PSYC 6421 Final Exam
2) What factors may influence whether people engage in prosocial or antisocial behavior? Please discuss both forms of behavior. Prosocial behavior involves behavior that aims to benefit other people. Conversely, antisocial behavior is behavior that aims to hurt others. Numerous factors relate to whether or not someone will engage in prosocial behavior. Grant and Gino (2010) noted that giving thanks to people for their efforts lead to an increase in helping behaviors. Therefore, based on this concept, companies who thank their employees are more like to have employees partaking in the appropriate behaviors. Furthermore, children who are thanked positive behaviors (e.g., sharing a toy), will be more likely to exhibit those …show more content…
What are the implications and/or consequences of being accepted (i.e., part of the in-group) vs. rejected (e.g., part of the out-group) by a social group? In social psychology, entitativity is the concept that a of people is recognized as a whole instead of as a puzzle composed of distinct individuals. The ingroup includes people within our social, or other, groups. The outgroup includes individuals that are not within an individuals’ ingroup. Groups with higher levels of cohesiveness are more likely to have a higher impact on the group member’s social identity. Groups with high entitativity include fraternities and sororities. Conversely, groups with low entitativity include students in large introductory psychology classes (Lewis and Sherman, 2010).
In a research study, college students were assigned to either a target ingroup or outgroup and either perceived entitativity of groups as low or high. They were given poorly constructed essays or well-constructed essays. In the low entitativity group, the ingroup targets were enrolled together in a introductory psychology course while the outgroup targets were enrolled in different courses. Participates in the high entitativity group were either in the same fraternity at different institutions (ingroup) or a member of an organization not represented at their institution. Based on a 2x2 ANOVA, significant between factors included essay quality along with perceived entitativity. Within subject factors …show more content…
To teach individuals to revise stereotypes, Falkenberg (1990) established three methods. The first method involves storing, not ignoring, information that contradicts one’s current stereotype. Furthermore, increasing interactions between minority and majority groups will increase the awareness of individual traits. In regards to research on teacher behavior, in most cases, the teachers who were participants in the research study exhibited some form of bias towards minority students (e.g, increased office disciplinary referrals). Interventions for reducing implicit biases decreases when teachers spend more time engaging in community events and spending an increased amount of time in community settings (e.g., grocery stores). Falkenberg (1990) proposed another way to revise stereotypes by categorizing individuals into more accurate criteria than physical
2) What factors may influence whether people engage in prosocial or antisocial behavior? Please discuss both forms of behavior. Prosocial behavior involves behavior that aims to benefit other people. Conversely, antisocial behavior is behavior that aims to hurt others. Numerous factors relate to whether or not someone will engage in prosocial behavior. Grant and Gino (2010) noted that giving thanks to people for their efforts lead to an increase in helping behaviors. Therefore, based on this concept, companies who thank their employees are more like to have employees partaking in the appropriate behaviors. Furthermore, children who are thanked positive behaviors (e.g., sharing a toy), will be more likely to exhibit those …show more content…
What are the implications and/or consequences of being accepted (i.e., part of the in-group) vs. rejected (e.g., part of the out-group) by a social group? In social psychology, entitativity is the concept that a of people is recognized as a whole instead of as a puzzle composed of distinct individuals. The ingroup includes people within our social, or other, groups. The outgroup includes individuals that are not within an individuals’ ingroup. Groups with higher levels of cohesiveness are more likely to have a higher impact on the group member’s social identity. Groups with high entitativity include fraternities and sororities. Conversely, groups with low entitativity include students in large introductory psychology classes (Lewis and Sherman, 2010).
In a research study, college students were assigned to either a target ingroup or outgroup and either perceived entitativity of groups as low or high. They were given poorly constructed essays or well-constructed essays. In the low entitativity group, the ingroup targets were enrolled together in a introductory psychology course while the outgroup targets were enrolled in different courses. Participates in the high entitativity group were either in the same fraternity at different institutions (ingroup) or a member of an organization not represented at their institution. Based on a 2x2 ANOVA, significant between factors included essay quality along with perceived entitativity. Within subject factors …show more content…
To teach individuals to revise stereotypes, Falkenberg (1990) established three methods. The first method involves storing, not ignoring, information that contradicts one’s current stereotype. Furthermore, increasing interactions between minority and majority groups will increase the awareness of individual traits. In regards to research on teacher behavior, in most cases, the teachers who were participants in the research study exhibited some form of bias towards minority students (e.g, increased office disciplinary referrals). Interventions for reducing implicit biases decreases when teachers spend more time engaging in community events and spending an increased amount of time in community settings (e.g., grocery stores). Falkenberg (1990) proposed another way to revise stereotypes by categorizing individuals into more accurate criteria than physical