• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/46

Click to flip

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