Study Guide for Exam 3
Study Guide for Exam 3 PSY 3623
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Bio 111 - Fundamentals of Biology II
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 15 page Study Guide was uploaded by Jessica Cox on Tuesday April 12, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PSY 3623 at Mississippi State University taught by Kristina Hood in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 33 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at Mississippi State University.
Reviews for Study Guide for Exam 3
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: 04/12/16
Exam 3 – Outline Chapter 13 – Prejudice & Stereotyping ABC’s of prejudice & Stereotyping o Affect = Prejudice Hostile or negative attitudes toward a distinguishable group of people o Behavior = Discrimination Unwarranted hostile behavior toward a member of a specific group o Cognition = Stereotyping Generalization about a group of people o Big difference between knowing stereotypes and endorsing them (being prejudice) o However, both can be dangerous and have negative social consequences Stereotype formation o Categorization Tendency to group similar things together Based on Schemas (schema formation) We innately classify people into groups o Focus on how members of these groups are similar and ignore individual differences Perceived similarities = stereotypes Consequences o View others as in-group or out-group In-group = a group we belong to (us) Out-group = a group we don’t belong to (them) o “Us” vs. “them” distinction leads to two group biases In-group bias Tend to like members of our in-group more than out-group members Assume group members have more positive qualities Out-group Homogeneity Effect Perceive more variability among in-groups than out-groups o Preserves stereotypes In other words, we ignore individual differences when we make categories, but not for our own group More opportunities to learn about individual differences with our own group Easier to recall specific individuals when thinking about our own group Interpretation of ambiguous behavior o Vague behaviors are interpreted in stereotype consistent ways o In effect, the world you see is overpopulated with people acting stereotypically o Ex) the rockstar was unhappy with the amount of alcohol at the party vs. the nun was unhappy with amount of alcohol at party o Memory Processes Encoding o Attend to stereotype-consistent information o Stereotypes can be used to fill in gaps Storage/ Organization o Stereotype consistent information grouped together Retrieval o If memories stored in stereotype consistent ways, retrieved that way also o Stereotypes and perceptions Perceptions are biased in a stereotype consistent manner Stereotypes can lead to perceptual errors Weapon misidentification tasks Maintaining Stereotypes o Ultimate Attribution Error Out-group members o Negative behaviors = dispositional o Positive behaviors = situational In-group members o Positive behaviors = dispositional o Negative behaviors = situational o Linguistic Intergroup Bias – positive in-group descriptions & negative out-group descriptions are abstract & vague, while negative in- group descriptions & positive out-group descriptions are specific & observable (stereotype maintenance) o Sub-typing Tendency to view stereotype-inconsistent individuals as “exceptions to the rule” – ex) nerdy jock Prevents your stereotype schema from being disconfirmed o Self-Fulfilling Prophecies – Begin to believe you fit the stereotype placed on you Stereotypes provide ready-made expectations which can contribute to self-fulfilling prophecies o Is stereotyping inevitable? If we can’t get rid of stereotypes, can we think about stereotypes through the lens of what we learn as culture? Can we do anything without being influence by stereotypes? o Stereotypes and behavior Dissociation Model (similar to MODE model) – be able to explain o We all have stereotypes, but only some people are prejudice Endorse stereotypes o Our stereotypes can be automatically applied to targets o If motivated and able to control prejudice, however, people can do so o High and low prejudice have same knowledge about stereotypes Ambiguous situation, both will apply stereotype auto o Low prejudice people inhibited automatically activated stereotypic thoughts and replaced them with egalitarian thoughts o Implication of this When we encounter out-group members, we automatically apply our stereotypes to them However if we are motivated and able we can correct before application Awareness of Conscious control of cultural stereotype cultural stereotype YES YES Low prejudice individual YES NO High prejudice individual o Gilbert and Hixon Difference between activation and application Devine used activation by priming Will people stereotype on their own Found: o In busy world, stereotypes might be less likely activated o If they do get activated in busy world, more likely to be applied to targets o Self-esteem and Stereotyping Spencer et al. o Subject’s self-esteem was manipulated using false- feedback o Found that low self-esteem subjects were more likely to activate their stereotypes, even under load o Showed that when given a chance to apply stereotypes, low self-esteem subjects felt better about themselves o Thought Suppression Write about skinhead Some told to suppress stereotypical thoughts o Sat further away than those that didn’t suppress o Stereotype “rebounded” o Effects of being stereotyped Stereotype threat Fear of confirming a negative stereotype o In a situation where the stereotype is relevant, and thus confirmable Ex) women are bad at math May produce anxiety and negative feelings that interfere with performance Ex) when black students thought the test measured intelligence, they became nervous that they would perform more poorly and confirm a stereotype o This led to overall poorer performance on the test Attributional ambiguity – Uncertainty in explaining others’ behaviors because of one’s group membership Negative behaviors – due to stereotypes and prejudice o Protects self-esteem Positive behaviors – unsure whether behavior is genuine or due to fear of appearing prejudice o Self-Esteem changes Black participants had positive and negative when unseen equally, when seen positives fell o Downside of stigma self-protection May lead to skepticism about positive outcomes May prevent learning from feedback Affirmative action and ambiguity about causes of success Modern Prejudice o Subtle form of prejudice that surfaces in less direct ways Whenever it is safe, socially acceptable, or easy to rationalize o Many people are racially ambivalent o Maintain prejudice attitudes while acting “unprejudiced” o Where does it come from? Realistic Conflict Theory o Competition for limited resources leads to conflict and prejudice Economic, political, military, prestige-related o Competition can be real or imagined o Ex) sports teams, rivalries, war, Republican v Democrat Social Identity Theory o Group membership has implications for our self- esteem o We want to be members of the best group Enhance our own group (in-group love) Derogate other groups (out-group bias) o Prejudice is inevitable o All that is needed for prejudice to begin is Social categorization Inclusion of self into one group or the other Minimal Group Paradigm o Subjects are randomly assigned to one group or the other o They are then put in a situation where they can help or hurt members of their own or other groups o Seem to spontaneously favor the groups to which they belong Personality Factors o Authoritarianism - Rigid thought, submissive to authority, and aggressive toward out-group members o Social dominance orientations Endorse a hierarchy in which some groups dominate other groups o Solutions to prejudice Contact Hypothesis (know the necessary conditions) o Promoting contact between groups will lead to prejudice reduction o See the other person’s unique positive qualities and stop viewing them in a stereotypical fashion o Conditions Equal status Cooperative environment Common goals Support of authorities, law, or customs Relatively high levels of intimacy Opportunity for friendship formation Contact with a variety of group members in a variety of situations Bottom line o Knowledge of stereotypes does not mean a person is prejudice, but can be detrimental People have a tendency to automatically activate their stereotypes, and may automatically apply them as well Furthermore, knowledge of in-group stereotypes can be harmful o Prejudice has become more subtle due to social norms of equality, but has not disappeared o Can reduce prejudice by gaining knowledge and information about others and overcoming stereotypes The Classics (be able to explain them) Social Influence o The ways in which people are affected by the real or imagined presence of others o Yielding to influence obedience, conformity, compliance Milgram Study o Test obedience o Learner is strapped in to shock generator o “Teacher” subject of experiment is told to inflict shock when the “learner” incorrectly answers the experimenter’s question o Predicted only 1 in a 1000 would go all the way to end of the dial 2/3 went all the way (complied) – 67% o Variations o Change setting to office building – 47% went all the way o Victim in same room – 40% o Victim needs to be touched – 30% o Remote experimenter 20% o Participant “experimenter” – 19% o Dissenting confederates – 10% o No commands given – 2% o Outcomes How were the participants affected (mental state, etc.)? o May have shown distress but still did it o Hysterical laughter, crying, arguing with the experimenter How did this study affect the ethical approach to research? o Little research on obedience due to ethical concerns o Demonstrated that we all have the potential to be influenced by authority figures to do things we never thought we would be capable of, and this depends on situation not our character o People obey because o Socialization o Gradual escalation – participants got test shock so gradual escalation didn’t seem so bad because their test shock didn’t really hurt o Disobey because early resistance prevents rationalization Teaching disobedience o Focus on your responsibility o Models of disobedience make disobeying easier o Dissenting confederates provide social support o Learn to question motives and competence of authority o Education really works Obedience and conformity o Obedience occurs in strong social situations Authority figure, direct orders o Conformity occurs in weak social situations Internally motivated Know Zimbardo’s study (Prison Experiment) o 12 prisoners and 12 guards randomly assigned o Deindividualization o Prisoners became submissive to guards and guards took on authoritative role o Given batons for status so makes prisoners feel powerless o Uniforms – guards like real guards, prisoners in baggy smocks with chain around one ankle o Sunglasses for guards to prevent eye contact o Guards call prisoners by their number not name o Revolt from prisoners on day 2 by blocking the doors, fought back with fire extinguishers o 36 hours – 1 prisoner began to act crazy and had to be released b/c really suffering o Guards began to use psychological tactics to make prisoners feel submissive o Ended after 6 days because got to out of hand o Zimbardo even became absorbed by the experiment o Similar results as Milgram o Situation rather than dispositional attribution o Guard felt they needed to show dominance, prisoners were dehumanized which resulted in loss of personal identity Know Asch’s (1956) Line judging experiment o One test subject in room with five other knowing participants o Choose same line as others even if know is wrong Yields to group influence “They must be right because more than him” “Why should I make waves” o When one participant says what subject is thinking Drops to 5% yielding rather than 37% Warmth and good feeling, but say they didn’t play a role in their own decision o Variation – writing answer o Still exposed to misleading info, but immune from being judged o Reduce conformity percent – drops by 2/3s o Social Impact Theory o Number – size of group Larger the group, the more likely to conform o Strength – importance of the group o Immediacy – proximity of the group o Other factors that lead to conformity Awareness of group norms No allies in dissent Interdependent group or context We are social animals, and as such, we are influenced by the situation and those around us The presence of others may cause us to blindly obey, or we may want to conform in order to “fit in” The influence of others can be overcome if we consciously refuse to obey and conform Chapter 14 – Group Processes Groups vs. collectives (define and contrast) o Group – collection of people who have direct interactions over an extended period of time and who share a common fate o Collectives – collection of people engaging in a common activity but who have little interaction with each other Norms – rules of behavior for a group; prevailing beliefs/values/attitudes Formal (laws) and informal (traditions) o Large part of social behavior concerns figuring out the norms for any given group o Social Roles – set of expected behaviors that certain individuals perform Formal (treasurer) or informal (the funny-one) o Cohesiveness – forces that push group members closer together Positive vs. negative factors that encourage cohesiveness Positive – group rewards Negative – punishments for leaving Weak bonds – class project group Strong bonds – immediate family ties Important factors: commitment to group task, attractiveness of members, group pride Abu Ghraib o Iraq war – army and CIA violated human rights against detainees o Physical and sexual torture o What was similar Feel authoritative Situation can make good people do bad things Deindividualization, dehumanization, role playing, group conformity o What was different No supervision Group formation o Why do groups form? By default – family groups, people on a bus, students in a class Other important reasons: Achieve a goal that cannot be achieved alone Increase social status Rebel Express values and beliefs o Social Identity Theory Person’s sense of who they are based on their group membership Groups in which a person belongs to is source of pride and self-esteem Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world. People derive benefits to self-esteem by virtue of their group memberships Self-esteem benefits – idea that favoring in-groups over out-groups enhances our self-esteem o Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Want to be an individual and unique, but also want to belong and be part of a group Resolve the two conflicts, choose distinct groups that are not all inclusive Motivation for inclusion (want to belong) vs. motivation for differentiation (once inclusion is satisfied, the need for differentiation is activated because have to competing desires) o 5 stages of group development Forming – the group forms Storming – each member tries to shape the group to meet their own needs Norming – compromises are made, rules of conduct are set Performing – members perform tasks Adjourning – members disengage from the group o Triplett 1897-1898 First social psychological experiment Had children wind fishing reels alone or while in groups Children faster in groups Impact of groups on individuals - deindividuation o The loss of a person’s sense of individuality o Groups create an atmosphere where deindividuation is likely o Can lead to deviant behaviors which would not have occurred with individuals acting alone o Group characteristics that promote deindividuation: Similar appearances (uniforms) Members disguised (masks) Individual decision making discouraged (following orders) Appeals to cohesiveness (team spirit) o How does it work? Accountability cues When we are not personally accountable, we are more likely to engage in deviant behaviors More people = less accountability for any given member Attentional cues When our attention is not focused on the self, we are less likely to act in line with our internal standards Being in a group can reduce self-awareness (hence reducing the effect of self-discrepancies) o The more people are deindividuated, the more they will go along with the group o If the group is engage in positive behaviors, this a good thing o Typically hear about situations in which groups produce deviant behaviors Social Facilitation o Completion of tasks in groups enhances performances or success Relative to performance alone o Sometimes the presence of others decreases performance o Presence of others: beneficial vs. harmful o Cockroaches and Social facilitation Cockroaches run simple or complex mazes to escape bright light Alone or in presence of “spectators” Easy task – ran quicker in presence of others Difficult task – roaches ran quickly when alone Theory -> presence of others creates arousal Alert and vigilant, valuation apprehension, distraction Arousal increases dominant response, which is the most likely response to a given situation Dominant response depends on the task Easy task – not difficult, well-learned o Dominant response = success Hard task – difficult, not well-learned o Dominant response = failure Social Loafing o Some studies show seemingly opposite pattern of results Easy tasks associated with poorer performance Hard task associated with better performance o Absence of arousal o Situations in which being in a group makes you relax as you perform You can fade into the crowd Decreases dominant response o Examples of fading into a crowd: Doing a group project and given a group grade Clapping in a crowd Singing happy birthday in a crowd o Contrast social loafing and social facilitation Arousal vs. relaxation The degree to which individual performance will be evaluated Social facilitation Takings exams, shooting baskets Social loathing Singing happy birthday, group project Social Facilitation Hard Task + + + + + Individual Performanc e Not Evaluated Groupthink – maintaining group solidarity and cohesiveness influences decision-making processes (many times for the worse) o Ex) Bay of Pigs (Kennedy) o What circumstances promote groupthink? Normative conformity Dissonance reduction Social proof/validation o Risk factors High cohesiveness Group isolation Directive leader High stress Highly similar members o Symptoms Illusion of invulnerability Self-censorship – individuals decide not to express doubts or bring up info that goes against the group’s plan and views Pressure on dissenters to conform Illusion of unanimity o Consequences Poor information search Failure to examine risks of chosen alternatives Failures to develop contingency plans Bad decisions much more likely Group Polarization – tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of the individual members o Risky shift – tendency for groups to take more risks than would individually o Persuasive arguments interpretation – individuals become more convinced of their views when they hear novel arguments in support of their position Lean toward side with greater amount of info o Social comparison interpretation – occurs because individuals’ desire to gain acceptance and be perceived in a favorable way by their group Take position similar to group but a little more extreme How to avoid groupthink and group polarization? o Encourage/ force discrepant opinions o Have individuals with a variety of different viewpoints o Seek anonymous opinions o Use systematic procedures for making decisions Bottom line o It has been said that group behavior is more than the sum of its parts o It may be more correct to say that group behavior is the sum of its parts, but that those parts (people) are fundamentally different when in groups Chapter 9 – Prosocial Behavior / Altruism o Prosocial behavior – any act performed with the goal of benefitting another person May receive benefit or not o Altruism – any act that benefits another person but does not benefit the helper May even pose some risk to the helper o Egoist – benefit from helping others o Why do people help? Evolutionary explanations o Kin selection – preferential helping of genetic relatives, so that genes held in common will survive o Reciprocity Norm – helping others increases the likelihood that they will help you o Cooperative Groups – help in-group members more than out- group members In-group bias Social Exchange Theory o Assumes that people will be motivated to help only when the benefits outweigh the costs o Do not believe in pure altruism o Rewards: increases chances of being helped in future, increase social approval, increase your self-esteem or mood, relieve distress o Costs: risking own resources (health, wealth, time), helping “incorrectly” and being blamed, embarrassment from helping when unnecessary, and being exploited by others in the future o Says … Empathy allows us to experience other’s joy more deeply (empathetic joy model) Empathy makes us feel horrible, and we are motivated to increase our mood by helping (negative state relief model) Shows that always benefit for doing something good Empathy – Altruism Hypothesis o Pure altruism does exist, but only in certain situations o Empathy = a state un which you take on the feelings of others o Tested this hypothesis by manipulating both costs of helping and empathy o Experiment – Watch other person get shocked, would you switch High empathy = highly similar confederate Low empathy = highly dissimilar confederate High cost = difficult escape, had to watch the remaining shocks Low cost = easy escape, finished watching the confederate get shocked When empathy is high, altruism motivates helping behaviors When empathy is low, costs/benefit analyses decide helping behavior Personal factors to helping (be able to explain how each might influence helping) Altruistic Personality Type Helpful across all situations, don’t take into account personal harm; genetic component for helping (twin study) Social Learning Theory Helping Role Model A role model can influence how someone acts presently or in the future Cultural Norms Mood (good or bad) When in good mood more likely to help others (would finding a dime brighten day, would they help pick up papers if happier) o When do people help? Situational Factors 5 stage model of helping behavior o Noticing Realize someone needs help; pay attention Ex) give lesson on Good Samaritan Parable v Other Parable, some have to rush to get to next location o Do they stop to help man o Parable had no effect, based on hurry o Interpretation See event as emergency in which help is needed, then will help Pluralistic Ignorance – when think emergency happened, you look around to see how everyone else is reacting (conformity) Catch is that they are all calmly looking to you for the same reason End result can often be that people assure themselves that there is no emergency o Assuming responsibility Bystander Effect / Diffusion of Responsibility Decide whether or not you are responsible to help Bystander Effect – more people present decreases the likelihood of a single person actually providing help o Diffusion of responsibility – other person should help o Knowing how to help – if assume responsibility, you will only provide help if you know what to do and feel that you can actually do it If have special skills then can help directly If don’t have special skills, help indirectly o Deciding to implement help (this is where the ‘why to help’ factors come in to play Given that you know what to do, you still need to decide if you will help Important factors: Cost/benefit ratios, Empathy, Normative pressures, Reciprocity, Similarity, Attractiveness, Communal vs. exchange To induce helping Draw others’ attention to your situation, Make clear what you need help, Make it clear who must help, Tell the person how they can help, Try to facilitate their help attempts
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'