Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
183 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Communication |
Transfer of meaningful information from one person to another |
|
|
Why is communication social? |
1) Involves interrelationships among people 2) Requires people acquire shared understanding of what particular sounds, words, signs, and gestures mean 3) Means through which people influence others and are in turn influenced by others 4) Also major nonverbal component as well |
|
|
Gaze and eye contact |
Probably most information rich and important of non verbal communication channels |
|
|
Functions of gazing |
1) Communicate liking (people look more at people they like than those they dislike, more attracted to those who look at them) 2) Communicate whether someone's listening (75% of time gazing when listening, 41% when speaking) 3) Regulate turn taking in conversation (listeners decrease gaze to signal they want the floor, increase gaze to listen more) 4) Secretly communicate information (wink) 5) Indicate aggression or disapproval (intense directed gaze = death stare) 6) Signal power or status (high status men/women assume dominant gaze pattern, men dominate when no status specified) |
|
|
Why do we smile? |
1) Because we are happy (although usually more about communicating it than actually feeling it) 2) Mask anger 3) Smooth over a negative situation 4) Soften a criticism 5) Express reluctant compliance 6) Make yourself happier |
|
|
Touch functions |
1) To communicate positive affect 2) Communicate playfullness/humor ( 3) Draw attention to yourself or to induce compliance... touch as control (people who initiate touch are seen as higher status) 4) To accomplish tasks (nurse taking your pulse) 5) To communicate negative affect (pushing away/slapping) 6) To satisfy ritualized requirements (saying hello or goodbye) |
|
|
Touch/Romantic Relationships study |
Men touch women more than women touch men, more likely to read into it sexually than women |
|
|
Interpersonal distance |
1) Intimate: up to 0.5 m 2) Personal: (0.5-1.25 m) - everyday between friends/acquaintances 3) Social: (1.25-4 m) - typical casual interaction distance 4) Public: (4-8 m) - lectures, public speakers, and celebrities Violations of personal space lead to personal anxiety (example of elevator and urinal-longer to pee/stops sooner when too close) |
|
|
Interpersonal distance is a function of.... |
Liking (closer to people you like), status (greater distance for high status people), and culture (blacks closer than whites, children closer than adults) |
|
|
Signals for ending turn/desiring for someone else to talk |
1) Coming to the end of a sentence 2) Raising or lowering intonation of the last word 3) Drawing out the last word 4) Leaving sentence unfinished 5) Body motions (gazing/hand motions etc..) |
|
|
Signals you want to keep talking/resist someone trying to butt in |
1) Same pitch 2) Head straight 3) Eyes unchanged 4) Holding same gesture 5) Speak louder/faster |
|
|
Signals you want someone else to keep talking |
1) Nodding 2) Minimal encouragers (mhmm, ok, right) |
|
|
7 dimensions of social skills |
1) Emotional expressivity - letting others know your emotional state 2) Emotional sensitivity - sensitive to others' emotional states 3) Emotional control - being able to control emotional expression when appropriate 4) Social expressivity - being comfortable in social situations such as parties 5) Social sensitivity - being influenced by moods of those around you 6) Social control - being the leader 7) Social manipulation - manipulating others to get what you want Good at sensitivity makes you good at life |
|
|
Nonverbals? |
People improve on decoding nonverbals with age, women are more nonverbally sensitive than men. |
|
|
Mimicry |
- Given to us by nature because we are a social species. - Tend to mimic non-verbals of others (used as a crude mechanism for trying to get acceptance). - Tends to be unconscious (chameleon effect) - Tend to diverge from someone's style if we don't like them |
|
|
Self-Disclosure |
- Also a social skill, - Normative for intimacy (self-disclosure increases as people get to know each other/disclose more to attractive people) - Females disclosed to most |
|
|
Halo effect |
Attribute more positive qualities to more beautiful people (self-disclose more too) |
|
|
Aggression vs. Assertion |
Assertion - Presenting own perspective, taking responsibility for own attitudes and feelings, stating opinion as opinion, leaving choice of response for after Aggression - Dominating others, forcing others to do what you want, attacking others, assuming your needs are more important than others, throwing tantrums |
|
|
Functions of Assertiveness |
1) Speak up/make requests/ask for favors/ insist rights be respected 2) Express negative emotions/refuse requests 3) Help show positive emotions/ accept or give compliments 4) Ask why/question authority of tradition/assume responsibility for asserting your share of control of the situation 5) Initiate, carry on, change, or terminate conversations comfortably and effectively |
|
|
6 types of love |
1) Compassionate love- friendship or best friend love 2) Passionate love - All consuming emotionally; physically expressed 3) Game playing love - all about playing the love game and winning it, relationships end when partner gets too boring or serious 4) Possessive love - Emotionally intense, jealous, obsessed, or dependent 5) Selfless love - unconditonally caring, giving and forgiving; duty to give no strings attached 6) Logical love - love shopping for a suitable mate; pragmatic lover who seeks contentment rather than excitement (still most dominant form of matchmaking today) |
|
|
Major predictor of whether people get together? |
Proximity! We like people who we are geographically close to. |
|
|
Why is proximity the major factor of whether people get together? |
1) Laws of probability 2) Mere exposure - more exposure = more liking 3) Get to know each other in non-threatening way - doesn't feel like a date, less threatening, ambiguity about hanging out frees up worries about rejection (example of TV and gorgeous girl) |
|
|
What is physical attractiveness? |
Certain undeniable things about physical beauty, can be interpretive but largely automatic/superficial - facial symmetry - facial features in women (broad cheekbones, big eyes, small noses etc..) - hourglass shape women - ideal women are getting skinnier while waist to hip ratio is increasing - V shape for guys, narrow waist, cut not huge |
|
|
Examples of superficiality of physical attractiveness: |
- Moms look more at cute babies - Babies look more at beautiful moms - Good looking kids are more popular/more friends - Teachers rate good looking kids as smarter/more potential - Attribute qualities to beautiful people they haven't earned - Taller men are actually shown to be smarter, have more leadership potential, and earn more money |
|
|
Affect of physical attractiveness on happiness/self-esteem? |
NONE |
|
|
Social Exchange Theory |
People are motivated to maximize benefits/minimize costs in relationships with others Relationship value determined by your alternatives and quality of your partner Big city relationships end sooner than rural ones because more options. |
|
|
Evolutionary psych perspective on women and men in pursuit of partners |
Women: want resources and personality (sign of parental quality and ability to support/protect) Men: Want youth and good looks (sign of health and reproductive potential) Men are most attractive when interacting with a child Women are more ok with physical cheating rather than emotional cheating, men more ok with emotional cheating than physical cheating |
|
|
How long would it take you to have sex with someone you don't know by gender? |
Men about a week for mostly positive, women required 6 months for mostly positive |
|
|
Asking strangers to go date, come home, or have sex with girl and guy respectively? |
Males would: 50 % go out, 80% go home with girl, 90% would have sex Women would: 50% say yes to date, 10% would go home with a guy, and 0% would have sex |
|
|
Loneliness effect on health? |
- Less sociable people get sick (colds) twice as often - Isolated stroke patients twice as likely to get a second one - Bad relationships are bad for health too
|
|
|
Self-Verification Theory |
We seek feedback that reinforces our pre-existing ideas about ourselves Low self esteem people are more attracted to people who have low opinions of them than people who have high opinions |
|
|
Gain-loss hypothesis |
Tend to like those who initially dislike us and warm up to us and hate those who like us initially and grow cold later on |
|
|
Oscillating punishment and reward |
- tend to bond with those who alternate between warm and loving to cold, distant, and abusive - Stockholm Syndrome (liking for captors/mistreaters) - Abused children tend to have strong attachments to abusers - Cult members loyal to malevolent leaders |
|
|
Audience effects |
Impact on individual task performance in the presence of others improvement in performance of "competition machine" experiment (Triplett - 1898) attributed to competition Audience presence does tend to improve performance (evidence not convincing depends on the task) |
|
|
How does complexity of task affect performance with audience? |
Simple/Easy Task: Presence of others leads to improvement (word listing test example for stutterers and regular speakers) Complex Task: Presence of others makes performance worse Exception: Can forget basic tasks if people around |
|
|
Social Facilitation |
Presence of others leads to improvement (on a simple task) |
|
|
Social Inhibition |
Presence of others leads to worse results (usually on a complex task) |
|
|
Zajonc's Drive Theory |
Presence of others ---> Arousal (drive) -------> Increase in performing dominant response -----> if correct (social facilitation) and if incorrect (social inhibition) |
|
|
Markus study |
Tested time to put clothes on for evaluation apprehension model, time decreased for attentive audience with familiar clothes and increased for unfamiliar clothes |
|
|
Distraction Conflict Theory (Sanders - 1978) |
Presence of audience ---> attentional conflict (audience is distracting) ----> Drive ----> Dominant response leads to social facilitation or inhibition depending on the task (effects can be noticed when lights/sounds/distractions present not just actual audience) |
|
|
Problems with Drive Theory |
1) no evidence of increased arousal (no way to actually tell) 2) What is drive? |
|
|
Self Awareness Theory |
Comparison between real and ideal performance Easy tasks - discrepancy is less pronounced between real and ideal, motivation to close gap is activated
|
|
|
Attention Overload Model |
Audience presence cause cognitive overload, narrowing of attention happens to focus on few central cues (makes performing easy tasks faster while difficult tasks take longer) Saying color of word in different color was faster for example! |
|
|
Self-Expectations and Social Evaluation Model (Sanna, 1992) |
Easy task ---> high self-expectations ---> expect positive evaluation from audience ----> social facilitation Hard task ---> low-self expectations ---> expect negative evaluations ----> social inhibition |
|
|
Social Loafing |
Do people work harder individually or in groups? Rope pulling example (in real groups and pseudo groups) |
|
|
Why do people loaf in groups? |
- Lack of evaluation apprehension (cloak of anonymity in group, people tend to chip in when fear of recognition)
- Output equity: people expect others to slack off so they slack off too to maintain equity
- Matching to standard: people tend to loaf when no clear standard performance to match |
|
|
Factors affecting social loafing |
1) Whether or not individual performance is identifiable 2) Cross-cultural differences (people work harder in collectivist cultures) 3) How cohesive the group is 4) Intergroup competition 5) Presence/absence of clear/aspirational goals 6) How interesting/meaningful the task is (social compensation, more attractive tasks tend to be performed better) |
|
|
Social compensation |
When a task that needs to be performed in groups is really important and others are slacking off, one member works harder to complete the collective task |
|
|
Bystander effect |
Phenomenon in which the presence of other people inhibits helpfulness More likely to get help passing out with no one around then a bunch of people |
|
|
Explanations for bystander effect |
1) Diffusion of responsibility - other people could help in theory, not just your fault 2) Social influence - emergencies are often ambigious, look to others to determine if something is serious or not (lady in distress cabinet experiment, smoke in room experiment) 3) Audience inhibition - don't want to look foolish by over-reacting/making mistakes (fear of social blunder higher with more people) example of electric shock experiment |
|
|
Bystander effect less strong when... |
1) Bystanders know each other 2) Know there will be an opportunity to interact later/explain their actions 3) Victim is acquaintance or relative 4) Victim is child being abused publicly |
|
|
Cronulla riots |
Tension between white male group and Lebanese/Middle Eastern men that lead to the Middle Eastern men getting beaten up and sparked huge riot |
|
|
Is prejudice a gendered phenomenon? |
- Some argue men are more likely to engage in intergroup conflict/prejudice - Men more oriented toward ranking groups/heirarchies - More physically formidable than women, giving necessary reasons to engage in conflict - Men are evolutionally programmed to accumulate resources, form coalitions to perform violence - Actual difference between men and women is very small (r = 0.1) |
|
|
Authoritarian personality theory (Aderno?) |
Certain people are prejudiced against all minorities (have an authoritarian personality) - respect/deference to authority - obsession with rank/status - Intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty - Intimacy issues - Tendency to displace anger onto others - Can't articulate anger onto parents so displace it onto others |
|
|
Problems with Authoritarian Personality Theory |
1) Data not entirely reliable 2) Freudian underpinnings difficult to pin down 3) Doesn't naturally lead to interventions (can't help people change) |
|
|
Frustration-Aggression Theory (Bekowitz) |
Aggression (interpersonal/intergroup) is caused by feelings of frustration
Frustration causing things: 1) Heat 2) Economic hardship (example of cotton prices + lynching) 3) Overcrowding |
|
|
Relative Deprivation Theory (Egoistic and Fraternalistic) |
Argument that primary cause of frustration is relative deprivation
Fraternalistic - Group has less than it is entitled to in its aspirations/or what other groups have |
|
|
J curve |
Greatest unrest occurs when there is a dip in fortunes after a long period of steady improvement |
|
|
Realist conflict theory (Sherif) |
Intergroup aggression due to competition for scarce resources, not by personality factors/feelings of frustration |
|
|
Sherif's Experiment |
2 groups of boys at camp, seperated them and made them play games with only one winner, turned into rival factions. Afterwards, he got boys to work together and relations were restored. |
|
|
Social Identity Theory |
Built on the premise that we have fundamental need to feel good about ourselves relative to those around us Self comprises of 2 aspects: 1) Personal identity - idiosyncratic attitudes, behaviors, and memories that distinguish you from other individuals 2) Social identity - Group based attitudes, behaviors, and memories that distinguish your group from other groups |
|
|
Threats to distinctiveness of group (beginning of hostility) |
1) Value threat - When group is criticized, trivialized, or discriminated against by outgroup 2) Distinctiveness threat - threat of something not being unique (example of Aussies and their vulgar slang) Example of kids at school being told their schools are similar |
|
|
Options if your group is low status: |
1) Individual mobility - Assimilation into high status group (not possible if impermeable boundary), Princess Caribou example 2) Finding new dimensions of intergroup comparison (dominate in other categories if the one in comparison is lacking) example of English and the pound 3) Redefining value of status dimensions 4) Comparison with different outgroup 5) Recategorize the self at the subordinate level (UQ vs. Griffith education level) 6) Political activity to change the status relationship (particularly if low status position is illegitimate) |
|
|
Best way to fix intergroup issues (generally) |
Physical separation |
|
|
Allport (1954) views on how to fix separation? |
1) prolonged/cooperative contact, not casual/incidental 2) Should be a framework for institutional support for integration 3) Contact should involve tasks/contexts where groups feel of equal power and status Partially works... reduces anxiety but not very good with stereotypes. Generally speaking, it is not very helpful with stereotypes since bad contact tends to reinforce these more than good contact |
|
|
Decategorization |
Idea that contact works better if everyone is encouraged to see others as individuals (stereotypes rarely change by individual behavior) |
|
|
Assimilation (and its 2 versions) |
Goal for some people to make everyone feel like they are members of one big group 1) melting pot culture 2) minority group assimilation - assumption that minority groups should assimilate to dominant culture (white + aboriginal) |
|
|
Multiculturalism |
Emphasis to embrace cultural values while embracing their macro similarities (Lebanese and old English people all Australians here) Major policies stay (english speaking) but still have individual cultures |
|
|
Home-grown terrorism (things to look for) |
Likely to be: Male, muslim, under 35, second/third generation immigration children, middle-class backgrounds, educated, recent converts to Islam, radicalized by imams, unremarkable, little criminal history |
|
|
Psychology of War (Bronfenbrenner 1961) |
Idea that all warring factions tend to have similar criticism (first noticed between USSR and America) Criticisms: 1) Other side is the aggressors 2) Their government exploits/deludes people 3) Mass of their people are not really sympathetic to regime 4) They can't be trusted * Groups minimize their own atrocities and maximize the seriousness of other groups' atrocities |
|
|
Altruism |
Voluntary helpfulness that is motivated by concern about welfare of other people, rather than possibility of personal reward |
|
|
Motivational Crowding study |
(Titmuss 1970) -Argued it might be counter productive to offer financial incentives to give, takes away "warm glow" associated with giving - Amount of blood donors do in fact decrease with payment (men still donated though about the same) |
|
|
Visual images helping giving? |
-Exceptionally powerful in capturing humanitarian crisis/getting people to feel empathy - Most effective when you show one person (particulary a child) suffering but not very effective when showing in groups or with moms - Stimulating empathy not always best for giving, can lead to burnout (example of Texas + Hurrican Katrina study) - Doesn't always get people to donate to right things (example of guide dog vs. actually curing blindness) |
|
|
Power of reciprocation |
"Free gifts" greatly increase donations (largely exploited by charities) |
|
|
Samuel Ollener example |
- Jewish kid in Poland, ran from Nazis and was housed by woman until she taught him how to stay safe - Spent rest of life investigating why people are nice - Greatest predictor of whether somebody will be altruisic is extent to which they feel compassion - More likely to be altrusitic when you see others being alturistic |
|
|
Good Samaritan Study |
People asked to give speech on good samaritan passage in Bible - some rushed, some not, those rushed stopped to help someone in need much less than those who had time - rushing = less helping |
|
|
Forgiveness? |
- powerfully correlated with physical/mental wellbeing - NOT about: forgetting, swallowing feelings to "make peace", victim's moral responsibility - Not appropriate in every circumstance - Positive Correlations (personality): Neuroticism (negative), Agreeableness, and Religiosity - Situation Correlations: Was it intentional? Did they apologize? Relationship satisfaction |
|
|
Public apologies |
Example of Canada/Australia to indigenous people - leads to perception of remorse/accepting, but not forgiving |
|
|
Collective apologies |
Things that work: Grassroot apologies, apologies that acknowledge the suffering of victims, "closed door" apologies between leaders (tell public later), and commemoration Things that don't work: More emotional apologies, paying compensation instead of apologizing, using qualified apologies, and delayed apologies |
|
|
Reasons to help others (double check) |
Want to avoid -personal pain of seeing someone suffer -guilt of not helping someone in distress Want to feel good about thinking how we've improved other people's lives |
|
|
Extreme acts of human altruism |
- Risking your life to save strangers - Depression/burnout among healthcare professionals (help others and cause themselves stress) |
|
|
Animal explanation for altruism? |
Helping their kin |
|
|
Evolutionary psych approaches to being nice |
- Altruism = "enlightened self-interest" - Helping your kin fulfills your evolutionary mission of furthering your DNA - Protecting your ingroup increases your survival chances - Humans bound by norms of reciprocity, help others with understanding of them helping you later (like a downpayment) - Helping others may be a signal of psychological/material resources, increases partner potential |
|
|
Big predictor of longevity? |
Helping others |
|
|
Dictator game example: |
- Given 10 dollars with partner, what do you do with it? - Average: 28% of money given - Bimodal data: some for no money given, some for 5 dollars given - Order of selfishness of cultures (H to L): Western, Developing, and Primitive - Old people nicest, followed by adults and then students (most selfish)
|
|
|
Extension of moral boundaries |
Moral boundaries have gone beyond kin to innocent people/animals in last 200 years |
|
|
Moral exposure scale |
- Assesses how important something is to your moral responsibility - 3 major groups: inner group, outer group, and fringes -see slides for item list - assessed by question of how many people/things would have to die for you to give your own life to stop it |
|
|
Giving stats? |
- Amount has increased over time (inflation) but proportion of income has been consistent at about 2% - Women, old people, and rich people give more -Function of people's ability to imagine/experience feelings of others - Giving increases when Social Dominance Orientation decreases - Myanmar number one in givingn |
|
|
Aggression |
Act performed with intent to harm another who wishes to avoid such harm |
|
|
Aggression |
Act performed with intent to harm another who wishes to avoid such harm - covers all types of harm (physical, emotional, etc...) - intention is important (accidental doesn't count, success of act doesn't matter) - victim's wishes are important (consent = no aggression) |
|
|
Violence + Cruelty |
Violence is extreme acts of aggression, Cruelty is aggression in terms of humans on animals |
|
|
Aggression |
Act performed with intent to harm another who wishes to avoid such harm - covers all types of harm (physical, emotional, etc...) - intention is important (accidental doesn't count, success of act doesn't matter) - victim's wishes are important (consent = no aggression) |
|
|
Violence + Cruelty |
Violence is extreme acts of aggression, Cruelty is aggression in terms of humans on animals |
|
|
Reactive/Emotional Aggression |
Harm is inflicted for its own sake, can be impulsive/calculated |
|
|
Aggression |
Act performed with intent to harm another who wishes to avoid such harm - covers all types of harm (physical, emotional, etc...) - intention is important (accidental doesn't count, success of act doesn't matter) - victim's wishes are important (consent = no aggression) |
|
|
Violence + Cruelty |
Violence is extreme acts of aggression, Cruelty is aggression in terms of humans on animals |
|
|
Reactive/Emotional Aggression |
Harm is inflicted for its own sake, can be impulsive/calculated |
|
|
Proactive/Instrumental |
Harm is inflicted as means to a desired end, stems from some other goal (Nancy Kerington) |
|
|
Biological Factors of Aggression |
- One argument states idea of blank slate, environment/biology determine aggression - Genetic link to aggression exists - Violent temper, giving people a hard time, assault, propensity for adolescent misconduct (all heritable) some argue genetic basis for criminality |
|
|
Liebert and Baron, 1972 |
Kids watched either a sports or violent show, kids exposed to violent shows hit hurt button more often for other kids (boys also more often than girls) - Link between media violence and aggression is stronger when: Described as real vs. fictitious Morally justified by the situation Described as revenge Carried out by someone participants identify with Approved by an adult |
|
|
Culture of honor association with aggression |
Cultures of honor and status (particularly for men) tend to use aggression to protect honor (example of South vs. North), even minor conflicts seen as challenges to honor -> aggressive response |
|
|
North vs. South corridor experiment/implications |
- Person bumps into participant, calls them an *******, assess firmness of handshake after - Southerners had increased cortisone (stress) and testosterone levels after bumping, firmer handshake - Northerners see insult as reflective of insulter, Southerners see it as reflective on themselves |
|
|
Narcissism and Aggression? |
- Higher levels of narcissism = more aggression (public provocation leads to stronger link than private) - Negative feedback on essay led to more intense noise blasts on evaluator |
|
|
Alcohol and Violence (Alcohol and Myopia) |
- Alcohol myopia: State of short sightedness in which superficially understood, immediate aspects have disproportionate influence on behavior and emotion (see tree but miss the forest), narrows attention to most salient aspects of situation, limits ability to think through implications of cues -> more extreme behavior with inhibition conflict |
|
|
Inhibition conflict |
Salient cues encourage one response, inhibiting cues encourage restraint (when alcohol myopia present, people process salient cue but not inhibiting cue) |
|
|
Zeichner and Phil (1979) |
Participants consumed alcohol, received loud burst of noise from another, can give electric shock back but other person can send loud noise (alcohol myopia test) - participants only wanted to shock the other mean person, not understanding their own punishment (salient but not inhibiting) |
|
|
Physical punishment effect on stopping aggression? |
- Can backfire because it models aggressive behavior - Correlational evidence that spanking leads to increased antisocial behavior |
|
|
Effective non/violent punishment? |
Punishment effective when: - prompt (immediately follows aggressive behavior) - certain (consistently applied, unavoidable) - seems fair/legitimate - Strong enough to deter aggressor but not too harsh (can lead to internalized behavior) |
|
|
Ways to lower aggression? Catharsis? Empathy? Self-Control? |
Catharsis of aggression does not lower aggression -> performing aggression leads to more aggression Increasing empathy -> lower aggression (30 hour elementary school) Self-control leads to less aggression (non-dominant hand use for 2 weeks = less noise blasting) |
|
|
Testosterone |
- Male sex hormone (found in both men + women) - positively correlated with aggression (example of sex change -> aggression with increased levels, lower 2D-4D finger ratios = more aggression, successful aggression = more testosterone) |
|
|
Attitude |
Enduring evaluation, positive or negative of a person, object, idea, or behavior. (Belief = climate change is real, Attitude = climate change is bad) |
|
|
Challenges of measuring attitudes (Likert and Semantic Differential) |
People orginally thought mind was too complex, now just ask people Likert Scale (1:7), which lets people rate extent to which they agree/disagree with an evaluative statement about a target Semantic Differential - people rate a target on a scale that runs between polar opposite adjectives |
|
|
Lapire example |
- Exhibits difference between what people say, what they think, and what they do - Chinese couple traveling with him allowed to stay at every place but one in 30's, only one in 250 said no in person, 7% said uncertain, 1% said no when calling back |
|
|
Bogus pipeline |
Questionairre given to blacks + whites with and without lie detector test, supposed to rate certain trait applicability to each race. Without lie detector test, whites had negative results but with, blacks had significantly worse results (honesty shows true attitudes) |
|
|
The Facial Electromyograph (EMG) |
Records facial muscle activity associated with emotions + attitudes (frowning = negative evaluation, smiling = positive evaluation), used by Vanman to measure activity of whites/blacks when asked who they want to interact with (pro Black bias but facial activity showed more negative attitudes for blacks |
|
|
Priming measures |
Liked objects prime positivity (quicker to identify good words after priming something positive, slow to identify bad) disliked objects prime negativity |
|
|
Implicit Association Test (IAT) |
Analyzes reaction times in order to determine attitudes towards things (very difficult to determine if actual negative attitude or just aware of negative stereotypes) |
|
|
Attitudes might emerge because of ...? |
-Direct experience - Associations (phobias, nostalgic memories) - Consequences for you (rewards/punishments, ex. Alcohol) - Observational learning (seeing rewards/punishments for others) - Self-perception |
|
|
Self-Perception Theory (see notes) |
When we don't have strong attitudes/feelings, we infer these states by observing our own behavior (if we do something, we assume we must like it - example of recycling) Example of men in Korea becoming Anti-American through speech writing/presentation |
|
|
Cognitive Dissonancd Theory (1957) |
- Festinger said inconsistencies between attitudes/behaviors created psychological tension, "cognitive dissonance", which is unpleasant - Motivated to reduce it or change our behavior by developing new attitudes consistent with our behavior |
|
|
Seratonin |
Neurotransmitter that helps people retain impulses -negatively correlated with aggression - seratonin levels tend to drop when someone hasn't earen or is stressed -> impulsive anger - no person is inevitably aggressive, levels fluctuate daily |
|
|
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) |
- Participants performed boring study, given 1 to 20 dollars to lie about how fun it was. - One dollar people rated it higher since they wanted to feel better about lying, 20 dollar people felt better already (less cognitive dissonance), similar idea occured with sex discussion/call center/meat eating (lower thoughts about mental capacity = more willing to eat) |
|
|
Attitude Functions |
- Make us feel good about ourselves - Protect our self esteem - Ward off guilt - Value expressive attitudes: protect an idea of who we are/communicate an identity, take on identity that best advertise who we are (hipster/environmentalist) - Help make world more predictable/understandable (stereotypes etc...) -Maximize reward/minimize punishment (help us fit in- maximize social benefits, minimize potential for rejection/isolation) |
|
|
Boomerang Effects |
People more likely to do effect you tell them not to do (graffiti experiment- Pennebaker and Sanders, 2 year olds and toys they can't play with) |
|
|
Elaboration likelihood model |
- Motivated/able to process argument, more likely to carefully, effortfully process information (quality of argument matter), if not motivated/able, peripheral processes kick in where quality of argument doesn't matter - people more influenced by messages from someone who you like, attractiveness is credible, and is like you
|
|
|
Elaboration Likelihood Model/Perception Examples: |
- Example of university requiring comprehensive exams to graduate (people who cared had high personal relevance cared about quality of argument, those who didn't only cared about status of those decision making) - Perception of reality influenced by people around you (ice bucket and pain- less pain when others say not that bad, fans vs. AC - most pressure when comparing to peers to switch) |
|
|
Pluralistic ignorance |
- No one actually believes, but everyone believes that everyone else believes (overestimated drinking amount/comprehension amount in college) - Unintended consequences (littering/drugs more prevalent depending on slogan) |
|
|
Increasing antiscience movement? Explication |
- Global warming (Heartland/false experts), ESP. - More likely to resist facts if consequences behind factual view Explication - more evidence -> belief, not always true, limitations show people stick to beliefs despite facts Motivated reasoning- people focus only on one side of argument to preserve their own view Personal identity expression- desire to communicate "true self" lends motivation to read scientific evidence in biased way Fears/Phobias - reject validity of some things (needle fear = medical processes with needles are less helpful) |
|
|
Stereotypes |
- Beliefs about the characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of members of certain groups - can be accurate or wildly inaccurate representations of group differences |
|
|
What sparked gender stereotypes of today? How has it improved? |
- Industrial revolution sparked gender stereotypes (worked together before men had to go to factories) - Started to change with WWII, women forced to go to factories but expected to leave when men got back. - Change is now stagnanting, differences still exist |
|
|
Domains of Gender Segregation |
1) Occupation Most men work in male-oriented jobs (vice versa for females) 2) Status Women tend to pool at lower power positions, men pool at top of status heirarchies (CEOS, Presidents etc...) Clear ideas of women's work (teacher, cleaner, nurse) and men's work (laborer, army, CEO) Women get paid less/less voice/less desireable/visible jobs |
|
|
Frustration-Aggression hypothesis |
- goal interference -> build up of psychic energy (physiological drive) -> frustration/aggression (displaced on scapegoat or person who caused goal interference) - frustration has been linked to aggression (kids destroying toys after having to wait) - Frustration is higher when closer to reaching goal (someone cuts in line when 2nd vs. 10th)/obstacle is unexpected (students expecting donations) - Frustration less likely to be aggression if reason for goal impedence is inevitable/unavoidable -Frustration now seen as causing negative feelings -> aggression - |
|
|
Devil's Advocate Responses to Gender Segregation |
Occupational - Maybe men and women just want to do different things? Status - Perhaps women are not interested in making sacrifices needed to climb career ladder? Maybe its a pipeline problem? Just need to wait? |
|
|
Gendered descriptions |
Men: Agentic- dedicated, rational, determined, cold, aggressive, and competitive Women: Communal- caring, sensitive, modest, emotional, submissive, and collaborative |
|
|
Gendered Skills |
Men: Excel in interactions with things (not people) and strenuous/physical tasks Women: Excel in interactions with people |
|
|
Gendered Requirements |
Male dominated occupations assumed to require stereotypically male attributes and vice versa for female dominated occupations. |
|
|
Cejka and Eagly (double check) |
- Surveryed students on how 6 aspects of gender stereotypes were seen to contribute to occupational success - Results showed female attributes assumed to be needed for female tasks and vice versa |
|
|
Steinpres, Anders, and Ritcke (1997) |
CV experiment, sent in 582 applications to high/low level jobs - Achievement matters more than gender but female oriented jobs had more females (vice versa), gender mattered if no big difference between CV's (men seen as having more potential) - orchestra example is similar |
|
|
Glass ceiling for women? |
Idea that women can only go so high and get stuck - Women performing male attributes (ambitious etc...) seen as very negative and vice versa |
|
|
Schein (1975): Are managers gendered? |
Presented managers with list of 92 personality descriptors to identify in good managers, many more male + good manager matches (60) compared to women (8) - Tested 20 yrs later, still present |
|
|
Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, and Bongierno (2011) |
Successful situation of company = male attributes fitting better for managers Crisis = Better for female managers Females preferred when situation was risky, men preferred when situation was improving |
|
|
Career prototypes |
- The idealized person of a certain occupation at peak of their career (often have a gender) - Often look up to these people, if not same gender, less likely to follow that career (example of surgical training, low amounts of women where men embrace masculine characteristics, are motivated to follow that dream) |
|
|
Provocation, heat, and pain impacts on aggression |
Provocation: Can increase aggression unless mitigation factors are in advance (white noise/unfair grading studies) Heat: Higher aggression with heat (more HBP, more violence/assaults etc with high T) Pain: More pain = More Aggression (ice bucket) Increase in negative stimuli = more aggression unless too strong at which point aggression decreases |
|
|
Peters (2015) Royal Marine |
Men who felt less masculine had greater desire to opt out of Royal Marine training |
|
|
Gender a problem in the workplace |
- Influences choices we make in our lives due to strong stereotypes Male stereotypical jobs can disadvantage women at work/discourage women from pursuing occupations |
|
|
Meritocracy work? Castilla and Bernard (2010) |
- General belief that meritocracy (merit/talent basis for giving positions) will fix gender discrimination - People believe this is how the system should and does work - Asked participants to choose bonuses based on meritocracy, meritocracy actually hurt in that men made more in bonuses with meritocracy than without it. |
|
|
Group norms |
Shared beliefs/values that define appropriate attitudes/behaviors for group members, collective rules/standards of conduct |
|
|
Norm types? |
- Descriptive: What people do/think - Prescriptive: What people should do/think - Explicit: Stated out loud - Implicit: Not stated out loud but are implied |
|
|
Unintentional Deviations from Norms? |
- Tail of distribution (random variation putting one just beyond what is acceptable) - Norm shifting (not realizing norms have changed) - Ignorance (Not noticing/understanding norm) - Inability (not having the ability to follow the norm) - Duress (being forced to break the norm) - Compulsion (not being able to help oneself) |
|
|
Intentional Deviances from Norms? |
Principled disagreement- Refusing to follow a norm you disagree with Disdain- feeling above the norm Spite- wanting to upset the mainstream Desire for originality- wanting to be at odds with the norm Self-interest- rewards for breaking the norm |
|
|
Impostor types? |
- Shape shifters: Cross impermeable boundaries in laying claim to an identity to which they don't belong - Corner cutters: Imposters who cross permeable boundaries in laying claim to an identity (imposterism easier than legitimate entry) - Trojan horses: Impostor who passes as member of outgroup in order to cause damage (includes spies) - Closet dwellers: Imposters who pass as a member of outgroup in order to avoid stigma/persecution - History Theives: misrepresent their pasts in order to position themselves in community defined by history (surrounds military conflicts) |
|
|
Visible vs. Concealed stigma study |
Visible stigma had higher self-esteem than concealed stigma (can't find others like them, harder to fit in) |
|
|
Aggression related cues |
Guns/badminton rackets/weapons |
|
|
Aggression: Positive/Negative Reinforcement |
Positive: Produces desired outcomes Negative: Aggression prevents/stops undesireable outcomes Punishment: Aggression results in negative outcomes for you |
|
|
Bobo doll study |
Bandura, Ross and Ross 1961 - Kids exposed to frustrating experience release frustration on the doll as shown by adults (getting removed from cool toys -> less cool toys), most strongly follow same sex aggression example |
|
|
Social learning of aggression |
By watching aggressive models: - learn specific aggressive behaviors - develop more positive attitudes/beliefs about aggression in general - contact aggressive "scripts", act out if you see enough - models who act out aggressive behavior and don't get caught are most influential |
|
|
Violent media exposure correlation with aggression? When is link stronger? |
- Positive correlation between amount of violent TV watched as a child and aggressiveness as a teenager
|
|
|
Major examples of conformity and conformity trends |
- 4 Hours in Lai (killed many innocent people due to lost control of following orders, told to destroy entire town) - Asch paradigm with line comparison: Asked to pick longest line and people chose wrong line with confederates about 33% of time, 76% of participants conformed at least once, conformity drops signficantly when one member expresses different viewpoint from group of confederates - Women conform more, larger group leads to more conforming, more common for conformity in collectivist than individualist countries |
|
|
Normative vs. Informational Influence |
Normative - person maintains their private view but publicly conforms to public view because it is public (people conform more in public than in private, conformity drops for Asch paradigm when shouted out loud but not 0) Informational - Person is uncertain and looks to group as guide to reality, causes genuine attitude change to that of the public |
|
|
Sherif (1936) Autokinetic Study |
Light movement in black room study, alone estimates varied widely for how fair it moved, but group info was used to create baseline for future trials (emergence of group norm), put back individually and same norm used - changed out new member but same group norm stayed (line estimated range stayed close due to new norm establishment) |
|
|
Conformity affected over time? |
Conformity decreasing over time (particularly with social caving under fear of social pressure) but power of implicit norms to shape our behavior (even unconsciously) remains enormous - Individuals very powerful in breaking conformity |
|
|
Moral rebels |
People who do the moral obligation to object, generally liked more by third parties than by people who are actually implicated in moral dilemma |
|
|
Pros and Cons of Conformity |
Pros: - Gives us a guide of how to behave when we are uncertain what norms are - Can allow for group harmony - Can be used for good (pressure to recycle) - Probably has adaptive evolutionary function Cons: - Becomes dysfunctional when it involves making wrong/emotional decision - Can lead to stagnant, inflexible decision making in groups (fire and smoke experiment example- when alone, almost all report issue but when in groups, half report, when with confederates, no one reports really) |
|
|
Groupthink definition, antecedents, and symptons |
Definition: Mode of thinking in highly cohesive groups in which desire to reach unanimous agreement overrides the motivation to adopt proper, rational design making procedures Antecedents: Requires excessive cohesiveness, insulation of group from outside, lack of impartial leadership, ideological homogeneity, and high stress for external threat Symptoms: Invulnerable, All agree, Lead to dumb decisions (Bay of Pigs example - no advisor told Kennedy it was a bad idea to train Cuban Americans and send them in, humor used to prevent dissent) |
|
|
Need for cognitive closure |
Argument by Kruglanski and Webster that argued sometimes sheer energy required to discuss/process divergent opinion becomes too much, people just need closure (accept groupthink) |
|
|
Positive Deviants |
Tendency to denigrate someone whose behavior/physical/intellectual attributes are judged to be superior to average - Can be seen as too good for the group (likely to leave in the future), threatening to self-esteem (social comparison), can raise expectations of other group members' performance (can be valued in intergroup contexts) |
|
|
Critiques of conformity research |
Moscovici and colleagues questioned assumption that individuals are dependent on majorities to learn how to think/behave - Denies reality of minority influence (occurs when minorities influence majority) |
|
|
Minorities more effective when they demonstrate... |
- Investment: Seen to have made a sacrifice for their cause - Autonomy: Seen to be acting out of principle rather than ulterior motives - Balance between rigidity/flexibility: minorities that are too rigid look dogmatic; those that are too flexible riskbeing rejected as inconsistent. Minority influence usually starts with private change and moves to public (conversion long lasting this way) |
|
|
4 means of discouraging dissent |
1) Fear of damaging reputation 2) Active pressure from "mind guards" 3) Use of humor 4) Direct abuse |
|
|
Society vs. Individual? Origin of person? |
- Hard to have individuality when forced to follow society's rules, idea of self difficult to grasp (spectrum of chameleon -> individual) - Origin of the word person comes from Latin word "persona" (character) and before that an Etruscan word meaning "mask" |
|
|
How hot are you actually? |
- We all think we look better than we actually do (pick more beautiful photo of you in crowd of pictures than you do pick your actual photo) - Evolutionary theory that we are primed to be overconfident |
|
|
Martin Guerre and Nicholas Barclay examples |
Martin Guerre- left wife to be a mercenary in 16th century France, imposter came back and convinced wife it was really him until he actually came back Nicholas Barclay - ran away and never came back, Frederik Bourdin impostered him to family for 5 months (had different colored hair and 7 years older but didn't pick up on it) Both families willing to accept any definition of who am I? Slow to suspect impostor blindness partly because people influenced by superficial characteristics, partly because large lies are more likely to be thought of as too big to be true (Hannah Snell and Nev Schuman) |
|
|
Human fertility indicators? |
Humans don't have obvious physical signs that they are at fertile part of their cycle - Women tend to dress more provocatively, flirt more, show tiny shifts in voice, pitch, scent, and tone (may be evolutionary way to attract mates) - Men try to stand out to attractive women (skateboarder doing tricks example, testosterone up around beautiful women) |
|
|
Dating primes and conforming? |
- Women given dating prime more likely to conform to next task while men conformed less - Women think men prefer conformist target, but men actually prefer non-conformist target - Both were more creative after dating prime (women effect only occurred if thinking about long-term mate) - Inducing mating goals = willingness of men to spend on luxuries, boosted public helping (not private) of women - Men used bigger words after imaginary woman and women used smaller words for opposite situation (smart men vs. stupid women?) |
|
|
Ingratiation (sucking up) actually work? Slime Effect? |
People senior to you take sucking up as praising their merits, people on your level or below take it as sucking up Slime Effect- people who "suck up" and "kick down" at the same time are rated very negatively |
|
|
Self-Deprication meaning and uses? |
- Used by leaders to minimize power distinctions (associated positively with transformational leadership) and use of aggressive humor makes things worse - Better for higher power people, can backfire if seen as inauthentic |
|
|
Self-handicapping |
Strategy by which people invite obstacles in hopes of keeping potential failure from hurting their self-esteem (withdrawing effort, alcohol consumption, procrastination etc...) - Failing on your own terms to avoid hurting your own self-esteem - In terms of middle school students, most common for boys, low achievers, those extrinsically motivated, those who associate with friends with negative orientation towards teachers |
|
|
Thin slices... |
Doctor clips of 30 seconds determine niceness of doctor, predicts likelihood of getting sued, same concept can be done for teacher evaluations at end of year based on 6-30 seconds |
|
|
Power expressions |
- Take up lots of space, attempt to look bigger, stretch etc... - Taking power stance for 2 minutes leads to cartisol (stress related) levels to drop, testosterone to increase, higher risk taking, and improvement in job interviews. - Opposite for low power positions |
|
|
Just be yourself true? |
Idea really should be that you should be your best self, positive performance can make huge difference in effectiveness - Fake positivity/smiling can actually make you happy/more influential - Example of using cheerleaders for pharmaceutical sales (more effective sales with positivity) |
|
|
Kross (2013) Facebook is sad? |
Showed people who spend more time on facebook had lower satisfaction levels over the course of the study - Self-promotion on facebook is correlated with narcissism and negatively with self-esteem (higher genuine self-esteem = less likely to post on facebook) |
|
|
Authenticity relation to well being? |
Leads directly to well being, tough because authenticity is easily faked - Argument that authenticity is when you get so good at playing the roles that you believe they are true/authentic |
|
|
Feeling of being an impostor is related to...? |
- Self-reported depression - Anxiety - Low self-esteem - Self-consciousness - Fear of Success (Can feel like an impostor when people attribute positive qualities to you that you don't feel you can live up to) |
