Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

1/81

Click to flip

81 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
STEREOTYPING:
3 components involved in process
of stereotyping
a)CATEGORIZE TARGET => what group in (obvious, visual char M or F/race)

b)ATTRIBUTE SET CHAR. all INDIV. CATEGORY MEMBERS=> assume everyone in group has these things(all UI prof liberal)

c)ATTRIBUTE SET CHAR. any INDIV. CATEGORY=> that indiv. has those traits

MANY MISTAKES OCCUR!!!!
STEREOTYPE:
cog. strategies result in
reconstruction social memories
1. new info target bring to mind pre-existing, well- defined beliefs (sterotypes)

2. Stereotype initiates & guides process of remembering -look info. fits stereotypes
a)PREFERENTIAL SEARCH: seach past/ detail becomes relevant
b)FILL IN GAPS: w/ stereotypes you have (watch certian shows)
c)SELECTIVE REINTERP: know info/ interp it/ remember events that way
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
1. competition vs.
2. cooperation
1. are striving for resources and goals

2. work together in group situaiton for same grade
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
deutsch findings cooperative
vs. competitive study
-grades based on rank then less dependnecy/interest being respeted by other group members

- (-) group relations

- NOT ALL competitive or cooperative but BOTH
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
mixed- motive situation
-both cooperative and competitive working in groups
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
Prisoners Dilemma Game
a mixed-motive situation
-have to decide if other person is in it to cooperate w/ you ro be comptetitive w/ you (decides outcome)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
lab situations social traps show
-people get very greedy very quickly- clean out pool very fast

-think better get it quickly before everyone else does
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
factors help participants
escape social trap
1.EXPERIENCE: understand situation - been in before

2.COMMUNICATION: talk about this before each drew
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
why communication
up confilict
-not always able to bargin
(THREATS NOT USEFUL)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
Deutsch and Krauss:
DESIGN
SHOW WHAT COMMUNICATON CAN DO AND HOW THREATS UP CONFLICT

-each Ss has road and has destination

-get rewards base how fast get truck there

-one way road clearly shorter
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
Deutsch and Krauss:
PROCEDURE
-get truck pt. A to pt. B

-Put IV = power to threaten
1)UNILATERAL THREAT: Acme given one gate block other
2)BILATERAL THREAT: both have gate
3)CONTROL: was no gate
(behavioral and verbal threats)

DV= earnings: .60 delivery, operating costs: .01/ sec
MAIN DV: profit/ loss
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
Deutsch and Krauss:
RESULTS
1. control $1.00 profit

2. Unilateral threat: $2.03 loss

3. bilateral threat: $4.25 loss

-threats and weapons used if avaliable (esculated conflict)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
"conflict spiral"
-every trial conflict esculates or gets bigger
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
attributions contribute
conflict spiral
-evil other

-they are responsible problems I am having

-*about competitor become bias
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
Roles:
1.commitment
2.entrapment
play in conflict spiral
1. to particular strategy- defend actions

2. extreme commitment leads you to be trapt
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
arousal influence communications
during conflict situations
-anxiety and tensions= everything ends being emotional display

-blame others/ hostile joking
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
norm of reciprocity
influence conflict
-obligated to harm others harm you
(eye for an eye)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
1. compromise
2. problem solving
1.settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

2.to find a solution, explanation, or answer for a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
strategies rebuild trust
btwn parties in conflict
(instil trust)
1.COMMUNICATE: your intensions specific terms reference cooperation/ fairness

2.CREDIABILITY AND CONSISTENCY: back (1) w/ actual consistent behavior match words w/ behavior

3.TIT-FOR-TAT STRATEGY: encounter competition repond w/ cooperation they continue compete you start competition
(match them)
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
negotiation
-inviolves reciprical communication process
-see both sides
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
functions 3rd party
intervention (6)
1-3
1.REFEREE: down hostility/ allow both sides express views orderly fashioon
(controlled enviornment)

2.CORRECT MISUNDERSTANDINGS: useful mend communication break down/ if things been made up clairity

3.ALLOW FACESAVING: get sides to conceid w/o being embarasses/ make concessions look reasonable
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
functions 3rd party
intervention (6)
4-6
4.OFFER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: find ways at least get them talking

5.MANIP ENVIRO: how seated/ time day/ setup agenda- START SMALL!
(reciprosity start going well)

6.PROVIDE GUIDANCE: how go about problem solving this issue
SOCIAL DILEMMAS:
conflict always bad?
-no, can stablilize group after

-conflict/ consequense any group interaction
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Define
-presense of others affect up indiv. performance
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
little research done
1940-1965 why?
-theory not true thought!
-inconsistent Lit then
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
meaning E=HxD
(learning theory)
1.E = EXCITATORY POTENTIAL: performance # correct answeres/speed

2.H = HABIT: strength habit => dominant response/ well learned/
practiced

3.D = DRIVE: deprivation (results from)
ex: hungry/ generalized excitment

(x) = more
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
drive effect performance
simple tasks
-w/ others performance up

HARD TASK:

-arousal mult. against other things and deteriorate response correct responses not dominant to you
-performance impared
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Sum Zajonc's drive theory
basic pts.
1. OTHERS PRESENT: drive theory

2.UP AROUSAL: when others present
(assumption 1 and 2)

3.w/ others performance up
HARD TASKS;
-arousal mult. against other things and derterioate response correct responses not diminat to you
-performance impaired
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Zajonc's cockroach
procedures
-adult female cockroaches =>reward dark box when flood light goes on

-some easy task =>habitual
some hard task =>not well practiced

-manip. presense audiance
IV = task difficulty
DV = running speed
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Zajonc's cockroach
findings
-found animals easy task did better w/ presense other than w/o

-complex presense other = up running time

-can be seen in humans as well
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
mere presense others explain
social facilitization
-simple presens others up drive

-species mates most important organism in our world

-species mates some what unpredictable -why uncertinaty up = up drive
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Smith et al. test
social facilitization
procedure
-type name (easy task) presense others

-IV difficult task and audiance
easy = name only
hard = name backwards and (+) digits hearing at same time
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Smith et al. test
social facilitization
findings
-simple presense others up drive

-mere presense complex:
-stress... others sometimes down arousal
-sometimes other induce social facilitization in eval. situations

-did not makkter if others see or hear you or not
Graph:
Eval. Mere Presents None
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
learn drive perspective
explain social facilitization
-others source learned drive up effect

-species mates up drive arousal assoc. w/ rewards and punishments

-DRIVE INDUCED THROUGH LEARNING!!
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Distract/conflict theory:
critical factor Soc. Facil.
effects
-CONFLICT: presense others distraction inhances drive state attend action or audiance = more back and forth = conflict = up in drive

-any attn. conflit induces "social" facilitization effects
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Distract/conflict theory:
attn. conflict
-OTHERS DISTRACTING: want to compare performance of others to yours = change to match theirs

-task distraction bother external and internal
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Non drive approaches:
summary self-awarness
theory account for Soc.
Facil.
-self conciousness difficult task - impare performance
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Non drive approaches:
self presentation and
perception related to
Soc. Facil
-DIFFICULT TASK: audiance make you embarassasment and w/ drawl
SOCIAL FACILITIZATION:
Non drive approaches:
3 limitations self-related
explainations Soc. Facil
1.requires at least 2 steps
-presense others one step

2.mirror and other people viewed as part of distraction

3.DONT WORK W/ ANIMALS!!
AGGRESSION:
child respond when witness violence
a)DISTRESS= watch agg.= cover eyes/ cry (variety of reactions)

b)IMITATION= adults done child models it (hit/fight)

c)more likely fight even mroe after watch 2nd time (cummulative effect)
AGGRESSION:
how can excitation (initial transfer
to agg. behavior)transfer
faciclitate agg.
have aversive experience up arousal => heart rate/BP => up agg.

ex: sprint to catch plane= fly off handel more
AGGRESSION:
implications childhood exposure
violence has adult behavior
-watch adults as an example (modeling)

-abused = abuse own children

-witness adults fighting more likely grown up more violent
STEREOTYPE:
likely steps in
behavioral confirmation
1.ANTICIPATE: anticipate interation/ think hostile then prepare for that

2.IMAGINE: what likely to happen (never met)

3.IMAGINED BEHAVIOR STEREOTYPE CONSISTENT: visualize their behaviors as consistent w/ stereotypes

4.IMAGINARY BEHAIVOR GUIDES OWN BEHAVIOR: may obtain response you imagined b/c you set it up to confirm what expected
AGGRESSION:
mechanism explains effects
of agg. (relevan to agg. behavior)
cues
-PRIMING = assoc w/ agg.
ex: prime agg. = beep horn!

-more cog. assissable => prime => agg. behavior
AGGRESSION:
mechanism explains socialization
of aggression
-MODELING = see adults do this more accepted to them = use this behavior
GROUP POLARIZATION:
why risky shift known now as
group polarization
-group discussions are MORE EXTREME although NOT necessarly MORE RISKY
GROUP POLARIZATION:
steps risky shifs
study involves
(Moscovici and Zavalloni)
1. fill out survey on own (w/ scale on it)

2. group discussions- either told make unanimous decision or not

3. post-group private assessment
-rate each individually again
GROUP POLARIZATION:
Moscovici and Zavalloni
Findings
FOUND: higher ratings on ave after the group discussion than the indiv ratings
GROUP POLARIZATION:
role social comparison
in group polarization
-social differentiate self due to attitude change

-memebers aware each other - competition occurs (suttle)= risk desirable direction = socially optimal be above ave = favorable extreme risk

-attitude change due to social comparison
GROUP POLARIZATION:
Informational influence
source Group Polar.
-groups set up exposure to persuasive argue - persuaded

-attitude change due to info. intergration
-hear something not throught about before -go in that direction (start out lean one way)
-recieve something new (all favor one way or another discuss info)
GROUP POLARIZATION:
? both influence present
Group polarization to occur
1.social compare is sufficient
2.info influence is sufficient
3.which is more powerful
1. dont need other/ either will work
-Blascovich the (black jack study)
-set up situation change betting practices based on group discussion
-examine effects see what other bet
-20 hands alone then 20 hands in group
1.alone 2.3person-concensus (talk)
3.own hands presense 2 others (no talk)
(2 & 3 group polarization)
GROUP POLARIZATION:
? both influence present
Group polarization to occur
1.social compare is sufficient
2.INFO INFLUENCE IS SUFFICIENT
3.which is more powerful
-Burnstein and Vinokur
-Ss hear argue. but not specific positions favored

-polarized persists, thus argue. sufficient in absense of comparison
GROUP POLARIZATION:
? both influence present
Group polarization to occur
1.social compare is sufficient
2.info influence is sufficient
3.WHICH IS MORE POWERFUL
-usually info. influene especially in task-oriented groups

-but social comparison POWERFUL some situations
-values, prefences
-ambiguous situations
-group ID emphasized (vs. indiv ID)
GROUP POLARIZATION:
prior condition must be met
GP to occur
learning one side before group discussion
STEREOTYPES:
1. STEROTYPES
2. PREJUDICE
3. DISCRIMINATION
1. what think group like (+ or - belief) COGNATIVE!

2. emotional = feelings have about group memebers (-) AFFECTIVE!

3. how treat indiv. group members
-unfairly treated (insturmental -social approval) BEHAVIORAL!

ABC MODEL!!!
AGGRESSION:
"weapons effect"
-evidance sit weapon up agg.

-ex: desk has riffle on it (more likely shock subj) or fishing rod on it

-make agg. salient see gun
AGGRESSION:
1. angry aggression
vs.
2. instrumental aggression
1. response to angry affect

2. primary goal to overcome threat or gain resources
AGGRESSION
1. disinhibition
2. deindividuation
3. alcohol to agg. behavior
1. down inhibitors agg. behavior

2. more likely show agg.
-dont feel like indiv. in group
-lose track indiv. identity = down perception personal responsibility

3.less likely notice resasons why did what did make you angry
-less likely worry about retaliation and physical injury
-lead up level agg. when provoked
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Aronson's Jigsaw Class
involved
-competition in the classroom : setup cooperative situation

-each given protion material 2 be learned

-everyone share to be able to succeed

-do well cooperate w/ others => others depend on them
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Aronson's Jigsaw Class:
influnce likeing students
piolt study
-liked own group members more

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE:
-not learn any better in jigsaw groups
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Aronson's Jigsaw Class:
major findings teacher
implemented
-did like gropu memebers more

-report percieves others as resources

-more (+) about school

-up self esteem end year
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Aronson's Jigsaw Class:
was he sucessful in
down preudice
-no did not work globally but it is a start
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Consequences Discrimination
Day generate
-longterm => get moral and ethial lessons from this

-very sensitive discriminatory behavior then and later
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sherif's
Robber's Cave Study:
Superordinate goals provided
(? influence intergroup hostility)
-stage interuption water supply both bunk houses/ find movie projector together/ food truck wheel axle problem

-down conflict/ function together well (useful)
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sherif's
Robber's Cave Study:
introduce "contact" or
"exposure" btwn groups
-end histility expose themselve to each other/ contact inpleasnt enviro/ neutral
(NOT WORK : EFFECT INTERGROUP HOSTILITY)
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sherif's
Robber's Cave Study:
manip. relations
btwn groups and intergroup
and intra group levels
-formed intergroup competition/ hostility
-took on conflicting goals in competition

INTERGROUP AND INTRA GROUP LEVELS:
-hostility btwn groups developed
-moral w/in group developed
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sherif's
Robber's Cave Study:
structure emerged
assigned groups
-formed 2 groups

-came up w/ names => nicknames members/ traditions (rattlers/eagles)

-not cooperative in group disapproved of
STEREOTYPE:
Shih, Pittinsky
and Ambady's Study:
Design and study
Design: (fill out quesionnaire)
1.a)women identify slaien (think about gender=>prime)
b)asian identity salient (race=>prime)
c)no identity salient(no self identity)

STUDY:
2. DV- accuracy in responding math items - get right out of # tried

3. sample: 46 Asian Amer. women
STEREOTYPE:
Shih, Pittinsky
and Ambady's Study:
PROCEDURE
-identity manip.
-quanitative test
-demograh info -SAT MATH
-assissment for suspicion
STEREOTYPE:
Shih, Pittinsky
and Ambady's Study:
RESULTS
-PERFORMANCE: best=Asian identity salien 53% then 49% control and 43% women - do worse when women identiy salien on tests

-MOTIVATION:not affected => no diff.

-TALENTED Ss: SAT scores (750)- telented sample no effect stereotyping

-ACTIVATION WAS SUBTLE: no reson believe saw demand char.
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION
Sum Jan Ellot's
"Discrimination Day"
Exercise
-DAY 1: Brown eyes more intelligent than blue =>special privilages
Blue eyes=> colars wear/ sit back room
-made statements like brown eyes cleaner/smarter
-critical blue eye kids

DAY 2: Reversal roles blue and brown eyes
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sum Jan Ellot's
"Discrimination Day" Exercise
effect prodedure on:
1. outgroup denigration
2. affect
3. performance
1. name calling/ playground fights/ beat them up

2. child superior group =>great/ powerful (out group =>sad/down)

3. superior performance good and bad really bad performance
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
Sum Jan Ellot's
"Discrimination Day" Exercise:
happened reversed roles
newly superior kids => somewhat milder toward outgroup/ still got even
AGGRESSION:
aggression
intentional harm some human being
AGGRESSION:
char. assoc. btwn 3 types
aversive (- arousal gone wrong)experiences (not responsible own
behavior)and agg.
1.ATTACK:verbal/ physical =>invite retaliation

2.FRUSTRATION: self goal = barrier =>up possibility agg/ know why frustrated- situation- peers put there/ down agg. function frustration

3.ENVIRO CONTITIONS: enviro cues prime agg. / temp outside/ crowding/ offersive odors/ violent crimes occur = hot summer day
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
phrases involved
inoculation training
a)CONCEPTULAIZATION: edu. people info particular setting=> discrimination (experience)

b)SKILL ACQUISITION: lear how to deal w/ this

c)REEXPOSURE AND APPLICATION: expose themselves real situation see if can act diff
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
purpose inoculatioin training
-try to get people able change behavior

*cope w/ stressful and trying circumstances
STEREOTYPING:
self stereotyping
-where categorize self => jobs/age/race

-(+) or (-) effects (can have both)
AGGRESSION:
sex diff. observed in aggressie
behavior and role socilaization
-INFANT SOCIALIZATION: F=delicate/ fragile =>more talk/cuddleing
M=rough play

-SOCIALIZATIOIN: F=encourage solve problems/ask for help/cooperate/sorry
M=teach to be tough opposite girls

-SITUATIONS: F=feel guilty hurt others M= more likely hurt others/risk retalition/agg. useful in situations/

-INDIRECT AGG: F=verbal abuse/ psych torcher
STEREOTYPE:
stereotype considered
function basic cog. processes
-make sense of envior

-steretypes due to noticing PATTERNS

-impossible (even undesirable) avoid say NO!
(inanimate obj and animate obj)
COMBATING DISCRIMINATION:
sum of Sherif's
Robber's Cave Study
-observe behavior campers
-hostility btw. competitions groups
-drive apart in teams see what formed
-bring back together for common cause