Ohbuchi & Kambara - Learning/Shock Paradigm (Intent)
in some conditions, the confed. makes it clear that they intend to hurt the subject. In others, the confed. makes it clear that they do not.
Confed runs the test and shocks the subject for wrong answers, either with a high shock intensity or a weak one. Then the subject and confed switch positions.
72
Intent Learning/Shock Paradigm - Results and Interpretations
the shock level given from the confed. did not matter, only mattered that the confederate intended harm or not. When confederate meant harm, the subject was more aggressive.
This suggests that the subject was thinking through the frustrating; the intent may have been frustrating in itself; dispels the idea that aggression from frustration is completely irrational
73
Mitigating Information
affects intensity of aggressive response; any (satisfying) information you get that might explain why something frustrating happened allows you to start using rational thought to change your response.
74
Kremer & Stephens - Learning/Shock paradigm (Mitigating Info)
in the control, nothing frustrating happens.
Cond.1 - subjects may get insulted by researcher upon arrival
Cond.2 - later on, another research assistant explains that the other research assistant has been having a bad day.
Then, they take place in the experiment; where they shock a confederate.
75
Mitigating info Learning/shock paradigm - results and interpretation
when the subject was just insulted, aggression was high. when there was mitigating info, there was still some aggression but less than without mitigating info.
frustration does lead to aggression, but mitigating info allowed us to ponder something cognitively; clear effect of frustration-aggression, clear effect of rational thought
76
Taylor and Gammon - Learning/Shock Paradigm (Alcohol consumption)
gave subjects alcohol and tested aggression. First, subjects sit and write an essay, then they exchange essays with a confederate and mark each others papers. While confed marks, subject takes place in a market study where they consume alcohol and get intoxicated. Subject then receives a bad grade & corresponding shocks on the paper. Then they switch.
77
Learning/Shock Paradigm (Alcohol consumption) - Results and Interpretation
when not frustrated, drunk or not, aggression was low. When frustrated, sober subject was slightly more aggressive and the drunk was significantly more aggressive
without the ability to rationalize, we are more inclined to be aggressive
78
1st Revised F-A Hypothesis
yes, frustration does lead to aggression, but this is not a completely irrational process. rational thought places a role in the development of negative feelings, as well as how those negative feelings are expressed.
79
Associationist Perspective (Berkowitz)
aggressive cues can activate aggressive ideas and emotions and thereby cause aggressive responding
Structure of information in long-term memory - spreading activation networks; violent triggers
80
Berkowitz - Video Clip Learning/shock paradigm
there is a technical difficulty; in the mean time go to another experiment down the hall where you watch a violent video clip that includes Kirk Douglas as the victim
Come back to the test. Test for the name of the confederate (kirk) as a trigger.
81
Video Clip Learning/shock paradigm - Results and Interpretation
subjects shocked the confederate named Kirk significantly more.
Kirk became a cue for violence; sympathy was not involved (or at least less salient than the
82
Berkowitz - Weapons Test Learning/Shock paradigm
in this one, a confederate behaves in an insulting manner. In the room where they are setting up, there is either a baseball mitt or guns. Subjects choose the shock intensity of the experiment.
83
Weapons Test Learning/Shock paradigm - Results and Interpretation
as predicted, frustrated subjects were more aggressive. More interestingly, the aggressive cue increased aggression levels for both frustrated and not frustrated individuals
aggressive cues adds to frustration
84
2nd Revised F-A Hypothesis
On top of the hypothesis, aggressive cues can act to increase negative feelings as well as level of expressed aggression.
85
Theory of Excitation Transfer
arousal intensifies affective and behavioural responses, and impedes rational thought; frustration leads to aggression because unpleasant experiences raise arousal; arousal unrelated to frustration or aggressive cues can result in exaggerated anger and aggression
86
Zillman - Punishment Learning/Shock Paradigm
subject will be testing confederate on a film that the confed has already watched. First they complete an opinion task (via intercom) with someone who doesn't agree on controversial topics. Then they view a short film clip (that is either neutral, violent, or erotic)
87
Punishment Learning/Shock Paradigm - Results
neutral film - low aggression
violent film - increased aggression
erotic film - significant increase (higher than violent film)
suggests that the arousal is responsible for the effect of aggression; transfer arousal from the film into anger towards the confederate.
88
Punishment Learning/Shock Paradigm - Changes over time
neutral - raised a little bit and remained
violent - raised more and begins to dissipate
erotic - continues to increase (perhaps being aggressive increases arousal and enters a feedback loop)
89
Final Revised F-A Hypothesis
On top of the hypothesis, wheras frustration can lead to arousal, arousal can also increase negative feelings as well as increase aggressing response
90
Intergroup Relations
groups relate to one another; creating of group memberships
91
Stereotypes
cognitive component; generalizations about group;
92
Prejudice
the affective component; the biased emotional responses to some group; love and hate
93
Discrimination
the behavioural component; the biased behavioural responses to some group and its members
94
Group Processes Theory
prejudice arises from competition (real or imagined) between groups; material or non-material goods
95
Cognitive Processes Theory
prejudice arises as a result of cognitive processes that lead us to stereotype out-groups that cause prejudice and discrimination; development and maintenance of stereotypes
96
Realistic Group Conflict theory
Developed by Sherif; competition over material goods leads to stereotyping, hostility and harrassment towards out-group and enhanced loyalty to in-group; this can be reversed by making the groups work together by creating superordinate goals
97
Superordinate goals
groups have to work together to achieve a common goal
98
Sherif et al. - Boy Scouts experiment
Set up a boy scouts camp and assigned boys to one of 2 groups
Stage 1: no contact
Stage 2: discovery
Stage 3: Competition (stage of negative interdependence; evidence of hostility, prejudice decreased ratings of out-group)
Stage 4: Reducing Hostility (mere contact does not work; creation of superordinate goals, -> positive interdependence; reduction in prejudice and development of cross-group friendships)
99
Social identity Theory
developed by Tajfel; social categorization leads to competition for self-esteem which is derived from social identities; seek positive distinctiveness, avoid negative distinctiveness
100
Tajfel et al. - Discrimination in a minimal groups paradigm
random assignment to minimal groups (overestimated or underestimated dots on a screen), then asked to allocate rewards to two people represented (who are numbered participants of either group)
101
Discrimination in a minimal groups paradigm - Resuts
in-group - in-group; distribution is fair
out-group - out-group; distribution is fair
in-group - out-group; as unequal as possible
once intergroups are made salient, discrimination occurs
102
Lemyre & Smith - Biased rewards allocation and SE
Step 1: minimal groups
Step 2: opportunity to make allocations
Step 3: measure allocations and SE
103
Biased rewards allocation and SE - Results
those who were allowed to make allocation were significantly higher in SE than those who did not
104
Development of Stereotypes
Illusory correlation, Out-group homogeneity
105
Maintenance of Steretypes
out-group homogeneity, information processing biases
106
Illusory Correlation
between distinct group members and behaviours they engage in; if at the same time we notice two distinct things occurring, we assume that they always co-occur (shared distinctiveness)
107
Mock Illusory Correlation Data
if we see a non-distinct person doing a distinct thing, there is no difference in event recall than if the behaviour was non-distinct
If the group membership is distinct and the behaviour is non-distinct, event recall is the same as above, but if the behaviour is distinct, event recall is significantly higher and stereotypes are created
108
Out-group Homogeneity - Stereotype development
belief that all members of the out-group are the same; whereas in the in-group there is plenty of diversity; once the stereotype is created we apply this to every member of the group
109
Out-group Homogeneity - Stereotype Maintenance
confirmation bias: we recognize when there is homogeneity, we ignore when there are people who deviate from this stereotype, or claim that they are the exception to the rule
110
Quattrone & Jones - Rutgers vs. Princeton
Students at Rutgers are shown a video of someone making a decision and are told that the confederate in the video goes to either Rutgers or Princeton. Asked what proportion of the people of each group would make the same decision?
111
Rutgers vs. Princeton - Results
if confederate goes to Rutgers, allocations are 50/50.
| if confederate goes to princeton, allocations are 80/20
112
Information Processing Biases
if you have a stereotype, this will help you to determine what to encode; preferentially code confirming info, and ignore disconfirming info
113
Rothbart et al. - Encoding Bias
told either that a person belongs to a group known to be very friendly or a group known to be intelligent. given a list of behaviour descriptions of the person (25 friendly, 25 intelligent) and asked to recall them.
114
Encoding Bias - Results
over-remember friendly behaviours and under-remember intelligent behaviours for friendly person; vice versa for intelligent person
115
Snyder & Uranowitz - Retrieval Bias
unable to retrieve stereotype disconfirming information.
Time 1: read a biography on Betty K. They are going to come back to take a test about her.
Time 2: are briefly told something about Betty (either something innocuous or that she is gay)
Test: forget information about the things that do not coincide with this information.
