Social Psychology Study Guide: Exam 4 Ch. 7 & 8 Prejudice: Microagressions • Microagressions: Slights, indignities, & put-downs many minorities routinely encounter. - Can be barely perceptible or unintentional - Feeling undervalued and unwelcome; show the desire to maintain social distance. - Ex: White professor compliments an Asian American student on their “excellent english” - EDon't forget about the age old question of wsu final exam
If you want to learn more check out the 1946 congressional elections marked a resounding triumph for truman's fair deal program.
If you want to learn more check out math utep
Don't forget about the age old question of Language: how and why did it evolve?
We also discuss several other topics like dsci unt
If you want to learn more check out dsci 2710
x: Pager (2003): Bias in Hiring Practices ▪ White and Black graduates visited employers for entry level jobs (identical resumes) ▪ Half in each group reported cocaine possession on applications ▪ Employers preferred the white applicants ▪ Whites with clear record called 3X more often than Blacks ▪ White ex-cons called back twice as often as Black ex-cons ▪ Small preference for white ex-cons over Blacks with clean record. - Ex: Hebl et al. (2002): Bias in Hiring Practices ▪ College students applied for jobs at local stores ▪ Some indicated heterosexuality; others homosexuality ▪ No blatant discrimination but microagressions prevalent + less verbally positive, less interviewing time, less eye contact, fewer words while chatting, with students believed to be homosexual. What causes prejudice? • Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian Personality (Adomo et al. 1950) - Rigid beliefs, possesses conventional values, intolerant of weakness, highly punitive, suspicious, and unusually respectful of authority.- The F scale measures and determines authoritarianism - Those high in authoritarianism tend to believe: ▪ Its natural for some people to dominate others. ▪ Equality of races is unnatural and undesirable • Institutional Discrimination - Prejudice develops by living in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm. ▪ Companies, institutions, permitted or encouraged to discriminate. ▪ Social barrier create lack of opportunities for some groups. • In-group Bias - Positive feelings and special treatment toward those that are part of our “in-group” ▪ Familiar, similar in norms/customs, “like-us” in important ways - Unfair treatment of those in the “out-group” • Out-group Homogeneity - Tendency to perceive members of an out-group as “all alike” or more similar than members of an in-group ❖ Quattrone and Jones (1980): Judgements about In-group and Out-group members at Princeton and Rutgers ▪ Students watched video of man making a music-listening decision. ▪ Man was either in-group or out-group member ▪ After seeing the man’s music choice, students predicted the % of male students at that same institution that would make the same choice ▪ Results supported out-group homogeneity o Man as out-group member: choice was more predictive of what peer would choose (compared to when man was an in-group). o If we know something about 1 out-group member, we feel we know something about all of them • Blaming the Victim- Blaming individuals for their victimization - The predicaments of victims are based on inherent deficits in ability or character (vs economic conditions, genetic pre-disposition, mental illness, lack of opportunity)’ - Ex: Janoff-Bulman, Timko & Carli (1985): Students’ Perceptions of a Young Woman’s Behavior ▪ Description of friendly behavior toward a man (judged behavior as completely appropriate). ▪ Same description & rape encounter (judged behavior as inappropriate and blamed her for rape. - Why do we victim blame? ▪ Fear that something bad could happen to us. ▪ Convince ourselves the victim must have done something to cause the bad situation. Reducing Prejudice • The contact hypothesis - Reducing prejudice through increased contact between majority and minority groups - White students with roommates, friends across racial lines become less prejudiced (Van Lamar et al., 2008). - Conditions Under Which Contact is More Effective 1) One-on-one interaction on friendly, informal basis. 2) Exposed to multiple member of other group, not just “one token person” 3) Social norms of groups, institution, and community must promote and support equality. - The Jigsaw Classroom ▪ Children placed in small, multiethnic groups and are dependent on group members to learn material ▪ Ex: 6 person diverse learning groupo Each student assigned 1 segment of material to teach the rest of the group o Focus is on attention, cooperation, and respect (vs competition) ▪ Benefits of Jigway Classroom o Less prejudiced and liked group mates more o Better exam performance, higher self-esteem. o More intermingling among ethnic groups on playground ▪ Why Does Jigsaw Work? o Breaks down in-group vs out-group perceptions (category of “oneness” instead”) o We tend to feel more favorable toward those that we help (Leippe & Eisentadt, 1998) o Encourages development of empathy (ability to understand what another is going through makes it difficult to feel prejudice. Ch. 8 Liking, Loving, & Interpersonal Attraction What Causes Attraction? • The person next door: The Propinguity Effect - The finding that the more we see and interact with people the more likely they are to become our friends. - Festinger, Schafer, & Back (1950): Friendship Formation and MIT Apartment Complexes ▪ 65% of friends mentioned lived in same building - Patterns of friendships within buildings ▪ Physical proximity within buildings increased friendship likelihood o 41% of friends with next door neighbors o 22% 2 doors apart o 10% opposite ends ▪ Functional Distanceo Aspects of architectural design that determine which people you cross paths with most often. o Residents in 1 & 5 had more friends upstairs than other first floor residents (because they were near the stairs) • The Mere Exposure Effect - The more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it. - Familiarity breeds liking ▪ Back, Schumkle, & Egloff (2008): The Rule of Familiarity in likability of Classmates. o Students who sat in neighboring seats had higher initial likability scores (proximity) o Also significantly more likely to be friends one year later (proximity & familiarity) Do Opposites Really Attract? • Research evidence demonstrates that its overwhelmingly similarity that draws people together. • Similarity - Opinion and attitudes: New comb (1961) ▪ Randomly assigned roommates became friends with those who were similar in attitudes and values. - Personality: Bowden, Carroll, & Maier (1984) ▪ Homosexual males possessing more stereotypical male traits desired logical partners (a stereotypical male trait) ▪ More stereotypical female traits desired expressive partners (a stereotypical female trait) - Interests and Experience ▪ Students were significantly more likely to choose friends from inside their academic tracks - Appearance▪ Students who wore glasses sat next to other students who wore glasses far more often than random chance would predict. ▪ People are more likely to date others who are similar in attractiveness level. + The importance of similarity depended on the level of commitment participants felt toward their romantic partner. - Competence ▪ Subjects considered to be the most competent and having the best ideas tended to be liked less (Bates, 1958). ▪ Why is this? Do they make us uncomfortable? Do we look bad by comparison? ▪ Will evidence of weakness change this? o Ex: President John F. Kennedy and “The Bay of Pigs Fiasco” Evidence of shortcoming after the major blunder may have mad him more likeable. o Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd (1966): Does Evidence of weakness increase liking? ⮚ Students listened to 1 of 4 possible quiz shows: Nearly perfect contestant Nearly perfect & committing a blunder (spilling coffee of self) Mediocre contestant Mediocre contestant & committing a blunder ⮚ Subjects then asked to rate the contestant’s likability ⮚ Nearly perfect person who committed blunder was most likable. ⮚ Mediocre person who committed blunder was least likable. ▪ The Pratfall Effect o Even though a person has a high degree of competence, some evidence of weakness increases their attractiveness. How important is Physical Attractiveness? • Most won’t admit physical attractiveness is a primary consideration for dating partners (Tesser & Brodie, 1971). - But studies of actual behavior reveal people are overwhelming influenced by attractiveness. • The importance of Attractiveness - Walter et al. (1966): The overriding determinant of likely for blind dates was physical attractiveness. - Finale & Eastwick (2008): Students in a speed-dating situation placed a high value on physical attractiveness when determining which date to see again. • The role of attractiveness in likability starts early. - Dion & Berscheild (1971): Children’s perceptions of classmates. ▪ Attractive boys liked better ▪ Unattractive children “scared” classmates more - Dion (1972): Attractiveness & Perceptions of misbehavior ▪ Women placed less blame on or made excuses for attractive children responsible for classroom disturbances. • “Pro-Beauty Bias” Beauty Matters Even when it shouldn’t - Badr & Abdalah (2001): Attractiveness & Health status of premature infants ▪ More attractive infants gained weight faster & had shorter days - Möbius & Dosenblat (2006): Attractive individuals ear 10-15% more than unattractive people. - Poutuaara et al. (2006): Attractive male and female political candidates beat unattractive candidates by 1.5-2.8% points.Love and Close Relationships • Sternberg’s (1998) Triarchic Theory of Love - Intimacy: feelings of connectedness & affection - Passion: deep emotional &/or sexual feelings - Commitment: determination to stay in a long-term relationship • Types of Love Relationships - Components of love at corners, with associated forms of love - Pairs of components & associated forms of love appear on the lines - Consummate love (the ultimate, rarely achieved goal) appears in the center. Group Processes: the influence of groups on behavior Demonstration: If you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or held responsible, what would you do? Written on paper. • Possible response categories - Antisocial acts (injuring or depriving rights) - Non-normative acts (violating social norms and practices) - Neutral acts (meet no other definitions) - Pro social acts (benefit others)• Comparison to other student samples - 36% Antisocial (killing “president” - 19% Non-normative (change grades, cheating, rob banks) - 36% Neutral - 9% Prosocial Group Process Deindividuation: • Decreased self-awareness and evaluation apprehension, often causing anti-normative and disinhibition behavior. • Loosening of normal behavior constraints when we can’t be identified - Crowd, darkness, similar dress, disguised, masked, uniformed Historical events: • My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War • KKK lynching of African Americans • Woodstock Festival (1999) - Sexual assaults took place in mosh pits during concert sets • Black Friday - Aggressive or illegal behavior amidst shoppers rushing to get the “best deals” • Auto Vandalsim Field Study (Zimbardo, 1969) - Cars left abandoned on streets in NYC and Palo Alto, CA - Destructive behavior began much faster and lasted much longer in NYC. • Zimbardo (1970): Anonymity and Aggression - Anonymity manipulated ▪ Oversized lab coats and hoods ▪ Name tags and normal clothes - Task: shock a confederate while they’re engaging in creative tasks - Anonymous participants shocked longer than individual participants - The deindividuating experience disinhibited aggressive behavior • Diener et al. (1976): deindividuation and Trick-or-treating - Significantly more stealing was observed in children under condition of anonymity and in the presence of a group • Mann (1981): Baiting Crowds at Suicide Attempts - Deindividuating factors to crowd baiting ▪ Large crowd ▪ Nighttime cover ▪ Physical distance • The role of deindividuation in online flaming (hostility and aggression) - Letters to the editor: civil discourse more likely because non-anonymous - The internet provides anonymous communication opportunities, making it easier to say things we normally wouldn’t if identifiable (Lee, 2004). • Makes people feel less accountable - Reduces likelihood of individual being singled out and blamed. ▪ Ex: Scout addressing lynch mob member in “TKAM”