Social Psych. Test 2

Front 1

conformity

Back 1

not just acting how other people do; being AFFECTED by how they act (thinking, feeling, etc.)

change in behavior/belief to go along w/ others

bad for individualistic culture: mindless herd

good for collectivist: tolerance, maturity, etc.

Front 2

3 types of conformity

Back 2

1. COMPLIANCE: change in act, not belief (ex: wearing suit to work)

2. OBEDIENCE: change in act AS COMMANDED

3. ACCEPTANCE: change in BELIEF (can follow compliance -- dissonance theory)

Front 3

Sherif's Norm Formation

Back 3

CONFORMITY STUDY

observation of social norm in lab
-- dark room, point of light that moves erratically, but not really --> opitcal illusion

multiple participants in the room each give estimate of distance the light moved

repeated measurement; inconsistent each time b/c participants CONFORM to new group average

ratings w/in group eventually converge more in time

AMBIGUITY!!!! -- no correct answer?

Front 4

social contagion

Back 4

chameleon effect

examples:
- contagious yawning
- automatically copying other people's behavior
- copycat suicides

Front 5

Asch's Group Pressure Study

Back 5

CONFORMITY STUDY

study of perceptual judgments (ex: of lines shown, which is longest?)

other participants seem to pick choice that doesn't seen right; people may get uncomfortable, feel crazy

75% conformed at least once; 37% conformed most of the time

HOWEVER... no order or command to conform

STRAIGHTFORWARD, no ambiguity!!

Front 6

Milgram Obedience Study

Back 6

OBEDIENCE STUDY

demands of authority clash w/ demands of conscience

sample: 40 men, 20-50 yrs. old
-- 65% went all the way w/ dangerous electricity, until experimenter had to stop them
-- all predicted disobey at 135 volts

participants were stressed by the task

self concepts altered?

Front 7

what breeds obedience? 4 factors

Back 7

1. VICTIM'S DISTANCE: greater w/ greater distance -- moral disengagment; distance = easier to depersonalize

2. CLOSENESS AND LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY: less obedience in milgram study when instructions were given over the phone, rather than in person; when experimenter was switched, more people refused to comply

3.INST. AUTHORITY: when milgram was held at Yale, people were more obedient than when it was held at some unknown place

4. SELF-LIBERATION: when you have a reason for action (ex: student get bad grade, excuse to be mean to teacher)

Front 8

attitudes predict behavior

Back 8

ext. influences override int. convictions
-- power of situation
-- foot in door (start small, work your way up)

immediate situations are as/more powerful than personality, cognitive ability

FAE: explains why our predictions are so bad

Front 9

what predicts conformity? 4 factors

Back 9

1. GROUP SIZE: large groups more influential; also multiple groups (even small)

2. UNANIMITY

3. STATUS: more conformity towards high status people, but high status people are less likely to conform; low status people more likely to conform

4. PUBLIC RESPONSE: greater conformity when observed

Front 10

2 reasons to conform

Back 10

1. TO BE ACCEPTED (normative influence) consistent deviations frowned upon; takes too much energy to resist

2. TO BE RIGHT OR OBTAIN USEFUL INFO: in presence of ambiguity, other people's actions serve as guide

Front 11

BRAIN study

Back 11

RECREATION OF ASCH w/ FMRIs and spatial location tasks

-- when saying "wrong" answer" (b/c the person is conforming) brain region for perception (NOT decision making) is active
-- when saying "right" answer (not conforming) brain region for emotion is active

not conforming is stressful!!

Front 12

3 predictors for conformity

Back 12

1. PERSONALITY: not best predictor unless averaged over time; predicts behavior best when situation is weak -- less clues on how one should act

2. CULTURE: varies; collectivist cultures are more likely to conform

3. SOCIAL ROLES: cluster or norms shifting back and forth

Front 13

being different -- reactance vs. uniqueness

Back 13

REACTANCE: people act to protect their sense of freedom; restriction of freedom leads to ANTI-conformity (boomerang effect); ex: contributor to underage drinking

ASSERTING UNIQUENESS: sameness is comfort for collectivist cultures, but moderate uniqueness is good in ind. cultures; ex: cyclical generation of names, "tell us about yourself..."

Front 14

paths to persuasion

Back 14

CENTRAL: practical, logical, important; strong, compelling arguments; conscious cognition; more enduring change (attitude, behavior)

PERIPHERAL: superficial, less attn. involved; less thinking, clear statements w/ cues; implicit/automatic cognition; less enduring (less likely to effect behavior; attitude change)

Front 15

resources and persuasion

Back 15

not always enough for central route (that requires more resources); sometimes peripheral since it requires less work

Front 16

4 elements of persuasion

Back 16

1. COMMUNICATOR

2. MESSAGE

3. HOW MESSAGE IS COMMUNICATED

4. AUDIENCE

Front 17

Occam's razor

Back 17

simplest explanation tends to right

goes out the window when explaining effectiveness of persuasion tactics!!

Front 18

3 elements of persuasion

Back 18

1. COMMUNICATOR: credibility and attractiveness and liking

2. MESSAGE (content): reason vs. emotion, descrepancy b/t current and proposed, 1-sided vs. 2-sided, primacy vs. recency
-- 2a: DELIVERY METHOD: active vs. passive, personal vs. media influence

3. AUDIENCE (who receives it): self esteem, age, what they are thinking

Front 19

communicator
(persuasion)
-- credibility vs. attractiveness and linking

Back 19

CREDIBILITY: CENTRAL; perception of expertise and trust
-- expertise: speak confidently; lab coat example; say things audience agrees w/
-- trustworthiness: make eye contact, dont overtly persuade, argue against own self interest (hide bias), talk fast (perceived as smarter)


ATTRACTIVENESS and LIKING: PERIPHERAL; physical appeal, esp. if similar to self; using celebrities, athletes, etc. to appeal, DOORWAY TO CENTRAL -- can open us up to other arguments; PERIPHERAL: can later trigger pos. assocs.

WHICH IS STRONGER? depends; for preference and personal value, attractiveness and liking; for fact-based, credibility is stronger

Front 20

sleeper effect

Back 20

assoc. b/t communicator and message

?? delayed impact ??

Front 21

message
(persuasion)

Back 21

REASON vs. EMOTION: depends on the audience; reason is better for educated people; good feelings -- linked w/ message, negative people tend to be more skeptical (ruminate over decisions); also, EFFECT OF AROUSING FEAR: more terrifying = more effective

DISCREPANCY: communicator shouldn't argue or whine, but can discredit YOU as a credible source when it comes to changing behavior; more discrepancy when communicator is expert; w/ high interest audience, extreme discrepancy is allowed, w/ low interest audiences, less discrepancy is allowed

1 vs. 2 SIDED: provide counterargument if audience is exposed to opposing views; 1 sided is best if audience was initially agreed, 2 sided works best if audience initially opposed

PRIMACY vs. RECENCY: order effects; primacy: hard to discredit 1st impression; recency: people remember most recent things best; can be forgotten when enough time separates the 1st message; audience will commit itself to the 2nd message, esp. if the 1st message stimulated their thinking

Front 22

message's channel of communication
(persuasion)

Back 22

ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE:
-- ACTIVE: spoken appeals not always more persausive (due to audience interest and communicator credibility)
-- PASSIVE: slogans are not always effective, BUT familiarity and repeitition make info. more believable
-- persuasion decreases as the significance and familiarity of the message decreases

PERSONAL vs. MEDIA: personal contact is a major source of influence, however w/ media...:
-- 2 STEP FLOW: (1) media to opinion leaders, (2) opinion leads to friends >> indirect influence
-- the more lifelike the better, written is better for complex info.

Front 23

audience factors
(persuasion)

Back 23

SELF-ESTEEM: easier to influence when moderate

AGE: lifecycle explaination -- views change as we age; attitudes do not change, but stabalize as we age; older people hold onto attidues they adopted at a younger age

WHAT THEY ARE THINKING:
-- forewarned: knowing someone will try to persuade you preps. you w/ counteraguments
-- distraction: disarms counterarguing
-- uninvolved audiences use peripheral cues: stimulates thinking w/ rhetorical questions, multi. speakers for one argument, makes audience feel responsible, relaxed postures, repeated message, need undivided attn.

Front 24

extreme persuasion

Back 24

cults
sun myung moon's unification church, jim jone's people's temple, david koresh's branch davidians, marshall applewhite's heavens gate

internal, dispositional attribution

Front 25

attitudes follow behavior

Back 25

compliance breeds acceptance

foot in the door

Front 26

resistance to persuasion

Back 26

challenging beliefs -- mildly attack audiences position (commitment to belief strengths)

develop counterarguments: mild attacks build resistance = attitude innoculation (ex: peer pressure to not smoke, influence in advertising)

mildly attacking eventually makes the person's own beliefs stronger

Front 27

group

Back 27

2+ people who interact and influence each other

perceives themselves as "us", instead of them

Front 28

minimal group situation

Back 28

COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE

minimal amt of interaction among members
-- SOCIAL FACILITATION
-- SOCIAL LOAFING
-- DEINDIVUATION

Front 29

social faciltation

Back 29

part of collective influence/min. group situation

mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task

also occurs in animals

DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS

Front 30

Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation

Back 30

social facilitation

arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant

hinders performance in a hard task

proficiency in task

other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance

Front 31

group

Back 31

2+ people who interact and influence each other

perceives themselves as "us", instead of them

Front 32

minimal group situation

Back 32

COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE

minimal amt of interaction among members
-- SOCIAL FACILITATION
-- SOCIAL LOAFING
-- DEINDIVUATION

Front 33

social faciltation

Back 33

part of collective influence/min. group situation

mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task

also occurs in animals

DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS

Front 34

Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation

Back 34

social facilitation

arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant

hinders performance in a hard task

proficiency in task

other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance

Front 35

group

Back 35

2+ people who interact and influence each other

perceives themselves as "us", instead of them

Front 36

minimal group situation

Back 36

COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE

minimal amt of interaction among members
-- SOCIAL FACILITATION
-- SOCIAL LOAFING
-- DEINDIVUATION

Front 37

social faciltation

Back 37

part of collective influence/min. group situation

mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task

also occurs in animals

DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS

Front 38

Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation

Back 38

social facilitation

arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant

hinders performance in a hard task

proficiency in task

other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance

Front 39

crowding

Back 39

presence of many others

even a supportive audience may have a harder time w/ difficult tasks; effect of presence of others increases w/ number; extreme pressure effects AUTOMATED, LEARNED behaviors

being observed by crown ENHANCES arousal (sweat, faster breathing, tense muscles)

positive and negative reactions are intensified

Front 40

why higher arousal in presence of others?

Back 40

goes along w. crowding

EVALUATION APPREHENSION: blindfolding audience and having performer turn away reduces social facilitation effects
-- explains why someone performs better when co-actor is superior, why arousal lessons when high status group is diluted w/ people who do not matter, social facilitation effects are greatest when the others are unfamilar and hard to keep an eye on

DISTRACTION: when we stop to see how we are doing or how others think we are; attn. is divided b/t task and self-perception (cognitive overload >> AROUSAL!); can be also be caused by nonhuman source

MERE PRESENCE: zajonc; no eval. or distraction necessary; caused merely by presence of others

MERE

Front 41

social loafing

Back 41

collective effort is half the amt. of individual effort

unlike social facilitation, where individual works towards goal

when efforts are pooled towards a group goal and people do not feel responsible for indiv. effort (ADDITIVE TASKS)

communism example: farm production increased when it concerned the individual, rather than the plots of food grown for the country

less frequent in COLLECTIVIST cultures
less frequent w/ HARD TASK
less frequent in CLOSE group: w/ friends and aquaintences

Front 42

social loafing evidence

Back 42

clapping study: actor saw participation as equal alone and in group; all agreed loafing occurred but no one wanted to admit it

group situation: less EVAL. APPREHENSION; when people are not accountable and effort can't be evaluated, diffusion of responsibility occurs

motivation -- make individual performance identifiable (ex: tape record and evaluate individual performance)

Front 43

deindividuation -- Festinger

Back 43

losing identity (doing together what you would NOT alone)

AROUSAL + DEINDIVIDUATION


causes:

- GROUP SIZE: larger group increase deindividuation and decrease self-awareness >> attn. focused on situation, not self (ex: crowds present lead people to choose to jump of bridge)

PHYSICAL ANONYMITY

AROUSING AND DISTRACTING ACTIVITIES: behavior is less inhibited when preceded by group activities such as singing, clapping, etc.

Front 44

diminished self-awareness

Back 44

disconnect behavior from attitudes b/c less restrained and self-regulated

OPPOSITE OF SELF-AWARENESS

when self-aware, people usually behave better and consistently and act independently

ex: asking for people's names increasing accountability

Front 45

group polarization

Back 45

good or bad? both -- can strengthen members' inclinations

RISKY SHIFT: group based decisions are usually riskier; often greater unanimity or split on opinions
-- NOT universal: "Roger Dilemma" (sometimes group decisions are less risky)

groups can intensify opinions, which can lead to riskier decisions

according to experiments, group members often share opinions; large groups can also become more divided over two opinions once they are in the group

in everyday life: people usually primarily assoc. w/ people whose opinions are similar to their own (ex: gender differences increase over time)

two groups can become more divided over time b/c each has different opinions that are reinforced to be stronger w/in group

polarization and terrorism: people are brought together by shared grievances; moral disengagment - "us vs. them"; massacres brought about by killers egging eachother on; hard to convert, must intervene during recruitment process

Front 46

group polarization explainations

Back 46

INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE: to get info.; arguments made during discussion elicit pooling of ideas in favor of dom. viewpoint; brought about by persausive arguments other members may not have considered; active participation and repeating ideas; MUST STILL CONSIDER COUNTER ARGUMENT

NORMATIVE INFLUENCE: gain social acceptance, by admired by others
- social comparison
- pluralistic ignorance

Front 47

2 elements of normative influence

Back 47

gain acceptance and be admired by others

2 elements:

1. SOCIAL COMPARISON (Festinger): evaluate opinions and abilities based on referece group; more likely to express opinions once you are aware of its convergence w/ those around you

2. PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE: people under-estimate riskiness (or lack of it) of others; consistent w/ self-serving bias; false uniqueness -- when we see others in group are really similar to us, we are encouraged to express our own opinions
(ex: not raising hand b/c you think everyone else knows, not trying in relationship b.c you think the other person doesnt like you)

Front 48

groupthink!

Back 48

when group influences hinder good decision making >> fiascos

collective form of dissonance reduction that sufaces as group members try to maintain positive feeling in the face of threats

starts w/...
- amiable and cohesive group
- isolation of group from other views
- directive leader who signals decision he/she favors

Front 49

8 symptoms of group think

Back 49

OVERESTIMATE RIGHT AND MIGHT
1. illusion of invulnerability
2. unquestioned belief in group's morality

GROUP MEMBERS BECOME CLOSE-MINDED:
3. rationalization: challenges are discounted by collectively justifying decisions
4. stereotyped view of opponent -- enemies are too weak or too evil to deal w/

PRESSURES TOWARD UNIFORMITY:
5. conformity pressures - doubtful members are rebuffed by other members
6. self-censorship - members w/hold disagreements to avoid probs. w/ group
7. illusion of unanimity - try to not to break up consensus
8. mindgaurds - protection of members from info that contradicts decision

Front 50

symbols of defective decision making -- planning fallacy

Back 50

incomplete survey of alternatives

incomplete survey of objectives

failure to examine risks of choices

poor info. search

selective bias in processing info. at hand

failure to reapprise alteratives

failure to work out contingency plans

Front 51

critique of groupthink

Back 51

all retrospective -- hindsight bias

follow-up experiments: directive leadership assoc. w/ poor decisions; groups prefer supporting info. over challenging info.; disagreeable thoughts suppressed my members to be accepted by groups

cohesive groups and groups w/ certain norms allow for more disagreement

Front 52

preventing groupthink

Back 52

be impartial -- don't support 1 position

encourage critical evaluation

subdivide group and reunite to air out differences

welcome critiques from outside experts

call 2nd chance meeting to air doubts before implementing plan

** longer discussions, but better decisions in the LR

Front 53

group problem-solving

Back 53

higher accuracy in group than when alone

the harder the problem, the more heads needed

avoid cognitive bias, better quality ideas

Front 54

creativity

Back 54

brainstorming in group produces fewer good ideas than brainstorming alone

more creative when criticism is allowed

people feel more productive when generated group ideas -- they can credit themselves w/ group's success -- BUT ITS THE OPPOSITE; LARGE GROUPS LEAST EFFECTIVE (losing ideas when waiting turn to talk)

FOR BETTER BRAINSTORMING:
- combine group and solitary brainstorming (1st in group, THEN alone)
- have group members interact by writing and reading instead of talking and listening
- incorporate electronic brainstorming via NW comps.
- group brainstorming REPLACES groupthink!

Front 55

minority (individual)

Back 55

how individuals influence groups
- cultural situations mold us, but we also help choose and create those situations
- pressure to conform can overwhelm judgment, but blatant pressure can cause us to assert individuality
- resist persuasion by making public commitments and anticipating persuasion

Front 56

determinants of minority influence

Back 56

1. CONSISTENCY: more influential if minority is consistent/does not waiver -- sticks to position

2. SELF-CONFIDENCE: when minority conveys self-confidence, the majority will be more receptive; more persuasive on OPINION than fact

3. DEFECTIONS FROM MAJORITY: persistent minority defects illusion of unanimity; others members then feel freer to express their doubts and possibly join minority; fueled like group polarity

4. LEADERSHIP MINORITY INFLUENCE: mobilizing and guiding group; transformational leadership -- influence possible bigger if leader is in minority

Front 57

minority slowness effect

Back 57

people in the minority less likely to express their views than people in the majority

Front 58

leadership

-- task vs. social

Back 58

process by which someone mobilizes and guides group

TASK: directive, goal oriented, focus (spec. and challenging) better w/ males
SOCIAL: dem., delegates authority, welcomes input, prevents groupthink; good for moral; better w/ women
-- which is better depends on situation; having both is best

effective: consistency; self-confidence; charisma

Front 59

transformational leadership

Back 59

high moral when leader inspires person to transcend their self-interest for the sake of collective

motivates others to identify w/ and commit themselves to group mission

Front 60

good and bad of groups

Back 60

BAD: more aroused, stressed, error-prone on complex tasks, loafing, worst impulses can be unleashed by deindividuation, cults, groupthink

GOOD: obtain info., support, security in groups, group interaction can also accentuate pos. tendencies, social faciliatation; self-help

Front 61

prejudice

Back 61

an ATTITUDE

distinct combo. of feelings, inclinations, and beliefs

when person dislikes someone unlike himself and behaves in a discriminatory way

patronizing action to keep the target disadvantaged

Front 62

stereotype

Back 62

BELIEF to support negative eval.
generalization
not always negative, or incorrect

Front 63

discrimination

Back 63

BEHAVIOR

attitude (prejudice) is one source BUT attitudes and behavior are often loosly linked

Front 64

subtle and overt prejudice

Back 64

DUAL ATTITUDE SYSTEM: explicit and implicit
-- we may retain automatic fear or dislike from childhood for people who we know, accept and admire >> explicit attitudes change w/ education, but implicit ones stay the same

STRONG SUPPORT FOR IMPLICIT racial, gender, etc. prejudice

Front 65

racial prejudice

Back 65

every race is truly a minority -- most people see more prejudice in others than in themselves

DECREASING at a dramatic rate, but still exists in some situations (profiling etc.)

from black POV: compare present w/ ideal world, which hasn't been realized

from white POV: compare present w/ oppressive past, and great strides have been made

Front 66

subtle prejudice/racism

Back 66

overt? (not really): we only behave in racial manner when not observed or to hide behind another motive; whites are usually equally helpful, and usually equally gave shocks no matter the race in the milgram study

overt is no longer socially acceptable... so MODERN racism and sexism: pref. for what is familiar, exaggeration of ethnic differences, rejecting people for supposed nonracial reasons

whites have easier time negotiating, easier time getting callbacks on resumes; whites graded blacks easier on school work and criticized less

Front 67

automatic prejudice

Back 67

9/10 of whites took longer to ID pleasant words as good when assoc. w/ black rather than white faces

the higher the IAT score on prejudice, the angrier they perceive black faces in the test

social scientists are biased in references/citations

Front 68

gun study - greenwald

Back 68

press button to shoot or not shoot targets on screen w/ men holding guns or something harmless
-- black men were mistakenly shot more often

when primed w/ black faces (instead of white), people more often think "guns"

when primed w/ guns, people pay more attn. to black faces

Front 69

amygdala

Back 69

brain region for implicit attitudes

Front 70

gender prejudice

Back 70

NORMS: how men vs. women should behave

Front 71

gender stereotpyes

Back 71

BELIEFS on how women and men DO behave (descriptive - what they do)

1. strong gender stereotypes exist
2. members of group accept stereotype

stronger than racial stereotypes

often consistent w/ reality and transcend time and culture

Front 72

"women are wonderful" effect

Back 72

form of sexism -- favorable

gut-level negative emotions not usually assoc. w/ women as much as men

most people like women more than men

women = more understanding, kind, helpful

Front 73

benevolent vs. hostile sexism

Back 73

BENEVOLENT: "women have superior moral sensibility"; "men are powerful"

HOSTILE: "once a man commits, she puts him on a leash"; "men are immoral"

Front 74

gender discrimination

Back 74

women often discriminate against women, but no overall tendency to devalue a woman's work

decreasing OVERTLY, but not SUBTLEY

Front 75

"modern" sexism

Back 75

parents announce birth of boys w/ PRIDE, and girls' w/ HAPPINESS

more overt in countries beyond individualistic societies -- most prefer boys to girls (more abortions of female fetuses >> many more boys born in asian countries)

Front 76

social sources of prejudice (3)

Back 76

1. SOCIAL INEQUALITIES: unequal status breeds prejudice; social dominance orientation: people are views as hierarchies and like to stick to their own ; perpetuated as it keeps happening

2. SOCIALIZATION:
- authoritarian personality: prone to prejudice and stereotyping
- religion and prejudice: justifying maintaining inequalities b/c God "says so"; leaders use it to sanctify actions
- conformity: path of least resistance; prejudice to be accepted; less likely to form stereotypes if you hang out w/ people who break them

3. INST. SUPPORTS

Front 77

ethnocentrism

Back 77

part of authoritarianism

prejudice towards people who are different
-- intolerance for weakness, punitive attitude, submissive respect for in group authority

Front 78

source of authoritarianism

Back 78

if harshly disciplined by parents as a child
- repress hostilities and impulses, and project onto outgroups
- insecurity leads to excessive concern w/ power and status as inflexible right-wrong way of thinking
- submissive to those over them, punitive to those under them

"right wing"

Front 79

double highs

Back 79

high on AUTHORITISM and SOCIAL DOMINANCE

prejudice levels highest

rare but more dangerous, prone to be leaders of hate groups

different ideological bases:
-- authoritism: concern w/ security and control
-- social dominance: related to group status

Front 80

religion and prejudice

Back 80

christians in N. america:
- church members are often more racist than nonchurch members
- professing traditional or fund. christian beliefs express more prejudice than those w/ more open beliefs

faithful churchgoers are less prejudiced than occassional attendees

people who are truly spiritually committed are more welcoming; protestant ministers and catholic priests supported the civil rights movement more than laypeople

some people are fakers, use religion to justify

Front 81

motivational sources of prejudice

Back 81

FRUSTRATION AND AGRESSION: scapegoat theory >> displaced

SOCIAL ID THEORY: feeling superior to others >> self-serving bias about group
-- ingroup bias
-- need for status, self-regard, belonging

motivation to avoid it

Front 82

frustration and agression

Back 82

pain and frustration (blocking of goal) evokes hostility
-- when cause is intimidating or unknown, we redirect hostility
-- more lynchings in yrs. when economy was bad
-- defeat in WWI and con. chaos caused Jews to be seen as villains
-- fears vented on witches
-- comp. for scarce resources

Front 83

social ID theory

Back 83

self-concept = personality + social ID

we categorize
we ID (ingroups) -- self esteem, etc.
we compare (outgroups) -- favorable bias towards ingroup

Front 84

ingroup bias

Back 84

self-serving bias extended to group level, even when in rand. assigned group w/ strangers

for positive self-concept, we ID w/ a group and exhibit ingroup self-serving bias

higher ingroup bias = higher outgroup prejudice

when group is successful, we ID more strongly w/ it (same w/ friends)

when we are part of smaller, lower-status group, you perceive it more; in high-status group, less salient

reflects like for ingroup and dislike for the outgroup

outgroup stereotypes stronger when w/ ingroup members -- more sensitive to emotions of ingroup members

stereotypes bred by multiculturalism are often favorable to the outgroup

Front 85

Tajfel and Billig (1974)

Back 85

ingroup bias study

provoked favoritism; british teens eval. paintings and told they favored art of klee vs. kandinsky; told to divide money b/t the two groups (never met others); gave more money to own group

Front 86

motivation for prejudice >> need for STATUS

Back 86

relative -- social comparison

we want to feel superior (secret satisfaction in people's failure b/c your success increases relative to them)

people w/ secure status have less of a need to feel superior

Front 87

moratality salience and terror mgt.

Back 87

mortality salience --> terror mgt.: thinking about own mortality increases ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice

ex: Bush won election by playing off of people's terror due to 9/11 -- voters were more accepting b/c of anti-terror policies

Front 88

motivation for prejudice >> need for SELF-REGARD

Back 88

can be used to boost self-image

nature of threat is important; when ingroup safety is threatened, higher vigilance for outgroup anger

ex: perceive more anger in arab face after watching a scary film

Front 89

motivation for prejudice >> need for BELONGING

Back 89

despising outgroups = stronger ingroup >> perception of common enemy unites group (ex: stronger school spirit when playing rival)

bias against outgroups decreases w/ sense of belonging

Front 90

motivation to AVOID prejudice

Back 90

automatic, programmed fear and discomfort

motivated to avoid it but attempting to modify actions and thoughts (aware of gap between how we DO and SHOULD feel)

behaviorists say we truly can't change

Front 91

cognitive sources of prejudice

Back 91

CATEGORIZATION: spontaneous and perceived same/different

DISTINCTIVENESS: distinctive people, vivid cases, distinctive events

ATTRIBUTION: group-serving bias, just-world phenomenon

Front 92

Spontaneous categorization

Back 92

COGNITIVE source of prejudice

automatic

easy to rely on stereotypes when: pressed for time, preoccupied, tired, emotionally aroused, too young to appreciate diversity

gender and ethnicity are most salient; we remember more about a person's color than their message; less prejudiced people respond more quickly to unknown people when categorizing race, more concerned w/ accurate classification

Front 93

same/different categorization

Back 93

COGNITIVE source of prejudice

HOMOGENEITY: similarities of outgroup members exaggerated >> "all alike and all different from us"

HETEROGENEITY: ingroup bias -- "own face bias" white recognize more spec. white faces than black faces; can see differences w/in group, but not outgroup

Front 94

distinctive people

Back 94

COGNITIVE source of prejudice

when someone in group is conspicuous, we see them to be causing whatever happens w/in group

people define you by your distinctive traits and behaviors

people notice those who violate expectations

self consciousness: people sometimes perceive discrimination just b/t they feel like they are different

stigma conscious: expect others to stereotype them, but can be buffer for low self-esteem

Front 95

vivid cases

Back 95

part of DISTINCTIVENESS category of COGNITIVE causes of prejudice

spec. people as examples for entire ethnic group

dangerous generalizations: inflated predictions

the less we know about a group, the more influenced we are by vivid cases

Front 96

distinctive events

Back 96

when 2 distinctive events occur, seen as rare, means that one event must cause the other

ex: headline - "homosexual murderer" -- not in headline if person was straight

Front 97

attribution: group serving bias:

Back 97

COGNITIVE SOURCE of prejudice

benefit of the doubt given to ingroup members but worst is assumed w/ outgroups

positive behavior by outgroup is dismissed or "spec. case"
outgroup success: attributed to situation
ingroup success: attributed to person
outgroup failure: attributed to person
ingroup failure: attributed to situation

disadvantaged and groups that stress modesty less are prone to bias

Front 98

attribution: just world

Back 98

COGNITIVE SOURCE of prejudice

humans need to believe they are a just person in a just world >> good rewarded, evil punished

9/11: rude awakening for these people; dont want to be assoc. w/ losers

Front 99

consequences of prejudice

Back 99

1. SELF PERPETUATING STs: prejudgments guide interpretations; when group member acts as suspected, belief is confirmed; if behavior is not as expected, its explained away

2. SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: even if we decided to end racism, there'd still be some lingering effects

3. STEREOTYPE THREAT: self-confirming apprehension that one will be evaluated based on a neg. stereotype