Exam #3 Study Guide
Exam #3 Study Guide PSYC2012
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 14 page Study Guide was uploaded by Emily Lowe on Monday April 27, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to PSYC2012 at George Washington University taught by Dr. Duval in Spring2015. Since its upload, it has received 248 views.
Reviews for Exam #3 Study Guide
Exactly what I need for the last Exam. Also takes away a lot of the grunt work
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: 04/27/15
My information is written in BLUE lm 3 Studv Guide NOTE This study guide is meant to refresh your memory about the topics we covered in class and how they relate It is not a promise that every question on the exam will come from a topic listed below Don t ignore the book or any videos or empirical readings we might have had this unit I Prejudice Definitions 0 Stereotype generalization about a group of people in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group regardless of actual variation among the members 39 COGNITIVE COMPONENT 0 Prejudice hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group based solely on their membership in that group AFFECTIVE COMPONENT Attitude 0 Discrimination unjusti ed negative or harmful action toward a member of a group solely because of his or her membership in that group BEHAVIORAL COMPONENT Behavior Origins of Prejudice 0 Social Learning Theory learning negative attitudes and beliefs about members of social groups 39 We learn from close others the media etc 0 Realistic Con ict Theory prejudice stems from competition for scarce resources among interdependent social groups 0 Social Identity Theory SIT stems from the fact that our selfesteem is very closely linked to the groups with whom we identify ourselves 3 assumptions with this 0 1 People categorize the world into ingroups and outgroups 0 2 People want to have high selfesteem 0 3 Selfesteem depends in part on how your ingroup is evaluated relative to outgroups Social Cateogirizing Ingroups vs Outgroups 0 Social Categorization process of categorization lends itself to stereotyping 39 You put people into Ingroups and Outgroups 0 Ingroup group you are a member of 0 Outgroup group you are not a member of 39 You can be ingroup and outgroup with one person 0 Example You are Asian and your friend Molly is also Asian INGROUP However you are on the basketball team but your friend Molly is not on the basketball team OUTGROUP Outgroup Homogeneity Effect outgroup is viewed as more homogenous or more similar to one another than the ingroup 0 The they all look alike phenomenon 39 Ultimate Attribution Error tendency to give outgroup members little credit for their success and to blame them for their failures in comparison to ingroup members Minimal Groups Paradigm process of categorizing people into groups can lead to prejudice and discrimination Self Fulfilling Prophecy when people s attitudes towards different social groups leads them to behave toward members of those groups in a way that allows them to confirm the expectation 0 Role in maintaining prejudice Example If a teacher believes that her African American students are not as smart as her other students she may pay more attention to her other students and less attention to the African American students This could occur by her not calling on them as often in class or grading their assignments more harshly This is usually done subconsciously 0 Word Zanna amp Cooper article 39 Study 1 Each interviewer all white males was asked to interview three people Then the interviewer was randomly assigned to interview either a black or white person It was set up that when interviewer came in the interviewee was already seating in a chair and the other chair was in the comer so the interviewer had to move it to interview Those who were given a black applicant sat farther away from the interviewee than those who were white 0 Results overall they were treated with fewer immediacy behaviors 39 Study 2 Participants were now the ones being interviewed The interviewer was white and was assigned to give less immediacymore immediacy to the interviewee 0 Results The participants treated with fewer immediacy behaviors were judged to perform worse in the study regardless of race 39 Conclusions from this if someone goes into an interview and is shown fewer immediacy behaviors they will perform worse in the interview This means that the interviewer can actually justi not hiring that person because they did in fact do worse On top of this the study showed that a white male interviewer showed an African American interviewee fewer immediacy behaviors meaning that they will not do as well 39 Stereotype Threat risk of acting in a manner consistent with a negative stereotype about one s group 0 The THREAT that a stereotype could be ful lled made it be ful lled 0 Potential for positive and negative impact on behavior 39 Negative Impact Example There is a stereotype that African Americans are not as smart a whites A difficult test was given out to whites and African Americans Half of the students were told that the investigator was measuring intellectual ability and the other half were told that the investigator was merely trying to develop the test itself and that their performance would mean nothing 0 Results White students performed equally well regardless of the group they were in African American students who believed the test was NOT measuring ability did as well as the white students BUT African American students who believed it was did worse than the white students and the African Americans in the other group 39 Positive Impact Example There is a stereotype that African Americans are more athletic than whites A game of mini golf was framed as a measure of natural athletic ability 0 Results The African Americans outperformed the white athletes POSITIVE for the African Americans but obviously negative for the whites Reducing Prejudice 0 Contact Hypothesis under the right circumstances increased contact between social groups can decrease prejudice 4 circumstances l Sustained close contact can t just be in geographic proximity 39 2 Cooperative contact working together toward a common goal 39 3 Equal status no power differential between the groups 39 4 Social norms others generally favorable to contact 0 Recategorization reduce SIT effects by indicating person is an ingroup member on other dimensions 0 SelfDiscrepancy Theory low racism people who are aware of actualideal self discrepancy will aggressively monitor responses Be able to explain Differences in definitions of key terms above 39 How tendency to categorize can lead to discrimination 0 Putting people into ingroups and outgroups makes it more likely that someone will fall for outgroup homogeneity These help stereotypes to evolve because you feel like all the members of that speci c outgroup are the same Stereotypes are one of the key factors that lead to discrimination 39 Necessary conditions for contact hypothesis to work above In notes but not on study guide Subtyping making a sub group within the category that does not apply to the whole category 39 Example You believe the stereotype that all Asian people are good at math You meet an Asian who is really bad at math Instead of adjusting your belief you subtype that person into their own category making them the exception Illusory Correlation tendency to see relationships or correlations between events that are actually unrelated Microaggressions slights indignities and put downs that many minorities and people experience Example women in a meeting has the men talk over all of her ideas a professor compliments an Asian American on their excellent english even though they have lived in America their whole life 39 Form of discrimination Social Distance one s hesitation to get too close to another group 39 Form of discrimination Modern Racism outwardly acting unprejudiced while inwardly maintaining prejudiced attitudes Jigsaw Classroom classroom setting designed to reduce prejudice and raise the selfesteem of children by placing them in small desegregated groups and making each child dependent on the other children in the group to learn the course material and do well in the class 39 Research shows that students learning like less have decreased stereotypes and prejudice and increase in their liking for their group mates across and within ethnic borders 11 Groups Definition of Group 0 Group two or more interacting persons who share common goals have a stable relationship are somehow interdependent and perceive that they are in fact part of a group 0 Functions of Groups 39 These differ in Size number of group members GoalsValues between group members some groups will re ect goalsvalues more than others Duration how long a group has been together how long it takes a group to identify as a group Scope of activities do different things 39 Social Facilitation any affect on performance which stems from the presence of others audiences lead to arousal 0 How it impacts task performance 39 Arousal enhances performance on simple tasks but decreases performance on enhanced tasks 39 EasyWell practiced vs Dif cultNewer Tasks Those people who are above average will improve in the presence of others Those people who are below average will do worse in the presence of others 0 Characteristics of tasks that might lead to SF 39 Individual efforts can be evaluated alertness evaluation apprehension distraction con ict being aroused Theories of Social Facilitation 39 Cottrell Evaluation Apprehension humans are concerned about how other people are evaluating them causing mild arousal 0 Above average people the presence of others makes us do better 0 Below average people the presence of others makes us do worse Baron amp Sanders Distraction Con ict an audience is distracting so we need to be alert when others are around 39 Social Loafing tendency of some group members to exert less effort on a task than they would if working alone 0 How it impacts group productivity 0 Characteristics of tasks that might lead to SL 39 Individual efforts cannot be evaluated no evaluation apprehension being relaxed 0 When social compensation might occur 39 Social Compensation when willing to compensate for the work the loafers aren t doing When willing to do this 0 You know you ll do a better job 0 Valid reason for not participating feel sympathy 0 Project is a re ection of you 0 It is important to you 0 How to reduce it Put all loafers into one group so they have to step up 39 Evaluations from each group members on other group members If individual effort can be identified High groupcohesiveness Making the task of high importance 0 Its relationship to social facilitation big owchart Presence of others will lead to either Social Loa ng or to Social Facilitation 0 Social Loafing Path 39 Individual efforts cannot be evaluated gt No evaluation apprehension gt relaxation 0 This then leads to either impaired performance on simple tasks or enhanced performance on compleX tasks 0 Social Facilitation Path 39 Individual efforts can be evaluated gt alertness evaluation apprehension distraction con ict gt arousal 0 This then leads to either enhanced performance on simple tasks or impaired performance on compleX tasks NOTES THE SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN WHAT WAS DESCRIBED ABOVE 39 Group Decision Making Problems 0 Process Loss in any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving Failure to share unique information 39 Group Polarization that group discussion leads to more extreme decisions the risk shift 0 Happens due to Persuasive Arguments Perspective and Social Comparison defined below Groupthink tendency of members of highly cohesive groups to seek consensus so strongly that they ignore information inconsistent with their views and often make disastrous decisions 0 Antecedents things that lead to groupthink 0 Symptoms things that are caused by groupthink 0 Ways to prevent Policymakers should not be isolated Establish norms that doubts should be expressed by group members 39 Leader should not express hisher own opinion 39 Appoint a devil s advocate to argue the other side of each argument Be able to explain 39 Pros and Cons of group work In Notes but not on study guide Types of tasks 0 Additive contributions of members are added together to form a group project 39 Example tugofwar assembly line 0 Compensatory contributions of members are averaged together to form a group project 0 Disjunctive only one correct solution perform at the level of the best member 0 Conjunctive all members must complete an action before the task is completed perform at the level of the worst member 39 Persuasive Arguments Perspective people hear more arguments in favor of a certain position and it reinforces and strengths their initial decisions 39 Social Comparison extremity can be viewed as confidence so as discussion appears to be going a certain direction people begin to oneup each other moving 39 Brainstorming a group of people together shouting out ideas designed with assumption that a group could produce more creative new ideas and solutions than individuals 0 No criticism Freewheeling is encouraged wild and crazy ideas are great Quantity over quality Combinations and improvements are encouraged NOT a great way to come up with ideas individuals come up with better ideas alone III The Self 39 Subjective amp Objective SelfAwareness Subjective SelfAwareness recognition that the self is separate from the other object in one s physical environment 39 Do not know we are not part of the environment until about 3 months of age 0 Objective SelfAwareness capacity to be the object of one s own attention Ability to turn inward and look at yourself 39 SelfConcept the contents of the self 0 Self Schema mental structure that people use to organize knowledge about themselves 0 Learn from Ourselves 39 SelfPerception Theory observing our own behavior and then interpreting it 0 Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation engaging in an activity because we enjoy it or nd it interesting Extrinsic Motivation engaging in an activity because of external rewards OverJusti cation Effect tendency for people to view their behaviors as caused by extrinsic reasons and to underestimate the intrinsic value Temporal Comparison comparing our present self to our past self 39 SelfAwareness directing attention inward toward the self 0 Learn from Others Social Comparison compare ourselves to others normally to similar others 0 Upward amp Downward 39 Upward comparing yourself to those who are better at a task than you are 0 Usually done when you are trying to be the best of the best at something 39 Downward comparing yourself to those who are worse at a task than you are 0 Usually done when you are trying to make yourself feel better about something 0 Direct vs Indirect Feedback Direct straight up being told how you are at a task 0 Example telling someone that they have a terrible singing voice Indirect inferring how you are at a task 0 Example you are always picked last in gym class for kickball You begin to realize that you must not be very good at kickball Higgin s Self Discrepancy Theory 0 Possible Selves 39 Actual Self our current selfconcept attributes we possess 39 Possible Self hypothetical selfconcepts describes a potential future self 0 Ideal Self attributes we would like to possess Example becoming a professional tennis player 0 Ought Self attributes we believe we should possess 39 Things people close to us want us to have and so you think you should have them 39 Example your parents want you to take over their law firm after law school 0 Emotional consequences of gaps between selves 39 Discrepancies lead to negative emotions emotions differ between various types of discrepancies Example If your ideal self is to be a professional tennis player but you ought self is to go to law school these two things cannot exist simultaneously This can cause frustration and anger because you cannot possible achieve this How future dimension might impact these emotions 0 Future Dimension how likely is it for the gap to close 39 There may not be a lot of disappointment or frustration if both goals will be attainable at different times 39 SelfEsteem SelfEsteem vs SelfEf cacy 39 SelfEsteem people s evaluations of their own selfworth that is the extent to which they view themselves as good competent and decent 39 SelfEfficacy evaluation of competence for a specific task 0 State vs Trait 39 State temporary condition in uenced by the situation 39 Trait stable dispositional characteristic 0 SEM Model SelfEvaluation Maintenance Model 39 Two assumptions 0 1 People try to increase their selfesteem for the most part 0 2 Our relationships with others impact our selfesteem Two processes 0 1 Re ection increase in selfesteem by re ecting in glory of close friend s accomplishments 2 Comparison a decrease in selfesteem by comparing your performance to the superior performance of a close friend 0 Maintaining SelfEsteem 39 Downward Social Comparisons consciously comparing yourself to someone who is less successful or less happy 39 SelfHandicapping strategy whereby people create obstacles and excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task they can avoid blaming themselves Literally sabotaging your own performance 39 Understanding our Emotions TwoFactor Theory experiencing an emotion is a two step process we experience physiological arousal and then seek an appropriate explanation for it 0 Motives Please audience 39 Self Construction 0 SelfPresentation 4 strategies 1 2 Intimidation arouse fear through threats and anger The BULLY Supplication appearing helpless to solicit help from others The STEREOTYPICAL FEMALE SelfPromotion describing and demonstrating competence The SHOWOFF Ingratiation telling people positive things about themselves The KISSASS Be able to explain 0 How we form our selfconcept We learn from others and from ourselves see above 0 Individual difference variables Unclear what she is looking for here 39 How SEM model predicts increased vs decreased selfesteem essentially depends on how important the task is to you 0 If you are using a Re ective process your selfesteem is going to INCREASE 0 If you are using a Comparison process your selfesteem is going to DECREASE 39 Re ective feeling proud of a friend and taking pride in their accomplishments 39 Comparison comparing your ability in a task to a friend s ability who is superior 0 Will use Re ective process if The task is not important to you You have no interest in the task 10 11 39 You know you are not good at the task and so you do not want to further your effort in the task 0 Will use Comparison process if You wanted to get recognition for the same task 39 You are trying really hard at the task that your friend is getting more praise for 39 You feel that you are not as good as a friend at something important to you IV Relationships 39 Need for affliation humans have a tendency to seek out the company of other people 0 Ainsworth s study Strange Situation a parent brings a mobile toddler into a room with a bunch of cool toys in the comer that another boy is playing with The child wont run to the toys but cling onto the mother s leg and use them for a secure base for exploration He only will go once his mom tells him its okay Then when a stranger comes in he runs back to his mom until he feels comfortable again Then the mother leaves he runs to the door and cries and pounds on the door When the mom comes back the child is soothed 0 Attachment bonds in children studied by AinsworthA Secure uses parent as a secure base for exploration distraught when parent leaves quickly soothed when parent returns 0 65 of children Avoidant does NOT use parent as a secure base for exploration does NOT cry when parent leaves does NOT go over when parent returns 0 20 of children Ambivalent does not even explore clings to their parent using them as a secure base gets angry at parent for leaving takes some time for them to calm down 0 15 of children Levinger s Model of Relationship Development 0 ABCDE Stages A Attraction desire to approach someone some of this is needed before a relationship can begin B Building initial attraction is built upon as you learn more about each other C Continuance maintaining a relationship that you are in D Deterioration a worsening in the relationship it appears less desirable than before E Ending the relationship is over 0 Transition decisions between stages Moving from Building to Continuance often results from some sort of commitment being made 39 Attraction 0 Propinquity physical distance between two people The closer you physically are the more likely to bump into them and get to know them 0 Familiarity the frequency of contact 12 39 Intemet social media has led to the split of Propinquity and Familiarity into two non synonymous things 0 Physical Attractiveness we are attracted to people who we nd physically attractive Applies to friendships and romantic relationships Matching Hypothesis romantic partners tend to be similar in physical attractiveness 0 Example she is an 8 and so is he Physical Attractiveness Stereotype tendency to overgeneralize from physical appearance what is beautiful is good 0 Study attractive people were ranked higher for every trait even though that is not actually the case What features are considered attractive 0 Babyfaced Mature Average Men like women who are babyfaced Women like men who have a mature face 39 The more average looking you are the better we like people who look normal and average THIS IS WHERE WE STOPPED IN CLASS THE REST WILL BE FILLED IN USING THE PPT AND THE BOOK 39 Building 0 Similarity people tend to form friendships and have romantic relationships with those similar to them 39 Propinquity demographic similarity 39 Attractiveness Matching Hypothesis physical similarity 39 Attitudes we like people with similar attitudes Personality Similarity wins over complementarity 0 Rewards we like people who are rewarding to us 0 Reciprocity we like people who like us Continuance Rubin distinguished liking from love 39 Love vs Liking Hatfield Passionate vs Companionate Love 39 Passionate intense longing for a person with physiological arousal 39 Companionate care deeply for a person Moderate arousal Stemberg Triangular Theory of Love 1 point of a triangle Intimacy concern for partner s welfare 13 Another point Passion physical attraction Another point Commitment decision to maintain love 0 Hazan amp Shaver Attachment Theory We can understand adult romantic attachment from the perspective of attachment theory Initial infant attachment provides a model of expectations for relationships 0 Clark Exchange vs Communal Relationships 39 Exchange give with expectation of receiving Communal give because we care 39 Deterioration Rusbult 4 responses to con ict voice loyalty exit neglect 39 Constructive Destructive 39 Active Voice work to improve r ship Exit end r ship 39 Passive Loyalty wait for improvement Neglect wait for things to worsen Ending transition decision do we terminate 0 Occurs through terminating relationship or through death Be able to explain 0 Hw infant attachment relates to adult romantic relationships The parentchild relationship is the first one we have in life and so the attachment style will predict how you act in your future relationships they are the building block for future relationships 39 We can understand adult romantic attachment from the perspective of attachment theory Initial infant attachment provides a model of expectations for relationships 0 How transition decisions impact progressions through the model 14
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'