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;
55 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
a. What is social psychology?
|
the scientific study of the ways in which people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people.
|
|
|
b. What is a construal?
|
i. Our construals stem from two basic human motives
ii. Self esteem-> the need to feel good about ourselves iii. Social cognition-> the need to be accurate about the social world iv. We rely on our construals which are motivated by these motives in conjunction. We want to be accurate with a "I'm a good person" spin. Very personal. v. Possible motives vi. Belonging: the need o feel as though we fit in and are accepted. vii. Control: the need to feel a sense of influence over our lives and environments. viii. Biology: can also motivate us (hunger, thirst, etc.) |
|
|
c. The Fundamental Attribution Error
|
i. The Fundamental Attribution Error= our tendency
ii. Tend to think that a person's behavior is based on their personality than the social situation iii. First, we overestimate how much people's behavior is based on personality iv. AND UNDERESTIMATE how much people's behavior is based on the situation v. We do this to others, not ourselves |
|
|
a. Schemas, what they are, what they affect
|
i. Schemas= mental models people use to organize their knowledge
ii. One common type of automatic thinking 1. Influence information people a. Notice b. Think about c. Remember iii. We are more likely to remember things when they are in keeping with our schemas iv. Schemas are functional and beneficial 1. Help us interpret ambiguous situations v. Schemas that are applied to a situation can affect construals 1. May be several possible schemas for any given situation 2. Schemas influenced by accessibility 3. Accessibility- extent to which a schema is at the forefront of our minds (two types) |
|
|
b. Self-fulfilling prophecy
|
1. Forming an expectancy
1. Category based (stereotypes) 2. Personal experiences, first impressions 3. Implicit personality theories a. Ideas about what types of traits often emerge together 2. Behavioral confirmation 1. Expectations guide our behaviors toward the target 2. Target responds to our behaviors Perceptual confirmation 1. We see what we expect to see a. "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it" b. In reality this isn't how it works c. We should really say: "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it" o Bloomer study 1968 • All children given a bogus test at the beginning of the year • Told teachers that 20% of the kids were "bloomers" (randomly chosen) • Measured on IQ tests at the end of the year • Results- bloomers improved more than non-bloomers • Teachers asked to indicate how much they liked each of their students • Those who match expectations liked the most |
|
|
Heuristics
|
d. : Rely on mental shortcuts when making decisions
i. Often very useful, can lead to errors in judgment ii. Increases cognitive efficiency iii. Schemas also increase cognitive efficiency, however, heuristics minimizes the actual controlled thinking so we can make a split-second decision |
|
|
e. Availability heuristic
|
• People make decisions based on how easily they can bring something to mind
• Example: more likely to die in a car accident or stroke? Stroke • ING, N? • Schwartz et a. (1991) • People asked to think of either 6 times there were assertive or 12 times, then rate assertiveness • Easier to come up with 6, those people rather themselves more assertive • Things that are "available" in our minds are considered more common o Vivid things (e.g. plane crashes) are more available o Things that are more publicized are most available o MAY NOT BE MORE COMMON |
|
|
• Representativeness heuristic:
|
o People make decisions based on how similar something is to typical case
o Often ignore base rate information: how common something is in the environment or population • Errors based on representativeness o Ignoring base rate information and simply matching to stereotypes about people of schemas • Gambler's fallacy: belief that once chance event is affected by previous events o Think we're more likely to get heads on a coin flips after o TTTTTTTTTTTTTT (more likely H) THTHTHTHHHTT (50/50) o Always 50/50! • Illusion of control: belief that we can control events determined by chance o Throw dice softly for low numbers, hard for high numbers • Magical thinking: making decisions that do not hold up to rational scrutiny o Afraid to eat chocolate shaped like spiders |
|
|
a. Implicit personality theories
|
i. Implicit personality theory
ii. A type of schema, but helps us explain behavior iii. Fill in the blanks by grouping personality traits together iv. If you think someone is kind then you'll probably think they're generous. v. Nerds: smart, socially awkward, likes computers |
|
|
b. Internal vs. external attributions
|
c. Attribution theory
i. How we explain other people's behavior ii. Make two types of attributions iii. Internal: it is something about the person whose behavior we are explaining iv. Why did Susie stomp on my foot? Because she's mean. v. External: it is something about other people or the situation vi. Why did Susie stomp on my foot? Because we were standing on a crowded train. It was an accident. Why did Joe kick Fido (dog)? • Consensus: do other people also kick Fido? o Yes=high consensus, No=low consensus • Distinctiveness: does Joe kick other dogs? o Yes=low distinctiveness, No=high distinctiveness • Consistency: does Joe always kick Fido? o Yes=high consistency, No=low consistency • Internal attribution- it's something about Joe! o Low consensus (no one else kicks Fido) o Low distinctiveness (Joe kicks all dogs) o High consistency (Joe always kicks Fido) • External attribution- it's something about Fido! o High consensus- everyone kicks Fido o High distinctiveness- Joe kicks only Fido o High consistency- Joe always kicks Fido • Low consistency o Unique occurrence is difficult to classify o External attribution made to the particular circumstances |
|
|
d. Self-serving attributions
|
i. FAE and the Self
ii. Much less likely to make the FAE for our own behaviors iii. Instead, we make self-serving attributions: explanations for our behaviors that make us look good iv. My failures are due to external, situation factors (outside) v. My success are due to internal, dispositional factors (inside) |
|
|
a. Cultural and gender differences in conceptions of the self
|
• Cultural difference in self-concept
o Western cultures= independent view of the self • Define self via own thoughts, feelings, actions o Eastern cultures= interdependent view of the self • Define self via relationships with others and others' (or group's) thoughts, feelings, actions i.e. a member of my family, part of this group o Generalized differences, much within culture variability • Gender difference in self-concept (specific to Western culture) o Women= tend to be more focused on relationships • Relationships with others important to idea of self o Men= more focused on group memberships • Membership in groups important to idea of self o Much within gender variability |
|
|
ii. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
|
c. Intrinsic motivation= desire to do a behavior because we like it, find it interesting etc.
d. Extrinsic motivation= desire to do a behavior because of external rewards or pressures e. Adding extrinsic motivation for something that was intrinsically motived can be negative-> over-justification effect f. If people view behavior as extrinsically motivated g. Then underestimate intrinsic motivation as a cause of behavior |
|
|
h. Knowing the self through social comparison
|
i. Social comparison
j. Evaluating the self (opinions, abilities, etc.) by comparing to others k. When do we compare? i. No objective standard ii. Uncertainty l. To whom do we compare? i. Initially, to anyone around ii. Given time, look for appropriate comparison m. Upward social comparison i. Serves a motivational function n. Downward social comparison i. Serves a self-esteem maintenance function |
|
|
a. Cognitive dissonance theory
|
o Original definition: a drive or feeling of discomfort, caused by holding two or more inconsistent cognitions
o We went to be cognitively consistent. We want our thoughts to match and make sense when bringing it together with everything else o If our thoughts, or cognitions, don't match, then we are motivated to remove the discomfort |
|
|
• Aronson's revision to dissonance
|
o Dissonance caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one's (typically positive) self-concept
o Example: it is important to live a healthy lifestyle. You put this thought with the behavior of smoking. Smoking is in contrast with that lifestyle. Creates discomfort so make a change. o Three ways of doing this (reducing discomfort) • Change your behavior Bring your behavior in line with your thoughts i.e. stop smoking • Change your cognitions Bring your cognitions in line with your behaviors i.e. important to live a healthy lifestyle, but since I smoke light cigarettes that's ok • Add new cognition Think of new things that support your behavior i.e. healthy lifestyle, smoker, the reality is that my life will be shorter but I'm ok with that (I don't want to live to be old) |
|
|
i. Choice justification (post-decisional dissonance)
|
c. Dissonance occurs after an important decision between two similar things
d. i.e. rate products on scale (toaster oven and coffee maker) e. Women rated the items functionally identical (both save time etc.) f. Now, as a gift, choose an appliance g. After choosing, rerate appliances h. The women rated the appliance they chose better i. Reduce dissonance by enhancing what you chose and devaluing what you didn't choose j. Happens POST-decision |
|
|
i. Justification of effort (external and internal justification)
|
l. Increasing the liking for something you have worked hard to get
i. People must feel like they had a choice over their behavior ii. i.e. female college students getting into a discussion group. The women who worked harder to get into the group said they liked it better than the other group (boring though) |
|
|
iii. Insufficient justification
|
m. Insufficient justification (Festinger & Carlsmith) 1959
n. Threats to self-esteem o. Illusion of choice p. Low external justification= high dissonance q. High external justification= low dissonance |
|
|
i. Insufficient punishment
|
r. Insufficient punishment (Aronson & Carlsmith)
s. Mild threat of punishment= high dissonance t. Severe threat of punishment= low dissonance u. Researchers went into 1st 2nd grade classroom v. Brought in new toys, rated the toys w. Then the research said either: i. Mild, leave the room, don't play with the toys or I'll be sad ii. Severe, leave the room, don't play with the toys or I'll take them away forever iii. Rerate toys, sad=lower, severe=higher x. If we're given a large reward or severe punishment, it leads to external justification for whatever it is we're doing i. Leads to external justification ii. Leads to LOW dissonance iii. Leads to temporary change in attitude of behavior y. Small reward or mild punishment i. Leads to internal justification ii. HIGH dissonance iii. Long-lasting change in attitude or behavior |
|
|
z. Reducing cognitive dissonance
|
aa. Reducing relationship dissonance
bb. Focus on other person by reducing closeness cc. Focus on activity by making it less central to your self-esteem dd. Focus on own behavior by outperforming the other person |
|
|
i. Cognitive, behavioral, an affective attitudes
|
• Cognitive (beliefs)
Beliefs about the properties of the "attitude object" (anything we're dealing with, animal, person, couch) Function as object appraisal Thing that helps me= good Things that hurts me= bad • Affective (emotion) Feelings and values associated with the "attitude object" Affectively based attitudes function as "value-expressive" Thing that makes me happy/is cool= good Thing that makes me sad/is gross= bad Can be the result of sensory reaction or conditioning Classical conditioning: neutral object paired with something that evokes a response Eventually, neutral object takes on the same emotional response (drool) i.e. loves popcorn, doesn't like movies, but gets same feeling after pairing popcorn with movie Operant conditioning Reinforcement and punishment are used to increase or decrease behavior Made a cake once, best cake EVAR, make it more frequently o Behavioral Observe our behavior toward the "attitude object" Behaviorally based attitudes emerge when attitude is weak or ambiguous We have no (or minimal) cognitive or affective attitude No external reason for our behavior See self-perception theory (ch5) |
|
|
• How do we change attitude?
|
o Behaviorally: cognitive dissonance
o Affectively: Peripheral route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model Fear arousing communications i.e. best way to put baby to sleep, have scary posters of improperly placed babies o Cognitively: Central route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model Yale Attitude Change Approach |
|
|
• Elaboration Likelihood Model
|
o Central route: good for cognitive attitudes
Paying attention to arguments leads to elaborating on the persuasive message Need ability and motivation to listen carefully i.e. vacuum breaks, see a commercial for a vacuum, go out and buy a new vacuum o Peripheral route- good for affective attitudes People who do not have ability or motivation to pay attention do not elaborate Pay more attention to peripheral cues i.e. vacuum breaks but 4 year old crying in the room, might not pay attention to the vacuum being sold but who is selling it, the music, etc. • Length of attitude change varies o LONG lasting change if Central route of ELM was used Listener had ability and motivation to pay attention o SHORT term change if Peripheral route of ELM was used Listener did not have ability and was not motivated to pay attention • Dual process model: the person and the situation jointly determine ELM route o The person Individual differences (need for cognition, to think before acting, more likely to take central route) o The situation Time pressures, resources If you re given 5 minutes vs. as much time as you need, you'll behave very differently |
|
|
• Yale Attitude Change Approach
|
o Who says what to whom
Who: the source of the communication Who is providing the message Expertise: experts persuade better than non-experts Attractiveness: attractive people persuade more than unattractive people What: the nature of the communication What type of information are we given A 2 sided argument more persuasive (give appearance of "fairness") Inoculation theory • Expose audience to small dose of arguments against your position and then refute them • Increase immunity to later persuasive attempts |
|
|
b. Subliminal versus regular advertising
|
d. Can change behavior or attitude in highly controlled conditions and for a short period of time
e. Bargh & Pietromonaco (1982): participants interpreted an ambiguous paragraph based on words that had been subliminally flashed f. Reckless, adventurous g. People primed with reckless thought paragraph was more reckless and vice verse h. Week later rated it equally i. Murphy & Zajonc (1993): asked people to rate Chinese ideograph j. Liked it most when flashed a happy face, least when flashed an angry face k. Flashing the face mattered l. Only lasts for 5 minutes m. People think: i. Regular ads do NOT affect them ii. Subliminal ads DO affect them n. The reality: i. Regular ads DO affect people ii. Subliminal ads do NOT affect people |
|
|
a. Conformity
|
ii. Changing behavior based on the real or imagined presence of others
iii. We can conform in a variety of situations |
|
|
ii. Informational social influence (ISI)
|
1. Conformity via using others as a source of information
2. Their behavior, their knowledge, etc. 3. i.e. see what others are using to eat their salad (which fork) 4. Two important components: a. Public compliance b. We do it c. Private acceptance 5. We believe it c. Early studies used the autokinetic effect i. Groups of three estimates the movement of a light ii. Estimates eventually converged iii. Ex: Please estimate out loud how much that light is moving? iv. Over a series of trails, estimated with others, converged v. Rohrer vi. Replication of autokinetic effect vii. 1 year delay viii. By themselves they estimated the same answer!! d. ISI Conformity more likely when i. Ambiguous ii. Crisis iii. Experts iv. Situation is ambiguous v. Most important criteria vi. Situation is a crisis vii. Limited time to act viii. Others are experts ix. Assume they have "correct" knowledge or information |
|
|
e. Normative social influence (NSI)
|
i. Conformity to be liked and accepted by others
ii. i.e. fashion (want to dress fashionably, fit in) iii. Aspects of NSI 1. Public compliance (we do it) 2. NOT private acceptance (we do NOT believe it) iv. NSI More likely when 1. No allies 2. Allies make it easier to resist conformity 3. Only 6% conformed at east once when there was an ally in the Asch study 4. Collectivistic culture or beliefs 5. Conformity more likely when it is valued v. Asch (1956) 1. Which of the three lines on the right is the same length as the line of the left? 2. Pretty obvious 3. 1 participant, 5 confederates 4. Most of the time give the right answer, but sometimes give the most obviously wrong answer 5. 76% of people conformed at least 1 time 6. Replicated nearly 50 years later 7. Why did they conform a. Public compliance without private acceptance b. With private reporting, no conformity |
|
|
g. Social Norm
|
h. Implicit or explicit rules in a group for acceptable behaviors, values, or beliefs of group members
i. Implicit: don't have a conversation with someone only 1 inch away form their face. j. Explicit: no elbows on the table |
|
|
k. Injunctive norm
|
l. Perceptions about what behaviors are approved of or disapproved of by others
m. i.e. speed limited |
|
|
n. Descriptive norms
|
o. Perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations
p. i.e. speed limit 60, driving 70 |
|
|
a. Social facilitation
|
i. Physiological arousal
ii. From the presence of other people iii. Knowledge that you are being evaluated iv. Bikers go faster when other bikers around and vice versa v. People perform vi. Better on simple tasks vii. Worse on complex tasks viii. Learned tasks can become simple ix. Michaels et al. 1982 1. 4 students observed novice or experienced pool players 2. Pool= hard for novices 3. Pool= simple for experienced players 4. They were either watched or unwatched 5. Novices missed more when being watched. 6. Experts did better when being watched. |
|
|
b. Social loafing
|
i. Relaxation from
ii. The presence of other people iii. Knowledge you are not individually observed iv. People do 1. Worse on simple tasks 2. Better on complex tasks v. When you have a group who is being evaluated as a group, you utilize other people's strengths (or you're just lazy and don't contribute i.e. social loafing) |
|
|
c. Deindividuation and its effects
|
i. Deindividuation
ii. Loosening of normal constraints of behavior due to anonymity. iii. People feel less accountable iv. Become more obedient to group norms v. Increases impulsive and deviant acts vi. Accounts for mob behavior, if you're in a group of 20,000, how are you going to be held accountable? vii. Extreme form of social loafing viii. i.e. Halloween costume, KKK costume |
|
|
i. Propinquity and mere exposure
|
The more we see/interact with others, the more we are to like them
Familiarity leads to liking Mere exposure->familiarity->liking Cross et al. (1967) 3 groups of baby rats 1 group- exposed to Mozart 2 group- exposed to Shoenberg 3 group- no music Then trained to press levers. 3 levers->Moazart, Shoenberg, or no music. How often are these rats going to press the levers? Group 1- 80% M, 20% S Group 2- 80% S, 20%M Group 3- 50% S, 50% M |
|
|
ii. Similarity vs. Dissimilarity and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
|
Need for uniqueness, similarity only helps up to about 80%
Optimal distinctiveness theory: we simultaneously want to belong and want to be distinct. |
|
|
iii. Reciprocal liking
|
When we think someone likes us we will probably like them more
Can overcome dissimilarity or lack of propinquity Additionally, if we think someone likes us we will behave in a more likeable way toward them This can lead to them liking us more Creates a self-fulfilling prophecy |
|
|
iv. Physical attractiveness
|
Females: small nose/chin, high eyebrows, narrow cheeks.
Men: large chin and define jaw Western cultures Both: large eyes, prominent cheek bones General cross-cultural agreement Babyface: large forehead, features low on the face, large round eyes, small nose, round cheeks Averageness is also attractive Likely due to familiarity The more faces we average together the more attractive we think they are Faceresearch.org |
|
|
Beauty leads to liking
|
Dion (1972)
Attractiveness matters, especially with a severe act Two pictures: attractive or unattractive kid Read a scenario of a kid throwing a snow ball at a kid's leg or threw at head and caused a gash. Snow ball- attractiveness didn't matter Severe act- attractive: forgave him, unattractive: called police Clifford & Walster (1973) Cute kids thought to have bright future Transcripts of kid talking. Same for unattractive and attractive. Landy & Sigall (1974) Attractive woman received a better grade for a bad essay Look at essay, picture of attractive or unattractive Good essay didn't matter Bad essay attractive got better grade than unattractive |
|
|
"What is beautiful is good" stereotype
|
Attractive people thought to possess positive traits
In US: more socialable, outgoing, sexual, assertive, happy "Good stereotype are culturally based What is valued is associated with attractive people Attractiveness and socialbility are positively correlated Not CAUSAL, could be self-fulfilling prophecy Synder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977) Male participants have a 10 minute "getting to know you" phone conversation with a female Female participants Always used the same picture (never matched woman) Given a positive or negative expectation based on a fake picture "You are having a conversation with this woman" Recorded Brought in naive observer and just heard what the woman said. Didn't see the picture. They were asked to rate the woman on conversational skills (warm? Engaging?) Female conversationalists were rated more socially skilled when men given an attractive picture. Given an expectation, behave based on expectation, female responds to behavior, self-fulfilling prophesy |
|
|
Liking leads to beauty
|
Attractiveness gives an advantage, but there is room for change
Nisbett & Wilson (1977) Participants watched videos of TA All videos showed the same person Half of video as showed him mean, half showed him nice Rated the attractiveness of TA in the video Physical part is identical, the only thing that changed was his behavior % saying TA is attractive Nice: 70% Mean: 36% |
|
|
b. Social Exchange Theory
|
Relationship satisfaction is based on
Rewards received in relationship i.e. food, safety Costs incurred in relationship i.e. paying for everything, frustration Comparisons made Relationship to expectations Relationship to other possible relationships |
|
|
a. Theories on why people help others
i. Evolutionary theory |
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 |
|
|
a. Theories on why people help others.
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 |
|
|
iii. Empathy-Altruism
|
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 involved An act without self-interest, costs are greater than rewards |
|
|
b. Effects of mood on helping behavior
|
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! |
|
|
i. Hostile aggression
|
ii. 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 |
|
|
iii. Instrumental aggression
|
iv. 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 |
|
|
i. Frustration-aggression hypothesis (when frustration lead to aggression, relative deprivation)
|
Frustration-Aggression Theory
Perception of being prevented from a goal (i.e. frustration) will lead to more aggression Frustration will NOT lead to aggression if: Aggression does not work in the situation Frustration is Understandable Legitimate Unintentional Frustration INCREASES aggression when The goal is closer Frustration is unexpected Experience relative deprivation The perception that your or your group have less than you deserve |
|
|
ii. Aggressive cues
|
Stimuli that leads to increases and arousal and anger
Unpleasant heat Painful cold Stressful noises Crowding Bad odor |
|
|
iii. Social learning theory
|
We learn aggression (any social behavior) via observation and imitation
Bandura's bobo dolls Classic study: Children watched an adult play with a bobo-doll violently or non-violently Children watching violent video played more violently with same doll and made up new violent acts |
|
|
a. Distinction between stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination
|
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 |
|
|
i. Modern racism & Ambivalent sexism
|
Modern-isms
Outwardly acting unprejudiced while inwardly maintaining prejudicial attitudes More subtle and ambiguous Studied with reaction time measures or surveys that ask subtle questions Automatic prejudice: quick, uncontrollable response to someone based on group membership Influences behaviors we do not monitor and cannot control Controlled prejudice: conscious beliefs, how people want to feel Influences behaviors we can monitor and control Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986): measures more subtle prejudice attitudes Scores are higher than on measures of old-fashioned racism They have a large range Ambivalent Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996): sexism is made up of two parts Hostile sexism: negative->women are inferior Benevolent sexism: positive->women are weaker |
|
|
b. Prejudice reduction
i. Contact hypothesis |
Use logic?
Does not work Prejudice is usually an affective attitude, cannot be changed through cognitive processes Provide counter stereotypic examples? Only works if there are MANY examples Must show that the stereotype is generally untrue Practice making non-prejudiced response? Can work if people are aware of own attitudes/want to change Self-esteem approach? Use principles of cognitive dissonance, but hard to do on a very large scale Social cognition approach? Prevent categorization Difficult because some minority groups want to emphasize group membership and/or are proud of group Emphasize shared group memberships |
