test #4 lecture notes Flashcards
Prosocial Behavior
Doing the good thing for someone else or for society as a whole
when is prosocial behavior likely to happen
when you are being watcher: it opporates under the approval motivation
stow (1975)
had half of their subjects sit in front of a two sided mirror and asked to donate some of there study compensation, had another half sit in front of the same mirror but they knew it was a two sided mirror. The group who knew they were being watched donated more.
Reciprocity and prosocial behavior
this works under obligation, if I do something for you - you will do the same for me.
Kunz and woolcot (1976) sent out Christmas cards to 578 strangers. 117 sent back.
we don’t like to ask for help because it makes us feel like we owe someone something, prolonged sense of obligation is unvcomfterble, so we don’t ask for help unless we think we can pay it back
fairness
we have a general idea that you should be willing to give to society. givers are approved of.
underbenifiting vs overbenifiting
neither of these make us feel good. we are angry when we feel like we are not getting what we deserve. we feel uncomfortable when we feel we are getting more than we deserve for we may feel rejection. animals care about this, but they tend to only care about underbenifiting
outperforming
we don’t like to outperform others even if it does correlate to us getting more we fear rejection from outperforming. we don’t want to risk our ego when it comes to comparing us to others. others may see us as being too good and reject us in order to preserve their self image.
morality
prosocial behaviors often signal morality: rules to encourage the bet behavior for others beyond yourself
the morning morality effect
people are the most moral in the morning. you have the largest reservoir of self regulation
intuition and reasoning when it comes to morality
intuition matters more. a lot of people don’t go through a logical process in determining what is moral and imorall for that is complicated and mentally laborious. rather, people tend to go with their gut feelings. logically thinking through the consequences of all your actions can lead you to choice paralysis
trolly problem
a popular way to examine morality in labs. by changing variables you can get a better idea of morality
five pillars of morality
disapproval of harm
fairness
respect for legitimate authority
loyalty to your group
purity/sancitity
liberals vs conservatives in the five pillars of morality
liberals care more about disapproval of harm and fairness
conservatives care about all five
Darley and battson
took college students in seminary training to become priests. the participants were either going to give a speech on life as a seminary student or the Good Samaritan parable. they were also told that the speech was happening in a different building, and that they were either going to be early, on time, or late if they left right now.
they then had someone drop there things while the student was passing on his way to give a speech. found that the topic o the speech did not matter but the time did.
cooperation
working with others to achieve some common goal
why is cooperation a key element for the operation of society
we are so social
prisoners dilemma
see notes and keep up the good work
altruistic punishment
when you are willing to take a punishment as long as it means a violator to cooperation is also punished.
this is strange behavior - something we would not expect to see from a behaviorist perspective - nobody would choose punishment if it does not serve them. some argue that is will cause a lower liklehood that someone will compete in the future and greater likelihood they will cooperate.
get more on this Elias
gossip
a form of cooperation, for it is about working to pass on information to others, also often times it is about non cooperators and serves as a punishment in order to encourage future cooperation
gender difference in cooperation
there is no difference between men and women, where you do see a diufferce is that in same gender interactions, men are more cooperative with men than women are with women, in mixed gender groups women tend to be more cooperative.
get more
trust
belief in the reliability and validity of a thing in general
how does trust plot
bell curve. you don’t want to be too trusting and you don’t want to be too untrusting. if you are too trusting you are likely to be taken advantage of and if you are too untrusting you are likely to be isolated and rejected
shared group membership and trust
it is easier to trust people who are in the same group as you even if you have little shared history
ease
the more trust we have in a person there likely we are to engage in prosocial behavior
why help others
evolutionary, egoistic, learning, altruistic helping
evolutionary helping
kin selection. I am more likely to help people who share my genetic material.
identical twins are more likely to help others than fraternal twins (r x b) >c
egoistic helping
when we help others we feel good about ourselves
learning and helping
if you get rewarded for helping you are more likely to help again in hopes of that reward in the future
altruistic helping
helping someone with no benefit to yourself. empathy is a key factor. if you have higher empathy you are more likely to perform altruistic helping
it is controversial, many people don’t think this exists often times we help others and feel good about ourselves, thus while we don’t get any physical benefit we do get some emotional benefit.
help and similarities
we help people who are similar to us.
dovidio et al (1997) went to subway stations on days when there was a soccer game. they came to someone who was either wearing their team shirt, a numeral team shirt, or an opposing team shirt, prior to the encounter they asked the person to speak of why they were a fan of there team. they found that there was a massive amount of helping after when someone with the same team shirt on asked, and there was little statistical difference between someone with a numeral or same team shirt. they then repeated but instead of asking them why they are a fan of a particular team, they asked why they are a fan of soccer in general. after they found a massive increase for helping the opposing teams shirt.
why help
personality differences, similarities, gender differences
gender differences in helping
men are more likely to help in public, more likely to help strangers, more likely to help during a crisis
women are more likely to help in the family sphere, in close relationships, and for long periods of time
personality differences and helping
im not so sure what the answer is but I am sure you will get it soon Elias, you got this!
who do we help
beautiful people, strong belief in a just world, emotions
help and beautiful victims
we are more likely to help beautiful victims. there is a higher chance of reciprocity and we want beautiful people to be involved in our life so we help them to increase the chance of their involvement
we also generally attribute good traits to beautiful people
who we help and a strong belief in a host world
if you have a strong belief in a just world you will be more likely to help people who you think deserve help.
if you see a person in need of help due to no fault of his own, then you are more likely to help. if you see a person in need of help because they did something wrong you are less likely to help
Schmidt and wiener (1988): had people ask others for notes from the previous class after class. in one condition they said they needed notes because they had an eye condition and could not see the board very well. in the other condition they said it was because they went to the beach instead of going to class. the confederates with an eye condition were more likely to receive notes than than those who were at the beach
emotions and who we help
we are more likely to help if we are in a positive emotional state. although guilt is the negative emotion that leads people to help
why don’t we help?
kitty genovese, Latine and Darley’s cubicles, bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, responsibility when it comes to bad actions, environment small vs large towns, pluralistic ignorance
Kitty genovese and the story of urban apathy
there was a story written about a lady named kitty genovese. the story claimed she was attacked for a long time and she screamed for help and nobody helped. the case where there was one thousand witnesses and nobody sought help.
this tale ended up inspiring a lot of psychological research even though it was mostly a myth.
The idea that people did not help is a fallacy. She died in the arms of a friend and neighbor, multiple neighbors called the police, but there was no 911 so they had to call specific precincts, people called different precincts but they were unhelpful. She is one of the reasons we have 911. They myth is important because it did inspire a lot of research as follows
Latin and darley (1968) and their cubicles
had participants in individual cubicles and they were wearing headphones with a mic attached to communicate so they could to talk to people in other cubes but only one mic could be on at a time.
one had them think it was them and a partner, one had them think it was them and two others, one had them think it was them and three others
the others were not real but recordings and at one point one of the others started having a seizure over the recording. the dp was how many people left there cube to help.
they wanted to see how many people would get up to help when there was no communication with others in the group.
When it was just the participant and the person having a seizure people left to get help 85% of the time. When it was one other person and the seizing person and the subject it dropped to 62%. When ir was the participant the seizure and two others helping dropped to 31% of the time.
this touches on the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility
bystander effect
the more people in the area the less likely each individual is to help
diffusion of responsibility
you are less likely to take action when you feel less responsibility. in the first latane situation they had 100% of the responsibility if the participant did not help nobody was going to help
responsibility when it comes to bad actions
the less responsibility we have the more likely we are to do bad actions or bad action through inaction
environment
people are more likely to help in small towns than in urban area. see notes for more
urban overload hypothesis
the stimulation in urban areas are so high that people get used to blocking out a lot of the information around them. if they are not able to identify that a person needs help then they will not be able to help, less about apathy and more about attention.
in the largest towns people helped over 50% and no urban area broke 15%
Pluralistic ignorance and the lateen barley smoke experiment
Had people in a room and had smoke start filling up the room from under the door. the it is just one person in the room they almost always get up to report it. when there are two strangers along with the subject who act like nothing is wrong it just gets smokier and smokier and nobody moves. they create the definition that there is no emergency.
when there is an ambiguous situation you look to others to understand the information, if nobody acts like there is an emergency you act like there is no emergency
steps to helping
- notice something is happening.
- interpert meaning
- take responsibility
- know how to help
- if all four of these happen then you are very likely to help
has violence increased or decreased
decreased. you are a lot more likely to be murdered in the 1300s
aggression
behavior intended to harm someone who is not wanting harm
does aggression have intent?
generally yes
displaced aggression
rather than aggressing the person or thing you want to aggress against, you take it out on someone or something else.
you can’t yell at your boss for making you mad so you punch a pillow or hit your wife
direct aggression
when the behavior leading to aggression is happening in the environment of the victim. punching someone in the face
men vs women in aggression
men are more likely to directly aggress. women are slightly more likely to be indirect.
women are more likely to murder by poison which is indirect
indirect aggression
when the victim is not physcially present during your aggression
hostile/hot aggression
spontaneous aggression, when you are generally pissed off and want to aggress
instrumental aggression
when you use aggression to achieve a goal
relational aggression
rather than trying to cause physical harm, you try to harm the relationships of another person
bullying
present in all cultures
Craig and hazel 2004: when children in 35 different countries are surveyed just over 10% reported some kind of bullying
patzer et al (2009): 75% of children and adolescents have reported some sort of cyber bullying
violence
decreasing. it is at .6 per 100,000. we are seeing increased since just 2010
Domestic violence
non married women are three times more likely to be the victim of domestic violence in romantic relationships
children and the elderly are more likely to be victims of domestic violence
we have seen an increase of violence to the elderly
abusive spouses are likely to become abusive parents
carl Lorenz instinct theory of aggression
there is a buildup of aggressive urges and they build up so much that you feel the need to agress.
agression is an instinct and if we don’t express it it builds up to the point where we feel the need to lash out
thanatos: the dark destructive unconscious desire that frued thought we all had. the desire to kill and assault
evolutionary psychologist: part of the problem with this theory is it stongly suggests catharsis, but research has not supported that catharsis is good at revealing aggression
learning theory
our aggressive behaviors can be learned through classical and observational conditioning. children who were abused abuse, children who were taught aggression were aggressive
Bandura, ross, and ross, (1962): bobo doll: it is not just that the children were aggressive, what was particularly noteworthy was that the children copied the novel aggressive actions and the novel hostile behavior
the teacher was gender matched
in studies where the teacher was rewarded the children were more likely to do the same. in studies where teachers were punished children were less likely to aggress
Coyne et al (2008, 2012)
had participants watch a physically aggressive film (kill bill), a relationally aggressive film (mean girls) and a non aggressive but exciting film (what lies beneath)
they then gave the participants the opportunity to blast confederates’ headphones with noice. donut it did not matter which aggressive film they watched, they were more likely to aggress if they watched either aggressive film rather than the exciting but not aggressive film
in 2012 the study was replicated but instead of watching a film they read the synopsis for the film and sound the same results
Anderson et al (2010)
wanted to see the connection between violence and video games. Massive meta analysis. Found there was a connection between violent video games and violent behaviors and also violent thoughts. We can’t prove causation.
culture and aggression
in places where there is culture of honor where insults are perceived to be a threat they are mire likely to lead to aggressive behavior.
in the us the south has a much higher honor culture than the north
frustration aggression hypothesis
when you feel frustrated you express aggression
Berkowitz (1989) it is not just that frustration causes aggression, it only increases hostile aggression not instrumental aggression
emotion
most negative emotion are correlated with aggression. guilt is the outlier,
one of the reasons we see a connection between negative emotions and aggression is we think negative emotions will make us feel better, that is not true, we think it will help us get out of negative emotionality, in reality it usually just traps us in
self control inhibition
anything that will inhibit your self control is correlated with aggression. less self control = more aggression
hostile attribution bias
when we experience hostile behavior towards us we are more likely to make internal attributions
causes of aggression
make sure to fill this out and keep up the good work
hostile perception bias
we are more likely to perceive ambiguous stimuli as hostile. this ends up being a protection component. we need to know of threats as early as possible, by perceiving ambiguous stimuli as threats we give ourselves the most potential time to identify and react to the threat
hostile expectation bias
when we think about how someone will react we often times expect them to be more hostile than actuality. again this serves as a protection component. if you are expecting the most hostile reaction you can be the best prepared
aggression and culture
individualistic cultures tend to be more aggressive than collectivist cultures. a lot of aggression seems to be more personal
aggression and social influence
social influence can impact aggression. one may be more aggressive if they are promised a reward because of their aggressive action like social capital and acceptance into a group. also,
likelihood of retaliation: if there is a high likelihood of retaliation we are less likely to aggress
weapons effect
when we see weapons we are put in a more hostile and aggressive mindset and are thus more likely to egress.
Berkowitz and Lepage (1967): brought participants into the lab and ‘accidentally’ exposed them to guns or tennis racquets. They then asked the participants to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, those exposed to the guns gave higher and longer electric shocks.
Turner et al. (1975) rigged a truck to stall at a red light. In the back window there was either a shotgun or there was no gun. How quickly and for how long would they honk at the truck for. Found people were more quick to honk at the car when there was a gun in the back window. This seems pretty counterintuitive!
effect. The wording may be off. The research has been mostly with firearms, and we don’t know about all weapons
nature and aggression
temperature, biological (gender), kin, alcohol, age, gender, personality,
temperature
the hotter the environment the more likely it is to lead to aggression. ice cream and murder
biological relationship to aggression
testosterone is linked with increased aggression in both men and women
Raine et al (2008): the prefrontal cortex in brains of people convicted of murder was 14% smaller than matched samples of males.
Pardini et al (2014) more aggressive men had a smaller amygdala
It is part of our fear response, maybe we see more aggression because we see less fear
kin
we are more likely to help those who we are more biologically related to. we are less likely to aggress this who we are biologically related to.
Frisell at al (2011) a swedish study looking at 12.5 million residence, found that preschoolers living with a step parent or foster parent were 70 to 100 times more likely to be fatally abused
While you see this relationship with step parents and foster parents, you don’t see this rate with adopted parents. Parents who go through the adoption process go through a lot of vetting.
alcohol consumption
by itself it is not a cause of aggression but it makes it easier to aggress considering it lowers the levels of self control. it is also a depressant so it might put you into a negative emotional state and that too could make you more likely to aggress. it is also a depressant so it might pout you into a negative emotional state and that too could make you more likely to aggress
age
younger than nine is the age most likely to aggress. mostly because children at that age are not good at self control
gender difference and aggression
men are more likely to physically aggress, women are more likely to physically or relationally aggress
there is no known society where more women commit violent crimes than men, women account for only 10% of crimes
men fight or flight
women tend to befriend
women are more likely to commit physical domestic violence but cause less lasting or persistent harm
aggression and personality differences
people who are low in agreeableness are more likely to aggress. type A people are more likely to aggress for they tend to be more hostile
the dark triad
three personality traits when present in one individual you see higher rates of aggression
narcissism: a preoccupation with the self
psychopathy: impulsivity and a low level of self control and a low level of empathy
Machiavellianism: being a manipulative person
discontinuity effect
groups tend to be more aggressive or antisocial than individuals do.
on the group level, a group is more likely to aggress another group than individual another individual
(deindividuation)
lying
out of all of the lies in one day we see about five percent of the population commuting them. people are really bad ad detecting lies, generally at chance,
cheating
we generally cheat to get ahead, and when we get away with it we get positive emotionality
stealing
people who deindividuated or anonymous are more likely to steal, you don’t see a lot of stealing when you are not deindividuated
littering
we are more likely to litter when other people do, litter on the floor can increase the chance you litter
decreasing aggression
catharsis, reward alternatives, model prosocial behavior, legal solutions
catharsis
historically I was thought to work, in reality it does not, it actually leads to increased aggression
reward alternatives
we generally see that punishing aggression is not very helpful, however if we can reward the alternatives and instead do something that is not aggressive it leads to a decrease in aggression
modeling prosocial behavior:
observational learning - kids will learn from how their parents react to hostile environments
legal solutions
deterrence or legal punishments are not so effective, instead what is more effective is rehabilitation, if you compare counter where they have rehab rather than punishment you see more success
prejudice
the evaluation of others based on group membership
stereotypes
beliefs that certain groups have certain traits
subtype
a type of stereotype created to avoid abandoning the larger stereotype in cases of exceptions
discrimination
unequal treatment based on group membership
prejudice, stereotypes, discrimination
prejudice is more about your feelings, stereotypes are more about cognition, discrimination is more about behaviors
prejudice and stereotypes tend to be more internal while discrimination tends to be more external
racial prejudice
freiburger and Sheeran (2020) in Milwaukee county in 2009 they found - black defendants were more likely to get jailer rather than probation and hispanic defendants received the longest jail sentence
bertrand and mullainathan (2004) sent 5,000 resumes across 1,300 job adds. gender and stereotypical names were studied. Half where Emily or greg, half were laquisha or Jamal. they found that gender did not make much of a difference but the names attached to a white person received a call back 1/10 times, resumes attached to a black name received call backs 1/15 times . other than the names the resumes were the same
Greenwald at al (2003) had participants sit at a computer and they were supposed to press a key with regard to how to deal with the participants on the screen. one key was a shooting key, one was a non shooting key. people would appear holding a gun or a nonthreatening object, both black and white patricipants were more likely to wrongfully shoot a black target. plant later found this only happened with black men
Parsons et al (2011): umpires were more likely to call strikes for pitchers who are the same race as themselves. this was only true when there was les accountability or public outcry so in smaller games or when it was the first or second strikes
gendered prejudice
unique because it tends to be prescriptive while others tend to be descriptive. tends to be more about how people should act, other types are about how people actually act
get more on this…
religious prejudice
bushman and bonacci (2004): had people receive an email from a Muhammad or a Jonathan, it either said that the person won or lost the scholarship. how many people alerted the emailer that they sent it to the wrong person, found that people were more likely to let the sender know when it was a European sounding name and they won the scholarship, or if it was an Arab sounding name and they lost
prejudice and size
all things being equal, people are less likely to offer a job to women who are overweight than women who are underweight
sexual orientation
support for same sex marriage was low in 1996 and increased to just 64% in 2017.
people who believe that sexuality is a choice are more likely to show prejudice
hebl et al (2002) sent ra’s into a mall with a hat on that said either Texas and proud or gay and proud, the ra’s did not know which hat they were wearing, they then went into different stores in the mall and secretly recorded interactions with employees there. found that the ra’s who were wearing the gay and proud hat had less helpful interaction with the employees the employees were less interested in talking to them, and they were spoken to less
correlations
people who showed one type of prejudice stereotype or discrimination are likely to show multiple types. victims tend to be aware of this and it does affect their interactions.
outgroup
any group that you do not have membership in. because you don’t have membership the outgroup seems threatening to you
outgroup homogeneity bias
the bias that you think outgroup members are more similar to each other than members of our in-groups. thinking outgrips are all the same, my group is special, we all have uniqueness to us
ORE
other race effect: we are better at discriminating between members of our own race than members of another race, being able to tell the difference between members or our own race is easier than members of another race. even people adopted into another race tend to be better at telling there own race than other races
in-groups
groups in which you have membership in and feel accepted by so you feel safer
ingroup favoritism
we give special treatment to people who share group membership with us, you want to avoid potential rejection from a group that currently provides security
minimal group effect
you see ingroup bias even for meaningless groups, you don’t need similarity to show favoritism
locksley, ortiz, Hepburn (1980) randomly assigned people to red or blue groups based on marbles they drew, totally meaningless groups, people started to rate shared members smarter, friendlier, and better people, while they rated outgroup members as annoying or less intelligent. even though everything was due to chance you still saw an imbalance between groups
Sheriff (1954)
robbers cave: had 22 white eleven year old boys and divided them up into two equal groups, they came out to a summer camp and were divided randomly, then there were three stages to the participation in the study.
- bonding, they were in their group and did not interact with the other group, they let the boys name the groups and they bonded and formed a strong group identity
- competition: they had contests for prizes between the two groups, they started to eat together in the mess hall, there was some antagonistic action, when there is battling you will see outgroup negativity show, what started as verbal aggression moved to physical aggression, eventually the rattles stole and burned the eagles flag
- de-escelation: they started telling the groups good things about the other group - that had no effect. instead they then had them interact in a non competitive environment, they started doing group activities with no winner but had everyone participate like watching movies, that did lead to de-escelation
theories or prejudice
realistic conflict theory, contact hypothesis, law of least effort, scapegoat theory, social dominance theory, social rejection, system justification theory, social identity, stereotype content model,
realistic conflict theory Sherif (1966)
when there is competition over scarce resources it is going to lead to hostility between groups. oftentimes that hostility will lead to direct conflict
contact hypothesis Allport (1954)
increased regular interaction between groups will lead to a decrease in prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination, similar to mere exposure in a sense that it must be neutral or positive
it does not need to be physical, it can be through representatives in tv
law of least effort Allport (1954)
stereotypes are the brains laziest way to deal with a new person.
Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1994): participants got either a name of a person or a name and a stereotype. They were then given a list of traits half of which matched the stereotype, half of which were counter to the stereotype. When primed with a stereotype they remembered the stereotypical traits more than the non stereotypical traits more, and remembered the stereotypical traits more than those who did not get the stereotype primed. After they were given the traits they were given a piece of prose to read. The short story was unrelated to the stereotype or trait, they found that participants who were given the stereotype at the beginning of the experiment remembered more of the story than participants who were just given the name.
Because they could rely on the schematic information they had more cognitive resources when it came to processing the story.
Scapegoat theory
we use prejudice, stereotype and discrimination to scapegoat outgrips for bad things that happen to us. one of the reasons this works is because it gives us moral affirmation, we feel less bad when we can blame someone else. we feel less guilt for bad actions when we can blame those bad actions on somebody else
seen in. victim blaming, the reason I treated you badly is not because I am a bad person but because you are a bad person, another example is welfare - they treat people on welfare poorly not because I am a bad person, but because the welfare user is bad.
control is an additional factor, when bad thing happen that are out of my control I feel less bad about them
social dominance theory
the extent to which we want our ingroup to be dominant both socially and over resources, people who want their group to be more dominant are more likely to show stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination
social rejection
we display prejudice in order to avoid rejection from an ingroup. especially if my ingroup has a specific hatred of an outgroup. in order to be accepted by my ingroup I will hate the outgroup too.
system justification theory
both people who are in power and who are not in power are motivated to maintain the status quo, this can lead to a perpetuation in prejudice, stereotype, and descrimination because people may be motivated to maintain a bad status quo
social identity theory
by having and ingroup outgrip dichotomy we can better understand ourselves and our position in society
stereotype content model
ingroups are comforting, we are going to use different stereotypes in order to understand how we should interact with outgroup members
Warmth and competence. Warmth is competition based, if we are in competition we are going to be low warmth, if we are not in competition we are going to be high warmth. Competence is status based, if you are low competence you are going to be low status, if you have more status you are higher in competence.
These combine to create this matrix
Low competence low warmth: contemptuous stereotype: low status individuals who are competing with your ingroup, this will generate a lot of negative emotionality, anger disgust and fear
Welfare recipients are often times viewed this way
High competence, low warmth: envious stereotype: people of high status who are competing with your ingroup, some of the common emotions elicited are envy and jealousy.
Rich people
High warmth low competence: paternalistic stereotype - people who are not in competition with us and have low status, elicit pity and sympathy
The elderly
People who are high in warmth and high in stature: admiration stereotypes, elicit admiration and pride.
This is where we see our stereotype for fellow ingroup members, if your ingroup has allies in another outgroup they may also fit in this category.
stereotypes and accuracy
not all stereotypes are equal inaccurate, some are actually built in accuracy, men are taller than women
stereotype and stress
stress can lead a person to use stereotypes and stereotypes can cause the person being stereotyped against to feel stressed.
Law of least effort, when we are stressed we lack cognitive resources and likely use stereotypes.
Sinclair and Kunda (2000) had half the group be criticized by a professor who was either male or female, had half the group be praised and had a female or male professor.
When a female professor was criticizing a student they were viewed as less confident, when it came to praise you saw no difference.
Criticism increases people stress which may lead them to tap into a stereotype against women.
stereotype and memory
through confirmation bias we tend to remember information that fits with our stereotypes and forget information that is counter to out stereotypes
Darley and gross (1983) gave people traits about a child which made the participants think they were academically gifted or gave them traits that made participants think the child was not academically gifted. then they had the child perform the test and show average intelligence. the participants reported information about the child hat matched the stereotype
financial and stereotype
overweight women tend to receive less financial assistance from their family than overweight men or underweight women. a person weight is more correlated with a hiring raises and salary than race or gender.
white men tend to be offered the best car deals followed by white women followed by black women followed by black men
identity
being stereotyped starts to affect your own identity. it does not feel good when we are stereotyped. we question our own self and identity. this is especially true when someone mispsteoretypes you
emotional component to stereotyping
it does not feel good to be stereotyped against
stereotypes and self fulfilling prophecy
if you think a new person will behave in an aggressive way, you are then going to create behaviors that will fit in that belief. you put up your guard and might respond aggresivley, because you started exception aggression that person may respond aggesivley. you may think that my stereotype was correct when in reality the impetus of the aggression starts with me
stereotype threat
steele and Quinn (1999) when you are primed with a stereotype you end up enacting that stereotype
Were told that there was a difference between men and females on this test, the other group was told there was no difference. Women performed worse only when they were told there was a gender difference.
If you are primed with a stereotype that you will perform poor;y, why would you put resources into that task? Women in the stereotype threat condition reported feeling much higher rates of anxiety than women in the no stereotype threat, this causes worse performance.
overcoming prejudice
Conscious effects, most of the time they happen rather unconsciously, so if we can override those unconscious thoughts we can show a decrease in prejudice, stereotype and discrimination. Deliberate conscious thought can overcome those aspects
There is a difference between implicit and explicit
Implicit is automatic, most o the time when prejudice is discussed it is implicit
Explicit is what one consciously thinks, it is a ot easier to track what one explicitly thinks than implicit, so it can be hard to measure the implicit when it comes to stereotype
IAT combats this, sorting the ingroup member and the outgroup member with the stereotype quickly, based on time it can tell you the implicit association.
Dutton (1971)
had a black couple where the men were not meeting the dress code of the restaurant, they wanted to see what would happen to the men not wearing the dress code, 25% of the black couples were turned away, 70% of the white couples were turned away. 1971! They believed that the social desirability bias led to the difference in the results, the host did not want to be viewed as racist so they favored black couples. This is only the first couple, then…
45 minutes the second couple came of the other race. The second couple was treated the same as the first couple. The reason you didn’t see this same sort of difference in the second couple ws because the host had justification for their decision.
Field study
overcoming prejudice and perspective taking
empathy toward the outgroup, trying to put yourself in the shoes of the outgroup member.
social desirability
get this from ta and keep up the good work
common ingroup identity model
highlight a common ingroup identity, people belong to a large number of groups, if you can highlight a shared identity between two different groups than you can reduce prejudice, think of the soccer team helping experiment
Rick et al. (2010) made pairs of dems and reps, half of the pairs had pins identifying them as dem or reps, the other half had pins just identifying them as american. Found that when their separate identities were highlighted, the members rated their partner more negatively than when the shared identity was highlighted.
Superordinate goals
when you give two groups a shared goal that they must work together to accomplish.
think of the Sherif (1965): Prior to the superordinate goals they asked them how many people in the other group do you like, in stage three they are given goals to work on together, you saw increased rates of liking across the groups, they are forcing contact and working with the contact hypothesis.
