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;
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 |
