Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to UA - PY 372 - Study Guide - Midterm
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to UA - PY 372 - Study Guide - Midterm

Already have an account? Login here
Reset your password

UA / Psychology / PSYCH 372 / persuasion study guide

persuasion study guide

persuasion study guide


School: University of Alabama - Tuscaloosa
Department: Psychology
Course: Social Psychology
Professor: William hart
Term: Fall 2016
Tags: persuasion, groups, Prejudice, and Aggression
Cost: 50
Name: Exam 2 Study Guide
Description: Contains lecture material from chapter 7-10. If you have any questions or if there are any issues with the study guide, feel free to email me!
Uploaded: 10/21/2016
17 Pages 7 Views 27 Unlocks

Exam 2 Study Guide

What are the best ways to present message to an audience?

1) Yale approach to persuasion (this covers everything on Who says What to Whom − Who: speaker effects

˗What makes a speaker more persuasive—credibility and likeability  

˗ Credibility

˗ Perceived expertise about the message

˗ Experts are believed more than non-experts

˗ Trustworthiness: speaker lacks vested interest in the issue

˗ The speaker has nothing to gain by persuading you about something and  doesn’t have a hidden agenda; they just want to provide information

˗ The speaker speaks quickly and without hesitation, and speaks fluently;  doesn’t say “uh” or “um” when speaking

˗ Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZHnQb6CV3A 

˗ Good commercial because it has:

˗ Credibility—as someone who uses the product, she is obviously an expert ˗ Trustworthiness—She just wants to talk about the benefits of the product  and doesn’t really gain anything from it, as opposed to if the creator were to  try to persuade you to buy it

Delayed impact of a message that occurs when we remember the message but forget who said it.


˗ Physical appeal (attractiveness)

˗ Similarity and relatability

˗ Ex:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXh5h9DBExM&index=33&list=PL2B73 A382291A18C5 

˗ Good commercial because it has:

˗ Physical attractiveness—the MAC user was made to appear more attractive  (in this case, cooler) than the PC user We also discuss several other topics like ann randall csu

˗ Similarity and relatability—the MAC user is made to be more relatable  than the PC user. The MAC user acts more like a young adult would  

(through his mannerism and the programs that he focuses on). The PC user  is less relatable to young adults

˗Major exception to speaker effect

˗ Sleeper effect: delayed impact of a message that occurs when we remember  the message but forget who said it (the source)

˗ Makes people more likely to believe what they read in tabloids and other  non-credible sources

What are the factors that reduce persuasion?

− What: message effect

˗What are the best ways to present message to an audience

˗Two-sided appeal: presenting both sides of an argument to the audience ˗ Two-sided appeal can lead to more persuasion when

˗ The audience is or will become aware of both sides

˗ The audience disagrees with you

˗ Can backfire when the audience is already on your side

˗ Use of a two-sided appeal can lead to confusion or cause the audience to  consider the opposition

˗ One-sided appeal would be more ideal for persuasion here

˗Primacy and Recency Effects

˗ Primacy effect: Information presented in the beginning is most persuasive ˗ Important when both arguments/messages are presented together or back  to back

˗ Recency effect: Information presented at the end is most persuasive ˗ Important when there’s a delay or break between the arguments/messages ˗ Ex: Imagine a magazine decided to publish your essay on a debated topic along  with the essay of one of your adversaries

˗ The editors ask whether you want your essay presented first or second.  Assuming you want to convince the readers of the position, what do you  say? We also discuss several other topics like arh2000 uf

˗ It depends on when the essays would be presented

˗If they are in the same issue, right after each other, you should  

go first (primacy effect)

˗ Or if they are in different issues, a month apart, you should go  

second (recency effect)

˗Fear Appeals: messages that rely on fear to persuade people

˗ Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMP7pkmvgP4- Australian Anti Smoking Ad (pretty graphic/gross, wouldn’t recommend watching if you can’t  handle that kind of stuff)

˗ Fear appeals are successful at promoting change, when

˗ Using a small amount of fear

˗too much can cause people to tune out the your message

˗ Using a fear appeal + a solution that leads to change

˗So don’t just scare people, tell them how they can change

˗ At the end of the Australian anti-smoking ad, it gives a website  

people can go to help them quit smoking

− Whom: audience affect

˗ Traits and personalities of audience members affect how they take in a message ˗ The mood of the audience when receiving a message can influence persuasion ˗ A positive mood may lead to greater persuasion

˗ People often misattribute their mood to something salient in their  environment

˗ A person in a good mood will misattribute their mood to the idea being  expressed or the product being sold

˗ Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNqo1sWfUoA- Fanta Commercial

˗ A fun commercial that puts people in good mood. It doesn’t have any real  argument why you should buy it over other drinks, so it persuades people  to buy Fanta by putting them in good mood

˗ Getting people to do certain movements can lead greater persuasion If you want to learn more check out shelly schreier

˗ Getting people to do motions that represent affirmation (shaking their up and  down for example) can persuade people to agree with a message

˗ Wells and Petty study

˗ Participants were told they were testing headphone by making either  

vertical head movements (shaking their head yes) or horizontal head  

movements (shaking their head no) while listening to an editorial

˗ Those who had been nodding their heads up and down agreed with the  editorial more those shaking their heads no

− Individual disposition

˗ Need for closure: people high in this need dislike change are hard to persuade or  change

− Personality of the audience

˗ Some people are just more agreeable, and thus are easier to persuade

2) ELM: Elaboration Likelihood Model (what is it, what does it postulate, etc.) − A modern approach to persuasion

− Petty and Cacioppo (1986)

− There are two possible processing routes that can cause persuasion:

˗Central route processing: Effortful processing; focuses on the effect of argument  quality

˗ Peripheral route processing: Effortless processing; “peripheral” cues (those not  pertinent to the argument; e.g., expertise or attractiveness of speaker) If you want to learn more check out developmental psychology exam 3

− Central Processing

˗ Must have motivation to use—issue is considered important

˗ Must have ability to process—knowledgeable about message and not distracted − Peripheral Processing

˗ Not motivated—issue isn’t important

˗ Ability—not knowledgeable and distracted

− If you want to persuade people, which route is best?

˗ It depends:

˗ If you want a long-lasting attitude change, then use central processing ˗ Use peripheral cues if the argument is weak

˗ Use strong messages when the audience is analytical (people who like to  think)

˗ Use peripheral cues when your audience is uninvolved, unmotivated, or not  analytical

3) Factors that reduce persuasion

− Being forewarned that people will try to persuade you

˗This way you’ll be ready and prepared

− Being knowledgeable on the topic so you can argue against points made by the  persuader

− Making a public commitment to your position

− Having an ally in your position

˗ People sometimes believe that they’re only one with a certain view, having an ally  makes it easier to resist persuasion

− Don’t live in a bubble

˗ Attitude inoculation: exposing people to weak attacks to their attitudes so that  when stronger attacks come, they will have counterarguments available

˗ Understand that there are views and attitudes different from your own

4) Minority influence, what it is, how it can happen Don't forget about the age old question of physics 103 uw madison

− Minority influence is how a minority (as in numbers, not racial/ethnic minorities) can influence the majority (the group)

− Minority influence stimulates a deeper processing of arguments, that forces other  people in the group to reconsider or at least think about their positions  

− Minority influence happens through

˗ Consistency

˗ in order for the minority to be able influence the majority, they must be  consistent

˗ They can’t waver in their opinions or no one will ever agree with them ˗ Ex: Moscovici blue/green study

˗ If a minority of participants consistently judges blue slides as green,  

members of the majority will occasionally agree

˗ But if the minority wavers, saying “blue” to one-third of the blue slides and  “green”

˗ Self-confidence

˗ By being firm and self-assured, the minority could influence the majority to  reconsider its position

˗ Defections from the majority

˗ When a minority consistently questions the group decision, majority members  feel freer to express their own doubts

˗ But, a minority person who defects from the majority is even more  We also discuss several other topics like ua kine

persuasive than a consistent minority voice (Levine, 1989)

5) Triplett (1898)

− Discovered that the mere presence of others can enhance performance—social facilitation

− In his experiment he told his participants to wind a string on a fishing reel as fast as  they could

˗Those who were around other people wound the string faster than those who did it  alone

6) Social facilitation (how does it affect performance, why, when)

− Social facilitation enhances performance when in the presence of other people − The presence of others produces arousal and this arousal helps you perform better ˗But, only on easy or well-learned tasks, because arousal increases dominant  responding

˗ Ex: a professional basketball player would have no trouble making free throws  when around other people; but the average person would have a much harder  time

7) In social facilitation, what factors contribute to the production of arousal? − Mere presence of others

˗ Our bodies must always be alert and attentive

− Distraction: conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the  task

˗ Distraction overloads our cognitive resources and leads to arousal

˗ Distracting things, like bursts of light and loud noises, also increase arousal and  dominant responses

− Evaluation Apprehension: concern for how people are evaluating us

˗ If we can’t be evaluated however, there may not be a social facilitation/inhibition  effect

˗Ex: good looking woman and jogger experiment

˗ In this experiment, a woman was sitting on a path that jogged along

˗ In one trial, the woman was facing the joggers, in another she was facing away  from them

˗ When the woman was facing them, the joggers ran faster than they were before 8) Daschiell (1930)

− Found that the mere presence of others disrupts or hinders performance (e.g.,  completing a maze or complex math problems): social inhibitions

˗This would happen on harder or more complex tasks

9) Zajonc (1965)

− Discovered that the presence of others produces arousal (physiological state) − Arousal increases the likelihood of dominant responses

˗ Dominant responses are responses that are likely to occur in a situation (habits,  responses that are automatic)

˗They are our natural, go-to, gut response and habits

− On subjectively easy or well-learned tasks, the dominant response is usually correct ˗ So the presence of others is more likely to enhance performance

− On difficult or novel tasks, the dominant response is likely to be incorrect ˗ So the presence of others is more likely to hinder performance

− Experts tend to shine in front of crowds while novices don’t

− Ex: Michael’s pool hall study

˗ In this study, good pool players made 71% of their shots when they were not being  observed and did even better (80%) when being observed

˗ Poor shooters made 36% of their shots when they were not being observed, and did  even worse (25%) when closely observed.

10) Social loafing (why it happens, consequences of it, when it happens, etc.); how to prevent it − Social loafing: the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts  toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable

− Consequences

˗ People just give less effort when performing in a group

˗Ex: Rigelmann: tug of war study

˗ In this study, people exerted less effort in pulling the rope when they were in  group and that a combined effort was needed to win than when they were doing  it alone

˗Free riding: members do less than their share of the work but still still reap the  benefits  

− People loaf because

˗ People are less motivated to give their full effort

˗ People feel less responsible or accountable for success or failure in groups ˗ Able blame failure on others

˗ Also, other people can take credit for success

˗ People feel they are not needed or that somebody knows more than them ˗ A group situation decreases evaluation apprehension

˗ People are not accountable and no one can evaluate their efforts.

− Social loafing be eliminated by

˗ Making individuals responsible for specific tasks

˗ Making task more challenging, involving or fun

˗ Making people feel their contribution is important for success

11) Risky shift: decisions become risker after group discussion

12) Group polarization (why, when, how it occurs, consequences of it)

− Group polarization: group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies;  a strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not split within the group ˗ group discussion with like-minded others makes each group members preexisting  views more extreme, and the group judgment more extreme

˗ So, if many people in a group are already cautious, whatever decision they make as  a group are going to be even more cautious

˗ And, if many people in a group are already risky, whatever decision they make as a  group are going to be even riskier

− Group polarization occurs because

˗ People learn new supportive arguments in that group

˗ Active participation in a group solidifies views

˗ People get validation from their group

˗ Knowing that others also endorse their views makes people feel strongly about  their views

˗ Publicly expressing a view strengthens that view

− Consequences

˗ Can lead to overall risky decisions and behaviors

13) Group think (why, when, how it occurs, consequences); how can we prevent it; − Groupthink: the deterioration of group judgment produced by striving for consensus ˗ People in the group are more concerned with getting along or being liked than  about being correct or doing the right thing

˗ The group also suppresses dissent in the interest of group harmony

− Symptoms of groupthink

˗ Illusion of invulnerability: thinking that the group is invulnerable or can’t make  bad decision

˗ Comes from being overconfidence, and

˗ unquestioned belief in group’s morality

˗ Conformity pressure: pressure to follow the group’s decision

˗ Self-censorship: censoring one’s own beliefs or views or withholding one’s  disagreement about decisions

˗ Illusion of unanimity: thinking that the group’s decision was unanimous ˗ Rationalization: the group discounts challenges by collectively justifying their  decisions

˗ Mindguards: protecting the group from disagreements or anything that questions  the group’s decisions

˗ Stereotyped view of opponent

− Consequences

˗ Groups may make poor choices that seem devoid of careful thought

˗ Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_t44siFyb4 

− Preventing groupthink

˗ If you’re a boss/leader, be impartial and don’t endorse a position

˗ Encourage critical evaluation; assign a “devil’s advocate” to the group who will  question every decision made

˗ Subdivide the group

˗ When in larger groups, people are more likely to conform to others

˗ Encourage and welcome criticism from outside experts or associates

˗ Don’t put yourself in a position to be rushed to make a decision

14)Janis & Mann’s Guidelines for effective group decision-making

− Consider a wide range of objectives

− Consider a wide range of courses of action

− Intensely evaluate alternatives

− Correctly consider new information and expert advice

− Consider all possible consequences of chosen and not chosen options

− Provide detailed description of the chosen course of action

15) Deindividuation (why, when, how it occurs, what does it do)

− When in groups, people often feel less identifiable and self-aware

˗ A mirror increases self-awareness, groups do the opposite

− Occurs when

˗The size of the group is large (because people feel less identifiable)

˗ Ex: Mann (1981)

˗ Analyzed 21 cases where crowds were present as someone threatened to  jump from a building or a bridge

˗ When the crowd was small and exposed by daylight, people usually didn’t  try to bait the person and tell them to jump

˗ But when a crowd was large or formed at night, the crowd usually did bait  and jeer

˗When a person is physically anonymous

˗ Ex: Diener (1976)  

˗ Observed children trick-or-treating, either alone or in groups

˗ At a house, an experimenter told them to take one piece of candy and left  the candy unattended

˗ Children in groups were more than twice as likely to take extra candy as  solo children

˗ Also, children who had been asked their names and where they lived were  less than half as likely to transgress as those who were left anonymous.  

˗Engaging in arousing and distracting activities

˗ Aggressive outbursts by large groups often are preceded by minor actions that  arouse and divert people’s attention

˗ Diener has shown that activities such as throwing rocks and group singing can  set the stage for more disinhibited behavior

− Feelings of deindividuation leads to the abandonment of restraint in groups and less  accountable for actions

− Causes people to act without thinking about their own values, and be more responsive  to the situation

˗ Leads to things like riots and looting

16) Stereotypes vs. prejudice vs. discrimination (differences, similarities between these concepts) − Stereotypes: beliefs about the attributes of a group of people

˗The cognitive component of liking or disliking (prejudice) a group—concerning  with thought processes

˗The good: a shortcut to understand people

˗The bad: often overgeneralized (“all the people in this group are…”), sometimes  inaccurate, and highly resistant to change

− Prejudice: an unjustifiable negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people,  based solely on their membership in that group

˗The affective component of prejudice—concerned with feelings

− Discrimination: unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group or its members ˗The behavioral component of prejudice—concerned with actions

− Similarities

˗Both prejudice and discrimination have to do with unjustifiable negative actions or  attitudes

− Differences

˗ Unlike the other 2, stereotypes can be negative or positive

˗ All have to do with different components of attitude (the ABC’s of attitude— affective, behavioral, and cognition)

17) Modern racism (characteristics, consequences)

− A more subtle form of racism; less visible or blatant

− Characteristics of modern racism

˗Believe it’s wrong to be prejudiced and hold negative stereotypes about a racial  group

˗Believe racism no longer exists

˗Believe that certain groups have been pushing too hard for equal rights (since  racism no longer exists)

˗Believe that the government has given certain groups too much preferential  treatment

− Better than average effect is seen in perceptions of racial prejudice

˗Recent Gallup poll asked people first if their friends are prejudice and then if they  are prejudice

˗ 44% of people said their friends are high in prejudice

˗But only 14% of people rated themselves as high in prejudice

− Racism is less blatant, but still there

˗Televised Confrontation Study (Duncan, 1976)

˗ IV: Video of argument in which (a) a White man shoved a Black man OR (b) a  Black man shoved a White man

˗ DV: Ratings of both men’s behaviors (e.g., violent behavior, playing around,  overly dramatic)

˗ Results: Percentage defining behavior as violent; 13% said that the behavior  was violent when the aggressor was white, but 72% said that the behavior was  violent when the aggressor was black

18) Clark & Clark (1947)

− Self-hatred study with dolls

˗When black children were asked which dolls they would prefer, the white doll or  the black doll, most chose the White

˗ Led to the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision (1954) that declared  segregated schools unconstitutional

˗ The study was flawed

˗There isn’t much support for self-hatred

19) Causes of prejudice (“cognitive/cold” vs. “motivation/hot” theories of stereotyping and  prejudice)

− Cognitive: how we process information

˗ learning prejudice in a passive way (by forming associations)

˗ Direct observation of others (and their behaviors)

˗ Ex: a kid sees their mom lock the car door when driving through a  

neighborhood where a lot of Latinos lives and the kid learns to fear Latinos ˗ Real or perceived norms about how people of certain groups should act and  behave towards each other

˗ Ex: people may believe that people of different races shouldn’t interact with  each other because of their tradition or because “that’s just the way it’s always  been”

˗ Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK1IgqTNV1M (video is pretty long,  but you don’t need to watch all of it to get the idea—that people should only  associate with people of the same race)

˗Media: movies and sitcoms often reinforce stereotypes

˗ Place people in stereotypical roles

˗ Ex: People of color are under-represented in leading hero roles, but are over represented in villain roles—think about the amount of black or Latino super  heroes there are in films vs the amount of black and Latino drug dealers or  gangsters  

˗Tendency to categorize “in-group” vs “out-group”— “with me” or “against me” ˗ In-group: “Us”, group who shares a sense of belonging and a feeling of  common identity

˗ Ex: UA students

˗ Out-group: “Them”, group perceived as distinctively different from or apart  from the in-group

˗ Ex: Auburn students

˗ Out-group homogeneity effect: perception that out-group members are all  similar

˗ Able to recognize the diversity in in-group members but view all out-group  members as the same

− Motivational: Feeling good about ourselves

˗ Social Identity Theory (Tajfel): our self-concept and self-esteem is influenced by  group membership

˗ And we use membership to maintain positive self-view

˗ In-group bias: tendency to favor one’s group, the in-group (and dislike the out group

˗Minimal group paradigm studies (Tajfel): used to investigate the minimal  conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups

˗ Create groups that have no social reality (randomly place people in groups) and  observe how these groups identify with their own group and discriminate  against another

˗ Ex: Klee & Kandinsky study

˗ Students were asked which abstract painting they preferred

˗ They were then told (falsely) by the experimenter that based on the  

paintings they chose, that they like Klee or they like Kandinsky

˗ They were then given the option of giving $4 to the opposite group and $3  to their group or giving $2 to their group and $1 to  

˗ Choosing the first option would mean giving a higher amount of money to  the opposite group, but both groups would receive more money, choosing  the second option would give your group a higher amount of money, but  

both groups would receive less money

˗ Most people chose the 2nd option

˗Suggesting that people are willing to give favor to their in-group  

no matter the consequences

˗ (Realistic Group) Conflict theory: actual competition for resources or competing  goals between groups leads to conflict that then fosters stereotyping and prejudice ˗ Ex: In the US, concerns about immigrants taking jobs are greatest among those  with the lowest incomes (example from the book)

˗ Scapegoat theory: when the cause of frustration is vague, hostility and aggression  are redirected to an easy target

˗ Ex: correlation between lynchings and cotton prices from 1882-1930—as  cotton prices decreased the amount of lynchings against slaves increased

˗Belief in a just world (just world phenomenon): comforting belief that the world  is just and that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get

˗ Ex: People who have this belief may believe that rape victims behave in a  certain way that justifies it (e.g. dressed a certain way, drank too much, lead  them on, etc.)

20) Effects of Prejudice on the Recipient

− Behavioral conformation feeds prejudice

˗Behavioral conformation: our expectations lead us to act in ways that cause others  to confirm our expectations

˗Ex: if your boss expects that you will be lazy based upon your group membership,  they will give you less work

˗ You, in turn, do less work

˗ And your boss can say they were right all along

˗Ex: If you’re interacting with a black person, and you expect them to be hyper aggressive, they’re likely to become aggressive as result of your behavior towards  them

21) What does it means to say stereotype activation happens automatically? Given the current  research, does this statement seem true?  

− This basically just means that when we see a person and we try to understand them or  process information about them, stereotypes that we know are automatically  triggered and unconsciously influence impressions

− But also, people have the ability to 2nd guess those impressions and decide whether or  not to accept these stereotypes

− This process is called the dissociation model of prejudice

22) Stereotype threat: a disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will  verify the negative stereotype

− The salience of stereotypes and token status

− Ex: Steele, African Americans and SAT study

˗When filling their race on the sheet right before taking the SAT, African American  students performed pretty poorly

˗But when they filled in the race part after taking the test, they performed better 23) Self-fulfilling prophecy:

− A belief that leads to its own fulfillment

˗With prejudice and discrimination—expecting members of a certain racial group to  be act a certain way could cause them to act in accordance with your beliefs ˗ See Word et al.

24) Word et al., 1974: Interview Study

− Was a 2 part experiment

− In part 1, White male volunteers interviewed White and Black research assistants  posing as job applicants

− When the applicant was Black, the interviewers sat farther away, ended the interview  25 percent sooner, and made 50 percent more speech errors than when the applicant  was White

− In part 2, Word had trained interviewers treat applicants in same the way the  interviewers in the first experiment had treated either the White or the Black applicants − Participants who were treated like the black people in the first experiment seemed more  nervous and less effective.  

− Moreover, the interviewees could also sense a difference, and judged their interviewer  as less adequate and less friendly

25) Reducing prejudice (know each method we discussed in class; e.g., contact hypothesis, jig  saw classroom, etc.)

− Contact hypothesis: contact between members of different groups should lead to more  positive intergroup attitudes, when

˗The groups are equal in status

˗ Cooperation—the groups have the same goal

˗ Superordinate goals—sharing goals necessitates cooperation

˗ Ex: see Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)

− Promoting racial harmony in the class

˗ Jigsaw Classroom (Aronson)

˗ Students divided into multi-race and multi-ability groups

˗Each student given 1/6 of material for the upcoming test (equal amounts of info) so  that they had to work with each other to have all the information

˗ After a year of this, all students displayed

˗ More positive attitudes toward different ethnicities

˗ Better performance in the classroom

˗ Increase in self-esteem

˗ Greater empathy

26) Know Sherif’s study (Eagles and Rattlers study) on reducing conflict. What does the study  tell us about reducing conflict between groups?

− Robber’s Cave Study

− http://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html (gives a summary of the study) − Boys at Robber’s Cave camp were divided into 2 groups-the Rattlers and the Eagles − During the first week, the groups were completely separated from each other and  participate in activities only within their group

− Later, the 2 groups started to interact with each, and experimenters (deliberately) set up  activities that forced the groups to compete with each other

− This conflict between the groups triggered prejudice attitudes and discriminatory  behavior (fighting, destroying the other’s property, etc.)

− The boys were then forced to work together to solve problems (that the experimenters  set up). For instance, at one point they were made to believe that there was problem  with the water supply and the only way to fix it was to work together

− After a few of these situations, the negative feelings the groups had against each other  went away

− The main takeaway is that contact itself isn’t going to reduce prejudice (just being  around someone isn’t going to get rid of your prejudice), cooperation between groups  that share the same goals is what’s more important

27) Perceived vs. actual conflict group conflict (how do we perceive group differences and what  are the implications)

− Conflict: a perceived incompatibility of actions or goals

˗Can occur at many different levels (between nations, employees & employers,  friends, couples)

˗ Opposing sides see more conflict than is actually there, and conflict is often  exaggerated

˗Ex: Liberals and conservatives hold similar views, but view each other as wholly  different groups with completely different views and ideals

˗We perceive our own groups as peace-loving and morally good while viewing the  other group as evil and aggressive

− Misconceptions about conflicts and group differences make it impossible for  cooperation and peace to be achieved

28) Types of dilemmas: conflicts in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if  chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone

− Public goods dilemma: a social dilemma in which everyone must contribute to a  common pool to maintain the public good

˗Ex: Donating blood—if no one decided to donate blood, there wouldn't even be a  common pool

− Commons dilemma: a social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool  of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but which will disappear if  overused

˗Ex: When you were a kid, there was always that house that just left a bowl of candy  out with a sign that told you to only take one. Taking one meant that other people  would also be able get candy, but taking more than one would cause to pool of  candy to quickly disappear; or in states where water conservation is necessary,  someone not conserving water means less water for other people  

29) Types of aggression: any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone or  something

− Hostile: aggression driven by anger and performed as an end in itself ˗ Goal is to injure or inflict pain—aggression is the actual goal

− Instrumental: aggression that is a means to achieve another goal

˗Causing pain isn’t the main goal, but must be done to achieve that goal

˗Ex: contact sports (like football or boxing)—most people don’t participate in  contact sports because they want to or enjoy being aggressive to other people, but  winning the game or match requires that they be aggressive  

− Symbolic: aggression that does not involve physical harm, but harms the victim  through gossip, character assassination, damage to property, or interference with  advancement towards a goal

˗ Not mutually exclusive, meaning that symbolic aggression can also be hostile or  instrumental

− Sanctioned: aggressive acts that society finds acceptable or even mandatory ˗ Also not mutually exclusive

˗Ex: contact sports can also be an example of this. As a society, we believe that  aggression (as long as it’s not excessive) is okay when done in sports; war could be  another example. We are fine with acts of aggression or violence during war,  because that is the essence of war, and aggressive and violent acts are required to  win a war

30) Theories of aggression (instinct theories; biological causes; frustration-aggression model;  Berkowitz’s revision)

− Instinct theories

˗ Lorenz: aggression is an instinct that serves a survival function

˗ Freud: hydraulic model—aggressive energy builds with time

˗ So humans must act on aggressive energy to rid ourselves of it: catharsis ˗ Or we can take aggressive energy and channel it into socially acceptable outlets:  sublimation

˗ Frustration Aggression Theory

˗ Frustration: blocking of goal-directed behavior

˗ Frustration leads to aggressive instincts and aggression

˗ Humans have to act on that aggression (theory says we have no choice) ˗ Aggression is always the result of frustration

˗ This theory is too extreme however, frustration doesn’t always lead to  aggression, and aggression isn’t always the result of frustration

˗ Cognitive Neoassociationist Theory (a revised frustration aggression theory) ˗ Developed by Berkowitz

˗ Aggression isn’t instinct based

˗ Aggression is caused by having unpleasant experiences

˗ Ex: getting a bad grade in a class

˗ We try to make sense of these experiences

˗ Impacted by our social environment and surroundings

˗ People around us can contribute to this stage

˗ Ex: You call your dad and tell him about your grade, and he reacts in one of  2 ways

˗ 1. He tells you that he’s disappointed in you and that you need to  

work harder, or

˗ 2. He tells you that he knows you worked hard, and that the professor  probably wasn’t that great of a teacher

˗ Depending on what your dad says, you can either feel worse, and ashamed  that you let your dad down, or better because it seems like he’s on your side ˗ We feel emotions (e.g. anger, sadness) and act on them (e.g. aggression or  crying alone in our room)

− Problems with instinct theories

˗ No strong evidence that aggression tendencies build up over time (what Freud  thought happened)

˗ Instinct theories can’t account for cultural differences in tendency to aggress ˗ Instinct theories can’t account for the fact that human aggression can be controlled  or delayed

˗ Unlike the frustration aggression theory that says we always act on our  aggression

− Biological causes

˗ The brain through the amygdala and hypothalamus

˗ Linked to motivation and emotions

˗ Activation in these areas can lead to aggression

˗ Genetics can predispose us to be aggressive

˗ Ex: Breeding of aggressive rats (Lagerspetz, 1979)

˗ By selective breeding rats that were high in aggression, Lagerspetz was able  to produce rats that were hyper-aggressive

˗ Lagerspetz also did the same thing with rats low in aggression and was  able to produce rats that were extremely docile

˗ Biochemical influence

˗ Testosterone is correlated with levels of aggression— those with more  testosterone tend to be more aggressive than those with lower levels of  


˗ Ex: Testosterone levels tend to be higher among prisoners convicted of  planned and unprovoked violent crimes than of nonviolent crimes

˗ Alcohol unleashes aggression when people are provoked

˗ Alcohol reduces self-awareness and inhibitions

˗ Impairs judgments—when drunk, people can’t think well or consider  


31) Social learning theory (Bandura)

˗ Social Learning Theory: we learn aggressive behavior by observing and imitating  others

˗ Ex: Bobo doll study (1963)

˗ When first introduce to the bobo dolls, kids loved them. All they wanted to  do was hug them and play with

˗ Experimenters then showed the kids a video of another kid attacking the  doll

˗ When reintroduced to the bobo doll, kids in the experiment attacked the doll ˗ They had learned how to aggress and not feel weird (decreased  

inhibitions) about being aggressive

32) Television and aggression

− Violence in media

˗ Leads to imitation of violent behavior watched (think about the children’s behavior  with the bobo dolls)

˗ Increases arousal in viewers, and arousal energizes some behaviors

˗ Desensitizes people through repeated exposure

˗ Thinking about doing something violent or watching a violent act won’t seem  like a big deal

˗ Gives an inaccurate view of the world

˗ People will overestimate the amount and frequency of violence in the world ˗ Violence is often rewarded in movies, when in reality it is punished

− In carefully controlled experimental studies, people have been exposed to violent media  (tv shows and movies that display violence in any way)

˗ The participants were then frustrated or angered

˗ Participants were more aggressive to whatever/whoever caused their agitation after  viewing violent media

− Correlational research back up experimental findings

˗ Knowing how much violent media a person watches allows researchers to predict  how violent a person is

Page Expired
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here