Social Pysch. Test 3

Front 1

aggression

Back 1

verbal or phys. behavior meant to hurt or cause harm

2 types:
1. hostile
2. instrumental

Front 2

hostile agression

Back 2

social
"hot"
end goal is to hurt
often emotional/unplanned

ex: murderers

Front 3

instrumental aggression

Back 3

means to an end
"cool"
terrorism, wars, self defense

Front 4

3 major theories of aggression

Back 4

1. biological drivers
2. natural response to frustration
3. learned/socialization

Front 5

aggression then and now

Back 5

sharply increased after the 19th century; 20th was the most violent

Front 6

bio. drivers of aggression

Back 6

INSTINCT THEORY/EVOLUTIONARY PSYCH.: aggression is instinct (needed to survive)
--problems: doesn't explain cultural differences, personality, hinsight bias

NEUROLOGY: no one spot in brain controls it; MORE aggressive people have LESS activity in the prefrontal cortex

GENETICS: bad genes + bad environment are more likely to produce agression

BIOCHEMICALS: alcohol and and testosterone increase aggression; low serotonin reduces impulse control

Front 7

frustration aggression theory

Back 7

frustration = block to goal attainment

displacement: we learn to inhibit direct retaliation and redirect to safer targers

REVISED!!!! mixed support

EMPHASIS ON DEPREIVATION: arises from gap b/t expectation and attainment

Front 8

relative deprivation

Back 8

we do not have to be deprived to be frustrated; it occurs from the gap b/t expectations and attainments

we compare ourselves to others

Front 9

social learning theory (bandura)

Back 9

BANDURA ---> observational learning

vicarious conditioning: learn consequences of actions of others and model behavior accordingly
(Bobo doll experiment)

sources:
-- family: absence of father or abuse from parents can increase aggression
-- culture: subcultures, communities, gangs

aversive experiences increase emotional arousal
rewards and costs lead to anticipating consequences

both lead to: dependencey, achievement, aggerssion, body symptoms, using alcohol and drugs to desensitize, constructive problem solving

Front 10

influences on aggression

Back 10

1. aversive incidents
2. arousal
3. aggression cues
4. media

Front 11

aversive incident explamples

Back 11

driver for aggression

pain:
-- ARZIN'S RATS: shocked, which led to more aggression towards the other animals
-- psych. pain: not feeding pigeons their rewards they are trained to get for pecking on a disk
-- humans: hand in cold ice water (vs. warm) leads to agression towards people w/ unpleasant voices

heat: higher violence in hot weather; riots 1967-1971 on hot days

attacks: eye for an eye

Front 12

arousal

Back 12

driver for agression

bodily arousal feeds emotion depending on how person interprets the arousal

SCHACHTER and SINGER: injected men w/ adrenaline; if warned of effects, less likely to aggress

spillover: more passionate love after a fight; rollercoaster ride and feelings of love

aversive situation leads to arousal which leads to agression

Front 13

aggression cues

Back 13

driver of arousal

sight of weapon: more electric shocks; children playing toy guns act more violently; primes hostile thoughts

Front 14

weapons used to commit murder in the US

Back 14

gun are most common by far

people w/ guns in their homes are more likely to be murdered

"easier" b/c of their distance in killing

Front 15

media influences and aggression

Back 15

driver of aggression

television and video games are parallel

research 1994-1997: 60% of programs contain violence, often not realistic; 73% of aggressors are not punished; 66% of kid cartoons portray violence as funny

TV breeds violence, NOT the other way around
-- why?
arousal
disinhibition
imitation

Front 16

catharsis hypothesis

Back 16

watching violent tv is an outlet for pent up hostility

NOT TRUE

violent tv effects behavior and thinking

Front 17

TV viewing experiments

Back 17

angered college kids reacted more aggressively after violent film than those who did not

when institutional deliquents in belgium were allowed to watch TV, there was a high increase in attacks there

people exposed to violent films were more hostile to the researcher

Front 18

TV and thinking

Back 18

desensitization: less assoc. b/t emotion arousing stim. and actual emotional response; lower arousal in people who watch TV less often

social scripts: action film sequence can applied to real life conflict

altered perceptions: heavy viewers are more likely to think violence in the world is frequent and more likely to think they may be assualted

cognitive priming: watching violent TV primes agression related idea

Front 19

videogames and violence

Back 19

increases...
- arousal
- aggressive thinking, feelings, behaviors


decreases... prosocial behavior

overall can increase aggressive personality

Front 20

group influences on aggression

Back 20

diffusion of responsibility -- increase w/ distance and group size

social contagion -- group fed arousal and polarization (gangs, massacres, etc.)

Front 21

reducing aggression -- catharsis

Back 21

viewing violence or acting that way DOES NOT produce catharsis

actually usually increases hostility

Front 22

reducing aggression -- social learning

Back 22

if it is LEARNED, we can UNLEARN it

controlling it by counteracting factors that provoke it
-- less violent tv and aggressive acts
-- reduce averse stimulation
-- reward and model nonaggressive behavior
-- illicit reactions other than aggression

Front 23

altruism

Back 23

doing good deeds for NOTHING IN RETURN

done out of kindness

Front 24

why we help

Back 24

1. social exchange/social norms

2. evolutionary psych.

3. comparing and evaluating helping theories

4. genuine altruism

Front 25

social exchange theory

Back 25

we aim to MINIMIZE COSTS and MAX. REWARDS of social interactions

rewards: internal vs. external

social norms: reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, gender differences

NO SUCH THING AS TRUE ALTRUISM

Front 26

internal vs. external rewards

Back 26

int.: doing things for self-worth, self-satisfaction, etc.
-- guilt: painful so we reduce it by trying to help; people are more likely to help if feeling guilty, sad, etc.
-- exceptions: self-grief, self-focus

ext.: giving to get

Front 27

happy people and helping

Back 27

happy people are likely to help more ---> especially when happiness turns into relief

helping can soften a bad mood or sustain a good one

Front 28

social norms

Back 28

we help others b/c WE OUGHT TO

-- reciprocity norm
-- social responsibility norm
-- gender and receiving help

Front 29

reciprocity norm

Back 29

a social norm

if people help us, we should help them back

definition of social capital -- supportive actions keep a community healthy and happy

we are threatened to take help when we cannot return it

the cheat, criminal, etc. is universally despised

Front 30

social responsibility norm

Back 30

when people are clearly dependent and cant reciprocate (ex: kids, the poor, etc.) we do not expect help in return

strongest in collectivist cultures

doesnt count if person's misfortune is their own fault

Front 31

gender and receiving help

Back 31

women are less to receive help
women help men and women equally
men help women more than than men help men

women are also more likely to seek and accept help

reminiscent of indeendence

Front 32

evolutionary psych.

Back 32

genetic selfishness -- not usually in our nature to help (we are primed to compete for resources) except in the case of...

-- kin protection: parents put their childrens needs 1st since they are likely to pass on genes
-- kin selection: favoritism to those who share our genes (ex: twins)

Front 33

group selection and helping

Back 33

when groups are in competition, groups of supportive altruists outlast groups of nonaltruists

Front 34

genuine altruism

Back 34

beyond just avoiding pain; more about "peace of mind"

secure attachment = empathy ( we are sensitive to the feelings of others)
-- focus on sufferer
-- even primates display this (sharing food/shock experiment)

when empathy is aroused, we are more likely to help than escape

Front 35

path of altruism

Back 35

viewing someones distress --> feeling distressed --> egoistic motivation for reducing own distress --> helping to reduce own distress (negative)

viewing another's distress --> feeling empathy --> altrusistic motivation to reduce ditress of the other person --> helping to reduce other person's distress (positive)

Front 36

when we are most likely to help

Back 36

when more people are around (noticing, interpretting, assuming responsibility)

when someone else does

when person is similar

when we are under less time pressure

Front 37

kitty genovese

Back 37

attacked in apt. buidling; 38 people heard, but no one called helped

police were called much later when attacker had time to return and kill her

Front 38

bystander effect

Back 38

when people are around, we are less likely to help
-- less likely when fighting w/ spouse than w/ stranger

# of people: as # increases, likelihood of helping decreases
-- noticing: more stimuli when more people are around, harder to notice people need help
-- interpretting: we use others as cues to interpret event >> illusion of transpancy (worrying others will notice you losing your cool) >> ignorant that others are as worried as we are
-- assumed responsbility: diffusion of it; we think someone else is more likely to respond;

Front 39

WHO will help?

Back 39

-- mother theresa types: there are individual differences in helpfulness (positive emotions, empathy, self efficacy)

-- interaction w/ personality and situation

-- men are morel likely to help in dangerous situations, women are more likely to help in nondangerous situations

-- religion

Front 40

decision tree

Back 40

see slides

Front 41

increasing helping

Back 41

1. reduce ambiguity, increase responsbility: interpret decision correctly, and assume responsbility (decision tree)
-- personal appeals most effective
-- more likely to help when you see victim face to face

2. guilt and concern for self image: when chastized, more likely to help (door in face, zoo sign)

3 socializing altruism:
-- teaching more inclusion: including people who differ from self; less ingroup/outgroup bias
-- modeling altruism: ex. - mr. roger's neighborhood
-- learn by doing: more helping experiences create positive self schemas

Front 42

coflict

Back 42

perceived incompatability w/ actions and goals

many levels (w/in self, b/t 2 people, b/t groups, etc.)

Front 43

peace

Back 43

low levels of hostility and agression

mutually beneficial relationships

outcome of creatively managed conflict

Front 44

what creates conflict?

Back 44

1. social dilemmas

2. competition

3. perceived injustice

4. misperception

Front 45

social dilemmas

Back 45

multiple parties pursue only their own self interest

invidual self interst over communal well being

Front 46

prisoners dilemma

Back 46

game example

see slides

2 choices: confess of deny

best for individual: confess while the other remains silent (one gets a long sentence, the other goes free)

best for group: both stay silent (both have smaller sentences)

Front 47

tradgedy of the commons

Back 47

social delimma that involves 2 + parties

commons = air, water, any shared resource >> can be tradedy if everyone uses more than moderation

immediate gratifaction comes at the expense of LT well being

Front 48

similartities b/t game strategies and lfie

Back 48

temps people to commit FAE -- explaining their behaviors sitautionally and their partner's behavior dispositionally


motives change

non-zero sum games are realisitc

Front 49

resolving social dilemmas

Back 49

REGULATION to prevent social loafing and everyone getting a fair share

SMALL GROUPS to increase responsibility

COMMUNICATION increases cooperation and distrust

CHANGE PAYOFFS to increase rewards for cooperation

APPEAL TO ALTRUISTIC NORMS

Front 50

competition

Back 50

cause of conflict

competing for limited resources

Front 51

sherif's robber's cave

Back 51

3 wk. summer camps

splitting boys who dont know eachother into 2 groups

groups were split up for a week to do team building acts, then asked to compete in cometition

chaos ensued

Front 52

perceived injustice

Back 52

cause of conflict

my outcomes/inputs = you outcomes/inputs

those w/ power convince themselves and those under them that they deserve what they get


advantaged group may feel guilty, but tries to justify

disadvantaged group: accepts, retaliates, or demands compenation

Front 53

misconception

Back 53

cause of conflict

perceived incompatability -- over-exaggeration can cause it

self-serving bias leads to FAE in groups; groups polarize tendencies and form stereotypes on outgroup

Front 54

types of misconception

Back 54

mirror image perceptions: 2 sides have clashing perceptions; at least 1 misperceives the other, and self-fulfilling prophecy occurs (us vs. them)

simplistic thinking: rational thinking is hard in tense situations ; more stereotyping and ingroup bias

shifting perceptions: perceptions change in times of peace

Front 55

how to achieve peace

Back 55

contact: can be good or bad >> usually decreases prejudice (desegregation)

cooperation: contact on its own is not enough, cooperation is needed

Front 56

aspects of cooperation

Back 56

common ext. threats: threats can build group cohesiveness

subordinate goals: goals that require everyone's participation

cooperation learning and racial attitudes: students who participate in coop activities (teams, projects, etc.) have more friends of different races and pos. attitudes towards other races

group and subordinate identities: being mindful of identities that are shared w/ other groups

Front 57

sherif study on cooperation

Back 57

cont. from study on conflict; groups became more peaceful when dealing with shared problems

Front 58

bargaining

Back 58

toughness -- those who demand more often get more

negotitators often end up w/ lose lose agreement that is costly to both parties

Front 59

mediation

Back 59

turning win-lose into win-win

needs to be trust b/t parties, and if not there should be a mediator

controlled communiation

Front 60

arbitration

Back 60

more then just mediation

mediator imposes a settlement

if people no arbitration may happen they will try harder to fix problem

costly

final offer arbitration: 3rd party chooses one of 2 final offers

Front 61

conciliation

Back 61

those who are 100% cooperative are usually exploited

Front 62

GRIT

Back 62

grad. and reciprocated incentives in tension reduction