Social Psychology Flashcards
Social-cognitive approach to personality
people behave differently due to individual differences in self-schema
self-schemas provide a framework for organising and storing information about our personality
self-schema
cognitive representations of oneself that one uses to organise and process self-relevant information
consists of the important behaviours and attributes
self-reference effect
remember things much better if they’re related to you, as they are processed through self-schemas
self-awareness
understanding we are separate entity from others
self-recognition test
mark placed on forehead and then person/ animal is placed in front of a mirror, self-awareness is assumed if they touch the mark on their forehead
self-concept
personal summary of who we are
self-perception theory
our own behaviour as a basis for inference, intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards
external/ extrinsic motivations
behaviour driven by rewards, rewards don’t have to be related to the behaviour
externally motivated behaviours not reflective of the self
may reduce motivation to repeat the behaviours in the future if they were externally motivated
internal/ intrinsic motivations
behaviour driven by self-interest
no explicit reward for behaviour
behaviour is rewarding in itself
internally motivated behaviours more reflective of the self, associated with increased motivations to repeat behaviour
self-fulfilling prophecy
idea that if someone has an expectation if you, you will most likely follow through with that expectation
social comparison theory (as a source of the self)
use others to evaluate our own abilities and characteristics
think of ourselves in terms of what makes us unique
upward (people better off than us) versus downward (people worse off than us) comparisons
upward social comparison
when we compare ourselves to someone who is better than us, often to improve ourselves
downward social comparison
when we compare ourselves to someone who is worse than us, often to make ourselves feel better
Study on student alcohol abuse
Shows that context and environment can influence the self
Amount consumed after graduation goes down
often reduce quantity consumed but not always frequency
suggests a drinking identity whilst at uni may be important part of the self-concept which then reduces after graduation
Lindgren et al. (2022)
Drinking identity, consumption and social networks reduce after graduation
reductions in drinking come before changes in identity
context may promote drinking, which changes personality
suggests that this personality change is stable until context is removed, then it reverts
so suggests context is very important for the self
Independent (western) cultures self-concept
coherence through seeing self as independent, separate from others, expressed in inner thoughts and feelings
describe self with general attributes: smart, shy, outgoing
interdependent (eastern) cultures self-concept
coherence through web of social connections with others
describe self using roles and/ or relationships: daughter, religion
three simultaneous selves
ideal self
ought self
actual self
actual self
the person we think we are right now, including the good and bad qualities, group membership, and other self-concept components
ideal self
the person we hope to become, the best version of our potential, with positive or enhanced qualities and realised dreams
ought self
what other people want us to be, includes cultural, parental and romantic partner expectations
self-presentation theory
we adapt to fit into the situation
we present ourselves to make an impression
impression management and self-monitoring (which can be exhausting)
self-control
ability to override thoughts, emotions and behaviours (requires effort)
implement behaviours which are appropriate for the situation
self-expression
actions consistent with self-concept (actual self)
self-presentation
actions shape others impressions of us in positive ways (ought or ideal self) - we may inhibit certain behaviours
low self-monitoring
act as they truly see themselves
consistent with self-schema
high self-monitoring
act as the situation calls for
impression formation
regulatory focus theory
promotion focus: engage self-control to promote ideal self, often intrinsically motivated - to better yourself
prevention focus: engage self-control to promote ought self, used to fulfil one’s obligations, often extrinsically motivated (avoiding punishment) - focus on who we should be
self-discrepancy theory
when our different selves do not align can lead to mental health problems and poor self-esteem
self-esteem
how good you feel about yourself
indicates how you are doing in terms of successes and social acceptance versus failures and social rejection
confidence in one’s abilities
self-worth or respect
what does it mean that we are risk-averse?
we usually chose situations where we can succeed
internal locus of control
people can affect what happens to them
good and bad experiences are people’s own making
better coping, less anxiety
external locus of control
people who believe that what happens to them is outside of their control
higher rates of psychological disorders
poorer self-esteem
cultural differences in self-esteem
self-enhancement is absent in some Asian and interdependent cultures compared to the West, found in Heine & Lehman (2003)
how does witnessing a good or bad performance by someone else affect us?
if performance is good = we feel bad
if performance is bad = we feel good
Brewer and Weber (1994)
participants assigned to majority or minority group
randomly assigned
if participants were in the majority and witnessed: another majority do good = they feel bad, majority does bad = they feel good, minority performance does not affect majority
if participants were in the minority: if minority is good = they feel good, if majority performance is bad = they feel bad
pattern reversed in majority and minority
sources of the self
personal thoughts and emotions - rewarding, anxiety inducing
other people’s reactions - similar to self fulfilling prophecy, others expectations shapes your behaviour
social comparison theory - upward or downward comparison
minimal group paradigm
experimental method to study group conflict
to be considered a minimal group paradigm:
there must be no face-to-face contact
participants must not know which groups other people belong to
group allocation must be fairly meaningless
responses could not be justified by strategic motives (arbitrary)
Robber’s Cave experiment (Sherif et al. 1954)
Participants were 22 boys with a medium age of 12
they were divided into two groups in a scout camp
findings show that hostility can occur between groups with the introduction of competition
when the competition was removed the conflict didn’t stop until they had to work together for a goal that benefitted everyone
Realistic group conflict theory
fighting over resources
evolutionary and economic account as to why group conflict occurs
groups usually compete when resources are contested
for example Israel and Palestine over land
supported by Robber’s Cave and other experiments
group competition leads to ethnocentrism
ethnocentrism
where the outgroup is vilified and the ingroup is glorified
Who came up with social identity theory
Tajfel, 1971
Social identity theory to explain intergroup conflict
alternative explanation of group conflict
we derive self-esteem from our valued group memberships
we feel comforted and validated by shared experiences and opinions
key part of building self-esteem from group membership is believing outgroups are inferior
in-group
those who belong to our social group
viewed as similar to ourselves
view members as unique and novel
out-group
those who belong to other social group
viewed as dissimilar to ourselves
view members as similar/homogenous (stereotypes)
self-categorisation
seeing oneself as a member of a social group rather than a unique individual
social identity
the way we feel about our group memberships
even if we identify with a group, it may not be a strong influence on our behaviour
sources of group membership
events remind people of group memberships
direct reminders from others
presence of in-group members
presence of out-group members
intergroup conflict (being treated differently reminds you)
how does group membership influence self-esteem?
when our group wins we feel great
refer to group as ‘we’ more after a win
we tend to rely on groups successes to hide our failures
group membership can protect self-esteem
Cialdini and Borden (1976)
Basking in Reflected Glory study
football teams
students football teams they were more likely to refer to the winning team as ‘we’
in-group favouritism
perceptions of other in-group members become favourable
positivity towards in-group based on group membership not based on unique personal characteristics
in-group favouritism
perceptions of other in-group members become favourable
positivity towards in-group based on group membership not based on unique personal characteristics
out-group homogeneity effect
seeing out-group as less diverse than in-group
fewer out-group members known
out-groups treated more negatively
focus on group membership, no attempt to learn individual characteristics
Billig and Tajfel (1973)
Schoolboys divided into group X and W
allowed to divide points between their group and the other group members
they gave more points to their group and wanted out-group to be disadvantaged even if it cost them points
preferred taking 11 points for their group and 7 points for outgroup, rather than 17 points for each group
Lemyre and Smith (1985) findings
people feel better about themselves after discriminating against out-groups
stigma
devalued social identity
typically associated with minority status
being part of a stigmatised group can cost the persons performance and self-esteem
stereotype threat
impairment due to knowledge that others devalue ones group
performance not impaired if group membership is not highlighted or external excuse for failure is present
Spencer et al. (1999)
stereotype threat
men and women, maths test
told there was gender differences vs. told there’s not
if the women highly identified with their gender they felt stereotype threat and performed worse in the maths test when told there was gender differences
what are social norms?
accepted ways to think. feel act
often informed by group membership
observe group members attitudes or behaviours
Asch (1951)
line judgement task
confederates gave wrong answer and participants frequently went along
only 25% never conformed
private conformity
personally convinced that group is correct; conform even when group is not present
public conformity
behave consistently with norms that are not privately accepted as correct
culture differences in conformity
conformity found in both Western and non-Western cultures
effects are stronger in interdependent Asian cultures (they emphasise group membership more)
false consensus effect
overestimating the extent to which others agree with our attitudes, preferences and behavioural choices
(presume people agree with us)
group polarisation (dangers of conformity)
idea that when we follow the group too much can lead to very polarising beliefs (very different from others)
groupthink (dangers of conformity)
not thinking individually, just going with the group
pluralistic ignorance (dangers of conformity)
assumption that a certain issue is not a problem anymore so it is just ignored
foot-in-the-door (promoting conformity)
start with small request then gradually increase what you’re asking for
door-in-the-face (promoting conformity)
start with unrealistic offer then decrease it to what you actually wanted
rule of reciprocity (promoting conformity)
do something for someone and they may do something for you
low-ball technique (promoting conformity)
just lying to get what you want, hide the real costs of something
salience of group (promoting conformity) in Stanford Prison experiment
they felt like they belonged to the prisoner or guard group, he gave them uniforms etc. to make the group salient
example of how authority figures can promote conformity
obedience study by Milgrim shows authority figure increased conformity
What is an attitude?
a cognitive representation that summarises evaluation of an attitude object (e.g. belief)
attitude objects
can be the self, other people, things, actions, events or ideas
ways to measure attitudes
self-report on attitude scales
observation of behaviour
physiological measures (e.g. EEG, heartrate, skin conductance)
reaction time measures
Implicit Association test (IAT)
common assessment of racial bias
captures associations in memory
assumption that these are automatic
measures strength of associations between concepts
implicit measure
yield different results from self-report as social desirability influences self-report, people lie to make themselves look better and won’t admit things
assumed to be more accurate as thought to be an automatic, gut reaction
what does a fast response indicate in an IAT?
that two concepts are associated so it is easy to respond quickly and correctly when categorising
e.g. flower-pleasant
what does a slower response indicate in an IAT?
that two concepts are not associated so it is difficult to respond quickly and correctly when categorising
e.g. flower-unpleasant
which leads to slower responses to these pairings
utilitarian function
reduces cognitive effort needed to make decisions
function of attitudes
help people to master the environment because we evaluate everything almost instantly
provide shortcuts to guide behaviour
information needed for attitude formation
ABCs:
affective information (emotions)
behavioural information (interactions with that object)
cognitive information (facts and beliefs, thoughts)
persuasion (changing attitudes)
process of forming, strengthening or changing attitudes
rational messages to change attitudes
provide cognitive information about an attitude object
emotional appeals to change attitudes
associate affective information with the attitude object
cognitive dissonance
uncomfortable state produced by awareness of inconsistencies between attitudes and behaviour
produces motivation to process to resolve the inconsistencies
sometimes result in change in attitude
how can priming be used to change attitudes?
can activate information to change behaviour
conscious or unconscious
may retrieve relevant social norms to promote conformity
Petzel and Noel (2020) priming study
showed more avoidance to alcohol when primed with driving safety
APE model
Associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model
idea that learning occurs through:
associative learning
propositional learning
associative learning (APE model)
mental links form between concepts
common properties provide basis for mental link
shorter pathway between concepts = stronger association in memory
when two stimuli are frequently paired together it creates a semantic link in memory
spontaneous emotional response
can be rejected if you have the energy
associative learning - spreading activation
concept is activated in semantic network, spread in any number of directions, activating other nearby associations in network
nearby activated concepts inform behaviour
propositional learning (APE model)
mental links are elaborated upon, requires conscious effort
creation of causal relations between associations
attempt to validate associations in memory
more deliberate judgements (require effort)
further strengthened if validated
changing attitudes via APE model:
target propositional beliefs
create inconsistency between ‘gut reaction’ and beliefs
requires conscious effort to invalidate current associations - which people don’t always have or may not want to do
target associative learned information
avoid activation of negative associations
are hardwired into memory so can be difficult to change
use of emotions to change associations
perspective-taking - imagining yourself as a member of a stigmatised group
evaluative conditioning
aims to replace or create new links between concepts in memory through associative processes (co-activation of emotional stimuli and target stimuli)
stereotypes
impressions of groups that people form by associating the groups with particular characteristics
prejudice
positive or negative evaluations of a social group or its members
discrimination
positive or negative behaviour directed toward a social group or its members
social identity theory (group membership)
identify with groups that are important to us
help set ourselves apart from others
positively favour in-group over out-group
categorisation-competition hypothesis
viewing people in terms of ingroups ad outgroups is sufficient to generate intergroup competition
people place themselves and others into distinct categories
outgroup homogeneity bias develops
categorisation results in taking an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ approach
arouses feelings of competition and a desire to win
self-esteem hypothesis
feeling good when your group does well
low self-esteem promotes intergroup bias to raise self-esteem
identification with group increases when…
there are threats to group
when independent ideologies align with groups
realistic conflict theory
dislike outgroups because they are seen as competing with ingroup for resources
intergroup bias used by majority to reduce competition
gains in minority seen as loss for majority
threat increases if groups are seen as equal
Robbers cave experiment (Sherif, 1954)
stable oppression
subordinated group accepts groups superiority to avoid conflict
members of subordinate group may take on majority groups values and norms and reject their own
unstable oppression
when minority rejects majority groups superior status
outwardly views dominant group as oppressive
develops hostility towards majority group and challenges dominance
if challenge from a minority group is seen as unjustified…
seen as threatening and inferior
respond with hostility and increased bias
justifies the actions as seen as necessary to maintain status quo (moral exclusion)
if challenge from minority is seen as justified…
views claims as legitimate
gives minority power to demand change
treat minority with tolerance (often surface level/ superficial)
intergroup threat theory
prejudice derives from two types of perceived threat:
symbolic threat
realistic threat
symbolic threats
threats to reduce status, beliefs or ideologies of group
loss of perceived power/ importance
realistic threats
threats to reduce power or resources of group
physical or material harm to group members
factors that promote threat
group size
group power
history
which group is more likely to respond to threat
high power groups respond more strongly to threat because they:
have more to lose
have resources to deal with it
motivation to maintain status quo
how can history promote threat?
if there is a history of conflict between groups there is higher perceptions of threat
salience of intergroup conflict
knowledge of cultural differences may promote conflict, can create expectation of conflict
blatant discrimination
unequal and harmful treatment that is intentional and visible
subtle discrimination
unequal and harmful treatment that is typically less visible and obvious
often not noticed because people have internalised it as normal
can be active or passive
examples: hostile humour and abnormalisation
Mallett et al. (2016)
found that if sexism is said in the form of a joke people are less likely to confront it and just ignore it
(this type of thing leads to the acceptance of it long term)
microaggressions
small scale, everyday behaviours that demean other social groups or members of those groups
Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991)
revised version of theory of reasoned action (assumed that humans were rational and unaffected by external factors)
this theory is that behaviour is complex and rarely rational
includes new factor: perceived control
prejudiced attitudes can influence behaviour
interact with social norms and expectations to behave morally
availability of self-control to inhibit actions
perceived control (theory of planned behaviour)
our ability to inhibit behaviour
can be affected by fatigue or time constraints
‘internal brake’
Weapons identification task
Payne, 2001
sort guns vs. tools
primed with black vs. white faces
incongruent pairings harder to categorise
basic social categories
information which is easily observable for categorisation:
gender
age
race
we use this information to draw conclusions about a person’s traits, social roles and physical characteristics
intersectionality
when people belong to more than one basic category at once
bottom-up
based on the observable characteristics of an individual
top-down processing
based on prior knowledge people have stored in memory and their expectations about interactions
stereotypes
impressions of groups that people form by associating the groups with particular characteristics
prejudiced attitudes
prejudiced individuals pay more attention to characteristics consistent with their attitudes and stereotypic beliefs
e.g. racist attitudes = focus on race when categorising
social role theory (sources of stereotypes)
people observe the social roles others occupy
then associate characteristics of role with those occupy it
correspondence bias
we tend to assume behaviours of others are due to personality, no external or situational factors
leads to development of stereotypic beliefs
illusory correlation
people incorrectly link two characteristics
overestimate the relationship between two categories when undesirable information stands out
inaccurate associations become firmly held
Johar et al. (2003) influence of advertising
adverts depicting women and men in traditional roles then they were asked to imagine their lives 10 years in the future, they found women who saw the traditional adverts described their future as ‘homemaker’ rather than ‘career woman’
men not influenced
difference in corpus collosum size
individuals with smaller sized brains have larger corpus callosum compared to individuals with larger brains, regardless of sex
role of socialisation
brain development affected by social interactions and culture
important figures in childrens lives enforce gender stereotypes by offering their approval or disapproval of toy preference
gendered play behaviours support the development of gender stereotyped skills and traits
ultimate attribution error (negative behaviour)
when ingroup behaviour is negative it is due to situational/ uncontrollable factors but if outgroup does something negative it must be due to personality
ultimate attribution error (positive behaviour)
when ingroup behaviour is positive it is due to personality but when outgroup is positive must be due to luck, advantages or unusual situational factors
dehumanisation
outgroups are not believed to share basic human physical features that characterise the ingroup
fusiform face area (FFA)
temporal lobe
processing facial information
more activity in FFA when looking at in-group (Van Bavel et al. 2011)
how is self-esteem affected by stereotypes?
members of stigmatised group struggle to construct positive, coherent sense of self
stereotype knowledge
extent to which someone is familiar with the content of a stereotype
stereotype endorsement
extent to which someone personally believes the societal stereotype accurately describes a social group
stereotype activation
extent to which a stereotype is accessible in one’s mind
stereotype application
extent to which one uses a stereotype to judge a member of the stereotyped group
prototypicality
extent to which a social group member has the physical features associated with their social group
the more prototypical someone looks the faster someone will categorise them
Cunningham et al.
amygdala activation is higher when we see a very fast flash of a black face compared to a white face but when given more time to look at the black face the amygdala activation goes down
cognitive busyness
when we are trying to do another task whilst already busy with one
lack of space in working memory disrupts stereotype activation
BUT if stereotypes are already activated then cognitive busyness facilitates stereotype application
Gilbert and Hixon (1991)
found that you are less likely to use stereotypes if you’re busy doing something else
if engages, stereotypes less likely to be activated
promoting stereotype application (myopia)
behaviour based on immediate, readily available information
long-term consequences not considered
can be triggered by fatigue/ stress
social neuroscience
using the brain to measure social behavioural processes
to understand the underlying processes of social behaviours
Sellaro et al. (2015)
found that when they stimulated a part of the frontal lobe with transcranial magnetic stimulation IAT scores went down (decreased implicit bias towards out-group)
3 diversity perspectives
colourblind perspective
assimilationist
multicultural
colour blind perspective
people should ignore group membership
should focus on commonalities
believe doing so promotes equality and less discrimination
colour evasion
belief that one should avoid recognising, discussing, or otherwise engaging with issues related to race or ethnicity
equality orientation
belief that one should view outgroup members as individuals and focus on intergroup similarities rather than differences
assimilationist
minority groups should give up their own cultures and replace them with majority culture
belief that if everyone is the same prejudice will disappear
multicultural perspective
holds that race and ethnicity should be given attention rather than ignored
belief that prejudice develops from a lack of knowledge and respect for others
Farrell et al. 2020
voluntary initiatives are better, even though less people may attend there is less backlash and they’re more effective
ERN meaning
Error-related negativity
negative deflection on ERP which can show monitoring for errors and engagement of self control
reductions in stereotype application
Amodio and Devine study
found that people with high internal motivation show high ERN after making a stereotypical error on a weapon identification task
stereotype rebound
unwanted thoughts return in greater strength after suppressing them
can occur when resources are depleted because inhibiting these thoughts takes effort
intergroup contact theory
contact hypothesis
under the proper conditions, interaction between group members leads to positive change
conditions for success in intergroup contact theory
equal status between groups
cooperation in achieving common goals
acquaintance potential
institutional support
positive-negative contact asymmetry
the effects of negative contact may be more powerful than the effects of positive contact
3 forms of indirect contact
extended contact - having a friend who has a relationship with someone in an out-group
media contact - seeing positive intergroup contact in the media
imagined contact - being guided or using a script to imagine a pleasant interaction with someone from the out-group
Prosocial behaviour
Behavior with the intention is to help or benefit others
Other goals may be present as well
Can be internally or externally motivated
Evolutionary reasons for prosocial behaviour
Genetics - Helping is adaptive when it perpetuates the helper’s gene pool
Kin selection - Traits that facilitate survival of an individual’s genetic relatives
Fitzgerald and Colarelli (2009)
Found that people are more likely to help someone in their in-group than their out-group
Altruism
Prosocial behavior motivated by desire to help others for its
own sake, not for personal rewards
Internally motivated
Egoism
Prosocial behavior motivated partly by rewards
Externally motivated
Mood based - Can help us feel good
Material based - People may give us things if we help them
Status based - We may receive recognition/ respect
Reciprocity
Engage in “give and take” with others such that when we do
someone a favor, we expect the favor to eventually be repaid
Norm of reciprocity
We should both offer help & avoid harming those who have helped us
bystander effect
the finding that the presence of more bystanders consistently decreases the likelihood of any one person giving help
Darley & Latané, 1968
participants heard another participant having a “seizure” in what they believed was a group of two, three, or six people
The more people participants believed to be present, the less likely the real participants were to help
diffusion of responsibility
the effect of other people present on diminishing each individual’s perceived responsibility for helping
Kitty Genovese attack
Kitty Genovese was attacked by Winston Moseley as she returned to her apartment from her night job. Bleeding from multiple stab wounds, Genovese staggered to a street corner, where she cried out for help. As lights in the surrounding apartments went on, her assailant returned and stabbed her again, this time fatally. Reports at the time claimed that at least 38 people heard her cries for help or saw part of the attack without responding even by phoning the police, and portrayed their inaction as reflecting a shocking level of apathy.
Pluralistic Ignorance (failure to help)
Assumption that others know better than us in a situation and
will engage in an appropriate response to the situation
In an emergency, may delay or stop response to help
Norm of family privacy
Strangers reluctant to intervene in family matters
Even during physical attack or abuse
Impact of gender norms in helping others
In emergencies, men see themselves as more capable of helping
Potential explanation for men’s greater willingness to help found in much research (Eagly & Crowley, 1986)
Negative-state relief model of helping
Seeing others suffer causes negative feelings, which are relieved
by offering help
Our own negative feelings may be relieved by escape or distraction via prosocial behaviours
Thompson et al. (1980)
Participants imagine friend is dying
Focus either on own feelings or on friend’s feelings
Offered opportunity to help imagined friend
25% of self-focused participants helped
83% of other-focused participants helped
Empathy-altruism model
People experience 2 types of emotions when helping:
Personal distress (anxiety, upset, fear)
Empathic concern (sympathy, compassion)
Personal distress motivates egoistic helping or escape Empathic concern motivates altruistic helping
Batson et al. (1981)
Students see “Elaine” very upset by receiving shocks Emotional empathy with Elaine manipulated
Ease of escape from situation manipulated
Is student willing to receive the shocks in Elaine’s place?
Empathy motivates helping even if escape would be easy
Bereczkei et al (2007)
social preference scores of students who publicly announced their intention to volunteer significantly increased and the scores of those who did not volunteer decreased
Lyle et al. (2009)
donors are considered as more generous than non-donors
If CA explains cooperation then we would expect to see:
- People altering their behaviour when observed/reputation matters
- Cooperative people are chosen more often as a preferred partner (and less cooperative are ostracized)
- Cooperative people benefit from their cooperative behaviour – benefits are returned during a partnership
Evidence that people alter their behaviour when
observed
Contributions increase when decisions are public and with partner choice
◦ Barclay (2004) Barclay & Willer (2007) Sylwester & Roberts (2010, 2013)
Bateson et al., 2006; Haley and Fessler, 2005
◦ Watching eyes
Evidence that cooperative people are chosen more
often as a preferred partner
More cooperative players are chosen as partners
◦ Barclay, 2004; Barclay & Willer, 2007, Sylwester & Roberts, 2010, 2013
Raihani & Smith (2015)
Male donors gave a larger donation when giving to an attractive female fundraiser and when responding to a large donation made by a male competitor than in any other case.
Male donors compete directly with other males in the presence of an attractive, opposite-sex audience, although no evidence for this in females
How has natural selection shaped the psychological mechanisms underlying behaviour?
One way appears to be via social emotions
For example warm glow, or guilt may have evolved to increase prosocial behaviour
Trivers (1971) suggestions about emotions and prosocial behaviour
suggests emotions part of a complex system regulating prosocial behaviour (specifically, reciprocal altruism) in humans
Hooge et al. (2007)
Participants who underwent guilt induction procedure were significantly more cooperative in a subsequent economic game than controls
DeSteno et al (2010)
Feeling gratitude towards a helpful confederate was a significant predictor of going on to behave prosocially in a subsequent economic game – irrespective of whether the recipient in the game was the helpful confederate
Warm glow
Described as a ‘warming’ sensation or feeling ‘good inside’ - coined warm glow in Andreoni’s (1989) economic model ‘impure altruism’.
