social Flashcards
how do humans express sociality?
we form long term bonds, remember details of hundred of individuals, spontaneously learn from others, cooperate with strangers over extended periods
why might sociality evolve in a species if the benefits outweigh the costs?
- coordinating defences against threats
- hunting, gathering, childre rearing in groups
- passing on knowledge
what are the benefits of sociality?
social learning, relationship maintenance, group coordination
what are the benefits of avoiding sociality?
disease transmission, exploitation and exclusion
what is the social brain hypothesis?
dunbar suggested more social information means we have a larger capacity (specifically the neocortex)
evidence for the social brain hypothesis
in primates, species with larger neocortices tend to have larger groups and more complex sociality
what are imagined realities?
things that exist only because we collectively agree they exist (money, degrees, corporation)
4 factors to contributing to humans ability to cooperate in larger groups
the social brain
capacity to create imagined realities
language
religious beliefs
what are emotional expressions a form of?
nonverbal behaviour and nonverbal communication
ekman’s theory on basic emotions
based partly on darwin’s work, psychologist paul ekman argued that humans are endowed
with a set of basic emotions and facial expressions
each basic emotion is associated with an adaptively important situation or behaviour (e.g fear and avoidance/anger and attack)
ekman 1992’s basic emotions
anger, fear, disgust, surprise, happiness, sadness (7=contempt)
limitations of ekman’s views
real-life emotions and expressions are more varied and rarely so discrete (the ‘ekman faces’) are not spontaneous displays but actors holding stereotyped expressions)
people are more likely to display emotional expressions when others are around, which suggests that expressions serve a social communicative function
research using ekman faces ignores movement and context (e.g. rest of the body)
what research suggets ekman’s faces require body posture?
aviezer et al (2008)
ekman disgust faces were
attached to bodies in different postures
viewers were asked to choose emotion that
best describes facial expression
body posture was found to affect perception of
facial expression
aviezer et al (2012)
in a study using photos of tennis players, viewers were able to correctly judge
positivity/negativity (associated with winning/losing) when shown the face + body or body only,
but not when shown the face only
sex differences in facial emotion recognition
a widely held belief is that females are better than males at recognising emotions (‘women’s intuition’)
studies generally do find a statistically significant female advantage (mostly using static images)
Wingenbach et al (2018) used videos (1040 ms) and found a female advantage across all emotions and intensities (however, the displays were posed, not spontaneous)
what are the two types of attribution?
dispositional (internal) and situational (external)
dispositional (internal) attribution
‘explaining’ behavioural outcome by referring to stable, dispositional causes
‘he’s not providing good answers; he must lack competence’
‘she aced the exams; she must be clever’
situational (external) attribution
explaining’ behavioural outcome by referring to transient, situational causes
‘he’s not providing good answers; but who wouldn’t be nervous in this situation?’
‘she aced the exams; the questions must have been easy this time
what is correspondence bias?
there is a bias toward making dispositional (internal) attributions – we tend to assume that observable outcome corresponds to underlying disposition
this is also known as the fundemental attribution error
cultural variation in the correspondence bias
weaker among east asians, who
are more likely to recognise situational causes of behaviour (heine, 2001)
what is recall system 1?
intuitive and automatic
what is recall system 2?
rational and controlled
what recall systems are dispositional and situational attribution?
evidence indicates that dispositional attribution is more system 1, whereas situational
attribution is more system 2
what is dispositional attribution also known as?
dispositional attribution is also known as spontaneous trait inference, which underscores the tendency to automatically infer traits from behaviours
what does gilbert et al 1988 suggest about situational attribution?
situational attribution is more effortful and thus more easily disrupted
what attribution is two steps?
dispositional attribution may occur automatically by default (e.g. ‘he’s not giving good
answers; he must lack competence’)
given sufficient motivation and cognitive resources, situational attribution may take place, leading to a correction (e.g. ‘actually, he’s probably just really nervous’)
gilbert et al 1988 abortion study
dispositional attribution may occur automatically – ‘the writer has written a pro/anti-abortion
essay, so that must be how they really feel’
situational attribution may then correct the original attribution – ‘but wait, they were forced to take that position, so i don’t actually know how they feel’
distraction may disrupt the second step (but not the first step), resulting in failure to correct and
thus stronger correspondence bias
why might dispositional attribution be a product of evolution?
dispositions tell you something enduring about a person and allow you to predict their future
behaviour
at what age do most children show mirror self-recognition?
2 years old
what animals show mirror self-recognition?
primates, elephants and dolphins
levels of self-awareness (sedikides and skowronski, 1997)
subjective self-awareness
objective self-awareness
symbolic self awareness
what is subjective self-awareness?
distinguish self and environment, regulate own internal processes
what is objective self-awareness?
become the object of ones own attention, be aware of own state of mind, theory of mind ability
what is symbolic self-awareness?
represent the self through language, communicate the self to others, set future goals for self, perform goal-guided actions, evaluate outcomes of those actions, possess extensive self-schemas
why did symbolic self-awareness evolve?
it may have helped ancestral humans deal with specific adaptive problems:
1. ecological/technological- problems associated with foraging, hunting, using tools
2. social- problems associated with group living and cooperation (like SBH)
3. human social life required greater self-control and a sense of how one is seen by others
what are the self conscious emotions?
pride, guilt, shame and embarrassment
what do self-conscious emotions help to regulate?
self-conscious emotions motivate us to pursue actions that raise our standing and avoid actions that
lower our standing
maintaining group cohesion would be more difficult without these self-conscious emotions
does being self-conscious make us more prosocial?
seeing one’s own mirror image makes people more prosocial and honest (diener & wallbom, 1976)
picture of watching eyes increased payments for milk
in an honesty box (bateson et al, 2006)
this is called the watching eye effect
what are facial cultures?
cultures in which people are generally more concerned with social approval
and reputation (usually the more collectivistic cultures)
how do those in face cultures respond to mirrors and watching eyes?
may be chronically self conscious and thus less influenced by tempopary manipulations
is too much self-consciousness bad for you?
greater awareness of how you are seen by others makes your shortcomings more salient
heightened self-focused attention is associated with anxiety (spurr & stopa, 2002)
effects of becoming famous -songwriters/novelists who became famous and then suffered
mental breakdown have shown increased self-consciousness in their writing (schaller, 1997)
why can we worry less about what others think? (gilovich and savitsky, 1999)
the spotlight effect
the illusion of transparency
what is the spotlight effect?
people tend to overestimate the extent to which others notice them
what is the illusion of transparecncy?
people tend to overestimate the extent to which their internal states (thoughts, emotions) are apparent to othersw
what is self-control?
the capacity to regulate thoughts and behaviours in the
face of conflict (important for group living)
what is an example of self control?
delay of gratification
what is delay of gratification?
passing up a smaller immediate reward for a larger later reward
an example of this is the marshmallow test
correlates of self control
self-control ability is associated with many positive life outcomes (tangney et al, 2004)
self-control is a better predictor of academic success than is IQ (duckworth & seligman, 2005)
what explains the variation in self-control ability?
self-control has a heritability estimate of 60% (heritability – proportion of observed variation that can be attributed to genetic variation)
certain environmental factors (parenting, school context, neighbourhood condition) may also
shape self-control ability
what is ego depletion?
suggests self-control ability is a finite resource that can be
temporarily used up
ego depletion: resisting chocolate (baumeister et al, 1998)
those in the chocolate condition would not need to exert much self-control
those in the radish condition would need to exert more self-control (to resist the chocolates)
hose in the radish condition (being more ego depleted) would give up more
quickly on a puzzle task, compared to those in the chocolate and control conditions (18 mins vs 8 mins)
the strength model of self-control (baumeister et al, 2007)
the idea that
self-control capacity can be depleted)
proponents of this model have also suggested that we can train our self-control ability, just as
we can train our muscles
these ideas have become widely known because of their many practical implications
what is self-esteem?
one’s overall evaluation of one’s worth
how do we measure self-esteem?
rosenberg’s self esteem-scale
the self-esteem movement
it was assumed (by policymakers) that low self-esteem
is the cause of underachievement and anti-social
behaviour
this led to the implementation of interventions
designed to boost self-esteem (self-affirmations,
praising children regardless of performance, being
reluctant to criticise bad behaviour)
sociometer theory (leary, 1999, 2005)
for ancestral humans, social acceptance was a matter of life-and-death
it was important to monitor the extent to which one was being accepted by others and to have a salient subjective feeling associated with acceptance and rejection
according to this theory, humans evolved to be highly sensitive to degrees of acceptance, and
self-esteem is a subjective gauge of social acceptance
evidence for sociometer theory
social acceptance and rejection experiences directly affect self-esteem (and more strongly than do other factors, like gaining skills)
a lot of human behaviour is geared toward gaining acceptance/approval and avoiding rejection,
and being ostracised is among the most painful experiences
it is not merely being around others that matters but one’s perceived acceptance – more specifically, one’s relational value (the sense that one is valued by others)
decrease in perceived relational value
according to Leary, in addition to rejection, things that typically reduce self-esteem are things that reduce our perceived relational value
these things reduce self-esteem because we believe they make us less valued by others
increase in perceived relational value
in addition to acceptance, things that typically increase self-esteem are things we believe will make us more highly valued by others
why self-esteem interventions may be ineffective according to sociometer theory?
the fuel gauge in a car does not cause the level of fuel; it is merely an indicator
likewise, self-esteem does not cause the level of social acceptance; it is merely an indicator
what a car needs is fuel; what a person needs is social acceptance
a self-esteem intervention without social acceptance is like manually moving the fuel gauge to
‘full’ and expecting the car to run
sociometer theory cannot explain genetic predispositions as self-esteem is 25-50% hertaible
self-esteem vs narcisssism
narcissism is a sense of superiority and may be equated to excessive self esteem
different developmental origins of self-esteem and narcissism
narcissism=parental overvaluation (the extent to which parents see their children as
special individuals entitled to privileges)
self-esteem=parental warmth (the extent to which parents treat their children with
affection and appreciation)
brummelman et al., 2016
what two psychologists argue that humans have a need to belong?
baumeister and leary (1996)
what did lieberman (2013) argue about maslow’s hierachy of needs?
infants depend on a
caregiver to meet their physiological and safety
needs, so belongingness may be the most
fundamental human need
consequences of social acceptance
perceived social acceptance is associated with
– happiness
– a sense that one’s life has meaning
– higher rates of health behaviours (exercise, lower tobacco/alcohol use)
consequences of a lack of social acceptance
social exclusion and isolation are associated with
– perceiving everyday stresses as more intense
– slower recovery from injury and illness
– greater likelihood of cardiovascular illness (and other chronic diseases)
what is ostracism?
active rejection by other group members (intentional exclusion)
why do humans and other social animals exclude others?
contain disease, segregate outgroup members, punish wrongdoers, induce compliance
who said that ostracism can cause death in some species?
gruter and masters 1986
ostracism in the lab
williams and summer (1997) created an ostracism manipulation
while participants waited for a laboratory task, two research confederates (i.e. assistants pretending to
be participants) found a ball and started tossing it back and forth
in the inclusion condition, they included the participant in the play, which lasted 5 min
in the exclusion condition, they included the participant for 1 min and then excluded the participant for the
next 4 min
those in the exlcusion condition reported heightened feelings of distress
who created cyberball?
williams et al, 2000
how do people in cyberball exclusion condition feel?
participants in the exclusion condition report heightened levels of distress
this is observed even when participants are informed afterwards that no other humans were involved, that it was just a computer program
even though there are strangers, no face to face intercation and no real social consequneces
what are the effects of cyberball exclusion?
heightened attention to social information
– increased behavioural mimicry (people unconsciously mimic others when they want to be liked)
– increased cooperation, compliance, conformity (to show that one is a desirable interaction partner)
a subset of show heightened anger and aggression (possible to regain a sense of control)
cyberball and despised groups
social pain felt even when excluded by despised groups (gonsalkorale & williams, 2007)
cyberball and money
exclusion led to monetary gain and inclusion led to monetary loss, but people still felt more distress when excluded (van Beest & williams, 2006)
cyberbomb exclusion
cyberbomb exclusion was less painful, but people still felt better when included (van beest et al.,
2011)
do gender, age, culture and personality make a difference to cyberball findings?
level of distress is generally not affected by gender, age, culture or personality
there are some indictaions that adolescents may be more strongly affected by social conclusion
what part of the brain has been implicated in playing cyberball?
the anterior cingulate cortex (registers physical pain)
evidence of physical and social pain
early social trauma predicts greater physical pain later in life
genotype linked to physical pain sensitivity also linked to social pain sensitivity
some evidence that analgesic (e.g. paracetamol) can reduce feelings of social pain and
associated neural responses
(eisenberger, 2015)
will et al (2016) findings on adolesent rejection and heightened neural responses
cyberball fMRI study
– a subset had been consistently liked and accepted by peers during ages 6-12
– another subset had been consistently disliked and rejected by peers during ages 6-12
those who had been chronically rejected showed heightened ACC activity in the exclusion
condition AND whenever the ball did not come to them in the inclusion condition (i.e. their brains were hypersensitive to signs of exclusion)
memories of social pain and physical pain (chen et al, 2008)
participants intrsutcted to recall past experiences of social pain and physical pain
social pain more intense at the time (average approx 9/10) and intense memory (approc 6/10)
RAT (remote associates test) and re-living social pain
for difficult items, re-living social pain had a
more disruptive effect on performance than
did re-living physical pain
social pain impacts cognition
imagining future pain
pre-living future social pain is easier to do
than pre-living future physical pain
pre-lived future social pain is more intense,
especially among those with more vivid
mental imageries
how does ostracism trigger suicidal thoughts?
ostracism reduces
perceived meaning in life, which in turn is
associated with more suicidal thoughts
social pain vs low self-esteem
social pain is an acute aversive experience that demands immediate attention whereas self-esteem is more commonly conceptualised as a ‘trait’ – how you feel about yourself more
generally
correlates of FoMO
studies found that people scoring higher in FoMO
– spend more time on social media
– have more ambivalent emotions while using social media
– are more likely to use social media during meals and lectures
– are more likely to use their phone while driving
– experience more frequent negative mood and are generally less happy
(przybylski et al., 2013)
phenomenon of mistakenely seeking solitude
people generally end up happier when they connect with strangers (e.g. on a bus or train)
people also end up happier when others attempt to connect with them
but people expect to be happier in solitude
and people expect that others will be be happier when left alone
what is a motive?
a specific internal drive of behaviour
freudian ideas of motivation
motivation was central to freud’s ideas
in freud’s model of the mind, the id is the source of basic drives (particularly sex and aggression)
the id reflects our true psychic reality- pleasure principle
the superego pushes the person toward behaving in socially appropriate ways
maslow idea of motivation
maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs (a set of motives that drive specific behaviours)
self-actualisation – ‘a musician must make
music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. qhat a man can be, he must be.’
HON is a visual representation of maslow (1943 ideas)
what would modern psychologists consider motivation to be?
motivation refers to a state of arousal that promotes goal-directed behvaiour
what is a need? (baumeister and leary 1995)
having X leads to positive emotion, and real or imagined loss of X leads to negative emotion
most humans desire X
people engage in goal-directed behaviour to obtain X and are satisfied after a certain amount of X (or a
substitute) has been obtained
the need to belong (baumesiter and leary 1995) explanation
belonging leads to positive emotion; real or imagined loss of belonging leads to negative emotion
most humans desire belonging
people actively seek out belonging and are satisfied once they have a certain amount
kenrick et al (2010) hierachy of needs
parenting
mate retention
mate aquisition
status/esteem
affiliation
self-protection
immediate physiological needs
why is mate acquisition important?
to pass on genes, survival is necessary but not sufficient – one must also reproduce
traits that promote reproduction would have been selected, but such traits may sometimes have negative effects on survival
darwin (1859, 1871) recognised this and proposed the theory of sexual selection to explain the
evolution of traits that contribute to reproduction, independent of their effects on survival
what are the two mechanisms of sexual selection?
intrasexual and intersexual
what is intrasexual selection?
competition for sexual access
produces characteristics that facilitate direct competetion (body size, weaponry)
what is intersexual selection?
mate choice based on traits that signal gene quality and/or health
produces costly and seemingly useless traits that are attractive to the other sex as shown in courtship displays
why does intersexual selection need costly signalling?
to be useful, signals of quality need to be costly – costly signals are honest signals
this logic was noted by veblen (1899), who coined the term conspicuous consumption to
describe how the wealthy would spend money on luxury goods to signal their wealth
similarly, organisms may have evolved to signal their health/quality by displaying traits that are costly, such that only the truly fit can ‘afford’ to display those signals (the large, bright, and symmetrical trains of peacocks are honest signals of quality)
sexual selection and the human mind
according to Miller (2000), sexual selection has played an important role
in the evolution of the human mind
many psychological traits may have evolved via intersexual selection
– certain forms of intelligence, verbal skills, humour, creativity, musical ability
– certain forms of athleticism (dancing ability)
as a result, these traits are considered sexually attractive (e.g. artists, musicians, rappers, novelists, comedians, break dancers)
what is creativity for?
creativity is the ability to produce something that is novel and valued
it was generally assumed that creativity evolved to facilitate survival, to help humans solve
practical problems (devising new hunting techniques, inventing new tools, etc.)
but many highly valued forms of creativity (music, humour, art, literature) are unrelated to
survival
intersexual selection of creativity
miller argued that human creativity is analogous to the peacock’s tail
– it does not facilitate survival (spending one’s life on art and music can be impractical with little payoff)
– it is costly
Only a subset of humans possess the highest levels of creative ability (not everyone can ‘afford’ these traits)
there is an association between creativity and psychopathology
– it is often considered sexually attractive
how do male bowerbirds show creativity?
male bowerbirds often decorate their nests to attract females
colours used for decoration tend to match the preferences of females
what is the difference of mate-attraction motive for creativity in men and women?
men may be more easily affected by the mate-attraction motive
how does a mate-attraction prime affect male creativity?
viewing photos of attarctive opposite sex individuals made men more creative in writing stories about ambigious images
how does a mate-attarction prime affect RAT?
imagining a short term relationship increased men’s performance
when does a woman’s RAT score increase when considering mate attraction?
when thinking of a committed long-term relationship
link between motivation and existential anxiety
all animals strive to survive and avoid death
humans are fully aware of the inevitability of death
it has been suggested that this awareness causes existential anxiety, which people are motivated to get rid of
what is the terror management theory (rosenblatt et al, 1989)?
a lot of human behaviour is geared toward reducing
the ‘terror’ associated with the awareness of mortality
cultural norms, beliefs, and practices have been shaped by this
process, leading to cultural anxiety buffers
cultural anxiety buffers provide ways of achieving symbolic immortality,
thus assuaging the existential anxiety
– religion is the most obvious example of cultural anxiety buffer
examples of cultural anxiety buffers
cultural anxiety buffers are everywhere – and they all specify a set of ‘rules’ for achieving
symbolic immortality (literally attaining life after death or simply leaving a legacy)
christianity – believing in god and believing that jesus is god’s son
materialist culture – accumulating money and property
sports – winning championships and medals
academia – publishing articles in prestigious journals
art – creating works of art that are widely admired
how do conflicting views impact cultural anxiety buffers?
conflicting views pose a threat to one’s own cultural anxiety buffers (e.g religion having different views on symbolic immortality)
according to TMT, a central motive for humans is defenfing their cultural worldview
what is the impact of exposure to confliciting cultural world views?
exposure to conflicting worldviews should lead to worldview defence (upholding one’s beliefs, derogating
alternative beliefs)
worldview defence should be especially strong under conditions of mortality salience (i.e. being
reminded of one’s own death)
what are the effects of mortality salience?
increased support for one’s own worldview (e.g. patriotism, affirmation of one’s moral values)
increased antipathy toward people holding conflicting worldviews (e.g. prejudice against other ethnic
groups and religions)
increased desire for harsher punishment of criminals
increased material consumption
the link between self-esteem and existential anxiety
self-esteem may offer protection against existential anxiety
individuals with higher self-esteem are less susceptible to effects of mortality salience
high self-esteem appears to facilitate suppression of thoughts related to death following
mortality salience
what is the alternative theory to TMT?
meaning maintenance model (heine 2006)
what does the MMM propose?
a fundamental human need is to maintain a sense of meaning –
what people find intolerable is a sense of meaninglessness
death evokes a sense of meaninglessness, but so do other threats to one’s sense of meaning, such as visual anomalies, meaningless text, cognitive dissonance, social exclusion, and simply thinking about the absurdity of existence
cultural anxiety buffers provide a sense of meaning or distract us from the sense of
meaninglessness
what is fluid compensation?
an attempt to restore one’s sense of meaning using available means
morality salience effects are an example of fluid compensation
proulx and heine (2008) implicit change blindness
a sense of meaningless can be induced via implicit change blindness
in their study, the experimenter was switched mid-study for half the ppts
Compared to those in the control condition, those in the change condition exhibited stronger
affirmation of morality
consistent with MMM, a meaning threat in one domain (implicit change detection) led to fluid compensation in a different domain (morality)
creating meaning out of nothing
superstitious and conspirational beliefs involve attempts to draw causal connections based on little evidenve but they can provide a sense of meaning
one study found social rejection (meaning threat) resulted in increased likelihood of adopting superstitious beliefs (fluid compensation)
what is attraction?
positive feelings regarding another person
key factors of why people are attracted to others
physical attractiveness
proximity and familiarity
reciprocity
similarity
why does physical attractiveness matter?
people generally prefer to interact with physically attractive others
attractive people are assumed to be more intelligent, friendly, better adjusted,
confident, etc. (zebrowitz & montepare, 2008)
→ The attractiveness halo effect (or the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype)
qttractiveness has been found to influence hiring decisions, voting behaviour, jury decisions
what makes a person physically attractive?
culture does have an impact, but humans seem predisposed to find certain features more attractive
characteristics associated with physical attractiveness may signal genetic fitness and/or fertility
ancestral humans who preferred mating partners with features associated with fitness/fertility
were more likely to leave surviving offspring (who would have inherited those preferences)
langlois et al (1987) findings on attraction
infants seem to prefer faces that adults judge to be attractive
buss (1989) cross cultural-study on attractiveness
“how important is physical attractiveness
when choosing a mate?”
(0 = irrelevant, 3 = indispensable)
in most countries, males rated physical attractive to be more important than did females (in no
country was the reverse found)
how does proximity and familiarity impact attraction?
relationships can only start with people you actually encounter
people tend to like those who are nearby and familiar (e.g. those whose rooms are closer to yours, those who regularly sit close to you)
mere exposure effect
what is the mere exposure effect?
repeated exposure to a stimulus increases positive feelings, even when exposure is subliminal (zajonc 1980)
can familiarity breed contempt?
for people that you dislike to begin with, exposure and contact can increase feelings of dislike
this is also true of individuals who are unappealing (e.g. physically unattractive, disagreeable
personality) – more exposure can lead to greater dislike (finkel et al., 2015)
similairty vs complementarity in attarction
people can be placed on two dimensions
aarmth (friendly vs hostile)
dominance (dominant vs submissive)
there is some evidence that couples who report the highest levels of relationship quality are more similar in warmth but more dissimilar in dominance (markey & markey, 2007)
evolution of sex difference in selectivity in females
because female mammals invest more for reproduction, they are expected to be choosier- parental investment theory
evolution of sex difference in selectivity in males
men desire a higher number of sexual partners
men are more open to uncommitted sex
when seeking partners for uncommitted sex, men are less selective
buss, 1989 sex differences in mate selection
aross countries, compared to men, women value good financial prospects more
women value ambition and industriousness more
men prefer younger partners, and women prefer older partners (by 2~3 years)
within sex variation: sociosexuality (gangestead and simpson, 2000)
defined as willingness to engage in sex outside of committed relationships (restricted vs unrestricted)
men tend to have more unrestricted sociosexuality than women, but there is wide within-sex variation
correlates of sociosexuality
individuals with desired characteristics tend to be more unrestricted
more unrestricted people also tend to have a stronger preference for physically attractive
partners
one line of research has shown that sociosexuality affects ‘attentional adhesion’ to attractive faces – the extent to which attractive faces draw and capture visual attention
unrestricted people’s attention ‘sticks’ more to attractive faces (maner et al., 2007)
overall traits both genders prefer in potential partners
kindness
intelligence
interesting personality
physical attractiveness
health
socioeconomic leve
what are the two types of love?
passionate and companionate love
what is passionate love?
an experience involving feelings of euphoria, intimacy and intense sexual attraction (few months~two years)
what is companionate love/compassionate love?
experience involving affestion, trust, and concern for a partner’s wellbeing (slower to develop, much longer lasting)
for a relationship to last a long time, companionate love is necessary
the 5:1/gottman/magic ratio
gottman found that couples in stable relationship have a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions during conflict (for every negative interaction, a happy marruage as 5 positive interactions)
is it better to have a realistic (objective) or idealistic (overly positive) view of your partner?
while having a realistic view of one’s partner may seem like a good thing, studies have foundthat people with more idealistic views of their partner are more satisfied with their relationships
furthermore, those idealistic perceptions may have self-fulfilling effects – e.g. If I believe my partner is kind and treat them with that expectation, they will behave more kindly
(murray et al 1996)
idealisation and attraction (penton-voak et al 2007)
couples were photographed, and their faces were subtly
manipulated to increase or decrease attractiveness
participants were asked to identify the veridical image of their partner
those who were more positive about their relationships tended to choose more attractive versions of their partner
what are relationship-maintenance mechanisms?
idealistic perceptions are examples of relationship-maintenance mechanisms
when you are in a relationship, you regularly see attractive alternatives (especially with modern
technology), and relationship-maintenance mechanisms may help you stay committed to your partner
those in a committed relationship:
– find potential alternatives less attractive (simpson et al., 1990)
– exhibit less automatic attention to attractive alternatives (maner et al., 2009)
what did hazan and shaver (1987) say about attachment style and relationships?
proposed that attachment styles exist in the context of adult romantic
relationships – they identified adult attachment styles similar to those observed in children
brennan et al (1998) model of attachment styles (close relationship scale)
low avoidance of intimacy and low anxiety of abandonment=secure
low avoidance of intimacy and high anxiety of abandonment=preoccupied
high avoidance of intimacy and low anxiety about abandonment=dismissing
high avoidance of intimacy and high anxiety about abandonment=fearful
what is prosocial behaviour?
voluntary actions that intend to benefit others
actions can be based on multiple motives, including self interest
examples include giving/sharing/collaborating/comforting etc
are prosociality and altruism the same?
many define altruism as a special type of prosocial behaviour
that is characterized by
➢ a particular motive, namely promoting the welfare of others
without conscious regard of one’s personal benefits (even though such benefits may still be an unintended consequence)
➢ a personal cost to the prosocial actor (e.g., money, time,
energy)
an example of altruism is helping but helping can also be antisocial
developmental trajectory of prosociality
children tend to act prosocially early in life, mostly motivated by sympathy for others (= non-strategic prosociality)
but starting at around age 5 their motives for acting prosocially become more strategic
then characterised by diversity of motives: selfish (e.g., receive praise), mutualistic (e.g., elicit reciprocity),
altruistic (e.g., to benefit someone else)
issue of studying prosocialoty under controlled conditions
social desirability bias
demand characteristics
issue of studying prosociality as a uniform construct
findings obtained by studying one manifestation of prosocial behavior (e.g., donations to charity) may not help to understand other manifestations of
prosocial behaviour (e.g., helping a friend)
findings obtained by studying one group of targets (e.g., prosociality towards women) may not help to understand behaviour towards another group of targets (e.g., prosociality towards men)
who is most likely to receive help?
women>men
children>adults
attarctive>unattractive
identifiable victim>group
nativist argument for prosociality
we have an innate tendency for prosociality as it has survival value (helps individual, kin or species to survive)
empiricist argument for prosociality
humans learn prosociality and this depends on rewards/costs/punishments
what is the social exchange theory of prosociality?
much prosocial behvaiour can be descrobed as a transaction between people who exchange rewards or costs
this can be external (money) or internal (self-worth)
people are more likely to act prosocially when they feel that the rewards of doing so outweigh the costs
this is a habitual approach
cultural factors to prosociality
willingness to engage in prosocial behaviour is often passed on through cultural transfer (e.g., via learning of cultural
norms/observational learning)
variation exists in cultural norms on:
❖ what constitutes (acceptable) prosocial behaviour &
❖ how frequently and freely it is shown &
❖ in respone to whom (ingroup/outgroup)
cross-cultural studies of prosociality: levine et al (2001)
confederates would require help due to dropping a pen, dropping magazines while limping, feigning blindness when approaching a crossing
those dropping a pen in rio were 4x as likely to be helped than those in nyc
gender influences on prosociality
men offer more help in potentially dangerous situations whereas women offer more nurturing help
personality influences on prosociality
the following aspects of a person’s personality can matter:
❖ machiavellianism: willingness to exploit and manipulate others to achieve one’s own goals (reduces prosociality)
❖ trait empathy: ability and willingness to put oneself in the shoes of others to experience events and emotions as they do (enhances prosociality)
❖ agreeableness: a person’s general tendency to be warm, friendly, and tactful as well as to get along well with others (enhances prosociality)
situtational factors and prosociality
presence of someone else engaging in helping
time pressure
mood
empathy
social attributions (not due to personal negligence)
rural environment
social norms such as reciprocity norm and social-responsibility norm
what is the bystander effect?
when numerous people fail to help a stranger in an emergency situation
darley and latane 1968- bystander effect
students engage in discussion over intercom and one fakes a seizure
with 5 ppts it took 170 seconds to get help compared to 50 with one
approx 90% helped with 1 and 30% with 5
what is the 5 step model of the bystander effect? (latane and darley 1970)
does person notice the incident?
does person interpret it as an emergency?
does person assume responsibility to help?
des the person know how to help?
does person decide to help?
what are the typical barried to step 3 of the 5 step model of the bystander effect?
diffusion of responsibility- individuals feel diminished responsibility for their actions because they are surrounded by others who are acting in the same way
pluralistic ignorance- people fail to accurately evaluate other people’s behaviour (and come to the conclusion that certain actions are appropriate even though they are not)
what are three main factors that reduce the bystander effect?
when situation is clearly perceived as dangerous
when situation allows for obvious physical intervention
when situtaion involves presence of perpretrators
how to increase prosocial behaviour?
reduce ambiguity
increase responsibility
remind people of altruism
alert people to relevant behaviour
model prosocial behaviour
praise prosocial behaviour
teach inclusivty
contemporary definition of aggression
a perpetrator enacts voluntary bhevaiour that is intended to cause harm (physical/verbal/relational/economical) and a target is motivated to avoid being treated in this way
when is behaviour not considered aggressive?
accidental harm (traffic accident)
harm that is sought out by the target (sexual masochism)
harm motivated by a prosocial goal (dental treatment)
what are the three types of aggression?
instrumental
hostile
displaced
what is instrumental aggression?
premeditated and goal directed
what is hostile aggression?
impulsive (berkowitz suggests this is a response to unpleasant internal state)
what is displaced aggression?
directed against an innocent target that is easily accessible/non-threatening (but that did not cause the internal state which triggered the aggression in the first place)
this links to the frsutration-aggression hypothesus
are aggressive behaviour and violence the same?
many psychologists define violence as a special type of
aggressive behaviour that is characterized by
➢ a particular motive, namely the intention to cause extreme
physical or emotional harm (e.g., extreme enough to require
medical/psychological treatment)
➢ consequently, all violent behaviour is aggression, but most
aggression is NOT violence
are aggressive behaviour and anger the same?
in psychology, aggression refers to a behaviour, not a mindset or an emotional state
➢ feelings such as anger, thoughts of wishing the worst for
another, and/or desires to dominate others may contribute to a person behaving aggressively but are not aggression per se
what is the issue of studying aggression under controlled conditions?
ethical concerns usually forbid to provoke serious
(e.g., physical) aggression in humans in the laboratory
scientists have introduced a wide range of ‘substitutional
measures’ that all have different strengths/weaknesses
(e.g., punching dolls, pushing a button believed to deliver an electric shock, amount of hot sauce
believed to be given to others, verbal expressions of one’s willingness to use aggression etc.)
implication > findings on aggression as studied in the
lab may or may not generalise to real-world aggression
what is the problem of studing aggression as a uniform construct?
humans can engage in a wide range of different
aggressive behaviours
findings obtained by studying one manifestation of aggressive behavior
(e.g., punching dolls) may not help to understand other manifestations of
aggressive behaviour (e.g., electric shock delivery)
findings obtained by studying one group of targets (e.g., aggression against
women) may not help to understand behaviour towards another group of
targets (e.g., aggression against men)
who is a most likely target of aggression?
women more likely than men to
experience domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, and
harassment
men more likely than women to experience physical aggression
with and without injury by a stranger
97% of same sex murders in the US, UK and canada were young males (archer 1994)
what is a microaggression (pierce et al 1970)?
originally to describe subtle put-downs by people racialised as
white against people racialised as black that are done in an
“automatic, preconscious, or unconscious fashion”
this is different to macroaggressions which fit wll with tradiditional definitiions of aggressive behaviour
contemporary definitions of microaggressions
brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental
indignities, whether intentional or unintentional that communicate hostile, derogatory, negative or exclusionary attitudes towards people with marginalised identities
(sometimes, but not always local minorities e.g., women)
why do researchers agrue microaggressions are a discrete form of aggression that should be recognised?
initial evidence that people’s microaggressive tendencies correlate well with established measures
of aggression
growing evidence that MAs cause systematic harm, especially due to their repetitive nature (by causing psychological distress and undermining victims’ mental health)
it remains rather unclear whether most MAs truly lack intent (vs. reflect a habitual, yet deliberate assertion of dominance)
biological theory of aggression
aggression considered a natural human instinct as such cinsidrered a part of typical human development, universal and adaptive
e.g evolutionary theory extends from lorenz’s ethological theory says aggression promotes survivial by enhancing access to resources
domestication demonstrates that aggression and tameness can be shaped by selective breeding, which must involve inheriting dispositions through the gene (e.g siberian silver fox study which was domesticated and became less aggressive)
social theories of aggression
humans learn from experience/environmental influences if when and how to bhevaiour aggressively (shaped by reward and punishment)
e.g SLT (bandura) aggression is learnt by direct or vicarious reinforcement
biosocial theories of aggression
aggressive behvaiour feeding from an innate component and environmental factors
e.g frsutration-aggression theory (dollard) declares that sense of frustration over event/situation that thwarted one’s goals invariably leads to aggression
bio-cognitive theory of aggression
the general aggression model (GAM) by anderson and bushman
describes aggressive behaviour as a person’s response to an environmental trigger (e.g., provocation, aversive event, or aggression-related cue) but highlights that response depends not only on the trigger, but also on the person’s internal mental state (i.e., their thoughts, emotions, arousal) and closely related appraisal/decision
processes (e.g., to act on impulse or to consider alternate responses)
cultural impact on aggression
willingness to engage in aggressive behaviour is often
passed on through cultural transfer
so-called honour cultures often accept aggression to deal with physical/social threats
e. southern vs northen culture of honour in the US southerners agree more with the statement that ‘a man
has the right to kill a person to defend himself or his family/house’
south has higher homicide rates than North, but only for
argument- or conflict-related homicides (not for homicides
during robbery) [i.e., under ‘honour threat’ conditions]
sex influences on aggression
clear divide that sex difference matters in many cultures
biological sex single best predictor of hostile aggression (men more impulsive than women)
aggression in women is less physical and more premeditated, often social
hormones and socialisation may explain these differences
does testerone increase aggression
correlations between testerone levels and aggression in humans tend to be small and difficult to interpret (e.g., higher testosterone could be result, rather than the cause of aggression) testosterone also known to promote prosocial behaviour
(if it promotes high status and reputation)
personality influence on aggression
high developmental stability: aggression at 8 extends into adulthood
narcissim and type A (overactive and excessively comptetitive traits) make aggression more likely
situational factors on aggression
high temperature (more violence with climate change)
crowding and population density
pain
alcohol leading to disinhibition
ostracism
deindividuation
situational factors: the weapons effect (berkowitz and lepage 1968)
seeing a gun can increase aggression
2 participants (1 = a confederate!) asked to sit at a table in order to evaluate each other’s
performance on a task (e.g., listing ideas a used car salesperson might apply to sell more cars)
type of evaluation: application of electrical shocks => first the confederate applied either none (no
provocation condition) or seven shocks (provocation condition) and it was then measured how many
shocks the real participant gave in return
experimental manipulation: on the table items ‘from another experiment’ (con A: shotgun & revolver, con B: badminton rackets, con C: empty)
main result: provoked participants who saw the guns were more
aggressive than the other participants
how to reduce aggression?
aggression is a multi-causal phenomenon
strategies to prevent and/or reduce aggression must be
multifaceted and flexible must consider cultural, situational and individual levels
evidence based suggestions for reducing aggression: society
aggression often linked to societal challenges
such as poverty, social inequality, intergroup conflict
implement policies that minimise societal inequalities and disparities
promote non-violent core values (e.g., fundamental human rights, social
justice) and conflict resolution strategies (e.g., boycotts, demonstrations)
pass laws against the physical punishment of children and
facilitation of non-violent child-rearing
evidence based suggestions for reducing aggression: situational
reward cooperative and non-violent behavior (i.e., create environments that make non-aggressive behaviour ‘worth it’)
de-anonymise victim(s) of aggression (i.e., raise awareness for victims’ pain and injury to highlight consequences of aggression)
reduce alcohol abuse
evidence based suggestions for reducing aggression: individual
reduce exposure to violent models
(i.e., undermine the social learning of aggression, including via the media)
minimise hostile attribution bias
(i.e., teach benign interpretations of ambiguous social situations)
train emotion regulation and self-control (i.e., undermine the link between feeling frustrated/annoyed and acting aggressively)
train non-aggressive conflict-resolution strategies (i.e., compromise, withdrawal, forgiveness)
what is an attitude?
a relatively enduring (positive, negative, mixed or neutral) evalutaion of a fiven entity (onject, event, issue, person)
what is attitude strength?
refers to the durability and the impact of
attitudes (not their extremity)
strong attitudes characterized by…
❖ persistence over time
❖ strong resistance to change
❖ habitual impact on a person’s life
how do moral attitudes differ from strong attitudes?
people tend to perceive them as more universally true, and often show increased (e.g., political) engagement in this attitude domain
e.g not smoking as become increasingly moralised over the last 50-60 years
what are the components of attitude? (rosenberg and hovland)
affective: a person’s emotions towards an entity
behavioural: a person’s preferred actions towards an entity
cognitive: a person’s beliefs about an entity
these 3 components can however lack alignment
the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
tries to understand relationship between a person’s cognition (i.e.,
beliefs) and behaviour (ajzen, 1991)
argues that intention (willingness) to act in a certain manner is
determined by three types of beliefs (and how well they are aligned):
❖b ehavioural beliefs: an individual’s belief that a behaviour will produce a specific desired or undesired outcome (i.e., ‘Vaping will make me sick’)
❖ normative beliefs: an individual’s belief that others expect them to perform
or suppress a specific behaviour (e.g., ‘my peers expect me [not] to vape’)
❖ control beliefs: an individual’s beliefs about the factors that may facilitate or hinder
performing the behaviour (i.e., ‘i want to use vapes and i know where to buy them’)
what does the latest model of the TPB factor in?
background factors (individual, social, information)
actual behavioural control
criticism of the TPB
of historic importance, but despite extensions, theory’s focus on
beliefs/rational reasoning fails to acknowledge role of emotions
problem of ‘inclined abstainers’ (= individuals who form an intention
and subsequently fail to act on it) still poorly addressed by theory
TPB less predictive of behaviour when behaviour is measured
objectively rather than by self-report
psychological functions of attitudes
knowledge function: help us to explain and understand the world,
provide a sense of structure
instrumental function: by highlighting ‘good’ and ‘bad’ entities, they
allow us to maximise our chances of approaching/receiving the former and avoiding the latter
value-expressive function: allow us to express and reinforce our sense of self and identity (by displaying those attitudes we consider important)
ego-defensive function: can serve as a defence mechanism (e.g.,
by holding attitudes that protect our self-esteem or that justify actions that make us feel guilty)
lord et al 1979 study on the difficulty in changing attitudes
2 groups of students were recruited: those favouring capital punishment
and those opposing it
asked to evaluate 2 supposedly new research studies on effectiveness of
capital punishment: one confirmed & the other one disconfirmed the students’ beliefs about the deterrent effect of the death penalty
result: both groups readily accepted evidence that confirmed their
attitudes, but were sharply critical of disconfirming evidence
the irony: identical body of mixed evidence did not lessen the groups’ disagreement, but increased it
issue of realising attitude components are not well aligned
can give rise to cognitive dissonance
cognitive disonance theory (festinger et al 1957)
CD: an unpleasant state that arises when a person realises the inconsistency of their affect, behaviour,
and/or cognition
the theory argues that people who experience CD usually try to alleviate it
one approach: restoring alignment within one’s attitudes
via changing one’s affect, beliefs or behaviour
when small inconsistencies are justified by large consistencies, cognitive dissonance does not occur
CD and the foot-in-the-door technique
uses a person’s desire for alignment/consistency to influence that person’s behaviour
what is persuasion?
a change in attitude (or one component of it) due to communication from another person
important elements of persuasion
does communication come from credible source (i.e., trustworthy
and/or competent)?
what is the content of the communication (e.g., weak vs. strong arguments;
rational vs. emotional)?
how is the communication delivered (e.g., who communicates - personal vs.
media influence)?whom does the communication target (i.e., who is the audience in terms of age, self-esteem etc)?
what are the types of persuasion?
systematic and heuristic
both types of persuasion can be effective, but degree of effectiveness
depends on motivation/personality of the audience
what is systematic persuasion?
a change in attitude brought about by appeals to logic or reason
attitude changes based on systematic persuasion usually longer lasting, more resistant to future change, and more influential in terms
of a person’s behaviour
what is heuristic persuasion?
a change in attitude brought about by
appeals to emotion or habit
how can attitude persusaion can occur without realisation or approval?
sleeper and unbelieving effect
what is the sleeper effect?
even information from non-credible sources
can have delayed impact because people tend to forget the source
what is the unbelieving effect?
the human mind seems to quickly
believe everything and then needs to actively ‘unbelieve’ it => requires cognitive resources
what is social influence?
modification of a person’s attitudes by a real or imagined other
example study of risk taking on social influence
mccoy and natsuaki (2017)
participants asked to earn points by inflating
balloons on computer screen (‘pump up as much as you can without causing it to
explode’)
procedure (peer-condition first): participants completed task with a peer (after rigged lottery) peer (=confederate) called out suggestions
pro-risk, anti-risk, neutral (risk-irrelevant, but task-related)
results risk-taking (number of pumps):
pro-risk > neutral > anti-risk
what are the potential consequences of social influence?
conformity, acceptance, compliance and obedience
what is conformity?
a change in one’s behvaiour to accord with others and or social norms which can either be due to acceptance or compliance
what is acceptance?
conformity that involved both acting and believing in accord with others (attitudinal change after feeling persuaded by others and meaning it)
what is compliance?
conformity that involved publicly acting in accord with others even if privately disagreeing
what is obedience?
acting in accord with direct order by an authority
what are the two mechanisms of social influence?
informational influence- change of attitude/behaviour
because other people’s behaviour provides information about what is the correct thing to do
normative influence- change of attitude/behaviour
because other people’s behaviour provides information about what is the appropriate thing to do
ISI (sherif 1935)
autokinetic effect (optical illusion whereby stationary small light appears to move in dark room)
control session: participants alone in dark room, light switched on, asked to
report how far they perceived the light to move (average of several trials)
days 1-4: three participants in same room, took turns in
reporting their estimate first, second, or third
results: their judgments converged over time (and when re-tested alone a year later they continued to support group norm => suggests acceptance rather than compliance)
why are we affected by ISI?
when a situation is ambiguous (and social norms are missing), people tend to look to others for orientation
communication/behaviour of others provides clues regarding what they consider to be correct
over time, this mutual ‘checking in’ can easily
establish and maintain norms without direct
orders or incentives
studying NSI (asch 1951)
line judgment task
when the task was done alone approx 99% correct
participant and 6
confederate- each participant says
which comparison line matches the standard
(confederates all give the same wrong answer in 12 out of 36 trials)
results: overall, 37% conformity with wrong
confederates; 76% of participants confirmed at least once
why are we affected by NSI?
people may conform even when situation is not ambiguous
(i.e., they are not actually searching to find the ‘correct’ response)
often change in behaviour to fulfil others’ expectations
(e.g., to avoid social disapproval/exclusion)
but evidence that people become agitated in this type of situation (i.e., heightened autonomic arousal)
variations of the task further revealed: for stable influence it takes 3 or more confederates; 1 dissenting confederate reduces the effect greatly (even if s/he does not agree with the participant)
milgram (1963) obedience study method
one is “teacher”, the other “learner” (straws are rigged)
experimenter hooks up “learner” (confederate) to electrodes
receives “shocks” from teacher (participant) for incorrect responses
with each wrong answer, shock increases by 15 volts
EXPERIMENTER PRODS:
‘please continue.’
‘the experiment requires that you continue.’
‘it is absolutely essential that you continue.’
‘you have no other choice, you must go on.’
milgram (1963) obedience study method
65% of participants (26/40) used control panel all the way
(by then learner is silent after agonized screaming)
teachers were visibly distressed but kept following the experimenter’s requests
milgram and others conducted further variations of his study:
sex of participant no effect (both male and female: 65%)
less prestigious study location (Yale vs. Bridgeport): 48%
victim’s distance (i.e., learner and participant in same room): 40%
instructions given by experimenter per phone: 21%
culture (blass, 2000): germany, holland, spain > USA: 87%
burger (2009) obedience rate
70% of ppts prepared to go past 150v compared to 82.5% in milgrams
what is the risky shift phenonmenon?
groups tend to take more risks that individuals
what is group polariastion?
attitudes and decisions tend to become more extreme than those held by individiuals (e.g when group gosspis about someone, negative opinions become stronger)
this can be found in childhood (in group and out group divisions of gender provide cricumstances for polarisation)
what is groupthink?
extreme polarisation that involves deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment due to group isolation and an excessive desire to achieve/maintain consensus
moscovici et al (1969) minority influence
line colour judgment task (i.e., participants asked to judge the colour of a series of blue lines)
control: 22 participants, only 1 calls a line green
experimental condition: 4 participants and 2 confederates
each participant says which color each line has
confederates call all lines green
▪ results: overall, 32% of real participants
reported at least once a green line
when are minorites most effective?
disrupt majority norm to deliberately draw attention to an alternative view and produce uncertainty
demonstrate that they are committed to this alternative, against the
majority norm
are consistent (i.e., members of minority must agree and express same view over time)
self-confidence (i.e., they are firm when promoting their message)
avoid being seen as dogmatic
this can cause renewed in-depth processing of the issue at stake as
majority seeks to understand why this view and commitment exists
how to exert influence as in individual?
several strategies seem particularly effective to induce, at the minimum, short-term compliance:
liking: building up positive relationships with someone (e.g., establishing similarity: same date of birth etc.) increases compliant behaviour
consistency: people like to be (seen as) consistent, a desire that can tempt them into compliant behaviour (cf. foot-in-the-door technique)
reciprocity: doing something for someone else usually results in them feeling obliged to do something for you in return (cf. door-in-the-face
technique)
door in the face technique and reciprocity
uses norm of reciprocity to influence a person’s behaviour
cialdini et al (1975)
approached people and asked for
something quite extreme
upon being declined (i.e., when they get the door slammed in their face), they ask for something that sounded more reasonable (and that
they were actually after all along)
as people feel like a concession has
been made, they then feel obliged to
also make one in return (17% without DIF, 50% with DIF)
what is a group?
collection of two or more people who believe they have something in common
difference between an in-group and out-group
in-group is a group of which a person is a member and an out-group is a group of which a person is not a member
what is entitativity and how does it classify groups?
entitavity is the extent to which a group of individuals are perceived to be cohesive, interconnected, similar,
highest entivaity- intimacy groups (partner/family)
task groups (colleagues/sports)
social categories (sex/age)
loose associations (strangers at bus stop/neighbours)
lowest entitavity
how does stangor (2016) classify groups by purpose?
reference group (group who we look up to
and identify with because we want to be like those who belong to it)
working group (group who is actively
attempting to meet a specific goal)
social category (group we happen to share a
social attribute with)
why do we form and maintain groups? (theories)
- need to belong (baumeister and leary 1995)- in order to survive humans have universal & innate need to form/maintain
stable relationships with others - social identity theory (tafjel 1978)- humans derive their self-esteem and self-concept (> incl. attitudes) from
belonging to social groups - self-categorisation theory (turner et al 1987)- extension of SIT: individuals acquire hierarchy of identities based on belonging to different groups with ever-increasing levels of inclusion (e.g., I’m
german, european, human)
core ideas of SIT
many social phenomena impossible to understand if people
only studied in terms of their personal (idiosyncratic) identities
people’s social (group) identities must be considered to explain
uniformity of human behavior (and intergroup behavior)
a meaningful (influential) social identity typically arises when a person knows that they belong to a certain group and begins to attach
emotional significance to this group membership
what is the central claim of SIT?
people habitually desire a positive self-concept that sets them
apart/makes them stand out from others
a positive self-concept can be achieved by using one’s social identities in a self-enhancing manner
people attempt to make their in-groups positively distinct from outgroups through strategic social actions and comparison(s)
* examples: people try to…
▪ join groups that have a high social status (social mobility),
▪ enhance their groups’ social status (social competition)
▪ interpret their group memberships in positive manner (social creativity
issue of SIT
SIT does not differentiate different kinds of groups, but there is now
increasing evidence that different groups can serve different identity functions (and affect self-concept via different psychological routes)
identifying with groups can influence…
people’s individul and interpersonal behvaiour (how they behave towards others)
how can group membership impact individual behaviour?
social facilitation: improved individual performance in the company of others
social inhibition: impaired individual performance in the comapny of others
these depend on how skilled they at what they’re doing, the spotlight effect and how worried people are that others will judge them (apprehension evaluation)
AND
social loafing: people see to expend less effort when working in a group than when working alone (unconscious), happens more in men and in weak entitaivty groups
how can group membership impact interpersonal behaviour?
ingroup favouritsim- people tend to act more positvely towards others who belong to the same group
this can also be accompanied by outgroup derogation
ingroup favouritism tends to arise even when group membership is determine by a coin flip
what is the minimal group paradigm?
developed to demonstrate the minimal conditions under which people
begin to distinguish between ingroup members and outgroup members
▪participants (who do not know each other) come to the lab and get divided into two
groups A vs. B based on a random (‘coin flip’) or semi-random criterion (‘art
preferences’; Tajfel, 1970)
they then take part in an seeminlgly unrelated resource distribution task
and/or person evaluation task
main finding: people consistently allocate more resources to members of their own group (even if they will personally not benefit from these resources) & judge their own
group and other members of their own group more positively
what is culture?
an instance of group memory that lays out
ideas about the world and ways to act in it that are considered
appropriate by the group
joining a new culture
nation-based research: host cultures often expect assimilation, but initial evidence that least stress for
individuals when adopting integration
what are WEIRD societies?
western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic
95% of psychological data uses individuals from weird societies
major approaches in cross-cultural research
A: compare people from different cultures by asking them things
(e.g., about their work or family values)
B: compare people from different cultures on their responses to
various psychological tasks (e.g., on the framed-line test)
nisbett et al (2001) two types of cognition
westerners rely more on analytic cognition,
easterners (e.g., chinese/japanese) rely more on holistic cognition
analytic- processing things by analyzing
them in a piecemeal manner, use of rules & formal logic, focusing on specific objects and
their parts (field-independence
holistic- processing things by gaining a big
picture perspective, use of intuition, focusing on relations between entities (field dependence)
common criticisms of cross-cultural psychology
oversimplification, lack of contextualisation and ethnocentrism
issue of oversimplification in cross-cultural studies
often compares cultures on relatively arbitrary and few dimensions at just one
specific point in time bears risk of promoting an impoverished understanding of
cultures as ‘crystallized entities’
overlooks heterogeneity - aggregation of data frequently hides large withinculture variance
overlooks cultural change over time- lack of longitudinal investigations
can promote false essentialism (= unwarranted assumption that group contains features that are typical for all its members)
issue of lack of contextualisation in cross-cultural studies
observed commonalities and/or differences are rarely
adequately contextualized- remains unclear why we observe them/what they mean
historic and geopolitical events that may have produced them remain generally unstudied by psychologists
but these events matter for accurately interpreting the
obtained data (e.g., imperialism/colonization can elicit cultural similarities and opposition to
imperialism can produce cultural differences)
issue of ethnocentrism on cross-cultural studies
cross-cultural work is often initiated by ‘white westerners’ who bring their own preconceived notions and biases to this work
problem of ethnocentrism: tendency to interpret or evaluate other cultures in terms of one’s own- can also affect researchers’ academic endeavors
example: tendency to construct the “east” as fundamentally different (i.e.,
alien at best, inferior at worst) to the “west”
what are the two major approaches psychologists use to study cultural differences?
polling and testing
racism and sexism
a system of privilege and bias that systematically disadvantages a
group of people perceived as belonging to a certain race or gender
institutional racism/sexism
topic of study that focuses on the social and structural nature of racism/sexism (sociology)
individual racism/sexism
topic of study that focuses on people’s
race/gender-related attitudes (psychology)
sociological persepctive of racism and sexism
emphasizes the role of important historical developments
(i.e., considers contemporary sexism and racism as the direct consequence of events in the past)
highlights the role of societal structures in excluding certain people from positions of status and power (as reflected in disparities in wealth, income, criminal justice, housing, health
care, education etc.)
contemporary example of institutional racism that you may be part of: university curricula
psychological perspective of racism and sexism
minimal Group paradigm: people favour ingroup members (and may derogate outgroup members) even under conditions that erase past/societal structure
thus, many psychologists aim to highlight that ‘-isms’ are also the result of a human mind that is prone to specific biases
(and these biases are likely to re-produce without historic/structural facilitation if we don’t understand them)
but: this approach adopts a reductionist view (= atomistic construction of racism/sexism)
- in the real world racism/sexism not just the result of individual bias
basic principles of the human mind
loves to categorise because categorisation allows recognition,
comparisons, predictions => often enables us to structure and make sense of incoming information
regardless whether its social or non-social in nature
but: categorisation is per definition simplification and generalisation
hence: social categorisation necessarily results in an incomplete (at best;
biased at worst) picture about a person
race and sex are just two of many social categories we use
[but most pivotal ones because widely considered a) ‘visible’ and b) ‘natural’]
first psychological study on stereotyping
katz and braly (1933)
asked
princeton undergrads to list traits of 10 social groups (e.g., italians, black people, irish, jewish people, chinese, japanese etc.)
results: high agreement between raters, regardless of people’s level of
familiarity with groups= realisation that stereotypes not only formed through contact
what is social categorisation?
(alleged) knowledge of a person’s group membership
ABC of social categorisation
prejudice (affect)- feelings towards individuals based on
knowledge of their group membership
discrimination (behvaiour)- actions towards individuals based on knowledge of their group membership
stereotype (cognition)- beliefs about individuals based on
knowledge of their group membership
glick and fiske (1996) studied positive and negative beliefes about women and found they tend to co-occur:
hostile sexism (HS) – negative attitudes towards women
benevolent sexism (BS) – positive attitudes towards women
ambivalent sexism – describes the state of being high in both HS and BS
advertising study for sexism
tartaglia and rollero (2015)
analysed advertisements in top three daily
newspapers (by circulation) in italy and the netherlands (all issues published in the same month)
each ad coded by two independent judges
(one male, one female)
results: males primarily pictured in professional roles, females primarily in decorative or sexualised
roles => effect stronger in italy than the netherlands
discrimination (moss-racusin et al 2012) study
researchers send out same CV but with male or female name
applying for science laboratory manager position
science faculty from different U.S. universities asked to rate the application materials
results: male and female faculty rated male applicant more
competent and hirable than the (identical) female applicant,
offered a higher starting salary and offered more career
mentoring
groups sharing similar beliefs on sexism
stereotyping/prejudice/discrimination do not only occur between members of different social groups
can become so engrained in a culture that even those affected act on them
although stereotypes live in the mind of individuals, they
tend to be culturally shared
due to this collective nature people often assume social permission to express/act on stereotypes
the more they are held consensually, the more they impact entire groups of people in the same way=
stigmatisation
4 sources of prejudiced attitudes
personality-based preparedness
‘normal’ cognitive biases
‘normal’ motivational biases
‘normal’ cultural transfer
personality and prejudice
some people more receptive for prejudiced attitudes
adorno (1950): related to a so-called ‘authoritarian personality’
- usually had overly strict, punishing parents
- express a strong belief in power, dominance,
limitations of personality based account of prejudice
underestimates ‘normality’ of prejudice and stereotyping
underestimates cultural and situational determinants of prejudice
unable to explain sudden changes in group-based attitudes (e.g., following 9/11)
‘normal’ cognitive biases and prejudice
human mind has numerous cognitive biases that make it susceptible
for stereotyping/prejudice, such as:
accentuation bias (tajfel & wilkes, 1963): people consider others who belong to the same group more similar (= within-group assimilation) than people who belong to different groups (= between-group contrast)
correspondence bias (gilbert & malone, 1995): humans tend to see others’ behavior as
reflecting their inner dispositions (rather than social roles/situational pressures)
illusory correlations (hamilton & gifford, 1976): humans inclined to associate members of minority groups with uncommon attributes and members of majority groups with common attributes
(even when no actual association exists)
‘normal’ motivational biases and prejudice
human mind has numerous motivational biases that make it susceptible
for stereotyping/prejudice:
need for distinctiveness (e.g., brewer, 1999): people aspire to an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness- group membership allows them to fit in (with ingroup members) and stand out (compared to outgroup members)
need to belong (e.g., baumeister & leary, 1995): humans aspire to belong by forming groups- group
membership prompts them to prefer ingroup members over outgroup members
need for self-enhancement (e.g., sedikides et al., 2008): humans are motivated to perceive themselves positively and better than others => easily inclined to attribute positive qualities to ingroups, negative
qualities to outgroup
‘normal’ cultural transfer and prejudice
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination form
element of cultural heritage
is passed on from one generation to the next through:
communication, observation, imitation
potent sources for cultural transfer: caretakers, peers, media portrayals
early acquisition and subsequent maintenance of prejudice and stigmatisation
stereotypes and prejudice acquired at early age and shaped
throughout adulthood
by the time children are 5/6 years of age, they already display
stereotyping based on a wide range of social categories (bigler & liben, 2007)
pre-schoolers, for instance, tend to assume that a physically aggressive story character is male rather than female
(giles & heyman, 2005)
consequences for prejudice targets: blatant discrimination
stigmatized individuals face differential treatment in many public places such as schools, universities, courtrooms, the workplace often face dehumanization (ie., the denial of ‘humanness’) denying a
person the capacity to act in a goal-directed manner, to hold moral
values, and/or to suffer as oneself
consequences for prejudice targets: subtle discrimination
receive less help/support in educational/work settings (rather than active hindrance)
encounter tokenism (= people make small concessions to members of certain social groups in order to deflect accusations of prejudice and discrimination, e.g., hiring a woman merely to fill a gender quota)
are affected by biased impression formation (stereotypic expectations influence how info about them is sought out, attended to, interpreted, and remembered) > often resulting in the
self-perpetuation of stereotyping (people accumulate stereotype-confirming evidence & discount disconfirming evidence
targets additionally burdened by worrying about the views of
others: stereotype threat (Steele, 1997)
consequences for prejudiced perpetrators: psychological benefits
cognitive economy: simplifies social world
uncertainty reduction: induces feelings of predictability
self-esteem regulation: protects positive self-image (e.g., when black professor gives praise, students focus on person’s professional role, when black professor criticizes they focus on
racial status; sinclair & kunda, 1999)
system-justification: justifies unequal distribution of resources
kernel-of-truth: occasionally facilitates understanding of real-world differences
creation of self-fulfilling prophecies
consequences of prejudice for societies
continuous debate what is just vs. unjust
prejudice/stereotyping/discrimination
discriminate sociality typical for human life: nepotism, tribalism (favouring own group), sexism and racism
historical/cultural contexts determine which forms of
discriminative sociality are deemed unjust: many forms of
discriminate sociality considered normal (not seen as prejudice/discrimination)
strategies for prejudice reduction
common strategy 1: attempts to interrupt/reduce cultural transfer in order to change stereotypic beliefs about pivotal social groups
common strategy 2: facilitate contact between people across group boundaries in order to induce person individuation rather than person categorisation
facilitating contact (allport, 1954- the contact hypothesis)
intergroup contact, and especially friendship, can reduce
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination if:
contact occurs in equal status context
contact is cooperative (i.e., free from competition)
contact allows pursuing common goal
contact is supported by formal structures (e.g., educational institutions,
government policies)
robbers cave experiment (sherif et al 1961)
in 1954, 24 boys (all middle-class white american protestants, ages 11-12)
recruited for a field experiment
at a summer camp randomly assigned to two groups
(spontaneously named themselves ‘the rattlers’ and ‘the eagles’)
for several days, groups engaged in competitive activities
(resulted in antipathy: name calling, raiding each other’s camps, fighting)
then boys were given difficult tasks that required cooperation
between the groups
result: reduction of negativity, creation of intergroup friendships
