Social Flashcards
what is social psych
attempts to understand how the thoughts feeling and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others
Allport 1924
4 levels of social psych
ideological
positional
interpersonal
intrapersonal
ideologica
cultre, valies and norms within a society
positional
aspects of social position, such as ststaus, group memberships, relationships between groups etc
interpersonal
between individuals
interaction and features of the situation, presence of others etc
intrapersonal
within the individual
how we organuse our experience, perceptions, sense of self etc
2 views on studying the self
private reflection, i vs me, subjective vs objective… the self is both= william james
looking glass self = george herbert mead…. self-sum is the total of others opinions
social cognition and the self
the self as an object of knowledge
regulates information processing, behaviour and relationships
cognition is motivated
representation of the self
sum of self linked to many concepts
values, friends, memories.. all connected
self concept
the entire collection of beliefs we hold about ourselves
self schema
attributes which we are certain and represent clearly
working self
information about self that is used in a given situation
name 3 types of self motives
enhancement
asssessment
verification
self-enhancement
having self-esteem = i am a person of worth
the motivation to seek out information that allows one to see one self in a positive light
self-assessment
being accurate about ourselves
self-verification
confirming what we already think
4 forms of self-enhancement
better than average effect
remembering success, forgetting failure
people who say nice things about us are more credible
self-serving attribution bias
explain the better than average effect
ask a group of individual if they are better than average in a certain paradigm
the entire group will come out as better than average…. not possible
how do you acquire self worth in two different types of culture?
individualistic cultures - unique, distinctive, independent, pursuing your own goals == independent self
collectivist cultures - fitting in, fulfiling your obligations to others, maintain harmony, self control, promote others goals == interdependent self
what is the independent self
based on stable, personal abilities, traits, beliefs
what is the interdependent selfb
based on relationships and roles
independent vs interdependent self
performance on better than average test
hypothesised would only find it in independent cultures
evidence found it is a universal effect
self-categorisation theory
personal identity - me and my uniqueness
social identitiy - us, my commonality with some others, intragroup similarity and intergroup difference
social identity is the basis for…
collective behaviour
what is attribution
how we assign the causes of peoples behaviour
approaches to understanding attribution
naive scientist view, kelly 1967
- consensus
- distinctiveness
- consistency
how to self-concept and self-schema relate
self-concept has many distinct concepts
together these concepts form the self-schema
self-schematic vs self-aschematic
schematic = important to definition of self aschematic = unimportant to their definition of self
why are self-schema important
guiding factors that determine how people think they should feel, think and act in specific situations
narcissim
individual differences variable characterized by extremely high but insecure levels of self-esteem
need validation of others to maintain their self-concept
causal attributions
the process of assigning a cause to an event or behaviour
gestalt psychology
approach proposing that objects are viewed in a holistic sense. relevant to attributions, people attempt to understand events or behaviours as a whole by understanding their underlying causes
the naive scientist theory
heider (1958)
ordinary people are scientific, rational thinkers who make causal attributions using similar processes to those of scientists
naive scientist theory:
consensus
information about the extent to which other people react in the same way to a particular stimuli
naive scientist theory:
distinctiveness
information about the extent to which a persona reacts in a particular way to a particular stimulus or reacts in the same way to many other stimuli
naive scientist theory:
consistency
information about the extent to which a person reacts in the same way to a stimulus on many other occasions
covariance model
kelly 1967
model of causal attribution which argues that people typically attribute the cause of behaviour to a factor that covaries most clearly with the behaviour
fundamental attribution bias (or correspondance bias)
peoples tendency to overattribute causes to a person and infer that if a person behaves in a particular way, it must be because of some underlying trait
people over-attribute behaviour to stable, dispositional causes - not accounting for the extent of social norms and situational causes
castro essays study finding
participants who freely chose to write pro or anti castro essays were attributed with pro or anti czstro attitudes respectively. unexpectedly the same pattern emerged even when those essay writers had no choice. this demonstrates the correspondance bias - the tendency for people to attribute behaviours to underlying dispositions
FAE depends on…
name the conditions where it is stonger
quick judgements
cognitive busyness
good mood
not knowing much a about the person
FAE is stronger in what cultures and age
western young = strongest to conform to a culture-specific style of attribution
actor-observer bias
the tendency for actors to attribute their own behaviours to the situation and for observers to explain behaviours in terms of personality traits
own behaviour = situational causes
others behaviour = dispositional causes
self-serving attribution bias
taking credit for success, denying responsibility for failure
self-handicapping
pre-emptive attribution of failure to situation
behavioural self-handicapping - sabotage own performance
what is the cultural specificty in attribution biases
people in collectivist cultures attribute less to disposition
- personality seen as more changeable
- collectivists more holistic thinkers?
just world theory
lerner 1980
people have a deep seated need to perceive the world as a just place
parents socialise children to follow rules and work towards their goals
influenced by freud, at a certain age children switch from pleasure principle to reality principle
what is an attitude
an evaluation of some object
good or bad
do i like it or not
we know what we like and act accordingly…. or do we
- aware of certain attitudes
-behaviour is a function of these attitudes
explicit attitudes
mogg et all smoking
- asking questions on an attitude gives us a score
assumes participant has conscious access to the attitude
relies on availability of conscious attitude
deliberate response
implicit attitude
reaction time tasks, hard to control responses - true attitude?
interesting for sensitive topics eg racism
2 implicit techniqeus
priming
IAT
LaPierre’s hospitality study
10,000 mile tour of us with a chinese couple
visited 66 hotels, caravans and tourist homes, dined in 184 restaurants
=only refused service once
subsequent questionnaires- 92% of establishments indicated that they would not accept members of the chinese race as guests
attitude characteristics - specificity
for an attitude to predict a specific behaviour the attitude needs to be specific
general attitude vs specific attitudes
positive attitude towards health and fitness = poor predictor of jogging
positive attitude about jogging = good predictor of jogging regularly
principle of compatibility
jogging is an example, womens use of birth control pills and their attitude to using birth control pills in next 2 years = most corrolated
theory of planned behaviour
theory concerning how attitudes predict behaviour. it argues several factors including subjective nomrs, attitudes towards behaviour and perceived behavioural control determin behavioural intentions concerning the behaviour and in turn intentions strongly determine whether the behaviour is performed
subjective norm
what friends / those around think about the behaviour
perceived behavioural control
beliefs baout how much control the individual has over their own actions (self-efficacy)
two theories (just names) relating from behaviour to attitude
self-perception theory
over-justification effect
self-perception theory
bem 1967
we infer our attitudes from our behaviour
i eat a lot of cake so i must like cake
over-justification effect
incentives can undermine motivation because we wont attribute our behaviour to intrinsic interest
emboded social cognition
pen made mouth either smile or shut
cartoons funnier if forced in smiling position = missatribution of smiling
missatribution of arousal
dutton and aron 1974
male participants approached by interviewer as crosse bridge
interviewer gives phone number at end of interview
sig more calls when on scary bridge and male calling female interviewer
cognitive dissonance
an unpleasant psychological state that occurs when people notice that their attitudes and behaviours (or their attitudes) are inconsistent with each other
study and whose study which first depicted cognitive dissonance
Festinger and carlsmith 1959
participant in boring task
then offered $1 to tell next participant (really a confederate) was interesting or $20 to tell was interesting
then asked if it really was
cognitive dissonance as $1 not worth the lie so convinced themselves was actually really interesting and they werent lying or
in $20 condition confirmed yep was very dull but worth lying to others if a $20 reward
hypocrisy and behaviour change
aronson et al explain study
hypocrisy indcued
1 appeared on video encouraging younger students to use condoms
2 recalled past failure to use condoms
how many condoms bought immediately after
significantly more when hypocrisy was induced
elaboration likelihood model
what does it state
the nature of persuation outcomes are dependent on the likelihood that recipients will engage in elaboration of (or thinking about) the arguments relevant to the issue
central cues in elaboration likelihood model
analysing the message and elaborating on the argument: careful, active thinking, considering counter-arguments etc
peripheral route in elaboration likelihood model
length of argument / number of arguments
attractiveness of source
mere exposure
etc
explain the two routes in the elaboration likelihood model
persuation message =high - central route - careful information processing - attitude change depends on quality of argument
persuation method = low - peripheral route - superficial information processing - attitude change depends on the presence of persuation cues
factors determing the processing route in elaboration likeliness model
motivation (involvement in a topic, need for cognition) ability expertise message difficulty distraction
problems with using fear to persuade
fear control rather than risk control -scrutinise and reject the message -deny its relevance to oneself self-affirmation -we need to protect our self worth and integrity which could motivate defensive processing
self affirmation reduces defensiveness
self-affirmation manipulation - recall nice things about yourself
smoker rate how threatening and self relevant the graphic photots are
defensiveness in control condition (saw photos as less relevant than non-smokers)
self affirmed smokers were keener to cut sown after viewing the images
subliminal advertising
coca cola popcron hoax in 1957
bans, subliminal self hekp tapes
weak effect in meta analysis by trappey 1996
goal relevance of prime
subliminal primes affect brand choice for thirsty participatns only
primes can over-ride habits for another brand
mechanisms for subliminal primes
accessibility of the means of serving a current goal
automatic positive evaluation of prime
source amnesia and familiarity
effects reduced by warning the particiaptn before or after the prime
what does the inverted u shaped graph tell us
attitude change vs amount of fear
ie not enough fear = no change
middle amount of fear = max change in behaviour
to much fear= no change in behaviour
two views on are groups real
the group mind Le Bon
vs
allport 1927 - against the idea of the group mind
ringlemann 1913 many hands experiment
individual pulls 85kg on average
when in a group of 7 would expect to pull 595kg but in reality only pull 450 kg
-psychological reason at play
latane 1979 clapping experiment
people clapping in groups of 6 make 60% less noise than when alone
two explanations (just theories dont explain them) for are groups less productive than individuals?
process losses - steiner 1972
social loafing - latane 1981
process losses
inefficiencies in the system
so a physiological explanation
social loafing (motivation loss)
your contribution gets lost in the group so each individual does not try as hard
what did using pseudo groups tell us about individual losses in the group
1 participant, rest are actors
much less loss in the pseudo group
so from a graph we can distinguish there is some coodernation loss (difference between real and pseudo group) but there is still some loss so that is the motivation loss
3 instances when groups are not less productive than individuals
collectivism
meaningful tasks
identification and cohesion
ringleman effect
as group size increases, individual effort on a task decreases
social identitity and social identity theory
identity - the aspect of our self-identity that is determined by our group membership
theory - the theory of group membership and intergroup relations arguing that personal identities and group memberships complete people’s sense of self
according to tajfel and turner 1979 what make up your social identity
there are two levels to the self
personal identity - me
social identity - us
when there is sense of us what happens according to tajfel and turner
solidarity and attraction to ingroup members
cooperation and helping
group goals become important
prototype
fuzzy sets of characteristics that define a group and distinguish it from other groups
self-categorisation
cognitive process of categorizing oneself as a group member
subjective uncertainty
uncertainty about who we are and what we are supposed to do which is alleviated by identification with groups
what did zimbardos prison experiment show
deindividuation
guard agression and prisoner submission as a natural expression of being in a certain role
where does dinidivduation seem to occur more. in large or small groups?
large
deindidualism - what and why
festinger 1952 and zibargo 1969
lowered concern for social evaluation = cloak of anonymity
causes - sensory overload, drugs / alcohol… and immersion ain groups
irrational behaviour in violation of appropriate norms
uncontrained anti-social behaviour
maximum security vs st a students if you could do anything responses…
st a were more antisocial than maximum security prison inmates
zimbardo 1969 anonymity and collective aggression stud
groups of three women told to deliver shocks to another participant deindividuated condition (white cloaks and hoods, KKK like) = more shocks individuated condition (name tags) = fewer shocks .... but the reverse when participants were soldiers perhaps because as a soldier already deindividuated into the group (or did they conform to the norms of what they were wearing)
anonymity effect depends on costume johson and downing 1979 study
participants dressed as KKK shocked their target regardless of their identifiability, but anonymous participants dressed as nurses decreased their shocks
they conformed to the norms of how they were dressed
meta-anaysis on deindividuation
little support for the deindividuated state
behaviour confomrs to situational group norms, rather than being anti-normative
the st paul’s riot explin social identity, limits of violence, and the behaviour of the group
social identitiy - community of st paul, exploited and treated unjstly by the police
limits of violence, geog and tagets
not all actions generalise - no mindless contagion, self policing
behaviour guided by group norms
what are norms
uniformities arising through interaction
descriptive and prescritptive
may or may not reflect formal rules and laws
social norms defintion
uniformities of behaviour and attitudes that determine, organize and differentiate groups from other groups
autokinetic effect
visual illusion, dot seems to move (it doesnt actually move)
perceived movement of the dot decreases as group size increases
effects of social norms on attitudes study
students randomly assigned accomodation
either in sorority = conservative
or dorms = liberal
tests of political aligment beginning and end of year, they shifted towards to views of those they lived with
littering behavour norms study
norms do not need to be explicit to be powerful leaflets put on cars one is about dont litter one is about art art ones 25% through on floor anti litter only 10% did
majority influence with unambigious stimuli
asch 1952&6 what line is longer - obvious answer lots of actors, one particiapnts. actors all chose wrong answer conformity rates 25% always independet 50% conformed at least ahlf of the time 5% conformed all the time conformity on 33% of trials overall
majority influence study with private conformity (participants writes down answers)
conformity dropped to 12.5% of trials
majority influence study with supporter
conformity on 5.5% of trials
name two forms of influence
normative influence
information influence
what is normative influence
wanting to be liked and accepted
key is going against what the individual think because they think they are being watched by a powerful group able of handing out rewards and punishments
eg line study bu asch
what is informational influence
wanting to be right
typically occurs when a task is ambiguous and people are uncertain how they should respond
eg autokinetic study by sheriff
what is referent informational influence
social influence to conform to a group norm because adherance to the group norm defines the person as a member
people conform because they have internalized the group norm as the appropriate way to act as a member of that group
minority social influence (idea and who came up with it)
social influence processes whereby a minority group (in terms of number and power) changes the attitudes of a majority group
moscovici
do majorities and minorities exert different types of influence
majority -comparison process -submission to social pressure -temporary, public conformity minority -validation process -trying to understand wht the minority has the position it does -deeper level of cognitive processing -leading to private conversion
how can a minority exert influence (2 things)
diachronic consistency - each individual must not waiver in their opinion
synchronic consistency - individuals in the minority must show the same opinion
group polarisation definition
group interaction strengthens the initial leanings of group members so that attitudes (and decisions) become polarized
risky shift definition
the finding that groups seem to make riskier decision than individuals
three explanations for group polarisation
persuasive arguments
social comparison
social identitiy
explain the social identitiy explanation for group polarisation
implied outgroup position means the group as a whole shifts their views away for the outgroup so converge to make a more polar decision to differentiate themself from the outgroup
consequences of being in a psychological group
conformting to group norms
seeking consensus
prototypical members are influential
social identity theory of leadership
being on the same team
appealing to common norms shared with the majority
opponents will portray them as deviant to the group
ingroup sensitivity effect
criticism of the group is more acceptable when it comes from an ingroup member (assumed to have a constructive motive
3 ways to approach theories of leadership
what marks a leader out from the rest of us
which kinds of leaders suit which situations
what are the group processes that make leadership happen
what are contingency theories in terms of leadership
match between the leader and the situation
task vs relationship orientation
low vs high situational control
least preffered co worker scale
for low or high situational control situations what kind of leaders are more effective, otherwise…
task orientated
otherwise relationship
social identity ramifications for what a leader must do
be seen to promote group interests
be prototypical of the group they wish to lead
prototypical leaders are seen as
fair
trusted
charismatic
able to be more creative while keeping the support of the group
interpreting milgram the agentic state finding
lessend moral concern
absorption in narrow technical task
loss of responsibilit
problems with the agentic state
1 obedient people are not always passive and indfferent to consequences (argue and negotiate with the experimenter
2 variation between the conditions
3 ineefectiveness of direct orders - only when the order was direct did particiaptns tend to stop conforming
what is the agentic state
people lose responsibility and just do as they are told
explain the social identity account of the milgram study
identification with the experimenter representing the scientific community
experimenter and teacher as part of a wide group with a shared pupose
3 process theory of power - who came up with it and draw the model
turner 2005
power = getting people to carry out ones will
comes from persuation and control
control comes from authority and coercion
define prejudice
a negative affective prejudgement about a group and its individual members
define stereotype
a simplified but widely shared belief about a characteristic of a group and its members
define discrimination
negative treatment of a group member simply because of their group membership
the authoritarian personality
a particular kind of person susceptible to facist propaganda
irrational prejudice serves hidden psychological needs
authoritarian parenting = inner frustration = displacement onto weak outgroups
robbers cave experiments recap
sherif et al 1961
stage 1 ingroup formation (eagles vs rattlers)
claimed and area of camp as own
stage 2 negative interdependence
no more cross group friendships, insults, fighting etc
stage 3 positive interdependece
intermingling friendship singing sharing
realistic group conflict theory
theory of intergroup conflict that explains intergroup behaviour with respect t the need to secure scarce resources
so material relations between social groups determine attitdues instead of inner conflict leading to prejudice
conflict of interests
stereotype content model fiske et al 2002, 2007 explain the four different group relations and outcomes
high status and low competition = admiration
high status and high competition = envy
low status and low competition = paternalism
low status and high competition = contempt
when do we see outgroup favouritism and give an example
among members of low status groups
eg doll studies by clark and clark black children rated the white dolls as prettier, better etc
doll study implicit and explicit attitude
explicit - both white and black participants tend to show some ingroup favouritism
implicit attitudes - only white participants show clear ingroup favourtism overall
implicit outgroup favourtism correll et all study (computer)
computer simulation
shoot armed suspects
dont shoot unarmed suspects
both black and white participants more readily shoot black suspects
system justification theory
unfair social systems are supported by even disadvantaged groups
thi reflects
-media disseminate stereotypes etc that serve dominant group interests
-motivation to avoid uncertainty and legitimise the status quo
problems with system justification theory
justifying the system a basic human motive?
what about sucessful struggles for independece in former colonies
civil rights movement in usa
fight against apartheid in south africa
hostile sexism
traditionally sexist view of women that is characterised by the belief that they pose a threat to mens position
benevolent sexism
apparently positive view of wome in which they are seen as necessary for mens happiness and superior in a number of ways
ambivalent sexism
reconceptualisaion of sexism to take into account the fact that sexism can include both positive and negative attitudes at the same time
stereotype threat
fear of being judged in terms of a stereotype and negatively fulfilling the stereotype that leads to poorer performance on a task
stereotype lift is the opposite of this
system justification theory definition
theory that peoples dependence on social system for wealth and security motivates them to justify those social systems and see them as fair
collective action
the pursuit of goals by more than one person. specifically it is the coordinated actions of the disadvantaged group members in order to change intergroup relations
three main antecedents to collective action
sense of justice
efficacy
identity
when do we see things as unfair
relative deprivation
- the gap between what we have and what we think we are entitled to
- must be based on some kind of comparison
- within group comparisons
2 types of relative deprivation and what leads to collective action
two kinds of relative deprivation
1 - individual (egotistical)
2 - group (fraternal)
group relative deprivation leads to collective action
social identity theory and its ramification on what happens in our group
we feel invested in our groups
positive distinctness
but what about groups in a structurally subordinate position
the contact hypothesis
allport 1954
contact between groups reduced prejudice when certain conditions are met:
-institutional support
-equal status
-cooperation / common goals
-acquaintance potential (one of allports conditions but not always in the textbook)
meta analysis on contact effects
stong support
516 studies
250,000 participants
overall correlation = -.21 (higher when allports conditions are met
-contact reduces prejudice in 95% of studies
meta analysis on contact effect
strongeste ffect found for……
affective measures
majority groups
how does the contact effect work?
knowledge not the main mediator
at first intergroup anxiety
then empathy
the importance of group salience
two seemingly contradictoy models
1 the de-categorisation model
-seeing others as individuals
-makes interaction less awkward and anxiety provoking
2 the mutual intergroup differentiation model
-seeing each other as group members
-generalisation of attitudes
the importance of group salience - experiment and result
ethnic dutch and turkish school students
manipulation - ethnicity salience
measured participants evaluation of interaction partner and turks in general
result
awareness of group membership needed for generalisation
no change on views of individual outgroup member
but
ratings of group as a whole much lower in control compared to when ethnicity of partner made salient
conclusion on how to reduce group conflict
first reduce group salience to avoid tension and anxiety
then make groups salient, facilitating generalisation
dixon and durheim 2003 beach experiment
desegregated south african beahes informal desegreation intimate spaces segments of the beach different times and days
two approaches to social change
prejudice reduction
-improving the attitudes of the historically advantaged group
-more positive attitudes, less conflict
collective action
-action by the historically disadvantaged group to challenge the status quo
-collective identity, injustice and efficacy
contact reduces collective action, does it potentially undermine social justice?
ideological level of helping
culture, pro-helping norms
position level of helping
intergroup status relations
group memberships
interpersonal level of helping
bystander effect
intrapersonal level of helping
empathy
empathy-alturism hypothesis
batson 1980
hypothesis that when people feel empathy for others, they will be more likely to help that person at a personal cost to themself
two views on what empathy is
a trait
a skill - compassion mediation
-8 week course to improve empathy
fMRI evidence = increase activation in inferior fronatl gyrus and dorsomedial prefrontal context (areas associated with ToM and empathy)
the bystander effect
presence of others inhibits helping in emergencies
as the number of bystanders increase people are less likely to
notice the problem
interpret it as a problem
assume responsibility
bystander effect study
darley and latane 1968
participants in cubicles communicate with eac other through intercom
staged seizure and choking, confederate asks for help
participants believed they were alone or had 1,2,3,.. others in cubicles (bystanders)
this showed the bystander effect as less bystanders helped as group increased and it took longer for bystander to help and number of bystanders increased
group membership and the bystander effect
- who defines other
- what does the bystander effect depend on
other = people typically have no conncetion
effect depends on who is present
strangers = number reduces heling
friends = number increases helping
sharing a group identity with the person needing help = more likely to help
diffusion of responsibility
one explanation why bystanders do not intervene is the perception that someone else will
pluralistic ignorance
the phenomenom whereby people wrongly assume based on others actions that they endorse a particular norm
levine and crowther 2008 study
gender categories and group size
femal confederates interrupts asks for help with her own experiment
hostile reaction from a male experimenter
how many participants help her after the main experiment
manipulation - participants are either alone, in a single sex group of 3, with 2 members of the opposite sex (minority)
= female participants in a group and males as the minority help the most
dovidio et al 2002 helping the out group study
the presence of bystanders provides white participants with non-prejudiced rationalisations for not helping a black victim
when do people help the outgroup
when the image of the ingroup is at stake
when the help is dependency orientated rather than autonomy/ empowerment orientated or when the outgroup is in an inferior, non-threatening position
refusing outgroup help
awareness of a benevolent sexist stereotype of women as dependent may lead women to reject help from men
low staus groups may reject hekp that is perceived as dependency orientated if status relations are unstable
what does culture have to do with helping
norm of recipriocity
levine et at 2001 study in helping strangers in 23 cities
eg help a blind person cross a road, picking up an accidentally dropped pen etc
correlation between economic productivity and helping behaviour
ideological level of agression
honour culture
dehumanisation
position level of aggression
social exclusion
interpersonal level of agression
hostile attribution
social learning
intrapersonal level of agression
self-esteem
instinct / frustration
what is agression
behaviour that is intended to harm another person with the knowledge that the target is motivated to avoid the action
types of aggression/ distinctions
verbal / relational vs physical aggression
active vs passive
violent vs non-violent
some ideas to support aggression as an instinct
evolved fighting instinct like instincts for food and sex
builds up until release via aggression
aggression normality inevitable
what is the frustration agression hypothesis
aggression stems from frustration - goal-directed behaviour is blocked or threatened
what is catharsis
releasing aggressive energy through some harmless substitte for actual aggression
catharsis and sport
sport as a substitute discharge alternative to war
Fenichel 1945
evidence against catharsis
can often increase aggression
why
-aggression is often rewarding for the perpetrator reinforcing the aggressive behaviour - catharsis trains you to be aggressive
aggressive sports more common in warlike cultures - they reflect and fuel aggressive societal norms
how certain types of self-esteem lead to aggression
superiority = high aggression
social inclusion = low aggression
threat to high self-esteem = people with high self-esteem respond worse when self-esteem is threatened
what is narcissm
extremely high but insecure self-esteem exaggerated self-important and superiority m]need implicit self esteem need for validation from others aggressive reaction to criticism
meta analysis of watching violent films and video games
average american viewed 10,000 violent acts by age of 13
compelling evidence for strong and growing effect
how does media influence aggression
learning that vioence is rewarding
hostile attribution bias and mean world syndrome
desensitisation (less sympathy for victims, fMRI evidence to support)
mechanisms of moral disengagement
how is normal aversion to extreme violenvce overcome
moral self-sanctions are selectively disengaged from inhumane conduct
- euphemism, sanitizing language
-displacement of responsibility
-miimizing the consequences and advantageous comparison
-dehumanizing the victim
two views of human in desenitization
as animals
as objects
culture of honour
violence to restore ones honor is supported by norms
- protection of property, responding to insults, infedelity
- linked to emotion of shame
might develop in a vacuum of law enforcement
what are implicit attitudes
actions or judegements that are under the control of automatically activated evaluation, without the performers awareness of that causation
presumed advantages of measuring implicit over explicit attitudes
avoidance of self-presentation concerns
attitudes people may be unaware of
5 blocks in IAT (implicit association test)
1 classify in and outgroup stimuli 2 classify positive and negative words 3 classify categories or positive and negative word 4 like one but keys switched 5 like 3 but now opposite pairing
