-
stereotypes
- generalized beliefs about the characteristics of social groups
- descriptive
- tell what groups are like
- treat individuals as a function of the group
-
prejudice
- negative attitudes toward a social group and its members
- assign a value to a group/members
- typically a negative attitude
-
discrimination
- unfair treatment based on group membership
- the behavioral side - treat them unfairly because of their membership in a group
-
are stereotypes, discrimination, prejudice a thing of the past?
not really - there are racial disparities
-
racial disparities
- health - worse health outcomes, discrimination in healthcare
- criminal justice outcomes - different incarcerations across racial groups
- economics - gap actually has gotten bigger between white and black families
-
process of channeling, and upward/downward definitions
- channeling: redirecting someone to different position than one they applied for
- downward: asked to consider lower-paying position
- upward: asked to consider better job
- whites asked more upward, blacks more downward
-
origins of prejudice
- social learning
- historical conflict/economic competition
- ego-defensive processes
- mere categorization
-
social learning
- origin to prejudice
- taught by society/parents to have negative views of some groups
- parents
- peers
- culture conditioning (mass media)- cultivation hypothesis
-
cultivation hypothesis
- develop our view of reality from what we see in the media
- can be an origin to prejudice
- we cultivate what we think the world is like from the mediated versions that we get through the media
-
historical conflict and economic competition
- another origin to prejudice
- can foster negative feelings - expressed in stereotypes
- social conflict
-
social conflict - 2 theories
- Marxist hypothesis
- Realistic group conflict theory
-
Marxist hypothesis
- economic conflict drives stereotyping and prejudice
- stereotypes rationalize social inequality - advantaged groups will be motivated to rationalize their superior position
- low status = low competence
- false consciousness
- Marx says we must raise our consciousness - know true reasons to why you are inferior
-
false consciousness
- the perpetuation of social inequality
- lower groups come to accept the fact that they are inferior
- internalize negative stereotypes about group and apply them to yourself and other members of the group
- Doll studies - AA choose AA doll b/c they know white doll is superior
-
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
- direct competition between groups
- if competition is perceived, attribute negative qualities to the other group that justify me not liking them
- competition = low warmth (dislike)
- Robbers Cave Study of boys - the competition - disliked each other b/c of it
-
ego-defensive processes
- a desire for superiority: we have defense mechanisms we use to protect ourselves from anxiety producing situations
- look down on minority groups
- based on if there is an ego-threat, and if there is a minority target available
- if you downrate a person when your ego is threatened --> boost in self-esteem
-
mere categorization
- a normal cognitive activity
- any way that we are divided into groups has the efect of creating bias
- social identity theory
-
social identity theory
- social categorization - categorize people into groups - us vs them
- desire to be positively distinctive (our group has positive distinct qualities)
- This produces ingroup favoritism and outgroup homogeneity
-
social cognition perspective
- basic information processing - how we interpret/apply meaning to the world around us
- biases are inherent in cognitive process of categorization play a big role in stereotypes
- stereotypes are quick, automatic ways to deal with a complex social environment
- have a sense that we have evidence to support stereotypes
-
stereotypes as heuristics
- when motivation/capacity is low - people rely on general stereotypes rather than think carefully
- more likely to make stereotypes at certain parts of the day
-
illusory database
- stereotypes may arise and persist because biases in the way our minds process information
- stereotypes appear to have validity b/c our minds construct a confirmatory database - bias to remember confirmatory evidence
-
effect of biases on interpretation/inference
we often use stereotypes to guide interpretation of ambiguous things
-
biased explanation
even if a behavior is unambiguous - it may be explained differently depending on its stereotypes
-
self-fulfilling prophecies
we may treat others in ways that elicit behavior that confirms our expectations - create expected behavior
-
social cognition perspective
emphasizes that our minds construct/maintain a stereotypic worldview, or illusory database, often in ways that we are not consciously aware of
-
2 key components to old fashioned racism
- anti-black affect: aversive feelings to African Americans, hostility, anxiety
- anti-egalitarianism: ideological beliefs about the superiority of white people
- this type of mentality is viewed as unacceptable now
-
what caused the pro-egalitarianism shift?
- the Nazi anti-Semitism: we learned what happened during holocaust
- the American Civil Rights Movement: brought issues of civil rights/equality to national level of consciousness
-
change in anti-black affect - why do we still have it?
- not much of an effect as pro-egalitarianism thing
- cultural conditioning - historically racist culture
- ethnocentrism - believe your group is better
- scapegoating - blame African Americans for societies problems
- perceived group conflict - perception of economic competition
-
implicit prejudice
- the new form of prejudice
- an automatic intergroup attitudes that may operate unintentionally and without conscious awareness
- people have pushed anti-black feelings into unconscious level
-
implicit association test
- a speeded categorization test to determine automatic mental associations
- to reveal unintentional ways we associate different groups with positive or negative concepts
-
reasons for the difference in correlation between implicit and explicit prejudice attitudes
- social desirability effects on explicit measures
- self-deception in explicit attitudes (may not know themselves as well as they think they do)
-
integrative theoretical model
- when do people's implicit attitudes get expressed?
- Aversive Racism Theory
-
aversive racism theory
- automatic biases produce a tendency toward discriminatory behavior
- b/c people find racist biases aversive, they monitor their reactions to check for bias
- if the automatic reaction can by justified on nonracist grounds, it will be enacted
- you convince yourself that there is a non-racist reason for your racist thoughts
-
ambiguity and uncertainty in social categories
a new change in stereotypes - ethnic confusability, androgyny,
-
phenotypic variability
variability in how you look - no simple equation to how a child will look with multiracial patterns
-
principle of hypodescent - legal principle in past US history
- determined race of children when situation was unclear
- you belonged to whatever category was the lower status
-
dual categorizaiton test with whites vs blacks (rapid categorizations)
- when a target is known to be biracial, they are more likely to be seen as black, and not white
- the minority aspect of their identity appears to be more salient and defining for multiracial targets
-
ingroup bias in face memory
- people are better able to remember from own racial group than another group (idea that all the other groups look alike)
- more interaction with own group?
- more motivational process - more motivated to treat own group as specific individuals -
- for outgroups its better to know which group they're in, not individually
- able to remember ambiguous faces just the same as black faces
-
sociocultural cues for race categorization
- cues such as incarceration, employment, in poverty affected how you categorized people
- categorize people into minorities if in worse social position
-
the key ingredient to aggression?
intentional harm! - any intentional goal of harming someone is considered aggression
-
two types of aggression
instrumental and hostile
-
instrumental aggression
- planned, intended to produce some goal (must harm someone to get to a goal of yours such as robbing)
- a means to an end
- deliberative, strategic
-
hostile aggression
- much more spontaneous, reactive
- harming someone is the end goal
-
Biology aspect of agression
the Limbic System, Neocortex
-
the limbic system in association with aggression
- The hypothalamus and amygdala
- A chemical signal can trigger the activation of these regions --> aggression
- hormonal control - more testosterone= hypothalamus activation = more aggression
-
neocortex in aggression
- the prefrontal cortex allows you to inhibit aggressive responses (allows you to engage in self-control) - can modulate the activity of the limbic system in respect to aggression
- BUT if you have unbalanced testosterone levels - communication between prefrontal cortex and limbic system is disrupted!
-
Testosterone and Aggressive Behavior
- function of testosterone = assert dominance
- Animal studies - castration - testosterone leads to aggression
- Human studies - prisoner testosterone levels, military members, frat members --> levels can predict aggressive behavior
- only correlational evidence for human studies though!
-
What are the semi-experimental things with humans and testosterone effects on testosterone?
- some medical problems disrupt normal testosterone production -- get supplemental testosterone - produce increases in male aggression in response to provocation
- sex-assignment therapy effects
-
what type of aggression to males more typically show? females?
- males - physical violence (cross cultural evidence of this)
- females - relational aggression - to emotionally hurt someone
-
culture and aggression
- levels of violence actually vary across cultures even though bio prep for aggression are similar in all people
- hyperviolent norms - aggressive a lot - aggressive social climate
- other cultures in which violence never occurs
-
difference between how N and S react in an argument?
- in the south there is a culture of honor, respectability is VERY important
- S is less aggressive than N people at baseline, but with an insult, or threat to ego, S people are much more aggressive
- when insulted, S. has much more spike in testosterone
-
how did the culture of honor develop in the South?
- b/c of their dependence on keeping livestock - need to develop a reputation of someone who cannot be messed with
- norms of politeness
-
what triggers aggression?
- aversive events - frustrating, unpleasant experiences (goals are blocked, pain, heat)
- will cause angry thoughts, feelings, arousal, hostile actions
-
the three variables that increase the likelihood of aggression
- aggressive cues
- Alcohol
- arousal
-
aggressive cues in an environment
- cues in the environment that signal possibility/appropriateness of aggressive actions
- poster of gun vs. poster of peace sign in game of aggression?
- gun poster - more likely to behave in aggressive fashion
-
alcohol on aggression
- implicated in about 50% of violent crime!
- acts as a disinhibitor - interferes with normal prefrontal cortex processes of self-control
- unable to read social cues
- unable to distinguish between general friendliness and actual sexual interest (sober guys have higher criteria for knowing if they display interest or not)
-
arousal and aggression
- associated with aggression b/c aggression requires the body to gear up in response to the aversive event
- pre-existing arousal can amplify aggressive reactions to the aversive event via misattribution
- Excitation Transfer Theory
-
excitation transfer theory
arousal from one source can be transferred to a new situation and amplify aggression that you have toward the situation
-
does diet influence aggression?
- nutrition imbalances can actually contribute to violence
- the impulse control system can be impaired by dietary imbalances (the prefrontal cortex can be impaired)
-
does the mass media fuel aggression?
- correlational evidence for more violence exposure - more aggressive
- experimental evidence also shows this
-
why does the mass media contribute to aggression?
- MOdeling: people learn to behave by observing role models! - social learning theory!
- Priming/Agressive Cues
- Legitimization
- Habituation/Desensitization
-
social learning theory and aggression
- aggression is socially learned! - you learn from what other people are doing
- a short cut for knowing what to do - better than trial and error learning
- Imitation of aggressive models
- vicarious reinforcement
-
what are the key factors to social learning theory for aggression?
- imitation of aggressive models
- vicarious reinforcement
-
vicarious reinforcement
see role models being rewarded for their aggression - you learn it as a good thing to do!
-
legitimization
- a reason for why the media fuels aggression
- convey a message that aggression is the right way to resolve conflicts
- (use force to take on the bad guys in the media)
-
habituation/desensitization in the media and its effects on aggression
if you see so much violence in teh media you lose your sensitivity to it
-
do violent video games contribute to aggression?
- Yes!
- increased aggressive thoughts/affect/behavior
- reduced prosocial behavior
- reduced empathy (desensitization)
-
what is the evidence for desensitization to violence/aggression?
- violent video gamers have a much less pronounced neural reaction to violent images specifically
- violent video gamers are not as bothered by violent images
-
prosocial behavior
any voluntary action that is intended to benefit others
-
what do thinkers such as Darwin, Freud, Skinner, Hobbes, Nietszche, think of the essence of human nature?
- egoism!
- we are motivated by the pursuit of our own personal needs, rather than the needs of others
-
the concern for others seen in primates
- food sharing
- collaboration - lending a helping hand
- offer comfort in times of distress through vulnerable contact
-
consolation behavior in chimps that is similar to humans?
kinship matters, friendship matters, sex matters, status matters
-
is helping biologically wrong to do?
- kin selection
- inclusive fitness
- reciprocal altruism
-
kin selection
- people are more lilely to help those who are blood relatives b/c it will increase the odds of gene transmission to future generations
- suggests that there is a "kin reognition" mechanism
- we want our genes to survive! "survival of the fittests genes"
-
inclusive fitness
- like kin selection in that we take in relatives when thinking of survival/helping
- we will help our relatives!
-
reciprocal altruism
- reducing your fitness by helping another with the expectation that they will help you later
- cooperation in altruistic acts
-
what promotes prosocial acting?
- empathy
- social responsibility norm
-
what is empathy? How does it promote prosocial behavior?
- Batson's Empathy-Altruism Model
- Is it a true empathic concern or personal distress of not helping them?
- Escape or assist?
-
Batson's Empathy - Altruism model
feeling empathy for a person in need evokes a motivation to help that person in which these benefits to the self are not the ultimate goal of helping (unintended consequence to feel good by helping people)
-
what determines if you help someone or escape?
- if you have high or low empathy
- if there is a hard or easy escape
-
the biological substrates for empathy
- evidence of innateness (natural to us)
- evidence of heritability
-
is socialization crucial for empathy?
- yes!
- violent video games can impair empathy
-
social responsibility norm
- promotes prosocial action
- can vary across cultures, persons, situations
- the obligation, responsibility, to help society - especially if you are in leadership positions
-
results of Good Samaritan study
- even an empathic person, with clear social responsibility norm activation can fail to help
- certain situational factors (like in a rush) can override the need to help
-
Kitty Genovese
- women who was yelling outside her apartment building
- people heard her but she still wasn't helped!
- b/c of bystander inaction!
-
bystander inaction
- related to Kitty Genovese case
- individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present
- the more bystanders the less likely an individual will help!
-
the model for helping in emergencies
- we must first notice the event
- then we must define the event as an emergency
-
the problems that come with defining an event as an emergency
- pluralistic ignorance
- unwarranted assumptions
-
pluralistic ignorance
- when a majority of group members privately reject hte norm but they assume most others accept it
- thus they conform to these norms - to the supposed norm
- effect on definiing events as emergencies
-
unwarranted assumptions
- assumptions based on insufficient reasoning
- sometimes you may think a rape episode is just a lover's quarrel or something
- has an effect on defining events as emergencies
-
what happens after you define the event as an emergency?
- you must accept the responsibility
- access your ability to help - possibly diffuse responsibility to others
- implement help - which may come at some costs
cause of bystander effects! long model to help, comes at costs, ambiguity
-
humans, a social animal?
- YES - group living is clearly fundamental - defining adaptation
- advantages/challenges to group living
- tensions between selfishness and cooperation
- our fate is connected with others!
-
principle of coaction
- are we better off doing something as an individual? or when people are around us??
- mere presence hypothesis
-
mere presence hypotehsis
- the mere presence of others energizes are performance (its arousaing to have people around - extra energy to do the task)
- helps the performance of easy/well-learned tasks
- inhibits performance of difficult/new tasks
-
how does social facilitation (mere presence) help performance?
- presence of people is physiologically AROUSING -- can be channeled to the task and help with easy tasks
- OR it could be EVALUATIVE APPREHENSION - the concern of being evaluated by other people --> who the audience is matters
- and DISTRACTION: the presence of other people divides attention from the task and from the other people
-
social loafing
- the flipside to having people improve performance
- people in groups pulling a rope were not equal to their ability x the number of people. - get underperformance
- people put less effort in when working in a group than as an individual
- b/c of diffusion of responsibility
- motivational losses - b/c of diffusion of responsibility and division of attention
-
diffusion of responsibilty
- when alone your performance depends on you alone
- when it is a group - your responsibility is shared
- if the performance is based on an aggregate level - social loafing will be seen b/c the individuals sole performance doesn't matter
-
The disadvantages of working in a group
- motivational losses
- coordination losses
-
motivation losses and coordination losses
- motivation - social loafing, social distraction (stimulation causes divided attention = less motivation)
- coordination - solo individuals don't have to coordinate, but in groups you must spend time and energy for coordination --> production blocking
-
production blocking
- occurs in groups - part of coordination loss (disadvantage to a group)
- can be seen when you have a great idea but its not your turn to speak - you may forget later
-
the advantages of working in groups
- more resources - more information, skills, labor - the bigger the group the more resources
- potential for error-checking: feedback can be provided, objective views of ideas, everyone has their own different biases for how they view the world --> the distortions can balance out in a group
-
collective intelligence
- c-factor!!
- analagous to g-factor (general inteligence for individuals)
- exists - groups good at one task are good at other tasks too (generalizes)
-
what predicts group performance?
- collective intelligence
- NOT average member intelligence or the max member's intelligence
- its something about the groups - not the individuals
-
what predicts collective intelligence?
- NOT individual intelligence, group cohesion, or group satisfaction
- IS average social sensitivity (able to read social cues)
- IS equal distribution of turn-taking (if one dominates, their biases won't get cancelled out)
- IS proportion of women in the group (more women = higher collective intelligence)
-
does diversity help or hurt group performance?
- advantage - diversity and creativity, diverse perspectives
- research indicates that diversity benefits include greater creativity and deeper cognitive engagement by the majority group
- disadvantage - threats to group harmony - can undermine group function
- important modulator = diversity beliefs! (if think diversity is a good thing, group with profit) --> self-fulfilling prophecy
-
were businesses more profitable if had diverse employess?
- correlational study
- diversity predicted greater business success
-
Interdependence in groups and the tensions that are causes
- exists when each person's behavior can affect other people's outcomes
- competition - think about getting more for yourself
- cooperation - oriented to what other people get as well
- tensions between these!
-
a mixed motive situation - shows tension in groups between competition and cooperation
- prisoner's dilemma game!
- cooperate - don't confess and testify
- defect - confess and testify against partner
- from a rational standpoint it is better to defect - but by being competitive you screw over your partner
-
what do most people do in prisoner dilemma game?
- one game - people mostly defect
- play over and over again - become more competitive - cooperation drops
-
Tit for Tat program in Prisoner Dilemma game
- a very simple program for hte game
- always cooperate on the first turn and then after that reciprocate what your partner did
- NICE
- NOT ENVIOUS - doesn't keep track of relative performance
- ALWAYS RECIPROCATE
-
tragedy of the commons
- communities structures so they share pasture land
- finite resource tho - if over graze it it won't renew!
- individual selfishness causes overconsumption - animals die etc.
-
the take-some game
- shows the cost of defection to the whole group but the benefits of defection to the individual that defected
- if take too many fish - the sea will not replensih the fish
-
strategies to increase cooperation in groups
- create social structures that enforce cooperation (dictator, rules)
- allow people to communicate, build trust with the person (build trust that they won't be selfish)
- establish a group identity/communal orientation - not a selfish orientation
-
collective pathologies
- things that go wrong in groups - how groups can bring out bad tendencies even if the people have no preexisting ties to one another
- Mob violence - lynchings (wouldn't happen if just the single person)
- Mass hysteria - mass psychogenic illness, groups behave in ways that reflect deviance - lack of contact with social reality
- Deindividuation
-
mass psychogenic illness
- individuals/groups develop a set of symptons without any underlying reason for it
- if you talk abotu feeling ill - it will pass like contagion, may develop symptoms of what they are afraid will happen to them
- more prevalent in groups in which there is some degree of cohesion
- choreomania
-
choreomania
- compulsory dancing that occured in teh middle ages
- thought they were possessed by demons -- it took on a psychological reality
-
key symptoms of deindividuation
- reduction of normal inhibitions/constraits
- loss of normal sense of identity/self-awareness
- altered states of consciousness
- increases in impulsive/deviant behavior
-
what predicts that a group will have deindividuation
- anonymity - easier to lose self-awareness
- diffusion of responsibility - feel they aren't responsible for what happens
- arousal - strengthens likelihood that you will respond with dominant impulses
- group size - bigger the group the more anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, and arousal!
-
is deindividuation always a bad thing?
- maybe not!
- you can have a loss of restrictive inhibitions (they can get in people's ways sometimes)
- you feel a happy sense of connection to other people
- and altered state of intense happiness/love
- BURNING MAN festival (no money system - positive connectedness to others)
-
Groupthink symptoms
- occurs in groups - very bad - don't take advantage of possible benefits of groups
- premature consensus - rush to agreement with one another
- illusions and misconceptions
-
premature consensus in group think
- strong conformity pressure to go with the leader - don't get rid of biases, etc.
- self-censorship of dissent - illusion of unity
- mindguards - protect the leaders ideas (defeats the purpose of having groups)
-
illusions and misperceptions that happen in groupthink
- they feel invulnerable - feel that they are the good guys and other groups are bad
- moral superiority
- collective rationalization (rationalize away criticisms of their ideas)
-
what causes groupthink?
- high group cohesiveness - idea cna spread easier if members feel strong connection to each other
- insulation of group - don't consult with outsiders
- inadeguate information gathering (biased ways to get informatino - just get supporting evidence)
- strong, dynamic leadership (hard to criticize a leader you like)
- high stress levels - dont' want to add to stress by disagreeing
-
how do you avoid groupthink?
- social process technologies - created to bypass groupthink
- World Cafe approach
- subgroups
- no top-down control of process
- openness to diverse opinions
- contexts that minimize stress
-
world cafe approach
- break down into smaller groups - rotate members and talk about previous ideas
- compare perspectives
- less conformity
- diversity of opinions
- low stress approach
-
are groups riskier or more cautious than individuals?
- riskier - feel stronger, less vulnerable, diffused responsibility
- choice dilemmas suggest a RISKY SHIFT: each individual after group talk would move toward risky end
- but this is not always true --> just shows a general polarization effect (amplify initial tendency of the individuals
-
group polarization effect
pushed toward more extreme view - amplifies initial tendencies of hte individuals
-
why is there group polarization?
- Normative Social INfluence - social comparison theory - hear what others say, compare yourself to what other people are thinking, understand group norm - don't want to be deviant
- Information Social influence - persuasive arguments theory - hear novel arguments in favor of groups dominant perspective - more information to the extreme view
-
the power of social influence (review)
- one-on-one compliance tricks, extreme compliant, groups normative influence (conformity, cirme, groupthink)
- culture effects on teh human psyche
-
illusion of invulnerability to social influence (review)
- third person effect
- observers vs. participants
- fundamental attribution error
-
reality is socially constructed (review)
- attitudes bias interpretation
- culture shapes construal
- groups exert informational social influence
- emergencies
- illusion of unamity in groups
- pluralistic ignorance (what we perceive to be the norm is not the actual group's preferences!)
-
The invisibility of construal (review)
- subliminal stimuli,
- automatic attitudes
- implicit vs explicit attitudes
- naive realism - we think we have objective view of world
- fallibility of introspection - we don't have an accurate view of why we do what we do
-
the person and the situation are inextricably bound!
interactionsim (person and situation work together to shape behavior)
-
6 examples of interactionism
- PERSON and SITUATION shape behavior
- 1. different responses to same situation
- 2. interdependence
- 3. situations choose people
- 4. persons choose situations
- 5. persons change situations
- 6. situations change people
-
modern racism
- symbolic racism
- prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists along with the rejection of explicitly racist beliefs
- if you act in discriminatory manner will depend on situation
-
benevolent sexism
favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrance conventional roles
-
ethnocentrism
- glorifying one's own group while vilifying another group
- "we" feeling for ingroup, loyalty
- otherness with outgroup
-
superordinant goals
- a way to reduce group conflict
- goals that transcend interests of one group and that can be achieved by two or more groups working together!
-
minimal group paradigm
- groups based on meaningless criteria
- still more interest in relative gain for ingroup than for outgroup
- just the existence of boundaries can create group discrimination
-
social identity theory
- person's self concept and self esteem not only derive form personal identity and accomplishments, but from teh status and accomplishments of teh various groups to which the person belongs
- to boost your self esteem!
-
basking in reflected glory
a tendency to identify with the winning team - take pride in accomplishments of those whom we are in some way associated
you also derogate outgroups to bolster self-esteem
-
frustration-aggression theory
- frustration leads to generalized aggression --> displace aggression onto a safer target like a minority group
- people will vilify outgorups under conditions that increase aggression
-
motivational perspective for why prejudice/discrimination exists
- minimal group paradigm
- social identity theory
- frustration aggression theory
- we draw us/them distinctions, and groups are tied to enhance their own self-esteem, agression is also caused by frustration
-
economic perspective to wy there is prejudice/stereotypes
- develop prejudices against each other when they compete for material resources - protect own interests by lashing out against htose that threaten their power
- realistic group conflict theory
-
cognitive perspective to why we prejudice/discriminate
- stereotyping is inevitable - stems from necessity of categorization (simplifies the stimuli)
- its a conservation of mental resources- efficient processing
- but this can cause inaccurate judgments/errors
- ingroup similarity/outgroup difference
- outgroup homogeneity effect
- self-fulfilling prophecies
- illusory correlations
- explain away exceptions
- automatic/controlled processing
-
outgroup homogeneity effect
tendency to assume that within group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups
-
self-fulfilling prophecies
acting in a way toward members of certain groups in ways that encourage behavior they expect -- reinforces stereotypes
-
Illusory correlations and Distinctiveness
- the erroneous belief about a connection between events, characteristics, or categories that are not in fact related
- we attend more to distinctive events - minorities, bad acts, minorities doing bad acts is even more distincive
- Paired distinctiveness
-
paired distinctiveness
the pairing of two distinctive events that stand out even more because they co-occur
-
subtyping
explain away exceptions to a given stereotype by creating a subcategory of hte stereotyped group that can be expected to differ from the group as a whole
-
are abstract terms used to describe stereotype consistent or inconsistent actions?
abstract terms used for consistent actions!
-
attributional ambiguity
- members of stigmatized groups live in a less certain world
- don't know whether to attribute positive feedback to their own skill or to other's condescension
- don't know to attribute negative feedback to own error or to other's prejudcies
-
stereotype threat
- fear that we will confirm the stereotypes that others have regarding some salient group in which we are a part of
- leads to increased arousal - can interfere with performance
- can also elicit negative thinking
-
how to reduce stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination
- interaction between the groups!
- shared goal to work together
- broader social norms should support intergroup contact
- contact should be one on one contact
-
frustration
- internal state that accompanies the thwarting of an attempt to achieve some goal
- act in aggressive way when are frustrated!
- depends on amount of satisfaction anticipated, how blocked the person is, how frequenlty the goal is blocked, how close they are to their goal
-
learned helplessness
- also associated with frustration
- passive/depressive responses when goals are blocked and they think they have no control over their outcomes
-
rape prone cultures
- use rape as act of war, ritual, threat vs women so they remain inferior
- in violent cultures
- in cultures where women have lower status
-
altruism
unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to consequences to the self
-
what are the motives for altruism?
- social rewards
- experienced distress
- empathetic concern - feeling/understanding what the other is experiencing
-
culture and altruism
- in more rural areas - more empathetic concern - more likely to help
- why? b/c there is too much sitmulation in urban places, in rural areas you are more similar - help more similar people, more people in urban areas
- its not where you are norn but your current culture context
-
cooperation/competition depends on
- situational determinants
- construal processes
- culture situations (if live in culture where they need to work together they cooperate more) (interdependence)
-
5 reasons why the tit for tat strategy is good
- is cooperative
- not envious
- not exploitable
- it forgives
- easy to read/do
-
definition of a group
collection of individuals who have relations to one another than make them interdependent to some significant degree
-
dominant response
- more likely to occur with mere presence of others
- the response you are most likely to make
- for easy tasks - dominant response is correct response
- for hard tasks - dominant response is likely incorrect - hinders performance
-
distraction conflict theory
being aware of another's presence creates a conflict between attending to that person and attending to the task at hand - it is this attentional conflict aht is arousing and produces social facilitation effects
-
emergent properties of groups
behaviors that only surface when people are in groups
-
individuation
enhanced self of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self - leads people to act carefully and deliberately and in accordance with sense of propriety and values
-
self-awareness theory
when people focus their attention inward they are more concerned with self evaluation and how their curent behavior conforms to their internal standards and values
-
spotlight effect
a conviction that other people are attending to them more than is actually the case
-
what happens with groupthink
- shallow examination of information
- narrow consideration of alternatives
- sense of invulnerability, moral superiority
- discourage others to come forward with their ideas
- breeds self-censorship!
-
is groupthink more prevalent in East Asian cultures?
- yes - b/c the drive twoard harmony is even greater!
- managers solve this tho by discussing individually with people before the meeting
-
persuasive arguments account
- reason for group polarization
- if people predisposed to take a chance, they think of more and better arguments in favor of that risk
- when discussed - you hear more arguments - new arguments are skewed to whatever the people are predisposed to
- exposes average persons to more extreme views
-
social comparison theory
- cause of group polarization
- when there isn't an objective stanard of evaluation, people evalutate opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others
- people tend to think they are on the correct side of things but farther out than most people - will go more extreme if encounter person who also thinks this
-
will homogeneous or heterogenous groups do better?
heterogeneous - take in different perspectives/sources of information
|
|