Chapter 11: prejudice, discrimination refer to belief, attitudinal, and behavioral components of negative intergroup relations. Modern racism prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists alongside rejection of explicitly racist beliefs.
Chapter 11: prejudice, discrimination refer to belief, attitudinal, and behavioral components of negative intergroup relations. Modern racism prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists alongside rejection of explicitly racist beliefs.
Chapter 11: prejudice, discrimination refer to belief, attitudinal, and behavioral components of negative intergroup relations. Modern racism prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists alongside rejection of explicitly racist beliefs.
Three general perspectives for prejudice Economic perspective o Identifies roots of much intergroup hostility in the competing interests that set many groups apart from one another Motivational perspective o Emphasizes the psychological needs and wishes that lead to intergroup conflict Cognitive perspective o Traces the origin of stereotyping to the same cognitive processes that allow people to categorize, say, items of furniture into distinct classes of chairs, couches, and tables o Takes into account the frequent conflict between peoples consciously held beliefs and values and their quick, reflexive reactions to members of specific racial, ethnic, occupational, or other demographic groups These are just perspectives, not sharply defined categories Not competing accounts but complementary elements of a more complete analysis Categorizing intergroup bias Stereotypes o Belifs that certain attributes are characteristic of members of particular groups o Can be positive or negative o True or false o They are a way of categorizing people o Involves thinking about a person not as an individual, but as a member of a group, ad projecting what you think you know about the group onto your expectations about the individual Prejudice o A negative attitude or affective response toward a certain group and its individual members o Negative atitudes have received the most attention, but there can be positive prejudice o Prejudging others because they belong to a specific category Discrimination o Negative or harmful behavior directed toward members of particular groups o Unfair treatment of others-based on their memberships in a group Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination refer to the belief, attitudinal, and behavioral components, respectively, of negative intergroup relations o They all usually go together o Ingroup favoritism can arise in the absence of outgroup enmity I have nothing against them, but Not wanting your kids to marry out of your ethnicity bc you dont want to lose your culture Its possible to be prejudice but not discriminate, especially if a culture frowns on discrimination. Modern racism Prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists alongside rejection of explicitly racist beliefs (e.g. that there are genetic differences between racial groups in intelligence) while maintaining an enduring suspicion of, discomfort with, or animosity toward African-Americans Some of our reactions to other groups are unconscious and automatic, and these responses may differ from our more thoughtful beliefs and attitudes Experiment o They come to the aid of the black person when they were the only ones that could help but when they thought that other people were present, they didnt come to the aid of the black person as often o Benevolent Racism and Sexism Some of my best friends are Im not sexist; I love women! ambivalent- positive and negative parts Benevolent sexism o A chivalrous idealogy that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles o Coexists with hostile sexism (dislike of women who are viewed as usurping mens power) o Even the partly positive stereotypes arent necessarily benign Ambivalent sexist or racist attitudes may be particularly resistant to change Favorable features allows stereotype holder to deny any prejudice Be rewarding women and minorities for conforming to the status quo, benevolent sexism and racism inhibit progress toward equality o Those who hold ambivalent attitudes tend to act positively toward members of out-groups only if they fulfill their idealized image of what such people should be like Happy housewife, playboy centerfold Measuring attitudes about groups Most straightforward way: ask them People are unwilling or unable to express their convictions accurately o Many forms of prejudice are ambivalent, uncertain or hidden- even from the self- they are not likely to be revealed through self-report Implicit Association Test (IAT) o Technique for revealing nonconscious prejudice toward particular groups o Technique for revealing subtle, nonconscious prejudices, even among those who advocate universal equality and high regard for all groups Priming and implicit prejudice o Priming Procedure used to increase the accessibility of a concept or schema (e.g. a stereotype) Mental activation If I show you the word butter than ask you tell me, as quickly as you can, whether a subsequent string of letters is a word, youll recognize that bread is a word more quickly than youll recognize that car is a word bc of your preexisting association between bread and butter The economic perspective Groups develop prejudices about one another and discriminate against one another when they compete for material resources Religious groups, racial groups, and cultural groups all stand ready to protect and promote their own interests by lashing out at those they perceive to be threatening by them Realistic group conflict theory o A theory that group conflict, prejudice, and discrimination are likely to arise over competition between groups for limited resources o Theory predicts correctly that prejudice and discrimination should increase under conditions of economic difficulty o Predicts that prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among groups that stand to lose the most from another groupss economic advance o Specifies some of the ways that conflict between groups is likely to play out Ethnocentrism Glorifying ones own group while vilifying other groups An opponent whose antics seem intolerable instantly seems more likable once that person becomes a teammate People in the outgroup are often thought of in a stereotyped ways and are treated in a manner normally forbidden by ones moral cod The Robbers Cave Experiment o 22 fifth grade boys were taken to robbers cave state park for summer camp o divided into groups of 11 and taken to separate areas of the park and neither group even knew of the others existence- initially o first phase two groups independently engaged in activities designed to foster group unity each chose to give itself a name- Eagles and Rattlers o second phase Eagles and Rattlers were brought together for a tournament o Third phase Making them come together through superordinate goals Superordinate goals Goals that transcend the interests of any one group and that can be achieved more readily by two or more groups working together o Several lessons Neither differences in background nor differences in appearance nor prior histories of conflict are necessary for intergroup hostility to develop Competition against outsiders often increases group cohesion To reduce hostility that exists between certain groups, policy makers should think of ways to get them to work together to fulfill common goals The motivational perspective Develops in the absence of competition The existence of group boundaries among any collection of individuals can be sufficient to initiate group discrimination The minimal group paradigm o An experimental paradigm in which researchers create groups based on arbitrary and seemingly meaningless criteria and then examine how the members of these minimal groups are inclined to behave toward one another Social identity theory o A theory that a persons self-concept and self-esteem derive not only from personal identity and accomplishments but also from the status and accomplishments of the various groups to which the person belongs o Boosting the status of the ingroup Feeling better about the group leads us to feel better about ourselves o Basked in reflected glory The tendency for people to take pride in the accomplishments of those with whom they are in some way associated, as when fans identify with a winning team were number 1 the inclusive we was used significantly more often after a win, and the more restrictive they was used more often after a loss o degrading outgroups to bolster self-esteem stereotyping and derogating members of outgroups appear to bolster self-esteem o Frustration-Aggression Theory Theory that elaborates the idea that frustration leads to aggression If the source of frustration is the very group to which prejudice and discrimination are directed- that is, if outgroup members are perceived as getting in the way of the individuals goals- frustration-aggression is both an economic and a motivational account From generalized to targeted aggression By itself, the link between frustration and aggression cannot explain the origins of prejudice and discrimination because frustration leads to generalized aggression Frustration leads to aggression that tends to be displaced toward relatively powerless groups o Evaluating the motivational perspective Strength of the motivational perspective is that it builds on two undeniably important elements of the human condition Draws the us/them distinction and the various groups to which an individual belongs are intimately connected to the motive to enhance self-esteem People tend to react to frustration with aggression and often direct their aggression at the safest and least powerful targets in a given society The cognitive perspective Stereotyping is inevitable- stems from ubiquity and necessity of categorization People categorize everything o Purpose: simplifies the task of taking in and processing large amounts of stimuli Stereotypes and the conservation of mental reserves o People are most likely to fall back on mindless stereotypes when they lack mental energy Construal processes and biased assessments o Stereotypes conserve cognitive resources o What is gained in efficiency is paid for by occasional inaccuracy and error o Invoking the stereotype may save time and effort, but it can lead to mistaken impressions and unfair judgments about individuals Accentuation of ingroup similarity and outgroup difference o Dividing a continuous distribution into two groups leads people to see less variability within each group and more variability between the two o Participants consistently assume that their beliefs are more similar to those of another ingroup member than to those of an outgroup member- even when group membership is arbitrary o People make such assumptions even when the groups are formed arbitrarily or when they are formed on the basis of a dimension (e.g. skin color) that may have no bearing on the particular attitude or behavior under consideration The pure act of categorization distorts our judgments The outgroup homogeneity effect o The tendency for people to assume that within-group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups o They all think, act, and look alike. We dont. o We have more contact with fellow members of na ingroup than with members of an outgroup, so we have greater opportunity to encounter evidence of divergent opinions and habits among ingroup members o Sometimes all we know about outgroups members is what their stereotypical characteristics are reputed to be. o Because we belong to an ingroup membership, we do not treat an ingroup member as a representative of a group Distinctiveness and illusory correlations o People sometimes see correlations between events, characteristics, or categories that are not actually related (illusory correlation) o By definition, minority groups are distinctive to most members of the majority, so minority group members stand out o Negative behaviors are also less common than positive behaviors o Negative behavior on the part of members of minority groups is therefore doubly distinctive and doubly memorable, and because negative behavior by the majority or positive behavior by the minority is not nearly as memorable, negative actions by the minority are likely to seem more common than they really are Minority groups are therefore often thought to be responsible for more problematic behavior than they actually engage in o Paired distinctiveness Pairing of two distinctive events that stand out even more because they co-occur Expectations and biased information processing o Because of the outgroup homogeneity effect, people are more likely to assume that an individual action is typical of a group if the group is not their own Explaining away exceptions o Subtyping Explaining away exceptions to a given stereotype by creating a subcategory of the stereotyped group that can be expected to differ from the group as awhole o Concrete vs. abstract construal The more concrete the description, the less it says about the individual involved If peoples evaluations are guided by their preexisting stereotypes, we might expect them to describe actions that are consistent with a stereotype in abstract terms (Thus reinforcing the stereotype), but to describe actions that are inconsistent with it in concrete terms (thus avoiding the potential challenge to the stereotype) Automatic and controlled processing o Subtyping is conscious o Our reaction to different groups of people are to a surprising degree guided by quick and automatic mental processes that we can override but not eliminate o What separates prejudiced and nonprejudiced people is not their knowledge of derogatory stereotypes, but whether they resist the stereotypes o Automatic negative stereotypes associated with members of various stigmatized groups appear to be more easily activated among prejudiced individuals than among nonprejudiced individuals o Participants were faster to identify a weapon as a weapon when it was preceded by an African-American face and faster to identify a hand tool as a hand tool when it was preceded by a white face. Evaluating the Cognitive Perspective o Seeing someone who belongs to a particular ethnic group may automatically activate our stereotypical associations to that group, but the activation is typically brief o We all tend to stereotype and that we all have the capacity to harbor troubling prejudices- prejudices we are often unaware we have Becoming a member of a stigmatized group Two burdens that come with knowning that others may be prejudiced against ones group o Attributional ambiguity Members of stigmatized groups cant tell whether many of their experiences have the same causes as those of everyone else or whether they are the result of prejudice When someone has to wonder whther an accomplishment is the product of an affirmative action policy, it can be difficult to completely own it and reap the full measure of pride it would ordinarily afford Members of stigmatized groups live in a less certain world, not knowing wheteher to attribute positive feedback to their own skill or to others condescension and not knowing whether to attribute negative feedback to their own error or to others prejudice o Stereotype threat Peoples fear of confirming the stereotypes that others have regarding a group of which they are a member Appears to undermine performance in a number of ways Leads to increased arousal, which can directly interfere with performance on complex tasks and serve as a source of distraction that interferes with concentration on the task at hand Knowing that ones group is suspect in the eyes of others tend to elicit negative thinking, which can both directly undermined performance and lead individuals to play It safe by being obsessed with avoiding failure than reaching for success The vulnerability of African Americans has particular potential for damage Can result in poorer overall academic performance, which undermines confidence, rendering the individual still more susceptible to stereotype threat Vicious cycle can result in disidentification from academic pursuits, as students who feel the threat more acutely opt out of academics altogether and identify other areas in which to invest their talent and energy and from which to derive their self- esteem Self-fulfilling prophecies o People act towards members of certain groups in ways that encourage the very behavior they expect Reducing stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination When people interact frequently, it becomes easier to see one another more as individuals and less as representatives of particular groups Contact between different groups is likely to be more positive and more productive if certain conditions are met o The different groups need to have equal status If one group feels superior and the other resentful, then harmonious, productive interactions are unlikely to be the norm o Productive intergroup interactions are facilitated if the different groups have a shared goal that requires their cooperative interaction- and thus promotes a common ingroup identity o A communitys broader social norms need to support intergroup contact o The contact should encourage one-on-one interactions between members of different groups
Chapter 12 Chapter 12
Two camps Individualistic approach Collectivist/groups approach Limitations of cooleys model Good start, but prolly too simplistic Two newer and more nuanced approaches o Theories of entitativity Can be thought of as an index of groupiness Groups can var along a continuum in terms of whether a mere collection of individual are psychologically connected or not High entitativity -> very connected: members feel as though they belong to a meaningful group Low entitativity -> not connected: members do not feel as though they belong to a meaningful group -> not a very groupy group What factors make a group high vs. low in entitativity? Similarity Common fate (goals) Proximity Resistance to intrusion (permeability) -> the us supreme court is relatively resistance to intrusion -> its not that permeable royalty is not that permeable either one limitation of entitativity approach doesnt address the manner in which the groups are formed per se arrows model is more explicit on this point o Arrows et al model of planned vs. emergent groups Planned Core feature: dediberately formed by the members themselves, or by an outside entitity. Planned groups can be broken down into two types: Concocted o Planned by individuals outside of the group (e.g. production lines, task forces, crews, professional sports teams) Founded o Planned by individuals who remain within the group (e.g. study groups, small businesses, clubs, associations) Emergent Core feature: groups that form spontaneously (more or less) as a function of common goals Can be broken down into further subsets Circumstantial o Emergent, unplanned groups arising when external situational forces set the stage to join together, often only temporarily, in a unified group (e.g. waiting lines, crowds, mobs, audiences, bystanders) Self-organizing o Emerge when interacting individuals gradually align their activities in a cooperative system of interdependence (e.g. occupy wall street) The darker side of groups: Mobs, Gangs, Riots The older theoretical perspective Phenomenal experience in a group per se -> anti-social behavior Newer view the critical issue- the most direct predictor of anti-social behavior is deindividuation followed by decreased self-regulation such decrease can be driven by lots of things- including, but not limited to, being in a group large groups, nightfall, ability to disguise face, other factors promoting anonymity -> deindividuation -> decreased self- regulation; lessened concern with how others evaluate the self (stimulus overload and increase physiological arousal can also result in decreased self-regulation) Implications, tests and extensions of the deinidivduation model o According to this new view, it should be easier for people to let go of the usual prohibitions against barbarity when they feel anonymous and unaccountable for their actions Also supporting this mode; reports of what people would do if they were indivisible o Dodd had participants tell researchers what they would do If they were invisible for a day o In his original study, Todd had 2 groups do this task: college students and convicted felons And they found no difference between the two! Reversing deindividuation effects o If deinvididuation leads to anti-social behavior, then how does the opposite experience- feeling individuated make people act? o This question is relevant to the self awareness paradigm o Main finding: self-standards effect Tendency of people to act In a more consistent manner thats consistent with their underlying self-standards More on self-awareness and self-consciousness o As we have noted, there are situational differences in self awareness and there are important individual differences too o By and large, though, and in normal situations (i.e. not in riots; not drunk, etc), people generally maintain fairly high levels of self awareness/consciousness o In fact, there is evidence suggesting that people that people that people somewhat overdo their experience of self awareness/consciousness, at least in terms of overestimating the extent to which people are paying attention to the self o Barry Manilow t-shirt study o Participants that wore the shirt thought a lot of people were looking at the t-shirt (50% of participants thought this) o 80% of other participants didnt notice the t-shirt Do people perform tasks better alone, or in groups? People perform tasks faster in group than alone
Stage 1: participants pronounce words between 1 and 16 times Creates dominant response o Words pronounced most frequently= dominant Stage 2: words flashed very quickly: 1/100 second Participants must guess word Did task alone or while being watched Main finding: participants guesses were more likely to contain the dominant words if they were being watched than if they were not
Stereotypes as dominant (well learned) responses Recall that lambert found greater evidence of stereotyping when particiapnts performed the task in public, compared to private Note that this represents a kind of social facilitation effect o Stereotypes: well-learned association between a category and a particular set of traits/affective reaction o The social facilitation would predict greater evidence of stereotyping in public, which Is what we generally found
Research and theory on group decision making Are groups less risky in their decision making? On an intuitive level, youd think that groups would take fewer chances (be less risky) than individuals o This is ,one would think that Groups balance idiosyncratic viewpoints out o Especially given that most groups have decision making rules that tend to discourage one dominant point of view Groups make more risky decisions -> research by stoner o His viewpoint is a little premature Group polarization Theoretical explanation for the group polarization effect Persuasive argument hypothesis Social comparison hypothesis A caution about group polarization effects (GPES) Just because groups are getting more polarized doesnt mean that theyre making good or bad decision -> they can be good or bad Theory and research on groupthink Produces worse decisions Groupthink defined o The mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in- group that it tends to over-ride realistic appraisals of alternative courses of action. Historical examples o Bay of Pigs incident (1961) US encouraged group of Cuban expats to overthrow Fidel & we were supposed to lend them air support but then we didnt and they got caught Antecedents (elements that tend to breed groupthink) o Group is already cohesive o Isolated o Directive leader o Stress o Poor decision-making rules Symptoms of groupthink o Illusion of invulnerability o Collective rationalization o Belief in inherent morality o Stereotyped views of out-groups o Self-censorship o Direct pressure on dissenters o Illusion of unanimity Specific outcomes (consequences) of groupthink o Incomplete survey of alternatives o Failure to examine risks of preferred choices Hindsight bas Once we know the outcome (e.g. the challenger blew up!) are we just spinning events to fit the theory? Is the idea of a wise crowd inherently contradictory?
Could it be that crowds are, in fact, wise? Class example from sir francis galton: the guess the weight of the ox event o Collective guess was almost right on target The wisdom of crowds Four key conditions that characterize wise crowds o Diversity of opinion Each person should have some private information, even if its just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts o Independence Peoples opinions are not determined by the opinions of those around them o Decentralization People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge o Aggregation Some mechanism, like wall street or a casino, exists for turning private judgments into collective decision Connection to Nate Silvers Big Data perspective
Book Notes
The Nature and purpose of group living A group has been described as a collection of individuals who have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some significant degree Social facilitation Initial research o Children turned fishing reel faster in presence of other children o Social facilitation Initially a term for enhanced performance in the presence of others; now a broader term for the effect- positive or negative- of the presence of others on performance Zajoncs theory o The presence of others tends to facilitate performance on simple or well-learned tasks, but it hinders performance on difficult or novel tasks o 3 components the mere presence of others makes a person more aroused arousal tends to make a person more rigid, in the sense that the person becomes even more inclined to do what he or she is already inclined to do arousal makes a person more likely to make a dominant response in an individuals hierarchy of responses, the response he or she is most likely to make third component links the increase in dominant response tendencies to the facilitation of simple tasks and the inhibition of complex tasks for easy or well-learned tasks, the dominant response- your reflexive response- is likely to be the correct response so, the presence of others, by facilitating your dominant response, facilitates the correct response & improves performance for difficult or novel tasks, the dominnt response is unlikely to be the correct response Mere presence or evaluation apprehension o Evaluated apprehension Peoples concern about how they might appear in the eyes of others- that is, about being evaluated o It is the concern about others as a source of evaluation, not their mere presence, that is responsible for social facilitation o Distraction-conflict theory A theory based on the idea that being aware of another persons presence creates a conflict between attending to that person and attending to the task at hand, and that this attentional conflict is arousing and produces social facilitation effects o Social loafing Tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task in which individual contributions cannot be monitored Group decision making Groupthink o A kind of faulty thinking by highly cohesive groups in which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the issues at hand is subverted by social pressures to reach consensus o Symptoms and sources of groupthink Strong directive leaders who make their preferences known sometimes intimidate even the most accomplished group members and stifle vigorous discussion Issue that must be decided is so stressful that groups seek the reassurance and comfort of premature or illusory consensus both strong leaders and drive to find consensus breed self-censorship the tendency to withhold information or opinions in group discussions o preventing groupthink more vigorous discussion is likely to take place if the leader refrains from making his or her opinions or preferences known at the beginning making sure the group is not cut off from outside input designate one person to play devils advocate- to be given every incentive to name any and all weakness in the groups proposed plan of action o groupthink in other cultures the drive toward harmony is greater in east Asian cultures such as japan than in the US groupthink can be so great in those places that even at scientific meetings there is rarely true debate or any other exchange that might appear confrontational or cause anyone to lose face in japan, they find out what each member think before the general meeting so that in the meeting, everyone is in consensus group decisions: risky or conservative? o Risky shift The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals would Group polarization o Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those made by individuals. Whatever way the individuals are leaning, group discussion tends to make them lean further in that direction Group decision has the effect of making people more inclined to go in the direction they are already predisposed to go o Two causes work in concert to produce group polarization Persuasiveness of the information brought up during group discussion You tend to have more arguments to whichever side youre predisposed to- risky vs safe The group discussion tends to expose the average person to even more arguments in favor of he position that the average person was already inclined to take Peoples tendency to try to claim the right position in the distribution of opinions within the group Humans have tendency to compare ourselves with everyone else People tend to think that they are farther out on the correct side of the opinion distribution on most issue o Valuing risk People must typically value risk over caution A risky shift after group discussion should occur more often among U.S. participants than among participants in other cultures that do not value risk as highly Polarization in modern life o When homogeneous groups come together, their discussions are likely to lead to even stronger attitudes than the ones the group members came in with Leadership and power Social hierarchies are a natural part of group life, as are leaders and people who are led Groups evolve into hierarchies because having leaders heps solve some of the difficulties inherent in group living Who becomes a leader? o Expertise and skill relevant to the goals of the group o Individuals who have the social skills to build strong, cooperative relations among group members also increase their chances of rising to positions of leadership o An individual who can provide rewards to the group is more likely to rise to positions of leadership o Individuals who selflessly share resources with others are actually more likely to rank highly in social hierarchies What is power? o Power is the ability to control our own outcomes and those of others; the freedom to act Related, but not synonymous with three other kinds of social rank Status The outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence, which in part determines an individuals power within a group It is possible to have power but not status (corrupt politician) And it is possible to have status without relative power (religious leader in a slow- moving line at the department of motor vehicles) Authority Power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements Power can exist w/o formal roles (within informal social groups) Dominance Behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring or demonstrating power Power can be attained w/o any attempt to establish dominance How does power influence behavior? o Approach/inhibition theory Theory that maintains that high-power individuals are inclined to go after their goals and make quick judgments whereas low-power individuals are more likely to constrain their behavior and attend to others carefully Yields two hypothesis First concerns the influence of power on how people perceive others High-power individuals are predicted to be a little less systematic and careful in how they judge other people High-power individuals are more likely to thoughtlessly stereotype others, rather than carefully attending to individuating information Experiment with drawing the E: individuals feeling a surge of power were much less likely to spontaneously draw the E in a way that took the other persons perspective- power reduces the ability to empathize Power should make people behave in disinhibited (less constrained) and at times more inappropriate ways Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac low-power individuals tend to inhibit themselves in a variety of ways individuals with little power often constrict their posture and dampen their expressive behavior they tend to refrain from speaking up: inhibit their speech and clam up and withdraw during group interactions elevated power is associated with increased antisocial behavior high-power individuals are more likely to violate politeness-related communication norms- they are more likely to interrupt, speak out of turn, and act rudely at work high-power individuals are more likely to tease in a hostile fashion o power seems to encourage individuals to express their underlying inclinations, both good and bad if the person inclined toward malevolent or competitive behavior, power will increase the likelihood of such behavior. If the person is more ethical and concerned about the public good, power will amplify the expression of those tendencies o Power corrupts the corruptible Deinviduation and the psychology of mobs Deindividuation and the group mind o Emergent properties of groups Behaviors that emerge only when people are in groups o Individuation The reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by diminished self-regulation that comes over people when they are in a large group A model of deindividuation o A deindividuated person is less aware of the self, more focused on others and the immediate environment, and hence more responsive to behavior cues- for good or for bad o People are more likely to engage in a host of impulsive behaviors because there is more of a push to do so, and because the constraints that usually pull them back from such actions are weakened Suicide baiting o Suicide baiting was more than twice as likely when the crowd size exceeded 300 o More than four times as likely if the episode took place after 6 p.m. o As people feel more anonymous, either by being lost in a large crowd or under the cloak of darkness, they are more inclined to taunt and egg on a potential suicide The conduct of war o Among cultures whose warriors changed their appearance before battle, 80% were deemed particularly aggressive o When warriors are disguised in battle, they fight more ferociously Self-awareness and ndivudation o Individuation An enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self, which generally leads people to act carefully and deliberately and in accordance with their sense of propriety and values o Self-awareness theory A theory that maintains that when people focus their attention inward on themselves, they become concerned with self-evaluation and how their current behavior conforms to their internal standards and values o Anything that focuses attention on the self, such as being in front of a camera, seeing ourselves in a mirror, or wearing a name tag may lead to individuation and make us particularly inclined to act carefully and in accordance with our sense of propriety
Chapter 13
Are human beings more aggressive than other species? No Hostile Aggression Any act of aggression whose primary motive is to inflict pain Instrumental aggression Any violence or aggression is being observable toward a larger goal American football, rugby, etc The distinction can blur in some cases In hockey, they let them fight until they get to the ice Antecedents (predictors) of aggression Heat o The hotter it is, the more violent/aggressive people are Gender o Men are more aggressive Frustration Alcohol o Does it indirectly o Alcohol is a disinhibitor Mere exposure to violent stimuli Media effect o will playing violent video games make you more aggressive or violent? A note on the survival value of aggression In social psychological research- with humans- we are generally interested in (relatively) more subtle cues that may lead people to aggressions
Mere exposure effect Overview of the berkowitz and page paradigm (modified milgram paradigm) o Real subject (who is designated to be the teacher) is given initial demonstration by experimenter of shocking apparatus One initial demo shock (not angered) Seven initial demo shocks (angered) o High vs. low anger towards experimenter Control You and button youre hitting and thats it Associated weapons Unassociated weapons Does catharsis work? Original Freudian perspective o Participation in violent sports should lower your aggression level What the data generally say o Three different types of studies Participation in violent sports Observing sports Direct aggression toward original source o Participation in violent sports make people MORE aggressive o So Freud was incorrectagain So: Venting is NOT A reliable way to reduce anger Well what does work? o Sounds corny, but its true: count to 10 o Explaining/communicating emotion to other person, not venting o Self awareness o Diffusion of anger through apology A preliminary remarks about media effects and violence Does playing violent video games make people more violent? o A lot of teen boys play violent video games dont turn out to be mass murderers Representative experimental study by Anderson and bushman Stage I: Participants randomly assigned to play violent video game vs. golf simulation video Stage 2: (ostensibly unrelated) competition with opponent in laboratory, with option to punish him/her on each trial Dependent variable: duration and intensity of white noise bursts Everyone acted in a more aggressive way Correlational approaches Examined correlation between amount of time playing violent video games (outside of a laboratory) and aggressive delinquent behavior (e.g. vandalism) R= 0.46 In such experimental designs, researchers often find additive effects of three variables In other words, three variables contribute to aggression, working on top of one another o Gender (males typically more aggressive than females) o Pre-existing trait aggression (people who score high are more aggressive than those who score low) o Media exposure (aggression higher when exposed to violent content) Rape and pornographic media Alternative perspectives on the antecedents of aggression The possible role of social rejection Basic idea: o Rejection-> threat-> psychological pain-> self-protective motive -> aggression Frustration-aggression hypothesis Original version of theory o Frustration-> aggression Levels of aggression related to: o How desirable the goal was o How much the goal has been thwarted o Past history of having the goal thwarted o How close the person was to achieving the goal A threshold model of aggression Not a formal theory, just a way of understanding how things can lead to behavior The aggression tank o The more its filled, the more likely you are to act in an aggressive manner o Gender If youre male, your aggression tank is higher o Personality o Recent experience with violent video games o Adding to the tank of aggressiveness could make it more likely that you reach a critical threshold of aggression needed to elicit a particular aggressive act (e.g. yelling at the clerk in a store) In theory, at least, any given person has his or her own thresholds for certain aggressive acts o But these thresholds are likely to be very different for different people warning! o This is NOT a formal model of aggression; this vastly oversimplifies many things o Rather, this is merely to highlight a number of general ideas: build up effects thresholds for action individual differences within-culture differences: the culture of honor the culture of honor o a culture that is defined by strong concerns about ones own and others REPUTATIONS, leading to sensitivity to slights and insults and greater willingness to use violence to avenge perceived wrongs or insults o The Duel Although duels are no longer common (at least as they once existed) the culture of honor can be seen in other aspects of our society (past & present) Overall, there is one segment of our society, in which, historically, one can see lingering evidence of the culture of honor: the south (and southwest). o Blumenthal et al. To what extent does a man have the right to Kill another man in self efense Nonsouth-> 57% South -> 70% Kill another person oto defend his family Nonsouth-. 67% South -> 80% Kill a person to defend his house Nonsouth-> 18% South -> 60% Extensions of the culture of honor construct o sins of the father scenarios jealousy male sexual jealousy o almost half of the 1156 women murdered in NYC between 1990-1994 were killed by husbands or boyfriends o male sexual jealousy appears to be key factor in spouse abuse Daly & Wilson (1988) argued that males will use violence and threats as strategies to limit their partners autonomy and so decrease the chance of infidelity. o Spousal homicide is common, especially for women who Have left their partners Have threatened to do so Have been suspected of planning or actually committing adultery Sexual jealousy- an evolutionary explanation of the differences beween male and female o Sex differences in jealousy Threats to ancestral man Cuckoldry The possibility that you (the man) are unwittingly investing parental effort in offspring that are not your own Uncertainty in paternity Extending scare resources on another mans offspring Threats to ancestral woman Lost of resources because of cheating mate Loss of emotional involvement o Scenario What would upset or distress you more Discovering that your partner is forming a deep emotional attachment an confiding and sharing confidences with another person Or Discovering your partner is having mind blowing sex with another person Forced choice method 70% of women indicate emotional infidelity to be more disturbing 40-60% of men report sexual infidelity would be worse
Book notes
Hostile aggression Behavior motivated by feelings of anger and hostility and whose primary aim is to harm another, either physically or psychologically Genocide in Rwanda Instrumental aggression Behavior that is intended to harm another in the service of motives than pure hostility People harm others to gain status, attract attention, acquire wealth, advance political and idealogical causes Many acts of aggression involve a mix of hostile and instrumental motives Situational determinants of aggression Certain circumstances and situations release peoples aggressive tendencies Factors that give rise to violence Heat o Anger literally raises the temperature of the body because of increases in blood pressure and the distribution of blood to certain parts of the body, such as the hands o As the temperature of the earth rises, people might expect to see increases in violence throughout the world o Misattribution perspective People are aroused by the heat, but they are largely unaware that it is the source of their arousal They blame the person, not realizing its the heat o Another possibility: heat triggers not just undifferentiated arousal, but specific feelings of anger in particular Media violence o Exposure to media violence increases aggressive behavior o Copycat violence Imitation of specific violent acts depicted in the media o People tend to be more aggressive after seeing films in which they identify with the perpetrator of the violent act o People are also more likely to be aggressive after watching violent films that portray justified violence- that is violence perpetrated against bad people o When participants are led to direct their attention away from the aggressive content of the violent film they are less likely to be aggressive Violent video games o Increases aggressive behavior o Reduces prosocial behavior, such as helping or altruism o Increases aggressive thoughts o Increases aggressive emotions o Increases blood pressure and heart rate, physiological responses associated with fighting and fleeing Social rejection and aggression Hearing someone gossip about us, seeing an acquaintances sneer or a contemptuous eye roll acquired the power to trigger this threat defense system and its associated feelings and tendencies, including the tendency to act aggressively o Chronic social rejection sets in motion a set of feelings that can lead to extreme aggression o Social rejection stimulates feelings of pain o Social rejection increases likelihood of aggression o People who report a chronic sense of rejection are more likely to act aggressively in their romantic relationships, even resorting or physical abuse Income inequality
Construal processes and aggression
The frustration-aggression hypothesis Frustration o The internal state that accompanies the thwarting of an attempt to achieve some goal Individuals act aggressively when they feel thwarted in their attempt to reach that goal Aggression increases in direct proportion to o The amount of satisfaction the person anticipates receiving from meeting the goal (before it is blocked) o How completely the person is prevented from achieving the goal o How frequently the person is blocked from achieving the goal o How close the individual believes he or she is to achieving the goal Target who was second in line and was cut by confederate was much more aggressive in response to the confederate who cut in line than the person who was 12 th in line Critiques o 1 st criticism has called into question the hypothesis that all aggressive behaviors follow from frustration, or the perceived thwarting of goal-directed activity o 2 nd critique is that frustration does not necessarily lead to aggression -> frustration can lead to other responses, depending on how the individual construes the source of frustration learned helplessness passive and depressed responses that individuals show when their goals are blocked and they feel that they have no control over their outcomes A neo-associationistic account of aggression Its not just having our goals blocked that leads to aggression; it is how we interpret the events that seem to have prevented us from reaching those goals Acts that we construe as intentionally harmful are more likely to make us aggressive than equally harmful acts that we construe as accidental Aversive event (pain, heat, goals blocked) -> anger (perceived injustice, thoughts of attack, elevated arousal) -> aggression (attacking physically, harming someone emotionally) Weapons and violence Guns serve as powerful cues that prime anger-related construals In experiment, participants who were primed to violent thinking/were shocked more in turn shocked the experimenter more Culture and aggression
Culture of honor A culture that is defined by its members strong concerns about their own and others reputations, leading to sensitivity to slights and insults and a willingness to use violence to avenge any perceived wrong or insult Prevalent in the U.S. South Cohen and Nisbett found that some southern employers actually expressed a good deal of warmth toward a potential job applicant who confessed to having been convicted of manslaughter after defending his honor Members of cultures of honor were frequently herding cultures in the past Rape-prone cultures They used rape as o An act of war against enemy women o A rituall act- as part of a wedding ceremony or of an adolescent males rite of passage to adulthood o A threat against women so that they will remain subservient to men Rape-prone cultures were more likely to have high levels of violence, a history of frequent warfare, and an emphasis on machismo and male toughness Rape is more prevalent in cultures whose women have lower status Evolution and aggression
Violence in stepfamilies Inclusive fitness o The evolutionary tendency to look out for ourselves, our offspring, and our close relatives together with their offspring, so that our genes will survive and be passed on in future generations Relations between stepparents and stepchildren tend to be more distant and conflict laden, and less committed and satisfying than relations between parents and their genetic offspring Gender and aggression Women see to exceed men in relational aggression o They gossip, form alliances, and exclude others o Hurtful emotionally Men have greater levels of physical aggression Men are 20 times as likely to kill other men as women are to kil other women
Conflict and peacemaking
Misperception Dehumanization o The tendency to attribute nonhuman characteristics to groups other than ones own- for example, by referring to them as rats, dogs, pigs, or vermin They tend to think of their own group as moral and good, and the other side as immoral and evil This is bad, because it o Justifies aggression o Leads opponents to overlook areas of agreement with each other Reactive devaluation o The tendency to attach less value to an offer in a negotiation once the opposing group makes it Simplistic reasoning and rhetoric The complexity of a position in a conflict is defined by two qualities o The level of differentiation, or the number of principles and arguments in the position o The level of integration or connections drawn between the different principles and arguments o Simplistic reasoning can lead to simplistic rhetoric which can contribute to escalating conflicts on the international stage Communication and reconciliation Simply allowing adversaries to communicate reduces levels of competition and aggression and increases the chances of finding satisfying resolutions to many kinds of conflict Moving toward a less violent world We are enjoying one of the least aggressive, most cooperative periods in human history One explanation for our broad cultural shifts in violence and the more humane treatment of our foes o The world has become substantially more interconnected: our interests are more intertwined with those of people from other communities, states and nations o This expanding interdependence has given rise to greater cooperation among nations, states, and communities Cooperation has short-circuited more aggressive tendencies and given rise to greater prosocial behavior. Altruism and Cooperation 4/22/2014 8:08:00 AM Chapter 14
Class notes
Altruism Commonly defined as selfless concern for the welfare of others Models of altruism Social rewards motive o Being altruistic helping others can often yield extrinsic rewards for the self Personal distress model o We may help others to alleviate our own distress Emphatic concern motive o The more pure form of altruism Is there a genetic basis for seemingly pure levels of altruism? (altruistic behavior that puts the self at grave harm with no apparent personal benefit) How can evolutionary theory explain such actions? How can evolutionary theory explain any action that seemingly reflects selfless The Selfish Gene View According to Richard Dawkins, apparent acts of self-sacrifice can be seen as ultimately selfish from the standpoint of your genes S ,this puts the apparently self-sacrificing behavior of the father in a new light! o So by sacrificing his own life to save the life of his son, one could argue that this act is selfish from the standpoint of ones own genes o In other words, the father is, in a sense, attempting to preserve the life of his own genetic codes, which are sternly shared with his son o It is the fathers genes that are programmed t survive, not the fathers individual body per se o This gene-centered view is sometimes referred to as the kin selection perspective Caveat (1) o No one is suggesting that altruism is completely under control of genetics. Social learning/norms play an important role too Caveat (2) o Its not simply a matter of predicting self sacrifice whenever you share a great deal of genetic overlap with someone o Most theorists would agree that the programming of our genes is contextualized within the overall goal for replication which we accomplish (in our lumbering-robot sort of way) through various behaviors such as sex and child rearing, etc Situational determinants of altruism: the legacy of the kitty Genovese case The bystander intervention effect o Involves at least 3 distinct components Attention People may not notice the emergency Construal People may not necessarily interpret it as an emergency, as such Diffusion of responsibility Even if people notice, and do construe it as an emergency, they may infer that someone else has already done something o Five crucial stages to L&D model Notice the event? Does the person notice that something unusual is taking place? The good Samaritan study Interpret the event as an emergency? Pluralistic ignorance Special case of conformity (informational) The smoke-filled room study Assume responsibility? Diffusion of responsibility The seizure study Know the appropriate form of assistance? Implement decision to act? All 5 stages need to be met or else no assistance is rendered?
Situational determinants of altruism: urban vs rural settings People are friendlier and more likely to help in rural settings Why are people more likely to help in rural areas? o Socialization hypothesis o Urban overload hypothesis Population density matters On the role of gender Women are more likely to receive help from others o Especially if shes attractive and dressed in more feminine ways o People may assume women may need more help than men o Male helpers may be more willing to help an attractive woman bc offering help may be a way to get romantically involved with her Inclusive fitness and kin selection, redux Kin selection, selfish gene evolutionary approach -> all the same o Food selection is more common amongst close relatives o Political alliances between kin are more stable than those formed between distantly related or unrelated individuals o The passing on of wealth to lineal descendants (excluding spouses) is far more common than giving to less closely related or unrelated individuals o Close relatives are preferentially sought out in times of need and such help is likely to be reciprocal o Relatives typically receive more expensive presents o How much pain will you suffer for your kin? o Facial similarity and trust o Human adoption
Book notes
Altruism Unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to consequences for the self When do we act altruistically, and when dont we?
Emphatic concern: a case of pure altruism First selfish motive: social rewards motive o Benefits like praise, positive attention, tangible rewards, honors, and gratitude that may be gained from helping others Second selfish motive: personal distress o A motive for helping those in distress that may arise from a need to reduce our own distress Emphatic concern o Identifying with another person-feeling and understanding what that person is experiencing- accompanied by the intention to help the person in need Empathy vs. personal distress Empathic concern and volunteerism o Feelings of empathic concern and sympathy increase the likelihood that people will act altruistically, helping those who suffer o Volunteerism Nonmonetary assistance an individual regularly provides to another person or group with no expectation of compensation
Situational determinants of Altruism The later you are, the less likely you are to help Bystander intervention o Giving assistance to someone in need on the part of those who have witnessed an emergency. Bystander intervention is generally reduced as the number of observers increases, because each person feels that someone else will probably Diffusion of responsibility o A reduction of the sense of urgency to help someone involved in an emergency or dangerous situation under the assumption that others who are also observing the situation will help Presence of friends increase altruistic action People are most likely to help when the harm to the victim is clear and the need is unambiguous The greater the costs associated with helping, the less likely people are to act altruistically Women tend to receive more help than men o more attractive women and women dressed in conventionally feminine attire tend to receive more help from passersby people are more likely to help similar others , including those from their own racial or ethnic group construal processes and altruism helping in ambiguous situations o when youre not sure whether the situation is dangerous or not, you tend to ignore it o pluralistic ignorance occurs when people are uncertain about what is happening and assume that nothing is wrong bc no one else is responding or appears concerned combating pluralistic ignorance o bystanders are less likely to fall prey to pluralistic ignorance when they can clearly see one anothers initial expressions of concern o how to get help make your need clear : Ive twisted my ankle and I cant walk, I need help select a specific person: you there, can you help me? doing so you prevent people from concluding there is no real emergency (thereby eliminating the effect of pluralistic ignorance), and you prevent them from thinking that someone else will help (thereby overcoming diffusion of responsibility) culture and atruism altruism in urban and rural settings o people in rural areas report higher levels of empathic concern social class and altruism o individuals who have less give more, at least in terms of the proportion of their income that they give away to charity religion, ethics, and altruism o emphasis on fairness and cooperation and equality, seen In both religious traditions and secular treatments of ethics, can do a great deal to elicit prosocial behavior evolution and altruism Kin selection o The tendency for natural selection to favor behaviors that increase the chances of survival of genetic relatives o You help your kin Reciprocity o Reciprocal altruism The tendency to help others with the expectation that they are likely to help us in return at some future time Reduces the likelihood of dangerous conflict, helps overcome problems arising from scarce resources, ad offers a basis for individuals to form alliances and constrain more dominant individual Cooperation Prisoners dilemma game o Cooperate vs deflect Situational determinants of cooperation o The cooperative or competitive outcomes in your relationships may, without your knowledge, depend as much or more on your behavior as on the behavior of the people you deal with. o Competitive people crate more competitive interactions and thus come to construe their counterparts as also being competitive Reputation The beliefs, evaluations, and impressions people hold about an individual within a social network Construal processes and cooperation o Exposure to the hostile words affected the participants actions o Competitive and aggressive images may foster a more competitive society Culture and cooperation o Interdependence increases peoples cooperation and generosity Evolution and cooperation: tit for tat o Tit for tat strategy A strategy in which the individuals first move is cooperative and thererafter the individual mimics the other persons behavior, whether cooperative or competitive Five factors make it especially compelling Its cooperative Encourages mutually supportive action toward a shared goal It is not envious It is not exploitable It is not blindly prosocial. If you defect on the tit-for-tat, it will defect on you It forgives Willing to cooperate at the first cooperative action of its partner, even after long runs of defection & competition Easy to read It should not take long for others to know that the tit-for-tat strategy is being played