Ssally Social Relationships 2 Flashcards
London riots 2011
Tottenham had their services cut (resentment of power) , reports of police discrimination as mark duggan was shot by police (started w peaceful protest about why he was shot then went into rioting)
Crowd behaviour le Bon, Freud, mcdougall
Le bon: alone people can be cultivated but among a crowd they become barbaric
Freud: crowds unlock the unconscious
Mcdougall: crowds are easily swayed and lack self consciousness
Deindividuation and examples
People are selfish, repressed for social norms. In crowds, feel anonymous so go back to instinct (anonymity, deindividuation, lowered self observation, irrational behaviour). E.g. Stanford prison experiment . NI, offenders in disguise more likely to cause injury but was it just to not be recognised? Denier: kids told take 1 sweet but in bowl next to money. If in group, take more but not if asked their name and where they lived
Weaknesses of deindividuation theory
Some people didnt have a disguise but still became part of the group, people who intended to cause damage may wear a disguise to avoid identification, london riots were contained only to certain areas and there were specific targets (police, government, big companies)- if deindividuated, targets would be random, does not account for peaceful crowd behaviours e.g. the coronation, concerts, school
Anonymity doesn’t always lead to aggression Johnson and downing
One group in kkk uniform and one in nurse uniform, half had name badge, half didn’t. Nureses shocked less but those who were anon shocked less but anon in kkk shocked shocked more
Side model of deindividuation
Crowds create intergroup conflict. Identity is a spectrum (personal to social) and depends on context. Crowd shifts identity to social. Postmes and sears p. Deindividuation.leads to decreased focus on personal id and increases response to group norms.
Evidence of side model
Postmes: content analysis of online messages, groups differed in language and content, content became more prototypical, when see an end to group, withdraw from norms . Steinel ps told part of group and told of they were prototypical or peripheral, need to belong low vs high and to be cooperative or competitive. For prototypical: cooperative less competitive, need to belong had no effect but for peripheral, high need to belong more laingled W norms
Side model in relation to riots, critique and application
Attack on out groups, group identification, group norms encourage (cheering). Fails to explain behaviours on some e.g. Laura Johnson was middle class and not from Tottenham. Police can reduce us vs the, and perception of police power
Evolution of pro social behaviour
More likely to help genetically related segal mz more supportive. Burnstein 1994, more likely to help in sick and everyday condition regardless of relation, life or death more help to healthy and in everyday help sick and family . W: can’t explain adoption, little real life evidence, learnt behaviour
Bystander calculus model- pilliavin
Physical arousal, labelling arousal, evaluating consequences/ cost benefit analysis towards helping to reduce distress
Learning theory-grusec 1978
Children play bowling game and won marbles to exchange for games. Experimenter told child to donate 1 and experiment donated one or did both. Instruction as effective as modelling
Learning theory- gruzec and goodnow 1994
children have to have accurate perception of message and acceptance (perceived as the right thing to do, have to be motivated e.g. if important to parents, not being forced) of message to lead to internalisation of message (from parents)
Reinforcement and modelling rushton and teachman
Each child won tokens, poster saying they could donate, experimenter played then donated. + reinforcement with self, no or external attribution (you’re kind/that’s nice/ you can go again). No reinforcement, punishment or control. + had higher tokens but no sig between control. Control higher than punishment . Modelling and + strongest - 2 weeks later, lasting effect
Bystander effect
Less likely to help when others around, kitty genovese, diffusion of responsibility (Daryl and latane smoke in room, report when alone, less likely to help seizure when others present. Model: attend what’s happening, define as emergency, assume responsibility, decide what can be done
Affecting factors of bystander - number of help seekers
Cost benefit by seeker (embarrassment vs value of help). Slovic- more empathy for single seeker , cost of helping more than one is higher. Roy 2013: ps asked of help or not in situations. Sig diff found between alone and accompanied, ppl more likely to help and others more likely to help an individual,
Affecting factors of bystander- similarity
Levine 2005: football fans did questionnaire about how long a fan they were (cemented it), more help to confed when wearing same team shirt but no sig diff between diff and plain. If primed as general fan, sig diff between football and plain but not manu and liverpool
Affecting factors of bystander - prejudice
Assume devalued groups feel secondary emotion e.g grief,sorrow less than own group
White Ps in waiting room with latino or white experimenter and 2 white confeds or alone. High level of helping when alone and more helping for latino but if two white bystanders don’t help then there’s less helping but white woman helped more
Affecting factors of bystander- mood
More likely to help in good mood as sensitive to others, guilt and anger can increase too. As make amends especially in young children . Tomasello 2016: experimenter built tower, chid knocked it down with marble run and exp was upset or not.3 year old in harm did more guilt behaviour but 2 year old had no diff
Affecting factors of bystander- personality
Interpersonal relationships make ppl more responsible, darleh and latane found personality measures don’t affect, need to believe help is in our control. More agreeable, empathetic and self transcendence more likely to to help, huston taper and stronger, mikulincer secure attachment,, religious priming helped in group members, Farley and latane small town more helpful, amato pop size rises, help decreased
Terror management theory/Scrooge effect
Jonas 2002: pedestrians walked towards funeral home W sign or 3 blocks away. Ps rates charities and rated better when in front of fineral . Terror management is that when ps see inevitability of death, they strive for immortality by defining cultural world views
Competence and bystander effect
Korte more likely to give help as know what to do. High tolerance of shocks more willing to help others move electrically charged objects (midlarsky), told good at handling rats volunteered to help catch lab rats, , kazdin to,d done well in health test donate more blood , first aid training. Baumeisterb- being a leader acts as cue for responsibility
Gender and bystander effect
Men more likely to help: latane, benson: more physically attractive woman, pryzbyla 1985: males who saw erotic vid helped female for longer , aroused women spent less time,
Preventing crime W bystander effect
Moriarty: people asked to watch a strangers things, 95% stopped a confed from stealing his stuff, 20% of those asked for a match. Brickam : ppl report their is reminded but poster not effective, lecture on the bystander effective-klemtz beamna 1981. Mackinnon: cheaters expressed anger , non cheaters blamed themselves , cheaters have less guilt at the thought of it, low delay gratification, sociopathic tendencies, need for approval, more asoused cheated
Baumister how to maintain belonging
promoting acceptance, reducing the llikelhood of being ignored, rejected or devalued (both contribute to relational value- degree to which others value interacting and having relationships W an individual)
