Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
46 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Casual helping
|
Giving directions
Opening or holding a door |
|
|
Substantial personal helping
|
Bringing or sending flowers, a card, or a small gift
Giving a ride a long distance (20 miles) |
|
|
Emotional helping
|
Listening to someone talk through a problem
Giving advice about a situation someone is in Far more likely to engage in this for friends and roommates, not someone we know well |
|
|
Emergency helping
|
Taking care of someone who is sick
Walking someone home at night Equally likely to help someone we know/don't know |
|
|
Theory of helping- evolutionary psychology
|
Kin selection
Help our closest relatives Our genes survive First research looked at bees, bees that were genetic relatives of the hive were allowed in, other bees not allowed Norm of reciprocity "I'll help you, you help me" Developed understanding with others Increased survival But it cannot be tested |
|
|
Theory of helping-Social Exchange Theory
|
Help to maximize our benefits and minimize our costs
Helping rewards us Increased likelihood of reciprocal helping Relieve distress of the witness We gain social approval and self-worth If costs>rewards we will not help Argues altruism does not exist |
|
|
Theory of helping-Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
|
If we feel empathy, we will help regardless of costs to us
If we do NOT feel empathy, Social Exchange concerns comes into play |
|
|
Prosocial behavior
|
any act performed benefitting another person
|
|
|
Altruism
|
a desire to help another person even if there is a personal cost involvedAn act without self-interest, costs are greater than rewards
|
|
|
Empathy vs. Sympathy
|
Empathy: experiencing something from another person's perspective; ability to put yourself in their shoes
"I know how you feel about losing your grandparents, I've also lost a grandparent." Sympathy: knowing how a person feels and (sometimes) sharing their feelings "I'm sure you're very sad that your grandparents died. I'm sad that you're sad." |
|
|
Gender differences in helping-Western cultures
|
Men- emergency helping
When situation calls for heroic and chivalrous behavior Report helping strangers more than friends Women-long-term helping When situation calls for nurturing Report helping friends more than strangers Behaviors likely influenced by society |
|
|
Cultural differences in helping
|
Cross-culturally, people are more likely to help in-group members than out-group members
In-group: group a person identifies with Out-group: group a person does NOT identify with In cultures with interdependent views of the self this tendency is more common Cultures with strong values toward helping tend to be more helpful |
|
|
Effects of Mood
|
Positive mood increases helping because
Positive mood makes us interpret events in a sympathetic way (look on the bright side) Helping prolongs the positive mood state Positive mood increases self-attention- which heightens our adherence to seeing ourselves as altruistic. Feel good, do good Negative mood increases helping because Guilt increases helping (people think good deeds cancel out bad deeds) Negative state relief hypothesis People help in order to alleviate their own sadness or distress Feel bad do good |
|
|
Students asked to commit 5 acts of kindness per week for 6 weeks
|
Visit n elderly relative
Write a thank you letter to a former teacher Students who did kindness behaviors reported greater happiness than control group Practical lesson: if you are feeling down, help somebody! |
|
|
Volunteerism
|
US has highest levels of volunteerism in the world- about 47% of the population
People may volunteer on their own or because they are "forced" to do so People who are "forced" will not continue to volunteer Is volunteering a good thing or a bad thing? Good: we help where/when help is needed Bad: we may not focus on the root of the problem |
|
|
Bystander Intervention Research
|
Revisiting the case of Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax
Diffusion of responsibility: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any of them will help Each person's sense of responsibility decreases |
|
|
Darley & Latane Decision Tree
|
1. Notice the event
a. In order for people to help, they must notice that something is happening (duh) b. Darley & Batson (1973)-Had seminary students (future priests) walk past a confederate who was "collapsed" in a doorway i. Those in a hurry were much less likely to help 2. Interpret the event as an emergency a. How do we know that what we are seeing is really an emergency? i. We often look to others ii. Informational social influence 3. Assume responsibility a. In order for help to be given, someone must "step-up" and give the help b. Diffusion of responsibility comes in here i. Reduce it by singling people out 4. Know appropriate form of assistance a. If you don't know how to help you can't (duh) b. Training in CPR, lifeguarding, first aid, etc. i. Required for some jobs or in some countries (e.g. required in Germany to know first aid to get a drivers license) 5. Deciding to implement the help a. You still need to decide if you want to help b. You may be afraid to help because of the cost i. EMTs, nurses, doctors-malpractice lawsuits ii. Good Samaritan laws- you are required to help in certain situations |
|
|
People in rural areas tend to help...
|
more often than do people in urban areas One explanation is that they are brought up to be more pro-social
Know people, and we are more likely to help those we know Not a great theory though A better explanation is the urban-overload hypothesis Urban areas= full of stimulation, people try to block it out Less likely to notice the needs of others Step 1 of the decision tree Supported by research Where the incident occurs is more important than where the helpers are from Population density is a better predictor of helping than population size |
|
|
Increasing helping
|
Helping lecture 40%
Control, about helping but didn't include bystander intervention, 25% |
|
|
Ostracism
|
• To be ignored or excluded
• People experience some form of ostracism- as a source or target- once a day (Williams, Wheeler, |
|
|
Studying ostracism in the lab
|
• face-to-face ball tossing
• Computer based ball tossing (with fictional others or with the computer only) • Text messages |
|
|
Ostracism leads to
|
• Lower feelings of belonging
• Lower feelings of being in control • Lower self-esteem • Increase in anger and sadness • Increased blood pressure and cortisol levels (related to stress) • activates the same region in the brain for physical pain |
|
|
These effects are consistent
|
• Whether ostracism is face-to-face, on a computer or via text messages
• when ostracized by in-group and out-group members, members of despised group (KKK) or a computer • Regardless of individual difference measures e.g. social anxiety, loneliness, individualism, or agreeableness |
|
|
In real life ostracism
|
• Generally, people try to conform to group
• Less likely to try to remain alone |
|
|
Aggression
|
intentional behavior that harms another.
|
|
|
Hostile aggression
|
Comes from feelings of anger
Aimed at inflicting pain Aggression is the end behavior Immediate conditions that lead to aggressive acts Threats to self-esteem, status, or respective particularly in public General increases in stimuli Long term conditions that lead o aggressive acts Repeated threats to self-worth or status |
|
|
Instrumental aggression
|
Aggression to reach a goal
Aggression is a means to an end Immediate conditions Opportunities for gain with high reward and low perceived risk Long term conditions Poverty or other challenging economic factors Perception of crime as a way to get resources/respect Norms that show aggression a way to resources |
|
|
Stimuli that leads to increases and arousal and anger
|
Unpleasant heat
Painful cold Stressful noises Crowding Bad odors |
|
|
Inborn aggression
|
Evolutionary psychology
Aggression programmed in men Established dominance over other men Ensure paternity (jealous aggression) Comparison to closest genetic relatives Chimpanzee male us aggression Bonobos engage in sex instead Rape is naturally selected in men, all men have the propensity to rape Feminist perspective Rape is about desire for power and control, not sex Social Learning theory Rape is a socially learned behavior |
|
|
TV violence and children
|
More violent TV watching positively correlated to aggressive behavior
Experimental evidence More violent TV watching leads to more aggressive behaviors Especially for children with aggressive tendencies |
|
|
TV violence and adults
|
Correlation evidence
Much violent TV watching in adolescence positively correlated with violence towards others Experimental evidence In adults, watching violent TV affects physiological arousal Watching violent TV leads to more aggressive responses |
|
|
Violent video games- children and adults
|
Correlation evidence
Amount of time playing violent video games positively correlated with aggressive delinquent behavior Experimental evidence College students assigned to play a video games 3x per week One violent game, one non-violent game Played a competitive game with another student After losing, could blast opponent with noise Non-violent- 6.65 seconds of noise blasting Violent- 6.8 seconds of noise blasting This is significantly different Can't take a lot of information from this Violent video game meta-analysis 54 studies with more than 4,000 participants Violent video games resulted in Increased aggression Decreased helping Increased anger Increased arousal Same effects for men and women, children and adults |
|
|
Violent condoned by the government
|
Homicide rates increase after war
The death penalty 60%-70% support it Does not significantly deter crime |
|
|
Why does media affect our aggression?
|
Short term
Primes aggressive thoughts Increases arousal Increases anger Long term Teaches how to aggression Desensitization to violence |
|
|
Catharthisis theory
|
Performing an aggressive act till relieve aggressive energy
DOES NOT work to reduce aggression long term Aggressive acts increase number of future aggressive acts |
|
|
Punishment: not a simple solution
|
For children
Threat of mild punishment, swiftly administered, can reduce aggression (insufficient punishment) For adults Only effective if ideal conditions are meta-analysis Deterrence theory: punishment must be severe, certain, and swift (hardly ever met) i.e. speeding ticket not always a deterrent |
|
|
Really reducing aggression
|
Remove cues to aggression (Berkowitz)
Aggressive cues increase aggression. Provide non-violent role models (Bandura) People learn through watching and imitation. Defuse anger through sincere apology (Frustration) People feel less aggressive if they know something was a mistake. Venting Calmly expressing anger can solve problems. Communication skill training Negotiation and compromise skill lead to solving conflicts Building empathy Increase ability to see from another perspective |
|
|
A is for Prejudice (affect)
|
A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people
Influences emotional response to group members Technically, prejudice can be positive, too |
|
|
B is for discriminate (behavior)
|
Overt behavior directed toward a person because of presumed or actual group membership
Can stem from stereotypes or prejudice Implies power over another person's outcomes |
|
|
C is for stereotypes (cognitive)
|
A generalization about a group of people
Apply identical characteristics to all members of the group, regardless of actual variation Deny individual of group |
|
|
Social identity theory:
|
We favor in-groups over outgroups to enhance our self-esteem
Hypothesis 1: threats to self-esteem led to more in-group favoritism Hypothesis 2: expressing in-group favoritism enhances self-esteem Non-Jewish participants received positive or negative feedback on a test of social skills (randomly assigned by experimenter) Evaluated a job applicant who was Jewish or not Jewish Result 1: people who received negative feedback (threat to self-esteem) more prejudiced against Jewish applicant Result 2: people who got negative feedback and evaluated out-group member negatively had largest self-esteem increase |
|
|
Social cognition and Prejudice
|
Human categorize the physical and social worlds
Convenient way of learning bout and remembering people and things Involves some distortion and oversimplification |
|
|
Outcomes of categorization
|
In-group bias: positive feelings and fair treatment for those part of our group, the opposite for those not part of our group
Divide money amongst groups: more money to in-groups than out-groups Out-group homogeneity: belief that members of the out-group are more similar to each other than they actually are More similar than the in-group |
|
|
Our cognitions and attitudes come from social cognition
|
Informational social influence from others
Ambiguity when meeting or interacting with out-group members, model our behaviors on others' behaviors Cognitive bias toward remembering what is distinctive Rare things stick out in our minds Leads to illusory correlations, the belief that two unrelated things are actually related |
|
|
Hamilton & Gilfford (1976)
|
Participants read 39 cards containing information about other people
Included group membership (Group A or Group B) Positive or negative behavior Participants were asked to recall number of positive and negative behaviors for each group Asked to recall pos A pos B neg A neg B Group A is numeric majority Each group had the exact same ratio of positive to negative behaviors 9:4 Group A: 26 cards->18 positive and 8 negative Group B: 13 cards->9 positive and 4 negative |
|
|
Self-fulfilling prophecy in prejudice
|
Our attitudes can create group differences
(Word, Zanna, & Cooper 1974) Study 1: white participants interviewed Black and White confederate who gave identical answers Results: "Immediacy": White confederates received more smiles, interaction, encouragement, and time to answer White interviewers saw that they expected in White "applicants" Study 2: White participants interviewed by black confederates who are high or low in "immediacy" Same behaviors given to black and white applicants in S1 Results: White participants in "high immediacy" condition interviewed well compared to those in "low immediacy" condition |
