social psych 3

• generalized beliefs about the characteristics of social groups
• descriptive
• tell what groups are like
• treat individuals as a function of the group

• negative attitudes toward a social group and its members
• assign a value to a group/members
• typically a negative attitude

• unfair treatment based on group membership
• the behavioral side - treat them unfairly because of their membership in a group

not really - there are 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

• 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

• social learning
• historical conflict/economic competition
• ego-defensive processes
• mere categorization

• origin to prejudice
• taught by society/parents to have negative views of some groups
• parents
• peers
• culture conditioning (mass media)- 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

• another origin to prejudice
• can foster negative feelings - expressed in stereotypes
• social conflict

• Marxist hypothesis
• Realistic group conflict theory

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• a normal cognitive activity
• any way that we are divided into groups has the efect of creating bias
• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

we often use stereotypes to guide interpretation of ambiguous things

even if a behavior is unambiguous - it may be explained differently depending on its stereotypes

we may treat others in ways that elicit behavior that confirms our expectations - create expected behavior

emphasizes that our minds construct/maintain a stereotypic worldview, or illusory database, often in ways that we are not consciously aware of

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• a speeded categorization test to determine automatic mental associations
• to reveal unintentional ways we associate different groups with positive or negative concepts

• social desirability effects on explicit measures
• self-deception in explicit attitudes (may not know themselves as well as they think they do)

• when do people's implicit attitudes get expressed?
• 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

a new change in stereotypes - ethnic confusability, androgyny,

variability in how you look - no simple equation to how a child will look with multiracial patterns

• determined race of children when situation was unclear
• you belonged to whatever category was the lower status

• 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

• 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

• cues such as incarceration, employment, in poverty affected how you categorized people
• categorize people into minorities if in worse social position

intentional harm! - any intentional goal of harming someone is considered aggression

instrumental and hostile

• 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

• much more spontaneous, reactive
• harming someone is the end goal

the Limbic System, Neocortex

• The hypothalamus and amygdala
• A chemical signal can trigger the activation of these regions --> aggression
• hormonal control - more testosterone= hypothalamus activation = more 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!

• 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!

• some medical problems disrupt normal testosterone production -- get supplemental testosterone - produce increases in male aggression in response to provocation
• sex-assignment therapy effects

• males - physical violence (cross cultural evidence of this)
• females - relational aggression - to emotionally hurt someone

• 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

• 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

• b/c of their dependence on keeping livestock - need to develop a reputation of someone who cannot be messed with
• norms of politeness

• aversive events - frustrating, unpleasant experiences (goals are blocked, pain, heat)
• will cause angry thoughts, feelings, arousal, hostile actions

• aggressive cues
• Alcohol
• arousal

• 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

• 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)

• 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

arousal from one source can be transferred to a new situation and amplify aggression that you have toward the situation

• nutrition imbalances can actually contribute to violence
• the impulse control system can be impaired by dietary imbalances (the prefrontal cortex can be impaired)

• correlational evidence for more violence exposure - more aggressive
• experimental evidence also shows this

• MOdeling: people learn to behave by observing role models! - social learning theory!
• Priming/Agressive Cues
• Legitimization
• Habituation/Desensitization

• 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

• imitation of aggressive models
• vicarious reinforcement

see role models being rewarded for their aggression - you learn it as a good thing to do!

• 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)

if you see so much violence in teh media you lose your sensitivity to it

• Yes!
• increased aggressive thoughts/affect/behavior
• reduced prosocial behavior
• reduced empathy (desensitization)

• violent video gamers have a much less pronounced neural reaction to violent images specifically
• violent video gamers are not as bothered by violent images

any voluntary action that is intended to benefit others

• egoism!
• we are motivated by the pursuit of our own personal needs, rather than the needs of others

• food sharing
• collaboration - lending a helping hand
• offer comfort in times of distress through vulnerable contact

kinship matters, friendship matters, sex matters, status matters

• kin selection
• inclusive fitness
• reciprocal altruism

• 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"

• like kin selection in that we take in relatives when thinking of survival/helping
• we will help our relatives!

• reducing your fitness by helping another with the expectation that they will help you later
• cooperation in altruistic acts

• empathy
• social responsibility norm

• Batson's Empathy-Altruism Model
• Is it a true empathic concern or personal distress of not helping them?
• Escape or assist?

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)

• if you have high or low empathy
• if there is a hard or easy escape

• evidence of innateness (natural to us)
• evidence of heritability

• yes!
• violent video games can impair empathy

• promotes prosocial action
• can vary across cultures, persons, situations
• the obligation, responsibility, to help society - especially if you are in leadership positions

• 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

• women who was yelling outside her apartment building
• people heard her but she still wasn't helped!
• b/c of 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!

• we must first notice the event
• then we must define the event as an emergency

• pluralistic ignorance
• unwarranted assumptions

• 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

• 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

• 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

• YES - group living is clearly fundamental - defining adaptation
• advantages/challenges to group living
• tensions between selfishness and cooperation
• our fate is connected with others!

• are we better off doing something as an individual? or when people are around us??
• mere presence hypothesis

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• motivational losses
• 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

• 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

• 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

• c-factor!!
• analagous to g-factor (general inteligence for individuals)
• exists - groups good at one task are good at other tasks too (generalizes)

• collective intelligence
• NOT average member intelligence or the max member's intelligence
• its something about the groups - not the individuals

• 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)

• 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

• correlational study
• diversity predicted greater business success

• 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!

• 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

• one game - people mostly defect
• play over and over again - become more competitive - cooperation drops

• 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

• 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.

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• compulsory dancing that occured in teh middle ages
• thought they were possessed by demons -- it took on a psychological reality

• reduction of normal inhibitions/constraits
• loss of normal sense of identity/self-awareness
• altered states of consciousness
• increases in impulsive/deviant behavior

• 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!

• 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)

• 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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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

• 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

• break down into smaller groups - rotate members and talk about previous ideas
• compare perspectives
• less conformity
• diversity of opinions
• low stress approach

• 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

pushed toward more extreme view - amplifies initial tendencies of hte individuals

• 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

• one-on-one compliance tricks, extreme compliant, groups normative influence (conformity, cirme, groupthink)
• culture effects on teh human psyche

• third person effect
• observers vs. participants
• fundamental attribution error

• 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!)

• 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

interactionsim (person and situation work together to shape behavior)

• 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

• 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

favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrance conventional roles

• glorifying one's own group while vilifying another group
• "we" feeling for ingroup, loyalty
• otherness with outgroup

• 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!

• 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

• 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!

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 leads to generalized aggression --> displace aggression onto a safer target like a minority group
• people will vilify outgorups under conditions that increase aggression

• 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

• 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

• 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

tendency to assume that within group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups

acting in a way toward members of certain groups in ways that encourage behavior they expect -- reinforces stereotypes

• 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

the pairing of two distinctive events that stand out even more because they co-occur

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

abstract terms used for consistent actions!

• 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

• 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

• interaction between the groups!
• shared goal to work together
• broader social norms should support intergroup contact
• contact should be one on one contact

• 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

• also associated with frustration
• passive/depressive responses when goals are blocked and they think they have no control over their outcomes

• use rape as act of war, ritual, threat vs women so they remain inferior
• in violent cultures
• in cultures where women have lower status

unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to consequences to the self

• social rewards
• experienced distress
• empathetic concern - feeling/understanding what the other is experiencing

• 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

• situational determinants
• construal processes
• culture situations (if live in culture where they need to work together they cooperate more) (interdependence)

• is cooperative
• not envious
• not exploitable
• it forgives
• easy to read/do

collection of individuals who have relations to one another than make them interdependent to some significant degree

• 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

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

behaviors that only surface when people are in groups

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

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

a conviction that other people are attending to them more than is actually the case

• shallow examination of information
• narrow consideration of alternatives
• sense of invulnerability, moral superiority
• discourage others to come forward with their ideas
• breeds self-censorship!

• yes - b/c the drive twoard harmony is even greater!
• managers solve this tho by discussing individually with people before the meeting

• 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

• 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

heterogeneous - take in different perspectives/sources of information