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;
87 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the two ways the self can be categorized? |
(1) at the personal level, that self can be thought of as a unique individual (2) at the social identity level, the self is thought of as a member of a group |
|
|
What is the looking - glass self? |
Cooley (1902): Looking glass self - used what they call a "mirror" - tendency to incorporate other people's judgments onto the view of ourselves looking in the mirror and seeing what other people see
|
|
|
What is self complexity? What does it mean to be high in self complexity and low in self complexity? |
Self complexity: how an individual's self concept is organized High self complexity: important aspects of the self are DISTINCT from one another (definite categories) Low self complexity: greater overlap in different components of the self
|
|
|
What is the identity interference? Provide an example |
Identity interference - occurs when two important social identities are perceived as being in conflict, such that acting on the basis of one identity interferes with the performing well based on the other. - usually occurs with people that have high self complexity - paying attention to one identity will interfere into cost of the other identity Ex: Student Athlete. When the Student considers themselves as an athlete, their academic was at risk and vis versa.
|
|
|
Discuss Gallup's (1997) "red dye test" What were the results of this test? How does this test relate to the "self"? |
Gallup (1997): "Red dye test" - put a red dot on the participants nose (babies, chimpanzee, and orangutans) - all seem were able to identify themselves in a mirror. They knew the person in the mirror was them. Meaning all have a basic form of self-concept. - when tested with human infants: babies are aware of themselves at age 2 but before that age, they think its another baby.
|
|
|
What is self - concept clarity? |
having a clearer self- concept than others |
|
|
Discuss Culture and self-concept. How can tensions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultures in Canada be explained? Discuss the study does by Ross et al . (2002) when it comes to culture and self- concept. |
Western -> independent self concept: emphasize individualistic norms and independent self concept expectations that will develop a self-concept separate from others around them Eastern -> Interdepdence self - concept: emphasize collectivistic norms and an interdependence self concept. Expectations that will develop a self concept in relation to others around them
Aboriginals have interdepedence culture while non aboriginals have independence culture. This causes clashes
Ross et al (2002): - students were divided into one of four groups: (1) Chinese born participating in Chinese (2) Chiense born participating in English (3) Canadian born of European descendent (4) Canadian born of Chinese descendent asked an open ended self - description: "who am i?" - found that Chinese born students participating in Chinese provided more references to culture, more collectivistic self - statements, more references to other people. Bicultural individuals East - Eastern and Western identities may be stored in distinct knowledge structures with language activating the appropriate structure when it is necessary.
|
|
|
Discuss gender differences in the definition of self
|
Relational Interdependence: tends to focus on their close relationship, define themselves in terms of their relationship. Women have more relational interdependence than men. Independence Self - Concepts: expectations that self- concept that is separate from or independent of others. men have more independent self- concepts but NOT ALWAYS.
Gender differences only found in individualistic cultures. NO gender differences between collectivistic cultures.
Collective Interdependence: differences social groups they belong to. ie: spot teams, bands, etc.
|
|
|
What are self - schemas? What effects do they have? What is the self-refence effect? |
Self-Schemas mental frameworks that organize information, knowledge, beliefs, about ourselves. Also influence our behaviour and how we react to others.
Self Reference Effect tendency for us to process information more efficiently and better if it relates to us. |
|
|
Discuss self-awareness theory (Duval and Wicklund, 1971). What are the three different types of self-awareness discussed in class? Discuss these three and whether animals are able to show these three types of self-awareness? |
Duval & Wiklund (1972): Self Awareness Theory we focus our attention on ourselves, we become more in touch with our attitudes and dispositions. When the focus on ourselves (mirror, videotape, etc) you will be more aware for what you stand for (what you believe in, attitudes)
Three levels of self-awareness: 1. Subjective self-awareness: can recognize self and they are separate from things around them ex: cats, dogs, young infants 2. Objective Self - Awareness subject of your own attention ex: passing the red dye test by Gallup. (orangutan, baby 2 yrs and older, chimpanzees) 3. Symbolic Self - Awareness we refer ourselves though language only humans have this uniqueness. |
|
|
What did Beaman et al (1979) find with respect to Halloween? How does this relate to self-awareness?
|
When there was a mirror in front of the candy the children when alone were less likely to take candy as when the mirror was not there. Also if the children were in groups affected the study as well. The idea of the mirror is that you are aware of yourself and will be more likely to prevent yourself from stealing because it reminds you more as a person and what you value. |
|
|
What are possible selves? How do role models relate?
|
possible selves: are who we can see ourselves in the future (desired or dreaded) Role models can inspire us to improve to that possible self.
|
|
|
Discuss self-efficacy Discuss LaRose et al (2006): science undergrads |
Self Efficacy You can be successful through your own actions
Higher self efficacy: hard workers but easier to give p if the task seems impossible, prefer to allocate their time and effort to tasks that can be solved and they stop working on tasks that cannot be solved.
LaRose et al (2006): Self Efficacy in science Students students who had a higher self-efficacy in science, had a more positive academic outcome = higher grades.
|
|
|
Discuss Self perception Theory
|
Bem (1972): Self Perception Theory unsure what your attitudes, feelings are, we will look at your past behaviour toe determine how you feel currently ex: do you like classical music?
|
|
|
What is self esteem? What is the most common measurement of explicit self - esteem? How would you test implicit self- esteem? Is self esteem universal? |
Self Esteem the degree of which you feel (positive/negative) towards yourself. Basically overall evaluation towards yourself.
Rosenburg self-esteem Scale - most common, explicit measure, has to have reverse coding (opposite coding that catches who might be cheating, lying, etc...) People who agree strongly with this scale, usually has high self - esteem
Subtle Measures - nonconscious assessment procedures, implicit measures, IAT, can use classical conditioning to increases self esteem.
Explicit self esteem: overall attitude toward one self that is aware of and reports
Implicit self esteem: overall attitude toward oneself that one is not consciously aware of
If looking at implicit self esteem measures, it can be universal.
|
|
|
What is the above average effect? What are self - serving attributions?
|
Above Average Effect tendency to see ourselves above others in terms of positive social attitudes. Readily accept info about our success, explain away information regarding failure.
Self - Serving Attributions tendency to attribute positive outcomes to ourselves and negative outcomes to external factors
|
|
|
Compare False Uniqueness Effect and False Consensus Effect use examples as well
|
False Uniqueness Effect we tend to think we are unique, we are different it only comes to desired skills. ex: "I exercise, and no one else exercise"
False Consensus Effect Tendency for us to self - serve by viewing our undesirable behaviours and unsuccessful behaviours, and our opinions as being more common than they truly are. ex: "I smoke, so does everybody else, so its okay." but a lot of people are not smoking.
|
|
|
How is self esteem related to agression? Discuss using Jordan et al (2005) and also bbe sure to mention Vohs et al. |
Vohs et al (2005): self esteem and Aggression - fond that people with low or high self esteem are more likely to be more violent than moderate self esteem
Jordan et al (2005): Heterogenous Self - Esteem - people who report having high self esteem (explicit self esteem) may actually have low implicit (self esteem) and may become defensive and act aggressively when they feel threatened. This heterogenous self esteem (mismatch between explicit and implicit self esteem) may be linked to other negative social behaviours (prejudice, discrimination)
they used a Rosenburg and IAT to measure self esteem on Canadian students with a bogus test. When they were threatened wit ha negative performance feedback, these heterogenous self esteem students showed more prejudice and discrimination (aggression) towards Aboriginal students than white students.
|
|
|
Discuss gender and self - esteem |
Self esteem and Gender when women options become increasingly limited, the self esteem difference seen between men and women emerges and continues through adulthood.
Williams and Best (1990) Self Esteem between genders - did a cross cultural study of self esteem - nations like India, and Malaysia, where women are expected to remain i the home as roles of mothers/wives, they had the most NEGATIVE self - concepts - nations like England and Finland, where women are most active in the labor force and are valued members in life outside the home, they had more POSITIVE self- concept (women and men perceived as equals) - Canada falls in between, but it all depends in the job if there is no gender discrimination.
Major et al (1999) generally men have reliably higher self-esteem than women
|
|
|
Discuss culture and Self Esteem
|
Self esteem and Culture Earlier research found that Eastern cultures have low self esteem compared to Westerners but this only accounted for explicit self - esteem Recent researchers found that self esteem may be universal after all (if looking at implicit self esteem measures)
Heine and Hamamura (2007) - cross cultural study on self-enhancements - found that Westerners self enhance and East Asians do not.
Self Enhancement: the tendency to maintain an unrealistically positive view of one's self
|
|
|
Discuss Social Comparison Theory What are upward social comparisons? What are downward social comparisons? When do we make each?
|
Festinger (1954): Social Comparison Theory Idea that we want to know where we stand, if our attitudes are correct, we will compare ourselves with other people around is.
Downward Social Comparison - Comparing ourselves with someone who less skilled or successful than we are - if we want to feel good about ourselves
Upward Social Comparison - Comparing ourselves with someone who is more skilled or successful than we are - if we want to motivate or feel bad about ourselves
|
|
|
Lockwood and Kunda's (1997): Upward Social Comparison |
Lockwood and Kunda (1997) Upward Social Comparison - Accounting students (1st or 4th year) were exposed to another accounting students article, who was at the top of their class, won numerous awards and landed a great job. - 1st year students self evaluate increased: upward social comparison gave them hope and motivation - 4th year students self evaluate decreased: upward social comparison made them feel horrible, jealous, could never measure up, its too late feeling. |
|
|
Discuss and compare and contrast the self - evaluation maintenance model (Tesser, 1998) with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel &Turner, 1979) and how they relate to social comparison and self- esteem
|
Tesser (1988): Self -Evaluations Maintenance Model to have a positive view of oneself, you will distance yourself from people who are doing better than you and draw closer to people who are doing worst than you.
Tajfel & Turner (1979): Social Identity Theory Our responses when our group identity is salient. If someone part of our group is doing poorly, you will move away from them. But if someone in your group is doing good, you will draw them closer because they will make you look good.
|
|
|
What is self - presentation? What is ingratiation and how does it relate to self-presentation?
|
Self - Presentation Efforts to make sure we are presenting ourselves in the best light possible. We want others to see ourselves positive as well.
Ingratiation Attempts to make other people like you by praising them like flattery. This cannot be too excessive because it can be annoying or fake. This has to be true flattery.
|
|
|
What is self-enhancement? Other-enhacement? |
Self Enhancement the tendency to maintain an unrealistically positive view of one's self
Other Enhancement efforts to induce positive moods in others |
|
|
What is self- monitoring? Discuss the difference between low self-monitors and high self-monitors.
|
Self Monitoring Making sure your behaviour is in line all the time
Low Self Monitors - don't care what other people are thinking and won't change to other people's expectations. - think about yourself, internal cues - prefer to act according to their personal views
High Self Monitors - adjust peoples behaviour to meet the expectations of other people or the situation - tend to have higher explicit self- esteem than low self-monitors - stem form the fact that people who are high self monitoring, have more social approval. - More in Eastern cultures
|
|
|
What is Self-Handicapping? Provide an example |
Self - Handicapping - face a situation that you are going to fail, you might engage in this - sabotage any chance you have for success, by purposely creating obstacles. - had to be something that matters to you - blame their failure on external factors that are beyond their control. ex: the teacher made the test so hard that it doesn't matter how much I study.
|
|
|
Discuss Self - Discrepancy Theory (Higgens et al) What are the three selves? What emotions result from discrepancies between the ideal and actual self and actual and ought self?
|
Higgens et al (?): Self - Discrepancy Theory - when our ideal self does not match up with the actual self, leading to sadness and dissatisfaction. - when there is a discrepancy between our actual self and ought self, we will feel worry, tension, anxiety.
Ideal Self: the type of person we aspire to be Actual Self: our sense of who we truly are Ought Self: what society or our family wants us to be
|
|
|
Discuss Steele's (1998) Self Affirmation Theory
|
Steele (1998): Self Affirmation Theory - focus on good behaviour, gets rid of any dissonance that you engage in something that was bad. - feeling good despite of our bad behaviour - lead to rationalization: potential for dissonance reduction to produce a succession of self-justification that leads to a series of bad behaviour and moral actions.
|
|
|
Discuss Self-Verification theory. Be sure to discuss how it relates to self-serving.
|
Swann (1983, 1987): Self Verification Theory - times we want to be accurate, we want to be know the truth about ourselves (truth can be neg/pos) - whether we want to be accurate or get positive feedback depends on... (1) dimension on what we are being evaluated (2) the nature of the relationship on the person who is doing the evaluation - conflict with other people's desire to see us in a positive light - we prefer accuracy even if it hurts us, but depends on the situation - though we want lies from romantic partners, when it comes to our physical attractiveness.
|
|
|
What is a group? What are the common characteristics of a group? |
Groups: collection of persons who are perceived to be bonded together in a coherent unit (entiativity) to some degree
Common Characteristics: - frequent interactions (does not have to be in person) - Group is considered important (to the individual) - Shared goals - Members are similar to each other
|
|
|
Discuss, in detail, the 4 basic aspects of groups
|
Four Basic Aspects 1. Roles set of behaviours that accompany your position in your group some are assigned and some are just made into a role (internalize that role) Zimbardo (1973): Standford Prison experiment - study of prison, role of guard and prisoner - purpose of the study was to determine if people will participate like real guards and prisoners - stopped after 6 days, even though it was suppose to last 2 weeks. - prisoners become increasingly passive and depressed - guards become increasingly brutal - roles have a powerful impact on our behaviours in different groups
2. Status - an individual's position or rank in your group - people with higher perceived status will have access to resources and a better chance to survive (in evolutionary terms) - Height and Status: people who are taller, means they have a higher status Higham and Carment (1992): 1988 Federal Election Leaders - after the election, the losers were judged to be shorter. While the winner was judged to be taller.
3. Norms - unspoken ruels to follow - every group has their set of rules - if not following these norms, you get ostracized or kicked out -think about cliques
4. Cohesiveness - the degree in which you are bonded - more cohesiveness groups are, the more influence it has over its members - more cohesiveness: higher status group face a threat smaller groups cost of getting into a group are higher
|
|
|
What are the benefits and cost of joining a group?
|
Benefits of joining a group Gain of self knowledge: - tells us what kind of people we are, what we stand four, whats important to us Boost one's status: - also increases self - esteem - degree to which people involved are seeking….
Costs of Joining groups Membership often limits personal freedom
Groups make demands on members that must be met (demands made on you)
Members may disapprove of group policies - you don't agree with group policies might cause you to withdraw wit hate group or ostracize from the group |
|
|
Discuss Social Facilitation - two major theories - give examples of each theory's discuss not social facilitation effects |
Social Facilitation Effects upon performance resulting from the presence of others Presence of others can either improve or impair task performance
Two Theories 1. Drive Theory of Social Facilitation: Zajonc (1965) - mere presence of others is arousing and increases tendency to perform dominant responses - performance will improve if dominant response are correct (task is easy for the person) + task will improve while people are around us - performance will worsen if dominant responses are incorrect (task is hard for person) + other people will make this worst + impair performance - we do find this happens but it is not important for everyone and every being
2. Distraction - Conflict Theory - suggests the social facilitation stems from conflict produced when individuals attempt to pay attention to both the audience and the task - social facilitation effects are due to increases arousal and cognitive factors
|
|
|
Discuss Triplett (1898) and how it relates to groups
|
Triplett (1898): Social Facilitation in Children - asked children to turn a fish reel as fast as they can. - the children were either alone or with other children - children worked harder and spun that wheel faster when other children are present - this presence was called social facilitation |
|
|
How do cockroaches relate to Zajonc's drive theory of social facilitation |
Cockroaches study: Cockroaches will actually run faster in mazes when there are other cockroaches are present social facilitation does not stem entirely from evaluation apprehension
|
|
|
What is social loafing? When is it common? Is it universal across cultures? Discuss gender differences in terms of social loafing. |
Social Loafing - idea that many hands make light work - when you're in a group, you tend to contribute less as an individual because you have more people that will pick up the slack - common with additive tasks (group sum equal to its parts) - slightly less common in females and does not appear to occur in collectivistic cultures (usually work harder in groups then alone)
Latené (1981) Clapping and Social Loafing - had students clap or cheer as loud as they could in groups of 2, 4, or 6. - amount of noise increases as they group increases but individual noise decreased.
|
|
|
How can one decrease social loafing? |
Decreasing Social Loafing - increases accountability by making contributions identifiable - increases commitment to the success of the groups task - increase the importance of the task because when the task is important people will down regulate in social loading - increase the perception that contributions of each member are unique and necessary |
|
|
What is deindividuation? What is its opposite? Discuss and provide an example of deindividuation. |
Deindividuation psychological state is characterized by reduce self - awareness and reduced social identity brought on by external conditions (being anonymous, being a part of a large crowd, etc ...) - the opposite of self - awareness - reduced social identity: following new norms or following a larger group - increases tendency to follow norms of groups (the crowd) which can result in neg. or pos. behaviours - results in behaviours that individuals in the groups often would not perform by themselves - example: G20 summit in Toronto, the olympic games in Vancouver. |
|
|
Discuss a study relating to deindividuation. |
Mullen et al. - showed that when individuals feel anonymous, the experience a reduction in self- awareness and simultaneously a reduction in their social identity - participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure their degree of self- awareness and social identity - condition 1: sitting in front of a mirror (increases self awareness) - condition 2: wearing a mask (increase social identity and induces feelings of anon and deindividuation) - condition 3: filling out a family tree (increase social identity) - results: Condition 3 reduced both social identity and self awareness Condition 2 reduced self awareness and increases social identity Condition 1 increased self awareness and decreases social identity
|
|
|
What is decision making? What are social decision schemes? Discuss the group social decision schemas covered in class? |
Decision Making Combine various information you have available to come up with a decision. Attain a consensus by social decision schemas (rules that are related to initial distribution of members views to actual final group decisions)
Four social decision schemes: - Majority wins rule - Truth wins rule: the correct solution will be chosen, as more members recognize this solution - First shift rule: when the group opts to go with the decision consisted with the first change in direction/opinion. First person who changes their mind, will cause the others to change their mind. - Unanimity: legal system, everyone has to agree
|
|
|
Do groups always make riskier decisions than individuals? What is group polarization? How does social comparison relate to group polarization? |
Group Polarization - Tendency for group members to become more extreme after group discussion - Their initial leanings will become stronger after the discussion - Groups are more likely to adopt extreme measures than individuals - one explanantion is Social Comparison
Social Comparison - comparing your views to others around you and in attempt to make yourself look better, you will hold a more extreme view - engage in group discussion ,you might have view points that you have not even came up with before. - a study that looked a juries decision either a 1st degree, 2nd degree or manslaughter. At first individuals believed it was manslaughter but after group discussion it turned out to be 1st degree. - can interfere with ability to make correct decisions
|
|
|
Discuss groupthink. What does it occur? What are the antecedents, symptoms, and consequences of groupthink? Has Jani's conception of groupthink been reality accepted by all? Discuss. Provide an example of groupthink |
Groupthink (Janis 1971 & 1982) - Members assume their decision cannot be wrong. - everyone has to support the decision - any information that is contrary is ignored - no one wants to rock the boat, the don't want to cause issues - Why does this occur? high cohesiveness among group members, Emergent group norms that suggest group is infallible and morally superior. Rejection of opposing views made by outside stories - Criticism of Janis' idea of group think: overestimates the link between the decision making process and the outcome, negative phenomenon. - Example of this is Koebal brothers: they monitored the Walkerton's water system. They were under the impression that the water can never be contaminated. They failed to perform crucial water safety tests and also failed to disinfect the town's drinking water. PUC failed to check on the brother's and when they received a letter stating there was E.coli they just accepted the brother's word that everything was okay. 2000 people were sick from E.coli and 7 people died to the negligence of the Koebal brothers and PUC. |
|
|
Discuss potential dangers of Decision making in groups. |
Three potential dangers of decision making in groups: 1. Groupthink members assume their decision cannot be wrong 2. Biased Processing of information group members processing information in ways that allow them to reach desired decisions. i.e.: Conformational Bias 3. Failure to Share information group members do not always share information unique to each member and only discuss information known to all. only discuss what everybody knows.
|
|
|
Compare and contrast the devil's advocate technique and authentic dissent |
Improving Group Decision Devils Advocate Technique when the group assigns someone to criticizes and disagree with everything Authentic Dissent encouraging if you do disagree to speak up. Not assigned. More efficient in changing people's views.
|
|
|
What is Cooperation? What are social dilemmas and how do they relate to cooperation Discuss the two examples of social dilemmas covered in class.
|
Cooperation: behaviour in which groups work together to attain shared goals. It often provides benefits to group members, but does not always happen. Social Dilemmas: - involved mixed motive, either cooperate or we can also compete trying to get the best outcome four ourselves. - situations in which each person can increase his or her individual gains by acting in one way, but if all (or most) persons do the same thing, the outcomes experienced by all are reduced. - involves mixed motives: cooperation or competition. - ex: prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons.
Prisoner's Dilemma: two people can choose to cooperate or compete with one another. If both choose to cooperate each receives favourable outcomes. If both compete, the loses are greater than the gains. the first person will receive a much better outcome than the second.
Tragedy of Commons: When a resource that is a shared among people that will replenish itself when monitored, providing it is used in moderation and not selfishly by individuals for their own gain. But when people get greedy, overfishing will lead to extinction of resources.
|
|
|
Discuss, in detail, the three factors influencing cooperation. |
Factors influencing cooperation 1. Reciprocity - a basic rule of social life suggests that individuals should treat others as people have treated them 2. Personal Orientation - cooperative: will try to maximize everybody's gain - individualistic: maximize our own personal gain - competitive: maximizing our own gains, while minimizing everyone's gain 3. Communication - can increase cooperation when individuals are committed to cooperate and norms to honour commitment are strong.
|
|
|
What is conflict? What are the key elements in conflict? Discuss the various causes of conflict covered in class.
|
Conflict Is when individual perceives that someone else's goals are different from your own or take action or already have taken action that will hurt your interest.
Key Elements in Conflict (1) Opposing interest between individuals or groups (2) Recognition of such opposition (3) The belief by each side that the other will last to interfere wit these interest (4) actions that produce such interference
Causes of Conflict: - faulty attributions: making a faulty assumption - faulty communication - belief that own views are objective, while others are biased - Type A personality: competitive, irritable, more likely to be aggressive than others. - when initial group performance is poor and negatively evaluated: leading to a conflict, blame game
|
|
|
What is bargaining (negotiation)? How are outcomes influenced by the tactics adopted? If bargaining does not resolve conflict, what are the two other ways to resolve the conflict? Discuss |
Resolving Conflict Bargaining (negotiation): - process in which opposing sides exchange offers, counter offers, and concessions, either directly or through represents - outcomes are influenced by tactics adopted * to achieve this goal: being with extreme initial offer, convince other side that break even pt is higher than it is and that options to negotiate with others are avaliable * tactics ethically questionnable? ~ like fast promises, manipulations, misrepresentations, inappropriate into gathering (spying on someone) ~ integrative agreements: reaching a midpt or a resolution where both parties get what they want. - if conflict cannot be resoled through bargaining: two other ways to resolve it 1. Mediation - unbiased 3rd party facilitation communication between the 2 conflicting parties and offers suggestion on resolving the conflict 2. Arbitration - unbiased third party will decide and cannot be changed by any party. - non concessions - giving up full control.
|
|
|
What are superordinate goals and how do they relate conflict?
|
Superordinate goals groups come together to reach an ultimate goal Can reduce tendencies to exaggerate differences between one's group and the opposing side and to derogate members of outside groups
Sherif et al (1961): Robber Cave Camp - two groups of boys came together to solve problems that the scientist plotted and found that conflict reduced because superordinate goals were created for them to work together.
|
|
|
Name and discuss the three rules of judging fairness. What are the three rules collectively named?
|
Perceived Fairness in Groups Three rules collectively named as ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
1. Disruptive Justice putting in some work and receiving rewards of the same sort. Equality
2. Procedural Justice Fairness in the procedures used in the distribution of reward, are they applied i the same way to everyone (consistency) Based on consistency, accuracy, opportunity for corrections, bias suppression and ethicality.
3. Interactional (interpersonal/Transactional) Justice Extent that decision regard note distribution of rewards are explained and courtesy is shown toward those who receive the reward.
|
|
|
Discuss reaction to perceived unfairness and how these rules relate to these reactions. |
Reaction to Perceived Unfairness - if unfairness centres on rewards (distributive): people may focus on changing balance between their contributions and outcomes - if unfairness centres on procedures (procedural) air lack of courteous treatment by those determining rewards (transactional): Much of this happens behind "closed" doors" so not easy to change (may turn to more covert techniques such as evening the score". Employee theft and sabotage) - Finally, individuals who feel that they have been treated unfairly and conclude that there is little they can do about it map cope by changing their perception. Eg: can conclude that other people who recieve larger rewards, than they do deserve this special treatment. In such cases, individuals who feel that they cannot eliminate unfairness can at least cope with it and reduce the discomfort it produces.
|
|
|
How does the ABC model of attitudes relate to the study of prejudice? Discuss.
|
ABC Model of Attitudes - prejudice is the Affective component: feeling we have towards groups or its members - discrimination is the Behavioural component: treating people differently because the group they belong to (negative) - stereotype is the Cognitive component: these are expectations concerning a group and its members
|
|
|
What are stereotypes? What do they function as? How do they affect processing? |
Stereotype - Beliefs and categorizations about the traits, physical appearance, activity preferences, and likely behaviours of a group and its members - Function as schemes and saves considerable effort - Cognitive frameworks - Guide what we attend to and exert strong effect on how we process social information |
|
|
What are subtypes? Discuss Kunda & Oleson (1995) |
Subtype: a subset of a group that is not a representation of the group as a whole.
Kunda and Oleson (1995): Subtyping Lawyers - when the participants read a story about introverted lawyers they would subtype these lawyers as special or from a small law firm because usually associated lawyers as being extrovert. Majority group members tend to form Illusory Correlations (perceiving a false relationship, even though uno such relationship was present)
|
|
|
What is illusory Correlations and how it relates to the study of prejudice? |
Illusory Correlations - perception of a stronger association between 2 variables than actually exist. - peceiving a false relationship , even though no such relationship was present. - example of this is rate of crime groups in a majority and the minority group: People thought most minorities caused crimes but most crimes are caused by white. We tend to conclude members of a group are "all the same." |
|
|
Compare and contrast outgrip homogeneity and in-group differentiation. Do we always conclude that all in-group members are unique and different? Discuss.
|
Out-group homogeneity: seeing everybody in an outgroup as being similar than an in-group
in-group differentiation (in- group heterogeneity): seeing everyone in your own group as different as we are exposed to our own group more.
In-group Homogeneity: seeing everybody in our in-group as being more similar to each other than out-group. Tends to occur most amount minority group members. This heightens with faced with external threats.
|
|
|
Under what conditions are stereotypes expected to persist? |
Stereotypes are expected to persist as long as.... - the nature of the intergroup relationship is stable. - social conditions do not shift - value and categorization used do not change.
|
|
|
What are gender stereotypes? What types of traits do women and men tend to display (give overall category name)? Give examples of such traits What did Fiske (2002) say about our collective potrait of women?
|
Gender Stereotypes - beliefs concerning the characteristics of women and men contain positive and negative traits - Women tend to display communal traits (focus on others and relationships) - Men tend to display agentic traits (focus on self and autonomy) - Women tend to possess traits view as less appropriate for high status positions.
Fiske et al (2002) - our collective perception towards women is higher in warmth and low on competence - we tend to see any participant of the group who is not a threat, see this way but opposite for someone who is a threat.
|
|
|
What is the women are wonderful effect?
|
Eagly and Mlandinic (1994) - women are wonderful effect - women are seen as a positive overall, often leads to the mistreatment of women
|
|
|
Discuss the glass ceiling and tokenism and how they relate to gender stereotypes. |
Glass Ceiling - a final barrier that prevents qualified women from reaching top positions.
Tokenism - a strategy used to deter protest by disadvantaged groups - the practice of doing something (i.e.: hiring a minority) only to prevent criticism and give the appearance that people are being treated fairly.
|
|
|
What is prejudice? How does anger relate to prejudice? Discuss DeSteno et al. (2004)
|
Prejudice - self- fulfilling; conformity pressure - affective component that reflects feelings towards a group and group members - it is not personal, it is group specific reaction not a whole category. - all prejudices are not the same. - people with high in prejudice toward a certain group tends to process information about that group differently - when anger is the emote underlying prejudice toward a group, prejudice people quickly evaluate that group negatively.
DeStano et al. (2004): Minimal Groups - separated the participants into minimal groups (groups that are formed on the basis of same "minimal criteria" - this groups were told their group membership was limited to the present context - they wore wristbands to differentiate themselves from other groups and were asked to write about a time when they were angry, sad, or neutral. - they were then asked to evaluate their in-group and out-group members and the researchers evaluated the time it took for the people to come up wit positive and negative words. - when they wrote about anger, it took them more time to come up with something nice.
|
|
|
What does the term "minimal groups" mean? What is the minimal group procedure? How does it relate to prejudice? |
Minimal groups - groups that are formed on the basis of some "minimal criteria" - ie: flipping a coin, being told, etc... - members tend to favour others who are categorized in the same group as themselves
|
|
|
What is implicit prejudice? How is it commonly measured these days? Discuss a study covered in class relating to implicit prejudice.
|
Implicit Prejudice - Automatically activated and can affect overt behaviour even though people are unaware that they hold such views - used IAT to measure prejudice or primes.
Banaji and Hardin (1996) - uses IAT to measure prejudice people hold - wanted to see if people would associate negative words with one category and positive words with a certain category then you are likely to show implicit bias. |
|
|
Discuss, in detail, the 4 origins of prejudice covered in class. Be sure to discuss all relevant theories and definitions while covering these 4 origins and also studies.
|
Origins of Prejudice:
1. Threats to Self - Esteem - threat: concerns fear that one's group interest will be undermined or that one's self- esteem is in jeopardy. - holding prejudice views of an out-group allowed group members to bolster their own group's image. Fein and Spencer (1997) - when college students experience a threat, to their positive views about themselves, they also increases prejudice. It can slo hurt their self - esteem. Kunda and Sinclair (1999) - the students achieved praise form a black or white doctor. - when they received criticism fro ma black doctor, it strengthened their stereotypes and prejudiced from that group, - no effect fro meh white doctor.
2. Competition for Resources - the view that prejudice stems fro direct competition between various social groups over scarce and valued resources. Palmer (1996 & 2000) - when the unemployment rates increased = negative attitudes towards immigrants increased. - when the unemployment rates decreased = negative attitudes towards immigrants decreased. Sheriff et al (1961): Robber's Cave Camp - superordinate goals. - was not able to prove that competition was necessary for prejudice to develop
3. Social Categorization - tendency to divide the social world into spirit categories: our in-groups (us) and various out-groups (them) - Ultimate Attribution Error: tendency to make more favourable and flatter attributions about members of one's own group than about members of other groups. Attribute outgrip success to external factors. - Social Identity Theory: theory concerned with the consequences of perceiving the self as a member of a social group and identifying with it.
4. Scapegoat Theory of Prejudice - prejudice results when members of a dominant group become frustrated and take their frustration out on members of a group wit helps power - we find conformity pressures - ie: Holocaust and treatment of Jewish people: Hitler and others blame thew Jews for all of Germany (and the world) problems
|
|
|
What are self-fulfilling prophecies and how do they relate to prejudice? Be sure to discuss Word, Zanna and Cooper (1974) |
Self-fulfilling Prophecies - people have an expectation about what another person is like - this expectation will influence their behaviour and causes the other person to act in a way that confirms this expectations.
Word, Zanna and Cooper (1972): Job Interview Study 1: - white students were asked to interview black and white applicants - students displayed discomfort interviewing black applicants but not white applicants (sat further away and stammered) Study 2: - researchers had white interviews deliberately act uncomfortable - interviewed white applicants only - applicants behaved poorly due to interviewers obviosu discomfort Conclusion - this shows that we may lead others to perform poorly with our own uncomfortable behaviour.
|
|
|
Discuss conformity pressures and prejudice. Guimond's (2002) research with Canadian military personnel. |
Consequences of exposure to other's prejudice - prejudices is a highly communicable social disease - conformity pressures
Guimond (2000): Canadian Military Personnel * found that English Canadians became significantly more prejudiced toward specific out-groups (e.g. French Canadians, Immigrants and civilians) and internalized justifications for the economic gap between their group and these outgroups as they progressed through the four-year officer training program* the more they identified with the military and the category they aspired to join (special forces for example), the more they showed increases in prejudice * it is apparent that social demands such as wanting to fit in can increase levels of prejudice and discrimination |
|
|
What is discrimination? |
Discrimination Differential behaviours directed toward members of different social groups
|
|
|
What is modern prejudice? Compare and contrast the bogus pipeline technique wit the bona fide pipeline technique. What technique involves priming (define priming) |
Modern Prejudice: - people will show covert prejudice (i.e.: the belief that minority groups are asking for more than they deserve) - people are unwilling to openly admit to prejudice views because of social norms.
Bogus Pipeline - a technique designed to reduce false answers or responses bias when collecting self-report data, such as opinions toward various social groups - measured explicit attitudes.
Bona fide Pipeline - priming to study implicit or automatically activated racial attitudes. - see various adjectives and have to decide whether they have a good meaning or bade and before that they were primed with faces of minorities. - more readily able to matching negative adjectives with a negative meaning if you have a negative attitude towards a group.
Priming using a stimulus to make related information in memory accessible
|
|
|
Discuss the consequences of discrimination |
Consequences of Discrimination 1. Emotional Consequence - well being and self esteem can suffer. - blame negative attitudes on being prejudice. 2. Cognitive Consequences - performance deficit and ability to learn 3. Behavioural Consequences - stereotype threat: occurs when people believe they might be judged in light of a negative stereotype about their social group.
|
|
|
Discuss Clark and Clark's (1972) White doll/balck doll study This study was over 60 years ago.... so results aren't relevant today, right? Explain more recent researches. |
Clark and Clark (1974): Doll experiment - offered African American children a choice between a white or black doll to pay with. - majority picked white doll because they were "prettier' and superior
Correnblum and Annis (1993): Native and White children - presented white and native children with drawings of white and native children - native children: they would prefer to play with the white child. Attributed more positive qualities to white children.
|
|
|
Discuss, in detail, the various ways to counter the effects of prejudice.
|
Countering Effects of Prejudice
1. Learning not to hate - social learning view of prejudice - research individuates costs of prejudices include lower experience of enjoyment form everyday life.
2. Increasingly degree of equal status contact - Contact Hypothesis: you can reduce prejudice by bringing people tin contact as prejudice are sometimes formed due to ignorance.
3. Recategorization - shifting the boundaries between an individual's in-group and some out-group. - Common in-group identity model: prefer in-group than outgrip. Intergroup bias decreases.
4. Empathy can lead to reduced Prejudice - Empathy: an motional response involving concern fro the welfare of others. Elliot (1968): demonstration of empathy - brown eyed bs. blue eyed children - 1st part: blue eyed were deemed superior over brown eyes. - 2nd part: brown eyed deemed superior over blue eyes - 30 years layer students were less prejudice. - demonstrated that when members of the majority group are stripped of their majority status and put them into a minority group role, can make them more empathetic towards the feelings of minority groups. Therefore less prejudiced.
5. Negation Training - learning to just say no can effectively reduce reliance on stereotypes. Kawakami et al (2000): Negation Training - 1st study: stereotype maintaining conditions. Say yes to stereotypes( pic of person = stereotype word) - 2nd study: stereotype negation condition. Say NO to stereotype. (pic of person does not match with stereotype word) Results: reliance of stereotypes can be reduced through the process of repeatedly saying "NO" to them
6. Changing Social Norms. - people's attitudes are influence by other members of their group - Social Norms: dictates what act/attitudes are appropriate and which hare not from our surroundings.
|
|
|
What is social influence? What are the three forms discussed in class? Define them. |
Social influence: Attempts by people to change the behaviour, the attitude, the beliefs, the perception of other people.
Various forms of Social Influence: 1. Conformity: pressure to think or behave i ways that society is deemed appropriate (direct or indirect) 2. Compliance: involves direct request to go along with something. 3. Obedience: someone else demands that someone else does something commanding/ordering the other person.
|
|
|
What are social norms? How do they relate to conformity? What are injunctive social norms? (compared to descriptive social norms)? |
Social Norms: - unspoken rules in how we should behave in particular situations. - Pressures to conform stem from social norms. - People do follow social norms most of the time because if we didn't there would be no order and have complete chaos.
Descriptive Norms: desribes what most people do.
Injunctive Norms: What we should do in a situation. Wants to be right.
|
|
|
Discuss Kalsi (2003) and how it relates to social norms and culture.
|
Kalsi (2003): Bicultural identity formation of Punjabi women living in Canada - looking at what happens to Punjabi women living in Canada and their bicultural identity - culture of origin vs. culture of majority (where they live) -at home-> more collectivistic norms promoting conformity - at school -> more individualistic norms - these women were struggling and confused because the two different norms
|
|
|
What are the three "classics" in Social psychology Names are important here. Discuss in detail, TWO of them. |
The Three Classics of Social Psychology 1. Sherifs studies of norm formation 2. Asch's studies of group pressure 3. Milgrams studies of obedience
Sherif's Studies of Norm Formation - interested if group corms can be created - used the Autokinetic phenomenon (has a pinpoint of light, people sat in a dark room about 5 m away from the screen, people leaked a frame of reference) They were asked how far did the light moved. - when the participants were on their won (individual norms) = 2 - 6 inches - when in groups, after numerous trials, group norms emerged. - when asked, most claimed that they were not influenced by others, this still hold true when asked later on in life. - criticism: pretty ambiguous, no definite answer.
Asch (1950): Group Pressure - created a task that have a correct answer - perceptual task - durring the criteria trials, confederates were introduced and unanimously chose the wrong comparison line. - participants had to chose a comparison line that matched with the standard line. - they wanted to see the reaction of the participants when the confederates chose the wrong answer. Participants were the one being measured. - participant would conform to the group because we are aware of how others think and we will go along wit the group even if we do not agree (group dynamics is the key) - although some people did not confirm, 75% did so at least once. - total experiment: 37% of responses conforming and incorrect - no pressure to conform - conformity tends to increase as group size increases but there are diminishing returns. - focuses on PUBLIC conformity - just because we are going along with something to make it easer for us but doe not mean we actually agree with what we are doing. - we do not change our private views
Milgram's Shock Experiment - interest stemmed from WWII: - only 1% of volunteers regret in taking part - all male participants - told participants they were taking part in an investigation of the effects of punishment on learning - everyone participant was a teacher - shocked (but not actually) if the answer was wrong or when told. - 65 - 66% went all the way - when the teacher stopped, they were asked to continue or they would have to stop the experiment.
|
|
|
Compare and contract public conformity and private acceptance. How do they relate to informational social influence and normative social influence? |
Public Conformity: - when individuals do or say what others around them do or say. - Asch's study - informational social influence
Private Acceptance: - when individuals actually feel or think as others around them do, also known as internalization - Sherif's study - normative social influence
|
|
|
Discuss, in detail, the 8 factors affecting conformity. Be sure to include reliant studies for these factors.
|
8 Factors Affecting Conformity
1. Unanimity of the group - increase in unanimous group = increase in conformity - if one person does against the conformity, there will be a decrease in conformity. Asch's study: - when the confederate chose the wrongest answer there was a decrease in conformity
2. Public vs. Private Response - public response = more conformity, - private response = less conformity Asch's study - when participants were asked to write down the answer, there was less conformity between them
3. Cohesiveness of the Influencing Group - the more tightly knit a group is the more power will have on its group members => having more of an impact = more conformity - people will fear rejection from people that they like.
4. Size of Influencing Group - there is a certain point where you get diminishing returns Milgrams (1969): Sidewalk - had people standing on the side walk and manipulated passerby's to look up. (1, 2, 5, 10, or 15) - found that the percentage of passer by looked up increased as more people standing o note sidewalk increased. But after 5 people there was not much different - 5- 8 are magical numbers - it also depends on social influence. Eg: if the group is totally wrong and you know it is but you follow Normative influence (you are going along to be liked)
5. Culture and Background Bond & Smith (1998) - looked at a meta-analysis of 132 students in 17 countries using Asch's method. - collectivistic cultures tend to be more conforming than individualist cultures.
6. Status - higher status - more conformity - Milgram's people with lower status will likely to conform than those of higher status. Mullen (1990): Jaywalking - meta-analysis; looked at 24 000 pedestrians - base line rate was 25%. - The base line rate would decrease if no one jaywalks, and increase if people jaywalked following the confederates. - when people with higher status (well dressed) did not jaywalk, other people did not jaywalk. Therefore decreasing the base line rate.
7. Type of Social Norm Descriptive Norms: tells you what most people would do in a situation Injunctive Norms: what we should do in a situation Cialdini et al (1991): Injunctive Norm exert strong effects - norms may activate the social motive to so whats right in a given situation. - norms will influence behaviour only to extent that they are salient (important) to the individuals at the time the behaviours occurs. - found that injunctive norms have a huge influence in a given situation (especially if that situation is relevant to that person) -> normative focus theory
8. Type of Situation (emergency vs. non emergency) - if its an emergency situation, we will look at others who act - we are more likely to conform unless we are the expert in the situation
|
|
|
Compare and contrast informational and normative social influence. Provide real - life examples of both
|
Informational Social Influence The desire to be right. (1) When the situation is ambiguous (2) when the situation is an emergency - no time to stop and think about about course of action, so look to others for quick behaviour vies - problem: what if others are paniking? you might take the role (3) When others are expert or authorities example: When going to a party, you ask the home owner if you take off your shoes or not.
Normative Social Influence The desired to be liked or accepted by others Less likely to have private acceptance under this influence than under informational social influence (likely to just have public compliance) Will conform to normative social influence (follow social norms) when we want to be liked and accepted Violation of social norms can lead to ridicule, rejection, punishment, unwanted attention. example: when going to a house party, you will look at other people and if they have taken their shoes off you will as well.
|
|
|
List the three conditions under which people will conform to informational social influence |
Informational social Influence (1) When the situation is ambiguous (2) when the situation is an emergency - no time to stop and think about about course of action, so look to others for quick behaviour vies - problem: what if others are paniking? you might take the role (3) When others are expert or authorities
|
|
|
What are the three most important factors in resisting conformity? |
Three Factors for Resisting Conformity 1. The need to maintain individuality - to be unique to some degree vary across cultures. 2. The need to maintain control over our lives - we don't like others to dictate our lives 3. The need to maintain personal freedom - when we feel our freedom is being threatened.
|
|
|
Discuss, in detail, minority influence and when minorities will be able to succeed in influencing others.
|
Minority Influence - there are times when the minority can exert rather than merely receive, social influence. eg: Galileo, Pasteur, Freud. - informational Social influence.
When minorities succeed in influencing others 1. They must be consistent 2. They must NOT appear to be rigid - show some degree of flexibility 3. Their view should be consistent with the current trends of the time
|
|
|
Are there gender differences in conforming behaviour? discuss. |
Gender Differences in Conforming Behaviour Early Research: - women more likely to yield to social influence Recent Research: - gender differences dependent on familiarity of the situation. - no differences with gender neutral topics - lower status leads to greater tendency to conform. - when familiarity of situations and social status are considered: gender differences in conforming behaviour disappear.
|
|
|
Discuss culture and social influence. Be sure to discuss any relevant studies here.
|
Asch type conformity studies show: - high conformity rates in collectivistic cultures - declining conformity rates in individualistic cultures. |
|
|
What is compliance? What are the 6 basic principles of conformity? and techniques that were with some principles
|
Compliance: direct effort to get others to agree to various request
Cialdini (1994): 6 Basic Principles of Compliance
1. Friendship/Liking - we will tend to comply with people who are friends with or who we like
2. Commitment/Consistency - once we are committed ourselves you get something we are more willing to comply to request that are related to because we want to be more consistent. - Foot in the Door Technique: you ask something small, you gain commitment and then you ask for what you really want , then you will most likely to get what you want. - Lowballing Technique: used by care sales people, you give someone a real and then you have extras that they have to pay for.
3. Scarcity - we are more likely to value/secure things that are rate (things that can go away) - Playhard to get Technique: tell people something is hard to get, its rare. - Fast Approaching Deadline Technique: you make people feel that they are have a limited amount of time. "these sales are only for a limited time."
4. Reciprocity - we are more likely to comply someone's request who has done something for us before. - Door in the Foot Technique: opposite of foot in the door. You ask for something that is so big that you know that you will be rejected you then ask for something small because that person has made a concession, the other person will make a concession too. - That's not all technique: when you make a request but before they can answer, you sweeten the deal. Cialdini (?): Zoo trip - asked college students if they would be an unpaid counsellor for a child delinquent for 2 years then asked them for going on a zoo trop for 2 hours wit these children. 50% agreed to do the zoo trip.
5. Social Validation - we will be more likely to comply with a request for some action, if we feel that other people that are important in our lives also agree with it. This validates us.
6. Authority - we are more likely yo comply to people who has authority (in general)
|
|
|
What is Obedience? What are the 4 factors related to obedience?
|
Obedience type of social influence in which one person orders someone to do something. It is not sudden, this is commanding.
4 Determining Factors of Obedience 1. Victim's distance - as distance between victim and teacher increases, the more people finished the experiment. (Other room 65- 66%, same room 40%, had on the victim 30%) 2. Authorities closeness and legitimacy - physical presence of the experimenter does affect obedienace - when the experimentor told instructions through a phone, obedience decreased by 20% - when someone is wearing a lab coat, obedience increases - casual clothes - decrease in obedience 3. Whether authority is institutionalized - Yale University is where it was held and it's a prestigious school. - when he moved one part of the study to Connecticut and found that 48% people disobeyed. 4. Whether there exists a disobedient fellow participants. - when someone else is a confederate (rebels) you are most likely to disobey as well. - the more confederates that rebelled, the less we obey. |
|
|
Why does destructive obedience occur? How can we resist the effects of destructive obedience? |
Destructive Obedience Complying with instructions that causes harm to others or leads to a negative outcome. Why does destructive obedience occur? - Authority assumes responsibility - Authority's status is evident- reminds people of social norms to obey - Authorities commands involve gradual escalation (the door in the door compliance technique) - Participation have little time for reflection or systematic processing
Resisting the effects of Destructive Obedience - increases participants responsibility for any harm done to others. - indicate that total submission to authority is inappropriate - question authority's expertise and motives - increases awareness of the power the situation (she results of studies)
|
