PSY1022 WEEK 1 - SOCIAL 2 Flashcards
FRANS DE WAAL
Primate researcher. Our behaviour is somewhere between the bonobo (more prosocial) and the chimpanzee (more antisocial).
BYSTANDER NONINTERVENTION
Groups of people are actually less likely to help than individuals. The larger the group the more likely that no one will act. Darley and Lantane.
Pluralistic ignorance
Diffusion of responsibility
PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE
Error of assuming that no one in a group perceives things as we do.
- we falsely believe we are the only ones who think it is an emergency because no one else is responding
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY
Reduction in feelings of personal responsibility in the presence of others.
- we need to feel a burden of responsibility for the consequences of NOT intervening.
- the more people at an emergency, the less each person feels responsible for the negative consequences of not helping.
SOCIAL LOAFING
Phenomenon whereby individuals become less productive in groups.
- as a result the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
- might be a variant to diffusion of responsibility
- individualistic countries more prone to social loafing.
BRAINSTORMING
Actually better alone than in groups.
- social loafing
- anxious about appearing silly in front of the group
ALTRUISM
Helping others for unselfish reasons.
HELPING
We are more likely to help people depending on:
- if we can’t easily escape the situation
- characteristics of the person (eg. have a cane)
- if we are in a good mood
- extroverted more likely to help than introverted
- Less traditional and less concerned with social approval more likely to help
ENLIGHTENMENT EFFECT
Learning about psychological research can change real-world behaviour for the better.
AGGRESSION
Behaviour intended to harm others, either verbally or physically.
SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES ON AGGRESSION
- Interpersonal provocation.
- Frustration.
- Media influences
- Aggressive cues (eg. gun in the room)
- Arousal
- Alcohol and other drugs
- Temperature (warmer)
- Interpersonal provocation
INDIVIDUAL, GENDER, AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES ON AGGRESSION
- Personality traits (high level of negative emotions and imsulsivity)
- Higher in males, especially between 12-28. Might be testosterone related.
- But girls do more relational aggression.
- Asian cultures less prone to physical aggression and violent crime.
- Southern USA -> “Culture of Honour” more prone to aggression.
RELATIONAL AGGRESSION
Form of indirect aggression, prevalent in girls, involving spreading rumours, gossiping, and nonverbal putdowns for the purpose of social manipulation.
PREJUDICE
Drawing negative conclusions about a person, group of people, or a situation prior to evaluating the evidence.
STEREOTYPE
A belief, positive or negative, about the characteristics of members of a group that is applied generally to most members of the group.
Can lead to confirmation bias if we are unable to to modify or change them.
Can be illusory correlation - false association between a group and a characteristic (eg. mentally ill people are violent)
ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR
Assumption that behaviours among individual members of a group are due to their internal dispositions.
-> “all people of race X are unsuccessful because they are lazy”
-> or “unlike other members of race Y, she was smart”
Leads us to underestimate the impact of situational factors.
Takes mental work to suppress stereotypes.
ADAPTIVE CONSERVATISM
Evolutionary principle that creates a predisposition toward distrusting anything or anyone unfamiliar or different.
- “better safe than sorry”
IN-GROUP BIAS
Tendency to favour individuals within our group over those from outside our group.
- sports fans.
OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY
Tendency to view all individuals outside our group as highly similar.
- “all people of Race X look and act the same way”
DISCRIMINATION
Negative behaviour toward members of out-groups.
- prejudice = negative attributes
- discrimination = negative behaviours
MINIMAL INTERGROUP PARADIGM
Henry Tajfel.
Creating groups based on arbitrary differences.
- dots on a screen leading to random “dot over estimators” and “dot under estimators”
JANE ELLIOTT
Teacher. Blue eyes and brown eyes.
SCAPEGOAT HYPOTHESIS
Claim that prejudice arises from a need to blame other groups for our misfortunes.
- can also stem from competition over scare resources.
JUST-WORLD HYPOTHESIS
Claim that our attributions and behaviours are shaped by a deep-seated assumption that the world is fair and things happen for a reason.
Melvin Learner.
- blaming the victim.
CONFORMITY LEADING TO PREJUDICE
May stem from a need for social approval.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PREJUDICE
High authoritarian personality traits prone to prejudice.
High levels of extrinsic religiosity the same.
EXPLICIT PREJUDICE
Unfounded negative belief of which we’re aware regarding the characteristics of an out-group.
EXPLICIT PREJUDICE
Unfounded negative belief of which we’re aware regarding the characteristics of an out-group.
IMPLICIT PREJUDICE
Unfounded negative belief of which we’re unware regarding the characteristics of an out-group.
IMPLICIT ASSOCIATION TEST (IAT)
Measure of implicit prejudice.
ROBBERS CAVE STUDY
Cooperation toward a shared goal reduces prejudice. No longer part of two separate groups, but one larger group.
Muzafer Sherif.
Increased contact between different groups is rarely sufficient to reduce prejudice.
ATTITUDE
Belief that includes an emotional component. Reflect how we feel about about an issue or person.
ATTITUDES PREDICTION BEHAVIOUR
- Attitudes generally don’t accurately predict behaviour.
- Highly accessible attitudes are more predictive (how do you feel about Random Thing vs how you do feel about Ice Cream).
- More accurate for low self monitors.
RECOGNITION SHAPING ATTITUDES
Recognition heuristic makes us more likely to believe something we have heard many times before.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Leon Festinger.
Unpleasant mental experience of tension resulting from two conflicting thoughts or beliefs.
Conflict between attitude A and attitude B. Can deny one or the other, or move to attitude C.
SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY
Theory that we acquire our attitudes by observing our behaviours.
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT THEORY
Theory that we don’t really change our attitudes, but report that we have so that our behaviours appear consistent with our attitudes.
ROUTES TO PERSUASION
Dual process models of persuasion.
- Central route focuses on informational content. Attitudes tend to be strongly held and relatively enduring.
- Peripheral route focuses on surface aspects. Attitudes tend to be weaker and more unstable.
FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR
Persuasive technique involving making a small request before making a bigger one.
Related to cognitive dissonance.
DOOR-IN-THE-FACE
Persuasive technique involving making an unreasonably large request before making the small request we’re hoping to have granted.
LOW-BALL TECHNIQUE
Persuasive technique in which the seller of a product starts by quoting a low sales prices, and then mentions all of the “add-on” costs once the customer has agreed to purchase the product.
BYSTANDER-CALCULUS MODEL
3 stages:
- arousal
- labeling
- evaluation of outcomes
We choose the action with the lowest costs.
- empathy costs (not helping) vs personal costs (helping)
If more people are present, empathy costs are lower.
- Piliavan
PERSUASION MESSENGER
- More likely to be persuaded by famous or attractive people. Halo effect.
- Or by people with high credibility.
- implicit egotism: more positively disposed to people, places, or things that resemble us.
TYPES OF AGGRESSION
Instrumental aggression - eg. psychopaths. Low arousal except when aggressive. Leads to aggressive behaivour. - obtaining something. Hostile/Impulsive aggression - eg. on the sports field
