Exam 3 Study Guide
Exam 3 Study Guide PSYC 2012
Popular in Social Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 25 page Study Guide was uploaded by Leslie Ogu on Wednesday April 6, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PSYC 2012 at George Washington University taught by Stock, M in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 22 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at George Washington University.
Reviews for Exam 3 Study Guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/06/16
Leslie Ogu PSYC 2012 Exam 3 Date: 04/11/2016 *Note: These include only notes from class lectures and slides. Definitions come from class, online, and the book.* DEFINITIONS ➔ Cognitive Dissonance Theory: discomfort that people feel when two cognitions (beliefs or attitudes) conflict, or when they behave in ways that are inconsistent with their perception of themselves ➔ Internal justification: reducing dissonance by changing something about oneself, which leads to attitude change ➔ External justification: a reason or explanation for dissonant behavior that resides outside the person, which leads to minimal attitude change ➔ Justifying Effort: the tendency to increase liking for something one worked hard to attain ➔ Postdecisional dissonance: dissonance aroused after making a decision ➔ Counter additional advocacy: publicly stating an opinion, attitude, or behavior that is inconsistent to one’s private attitude, behavior, or belief ➔ SelfAffirmation: the recognition and assertion of the existence and value of one’s individual self ➔ The Ben Franklin Effect: dissonance theory predicts we will like someone more after doing them a favor ➔ Prosocial Behavior: any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person ➔ Altruism: motive / desire to help another person even if it involves a cost (or at least no benefit) to the helper ➔ Norm of Reciprocity (or reciprocal altruism): the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood of them helping us in the future ➔ Kin Selection: behaviors that help ensure a genetic relative is favored by natural selections ➔ Social Learning Theory: helping is learned through observation and reinforcement ➔ Social Exchange Theory: maximizing rewards / benefits and minimizing the costs ➔ Negative State Relief Hypothesis: people help to alleviate their own bad mood ➔ Urban overload hypothesis: people living in cities are constantly bombarded with stimulation so they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed ➔ Bystander Effect: the more bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely they are to help ➔ Pluralistic ignorance: the state in which people mistakenly believe that their own thoughts and feelings are different from those of others, even though everyone’s behavior is the same ➔ Diffusion of Responsibility: each bystander’s sense of responsibility decreases as the number of bystanders increases ➔ Aggression: any form of intentional behavior aimed at doing harm to another person (who is motivated to avoid such treatment) ◆ Hostile Aggression: the harm inflicted is an end in itself (sole goal is to cause injury or death to the victim) ◆ Instrumental Aggression: the harm inflicted is a means to some other end (intentional use of harmful behavior so that one can achieve some other goal) ◆ Relational Aggression: manipulates social situations ➔ Biological Theories of Aggression ◆ Instinct Theory (Freud) : (Thanatos) instinctual drive toward death, resulting in aggressive behavior ◆ Hydraulic Theory: unexpressed emotions build up and are explosive ◆ Evolutionary Theory: aggression to environmental cues evolved over evolutionary time because aggression has helped our ancestors survive ➔ Testosterone: steroid hormone responsible for the development and maintenance of masculine characteristics ➔ Serotonin: chemical responsible for maintaining mood balance (deficit of it leads to depression) ➔ Social Learning Theory: we learn social behavior (including aggression) by observing and imitating and by being rewarded and punished ➔ “Culture of Honor”: emphasizes honor and social status for men, and aggression to protect that honor ➔ “Machismo”: meet challenges to masculinity via fighting/weapons ➔ Frustration: perception that you’re being prevented from attaining a goal ➔ FrustrationAggression Theory: frustration increases the probability of an aggressive response ➔ Excitation Transfer Theory: arousal created by one stimulus can be misattributed to a 2nd stimulus ➔ Weapons Effect: priming of hostile thoughts, memories, scripts ➔ Catharsis: the idea that observing or engaging in aggression relieves pentup aggressive tendencies, and thus makes one less likely to aggres in the future ➔ Social Scripts: approved ways of behavior when we are frustrated, angry or hurt ➔ Prejudice: A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguished group of people based solely on their membership in that group ➔ Stereotypes: a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of a group (regardless of actual variation among the members) ➔ Social categorization: tendency to mentally sort things / people into groups ➔ OutGroup Homogeneity: perception that outgroup members are more similar to each other than are ingroup members ➔ Evolutionary Psychology: prejudice may be the result of a tendency to favor genetically similar individuals ➔ Realistic Conflict Theory: limited resources lead to conflict between groups and result in prejudice / discrimination ➔ Relative Deprivation: feelings of discontent aroused by the belief that one fares poorly compared to others ➔ Scapegoating: tendency for people (when frustrated or unhappy) to displace aggression onto disliked, visible, and relatively powerless groups ➔ Institutionalized People: prejudicial attitudes are held by the majority of people living in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm ➔ Normative Conformity: people adopt prejudicial attributes and discriminatory behavior to go along with the group and gain acceptance ➔ JustWorld Theory / Blaming the Victim: slight tendency to believe that the world is just, so people get what they deserve and deserve what they get ➔ Social Identity Theory: we categorize ourselves and others into groups ➔ InGroup Bias: positive feelings and special treatment for people we have defined as being part of our ingroup; negative feelings and unfair treatment for others simply because we have not defined them as being in the outgroup ➔ Impact Bias: tendency for people to overestimate the length or intensity of future feelings in response to an emotional event ➔ Selfpersuasion: the act of persuading oneself to change their attitude or behavior ➔ Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another ➔ Empathyaltruism Hypothesis: empathetic concern produces altruistic motivation; if one feels empathy for another, they are likely to help the person proportionate the amount of empathy felt without selfish thoughts ➔ Altruistic Personality: a personality that has a strong concern for the welfare of others ➔ Implicit Association Test: a flexible task designed to tap automatic associations between concepts (such as math or arts )and attributes (such as good or bad) ➔ Jigsaw Classroom: a cooperative learning technique that reduces racial conflict among school children, promotes better learning, improves student motivation, and increases enjoyment of the learning experience ➔ Ultimate Attribution Error: make dispositional attributions about an entire group ➔ Illusory Correlation: tendency to see relationships (correlations) between events that are actually unrelated ➔ Stereotype Threat: a fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s own group (Steele & Aronson, 1995) ➔ Discrimination: an unjustified negative or harmful action toward the members of a group simply because of their membership to that group ➔ Racial Identity: the significance and qualitative meaning that individuals attribute to their racial or ethnic group ➔ Racial Socialization: the process of communicating behaviors and messages to children for the purpose of enhancing their sense of racial / ethnic identity, partially in preparation for racially hostile encounters NOTES (compilation of all notes from clas** if something has stars next to it, it’s best to understand it very clearly or pay close attention to it ** (Note: There are more pages than other guides as more information was covered) Justifying Our Actions Situations Where We Tend to Try and Justify Our Actions ➢ You are on a diet, and just ate an unhealthy meal at a fast food spot ➢ You spend a lot of money to a vacation spot and it ends up being a letdown ➢ You are asked to write a paper about God being real, but are an atheist Can Behaviors Affect Attitude? ➢ Cognitive Dissonance Theory ○ If a person can’t change the behavior, their attitude will often be changed to align with the behavior in order to reduce the dissonance ○ 3 Necessary Components 1. Feeling of personal responsibility a. E.g., negative consequences were freely chosen 2. Physiological Arousal 3. Attribution of Arousal to Own Behavior ■ Dissonance doesn’t arise specifically come from inconsistency. If a person can justify their behavior throughexternal reasons, dissonance is not aroused ○ The LessLeadstoMore Effect ■ If there are strong reasons for behaving in ways that contradict our attitudes, then: ● Dissonance will be low or nonexistent ● There will be no motivation to make our attitudes match our behavior ■ But, if there is no good reason for your counterattitudinal behavior, then: ● Dissonance will be strong ● There will be a strong motivation to make our attitudes match our behaviour Good Reason for hypocritical behaviour ⇒ Low Dissonance ⇒ Small Attitude Change No Good Reason for hypocritical behaviour ⇒ High Dissonance ⇒ Big Attitude Change ○ Ways to Reduce Dissonance ■ Change your attitude (“I don’t really need to be on a diet”) ■ Change your perception of the behavior (“I hardly ate any of that chocolate”) ■ Add new cognitions (“Chocolate is very nutritious”) ■ Minimize the importance of the conflict (“I don’t care if I’m overweight”) ■ Reduce perceived choice (“I had no choice the chocolate was prepared just for me!”) ■ Change behavior (Stop eating chocolate) ○ Dissonance and Smoking ■ See yourself smoking vs. smoking is unhealthy ● This leads to negative arousal people don’t want to behave in a way that will kill them ■ How do you reduce dissonance? ○ 3 Types of Cognitive Dissonance 1. Justifying attitudediscrepant behavior 2. Justifying effort 3. Justifying difficult decisions ○ Insufficient Justification ■ Internal justification ● Scientific importance (marginal) ● Participate in similar experiment (direction only) ■ External justification ○ Examples of Justifying Behaviors ■ Condom Use, Good deeds, Cheating, etc ○ Justifying Effort ■ Ex: careers; graduate school ○ Justifying Difficult Decisions ■ Postdecisional dissonance ● Reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluing the rejected ones ■ Once people make a tough decision (between two equallyappealing options), they tend to convince themselves that made the best decision ○ Using dissonance for the forces of good ■ Dissonance can be used to produce beneficial changes in behavior ● Ex: promoting nonsmoking; seatbelt use ■ Dissonance is especially useful when used to generate feelings of hypocrisy ● Counter additional advocacy ○ Dissonance and beneficial behavior change ■ For this strategy to work, several conditions must exist and the persons in question must: ● Publicly advocate the desired behaviors ● Be induced to think about their own failures to show these behaviors in the past ● Be given access to direct means for reducing dissonance Alternative to Dissonance Theory ➢ SelfAffirmation ○ An indirect strategy for reducing cognitive dissonance ■ Restoring positive selfevaluations / selfconcepts threatened by the dissonance ■ Reducing dissonance by adding cognition about other positive attributes ○ Accomplished by focusing on positive selfattributes (i.e., the good things about yourself) ■ Ex: “I broke my diet today, but I’m a friendly person” ● Works best for those “atrisk” ** The Ben Franklin Effect ➢ “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged” ○ Franklin reported this after he borrowed a book from a political opponent and the other politician became more civil towards him Helping Intro ➢ Prosocial Behavior ○ ** NOT always selfless ** ○ Requires an actual action or activity ■ Ex: The action of donating to a charity ➢ Altruism ○ Life or death situations usually altruistic Why Do We Help? ** ➢ Evolutionary Psychology ○ If the goal is to ensure our own survival, why should we help others at a cost to ourselves? ○ Why do we help nonkin? ■ Norm of Reciprocity (or reciprocal altruism) ● Adaptive strategy for our ancestors ⇒ becomes geneticallybased tendency ➢ Kin Selection ○ This means a gene that causes an individual to help genetic relatives is actually helping a copy of itself ■ Ex: People say they would be more likely to help their genetic relatives than their nonrelatives in lifethreatening situations ○ Kin are helped more than nonkin especially in lifeordeath situations ○ Females are helped more than males, except elderly female (postmenopausal) ○ Young are helped more than old ○ Healthy relatives helped more than nonhealthy in lifeordeath situations ○ In lifeordeath situations, relatedness matters (this assures our genes will continue) ○ In everyday helping situations, needs prevail over genes (helping those who actually need help) ➢ Social Learning Theory ○ Children learn to help by being rewarded ○ As people mature, reinforcements become less necessary ** ■ This is because they internalize the value of helping ➢ Social Exchange Theory ○ People will help when the rewards are high relative to the costs ○ Ex(s) of Rewards: social approval, feeling good about yourself ○ Ex(s) of Costs: physical danger, time, embarrassment, guilt Who Will Help? ** ➢ Gender Differences ○ Women are more likely to give longterm, nurturing help ○ Men are more likely to help in emergencies, especially when there is: ■ An audience, potential danger or a woman in need of help ➢ Religiosity ○ Religious people are only slightly more likely to help during emergencies ○ Religious people are more likely to provide “planned” help ■ Ex: volunteering, giving to charity ➢ Mood ○ Good moods can lead to helpful behavior ■ Ex: tips on a sunny v. cloudy day ■ Ex: Isen and Levin (1972) study done where dime was left in return slot of telephone ● Those with the dime were more likely to help the confederate pick up papers (84%) opposed to those who didn’t get the dime (4%) ■ Why do good moods predict prosocial behavior? ** ● Helping maintains good mood ● Good moods make us see the good in people ○ Positive Thoughts ⇒ Positive Behavior ● Good moods increase selfawareness ○ More likely to act in accordance with our values ○ ** Bad moods can sometimes lead to prosocial behavior ** ■ Negative State Relief Hypothesis (form of prosocial behavior) ■ Exceptions: people who are very depressed or angry do not tend to help much ○ Guilt ■ feelings of guilt tend to increase the likelihood of helping ■ Churchgoers are more likely to contribute to a charity before confession than afterward ■ “Breaking” a camera increases the likelihood of helping a completely different person Similarity ➢ We are more likely to help those similar to us (Ingroup v. Outgroup) ➢ We like those similar to us ○ Liking lecture and shared birthday study Good Samaritan Study ➢ Princeton Theological Seminary students that were either early or late to give a talk across campus about the old parable of the Good Samaritan ➢ Each of them encountered a man (actor) slumped in a doorway who was coughing and groaning ➢ Results: ○ Time was the main determinant if someone helped or not ■ 63% of participants helped when not in a hurry ■ 10% stopped to help in a rush ■ Those instructed to give the speech about the Good Samaritan speech were twice as likely to help ● However, most didn’t provide help in a hurry Situational Influences ➢ Rural v. Urban Environments ○ Ex: staged injury experiment ■ Small Town About 50% of pedestrians offered to help ■ Large City about 15% of pedestrians offered to help ➢ Why is there such a big difference? ○ Urban overload hypothesis ■ Immediate surroundings matter more than internalized values Bystander Effect ➢ Five Steps to Helping ... or Not Helping (Bystander Intervention) ***** KNOW FOR EXAM ***** 1. Noticing the Event a. Preventions of Step 1 i. Distraction other people distract our attention ii. Manners we don’t stare at others; we keep our eyes to ourselves 2. Interpreting the event as an emergency a. Preventions of Step 2 i. Ambiguity ii. Pluralistic ignorance 1. Specifically, bystanders assume nothing is wrong in an emergency because no one else looks concerned 2. Ex: Smokefilled room study a. Most people in groups continued to work on the questionnaire as they coughed and waved smoke away with their hands b. People would look at others (saw that they were working diligently) and kept working c. They assumed the smoke was from: i. A leak in the air conditioner ii. Steam pipes iii. Chemistry labs in the building iv. Truth gas 3. Assuming Responsibility a. Preventions of Step 3 i. Diffusion of Responsibility 1. When people are alone, they feel responsible 2. When people are with others, everyone places the responsibility on everyone else 4. Decide How to Help a. Why don’t people help? i. Don’t want to appear foolish b. Preventions of Step 4 i. Lack of knowledge and competence 5. Deciding to Implement the Help a. Preventions of Step 5 i. Legal Problems 1. Ex: not giving someone CPR because you may do it wrong ii. Embarrassment (audience inhibition) iii. Personal Danger ➢ How Can Helping Be Increased? (Increasing the likelihood that bystanders will intervene) ○ Reduce ambiguity ○ Increase responsibility ○ Increase selfawareness ○ Give specific instructions ○ Teach people about the bystander effect ○ It only takes one person to increase helping from others Aggression Aggression ➢ Keys of Aggression: ○ Intentional Behavior ○ Aimed at another person ○ Victim wants to avoid harm ➢ NOT JUST VIOLENCE ➢ Types of Aggression ○ Hostile ■ Ex: punching someone in a fight ○ Instrumental ■ Ex: muggings, football ○ Relational ■ Ex: excluding someone from a group ➢ Gender Differences ○ Males are more violent than females in virtually every culture ever studied ■ Men commit the vast majority of murders ■ Men comprise the large majority of murder victims ○ Boys play more aggressive games ○ Boys like more violent books ○ Even infant boys show more anger ○ Men tend to be more physically/overtlaggressive ■ More violent crimes, such as rape and murder, more aggressive games ○ Women tend to be more relationally/covertlaggressive ■ More exclusion, gossiping ● Ex: Mean Girls movie ○ Circumstances matter ■ Provocation v. No Provocation ➢ Theories of Aggression ○ What explains these gender differences? ■ Physical Characteristics? ■ Social Roles? ○ Biological v. Learned Theories of Aggression ■ Biological Theories of Aggression ● Instinct Theory (Freud) ○ Energy must be turned into something positive/useful ● Hydraulic Theory ● Evolutionary Theory ○ Should aggress less towards genetic relatives ■ Children living with a stepparent are much more likely to be fatally abused than children living with both biological parents ● Biological Factors ○ Genetic ■ Temperament ○ Neural ■ Amygdala stimulation related to aggression ○ Aggression Related Hormones ■ Testosterone ● higher levels = more aggression ■ Serotonin ● lower levels = more aggression ○ Social Learning Theory (this is seen especially with kids) ■ When aggression is rewarded, it’s more likely to be repeated / imitated ■ Direct and vicarious learning ■ Ex: A bully beats up a kid and gets his lunch money (reward) ■ Ex: Bandura’s Bobo Doll Studies ** ● Experimental condition children observed adult beat a “Bobo” doll ● Control condition Did not observe this ● Children were then left in room to play with toys, including Bobo ● Results Those who observed the adult imitated the aggressive behavior; Children in the control condition almost never abused the doll Alcohol ➢ Why does alcohol affect aggression? ○ Lowered inhibitions ○ Use more primitive brain structure ■ Reduced cerebral cortex activity ■ Increased midbrain (limbic system) activity Who/What Do We Learn From? ➢ Parents ○ Ex: Physically punitive parents (parents who inflict punishment) tend to have physically aggressive children ➢ Society/Culture ○ Ex: Rape victim sentenced with 200 lashes in Saudi Arabia, honor killings, gang initiation and culture of violence, etc ➢ Media ○ Exposure to violent TV/video games tend to increase aggression Sources of Aggression ➢ We must also consider situational influences ➢ “Culture of Honor” ( seen more in the South) ○ “Machismo” ○ Southern duels, responses to an insult, pitchers from the South versus North ➢ Frustration ➢ FrustrationAggression Theory Other Factors That Influence Aggression ➢ Aversive Situations ○ Pain ■ Ex: In an experiment conducted, participants held on hand in lukewarm water or painfully cold water ■ Participants in cold water condition were more irritable / more likely to aggress ● Blasted others with loud, unpleasant noise ○ Heat ■ More violent crimes committed in summer months ■ Riots are more likely to occur on hot days ■ Ex: In an experiment, participants in a hot room were more likely to report feeling aggressive or hostile on questionnaires ○ Arousal ■ Excitation Transfer Theory ● Ex: Arousal from exercise, violent movies, a frightening situation, etc. can be attributed to emotions like anger which can lead to aggression ● Ex: In an experiment, participants who were both aroused (from exercise) and angry gave higher shock levels to the other people ○ Aggressive cues/stimuli ■ The presence of objects associated with aggression can increase the probability of aggression ■ Weapons Effect ● Ex: Children who played with toy guns were more likely to knock down another child’s blocks ● Ex: College students delivered more electric shock when a gun was nearby than when a badminton racket was nearby ● Experience with weapons influences aggressive thoughts ○ Pictures of hunting guns were more likely to prime aggressive thoughts among nonhunters, whereas pictures of assault guns were more likely to prime aggressive thoughts among hunters (Bartholow et al., 2004 experiment) ○ All of these factors can lead to aggression through: ■ Aggressive thoughts (e.g., scripts) ■ Negative affect/mood ■ Hostile attribution ○ Influences on Aggression ➢ Aversive Situation ⇒ Aggressive Cognition or Negative Emotion or Arousal ⇒ Aggressive Behavior ○ Aggression is complex ○ Result of: ■ Biological factors (e.g., testosterone) ■ Learned factors (e.g., imitation) ■ Personal factors (e.g., arousal) ■ Situational factors (e.g., heat) Aggression and Catharsis ➢ Most people believe that catharsis reduce aggressive tendencies ○ Ex: Therapists have clients hit pillows to vent their anger ○ People report that it works and that it is calming ➢ Case Against Catharsis ○ It doesn’t work ■ Verbal expressions of hostility ■ Aggression toward inanimate object ■ Viewing violent media ● Focus of today’s lecture ○ Ebbeson’s Study ■ Workers were laidoff OR voluntarily left their job ■ Exit interview ● Verbalized hostility toward supervisor OR Talked about neutral aspects of their job ■ Completed evaluation of supervisor ● It was more positive for those who were angry and allowed to vent ○ Bushman’s Research ■ 600 College participants ● All were angered by another participant who criticized their essay ■ Independent Variable(s) ● Rumination (hit punching bag while thinking about other participant) ● Distraction (hit punching bag and think about physical fitness) ● Control Group (no punching bag) ■ Dependent Variable(s) ● Aggression (blast provocateur with loud and long noises) ● Anger (mood measure) ■ Catharsis theory prediction: Venting participants less aggressive ■ Results didn’t support catharsis theory ** ● Participants in the rumination condition were the most angry and aggressive ○ Why doesn’t catharsis work? 1. Watching violence on TV, or acting aggressively, “teaches” us how to aggress (social learning theory) 2. Observing aggression increases arousal, and hence the likelihood to behave aggressively 3. If aggressing feels good, that reward makes it more likely that aggression will happen again in the future Media Violence ➢ 26% violent acts/hour in Saturday morning children’s programs ➢ 92% of pay cable network programs contain violent content ➢ 60% of all TV shows contain violence What is NOT Being Said ➢ All TV / video games are bad ➢ The effect of media violence on aggression is simple and direct ➢ Media violence affects everyone the same way and to the same extent How Do We Find the Answers? ➢ Main sources of data ○ Correlational studies ○ Longitudinal studies ○ Experimental studies ➢ Metaanalysis ○ Presents a picture of the overall pattern of results across studies ○ ALL of the metaanalyses conducted to date (starting in the 1970s) support the hypothesis that exposure to violent TV increases the risk of subsequent aggressive / antisocial behavior ○ Study: ■ Anderson et al., 2010 metaanalysis: across multiple countries, over 130,000 participants ● Violent videogames = higher aggressive behavior ■ Effects for experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies and for boys and girls Correlational Studies ** ➢ Consistently find that the more violent TV a child watches, the more aggressive the child tends to be ○ Get into more fights, have more arguments with teachers, greater hostile attribution bias ➢ This relationship remains even when pulling out the influence of other variables (e.g., intelligence, family characteristics) ➢ Among college students, playing violent video games is related to aggressive and delinquent behavior ○ r = .46!! (quite high) ➢ But what if the direction is reversed? Longitudinal Studies ** ➢ Violent TV watching predicts later aggression, but aggression doesn’t predict later violent TV watching ○ Measured both aggressiveness and TV watching at ages 8 and 19 ○ TV at 8 predicted aggressiveness at 19 ○ Aggressiveness at 8 did NOT predict TV at 19 ➢ High levels of violent video game play early in a school year leads to higher levels of aggression 36 months later, controlling for initial aggression level ➢ 2008 Study: 364 American children ages 912 and 1200 children ages of 1218 from Japan Experimental Studies ** ➢ Children watched a violent or nonviolent TV program ➢ Then played a game of floor hockey ➢ Kids who saw the violent program were more aggressive ➢ Similar findings with college students ** ○ Those who played a violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior (especially those who are prone to the behaviors) ➢ Numbing people to difficult, violent, and unpleasant events ➢ Increases indifferences to real victims of violence ➢ Repeatedly dehumanizing the “enemy” in games can affect how players regard real people ➢ Why does watching media violence have these negative consequences? ○ Increases physiological arousal and excitement ○ Triggers an automatic tendency to imitate hostile or violent characters ○ Primes existing aggressive ideas and expectations ○ Models social scripts Why Might Videogame Violence Have an Even Larger Effect Than Other Media? 1. Identification with aggressor increases imitation of the aggressor 2. Active participation increases learning 3. Rehearsing an entire behavioral sequence is more effective than rehearsing only a part of it 4. Violence is continuous 5. Repetition increases learning 6. Rewards increase learning Konjin & Colleagues (2007) “I Wish I Were a Warrior” Experiment ➢ Participants: Adolescent boys ➢ IV: type of video game played ○ Violentrealistic ○ Violentfantasy ○ Nonviolent realistic ○ Nonviolent fantasy ➢ DV: level of noise blast given to “partner” on a reaction time task ➢ Want to be a positive role model / character = lowest level of blast Parallels with Cigarettes and Lung Cancer ➢ Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker ➢ Smoking is not the only factor that causes lung cancer, but it is an important factor ➢ The first cigarette can be nauseate. Repeated exposure reduces these sickening effects, and the person begins to crave more cigarettes. Reducing Media Effects: What Works? ➢ Media training with children ○ Those who produced a video for other kids about dangers of TV were less likely to show increases in aggression after exposure to violent media ➢ Parental Monitoring & Guidance ○ Viewing AND discussing media violence with children ○ Just viewing media with children has mixed effects ** Prejudice / Stereotypes / Discrimination Variety of Prejudice ➢ Race, Gender, Religion, Ethnicity, Age these are all common topics of study for prejudice ➢ BUT any group can be a target ** ○ Political groups, colleges, fraternities, trekkies (fans of Star Wars), freshman, etc ABC’s ➢ Prejudice = Affect, Attributes ➢ Discrimination = Behavior ➢ Stereotypes = Cognition, Beliefs ➢ Often cooccur but not always ** What is Prejudice? ➢ Based on generalizations ➢ Often faulty or incomplete information ➢ Felt or expressed ○ Selfmonitoring ○ Microaggressions ➢ Direct or subtle ○ Hate crimes v. Preferences ➢ Can result in feelings of helplessness, powerlessness, and anger ➢ Consequences ○ Damages selfesteem ■ Clark and Clark Doll Study (1947) ● AfricanAmerican children (young as 3) given option of playing with a black or white doll ○ Rejected the black doll ○ White doll was perceived to be prettier and generally superior ● Lesson: It wasn’t desirable to be black ■ Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ● Desegregation of schools Stereotypes ➢ Cognitive component ** ○ Ex(s): New Yorkers, farmers, dumb blondes, jocks, librarians ➢ How are stereotypes learned? ○ Social Learning Family, friends, media ○ Prejudice also can be automatically activated may influence behavior ➢ Can be positive or negative ○ Ex: “African Americans are good at sports” or “African Americans are better dancers” ○ Ex: “Asian Americans are good at math” ➢ Can be inaccurate, accurate, or partially accurate ➢ Consequences of overgeneralization ○ Denies people of their individuality ○ Creates standards not every member of the group meets ○ When negative, results in overall poor impression of the group and has consequences for the individual ■ Ex: “African Americans are criminals” ■ Ex: “Asian Americans are bad drivers” ➢ Automatic Processing ➢ Evolution ○ Need to quickly detect threats ⇒unconscious, immediate categorization along dimensions such as age, race, and sex ○ Wired to think stereotypically ➢ People can describe stereotypes whether they believe them or not ** ➢ People’s behaviors can be influenced by stereotypes whether they believe them or not ** ➢ Distort Perception ➢ Ignore or give insufficient weight to info that doesn’t fit ➢ 2Step Processing 1. Stereotypes automatically activated by perception of a member of a group 2. Deliberately taking time to think about stereotype and our actions (disregard, ignore, etc) ➢ Not deeply prejudiced ⇒possible to suppress, override, or change stereotypes ➢ Conscious and effortful process ➢ How do stereotypes form? ○ Social categorization ■ Makes the world easier to think about (cognitive misers) ■ Automatic ○ Leads to OutGroup Homogeneity ○ We have more contact with our ingroups across different situations and contexts ○ Individuals enhance their selfesteem by identifying with specific special groups ■ Selfesteem is enhanced if the individual sees their group as superior to other groups The Activation of Prejudice ➢ Behave more aggressively toward stereotyped target when: ○ Stressed ○ Angry ○ Suffered blow to selfesteem ○ Not in control of conscious intentions ➢ What contributes to prejudice? ○ Learning / Socialization ■ Evolutionary Psychology (survival mechanism) ■ Most social psychologists: Prejudice is learned ** ● Children pick up on their parents’ attitudes ● Media messages ● Do these attributes persist into adulthood? ○ Competition ○ Realistic Conflict Theory ○ Relative Deprivation ■ Ex: Mexican American migrant workers and Caucasians (jobs) Immigration debates ■ Arabs and Israelis (territory disputes) ○ Stereotypes of Chinese Americans ** ■ Gold Rush Depraved, vicious, inhuman ■ Transcontinental Railroad Industrious, lawabiding, trustworthy ■ End of Civil War Conniving, crafty, criminal ○ Scapegoating ■ No logical competitor exists ■ Blame falls on a less powerful outgroup ■ Ex: Nazis treatment of Jews ○ Institutionalized People ■ Can be blatant (e.g., racial segregation) or more subtle (e.g., “flesh” colored crayon) ○ Normative Conformity ■ Illustrated by changing social norms ○ Motivational Needs ■ Need for Control ● JustWorld Theory / Blaming the Victim ● People don’t want to think that their fate is dependent on chance factors ● Thus, we sometimes blame the victim Social Identity and Activation Theories ➢ What stereotypes activate MAY depend on category chosen ➢ If person becomes member of ingroup, may change stereotypes Consequence of Social Categorization ➢ Social Identity Theory ○ We sort the world into groups that we belong to (ingroups) and groups that we do not belong to (outgroup) ■ Ex(s): country, religion, school, brown/blue, eyes video ■ Why? Selfesteem ■ Group SelfServing Bias InGroup Bias ➢ Even when groups assigned randomly and we know it is random ➢ Ex: Football victories “We won” InGroups v. OutGroups ➢ Robber’s Cave Study (Sherif, 1961) ○ 11 and 12 year old boys at camp divided into groups (Eagles and Rattlers) ○ Competed against each other for prizes in various activities; then were made to work together ■ Resulted in fierce and vicious hostility between groups ■ Displayed ingroup favoritism / cohesiveness How do stereotypes persist? ➢ Social cognition ➢ Stereotypeconsistent information is processed more quickly and remembered better ➢ Stereotypeinconsistent information is discounted or dismissed ➢ Ambiguous information is interpreted to fit the stereotype ➢ People seek out information that confirms their stereotypes (confirmation bias) ➢ Ultimate Attribution Error ➢ Stereotypeconsistent behavior Dispositional ** ➢ Stereotypeinconsistent behavior Situational ** ➢ Positive Behavior ○ Dispositional for ingroup ○ Situational for outgroup ➢ Negative Behavior ○ Situational for ingroup ○ Dispositional for outgroup ➢ Illusory Correlation ○ Most likely to occur when the events of people are distinctive ■ Distinctiveness leads to the creation of an illusory correlation which is then applied to all members of the group ○ Ex(s): mentally ill assassins, sexually promiscuous athletes, Muslim terrorists, etc ➢ Confirmation Biases and Selffulfilling prophecies (as discussed in earlier classes) ** ➢ People seek out information that confirms their original hypothesis. Thus, we tend to only find information that is consistent with our stereotypes. ➢ Our expectations about others can lead us to act in ways toward them that causes them to behave in ways consistent with our stereotypes ➢ Interview Studies ○ Study 1: When job applicant was Black, interviewers: ■ Sat further away, ended interview 25% sooner, made 50% more speech errors ○ Study 2: Interviewees who were treated like Black applicants: ■ More nervous, less effective performance, perceived interviewer as less adequate and friendly ➢ Stereotype Threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995) ○ Stereotype is made visible; Fear of confirming stereotype; Performance decreases ○ Study: AfricanAmerican and White participants administered the same SATType test ■ Diagnostic condition ■ Nondiagnostic condition ■ Results: AfricanAmericans performed worse than Whites when under threat (diagnostic contribution) ○ Universal Phenomenon: positives and negatives stereotypes ■ Gender, SES, White males compared to Asian males, Black athletes compared to White athletes ○ Ex: Women are not as good at math as men are ■ 2 Conditions: ● 1) Women were told that a test shows gender differences in math ability; 2) Other women were not told this ● Women did worse when under the stereotype threat Discrimination ➢ Stereotypes and prejudices can ultimately manifest in behavior ➢ Blatant acts generally less frequent ➢ Many convert forms: ○ Nonverbal behavior, Microaggressions, Institutionalized forms ➢ Impact ○ Internalizing Symptoms ■ Ex(s): depression, anxiety, selfesteem ○ Externalizing Behaviors ■ Ex(s): anger and hostility, aggressive behaviors ○ Physical Health Problems ■ Ex(s): increased blood pressure and adverse cardiovascular response ○ Academic Problems ■ Ex(s): academic achievement, selfconcept ➢ Protective Factors Against Racial Discrimination ○ Racial Identity ■ Identification to one’s racial/ethnic group ■ Perceiving one’s group positively ■ Feeling close to members of one’s group ○ Racial Socialization Reducing Prejudice ➢ Contact Hypotheses Groups need to interact OR have repeated contacted ➢ Problem Contact does NOT guarantee liking ➢ Conditions for contact to reduce prejudice: *** ○ Mutual Interdependence ■ 2 or more groups depend on each other to accomplish a goal important to each of them ○ Common Goal ○ Equal Status ○ Friendly / Informal Setting ○ Multiple Contact with Multiple Members ○ Social norms promote equality ➢ Superordinate Goal = unite different groups and require cooperative effort ** ➢ Back to Robber’s Cave ○ Eliminating competition wasn’t enough ○ Hostility wasn’t reduced until both groups have to cooperate to overcome a shared obstacle
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'