Final Exam Study Guide Fall 15
Final Exam Study Guide Fall 15 2367
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
81463 - BIOL 3030 - 001
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
This 20 page Study Guide was uploaded by Nicole Rossetti on Wednesday December 9, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to 2367 at Ohio State University taught by Courtney Hsing in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 39 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at Ohio State University.
Reviews for Final Exam Study Guide Fall 15
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: 12/09/15
Social Psychology Final Exam Previous Material (In general, look for connectingthemes across lectures rather than specific terms or studies unless you see an asterisk next to the lecture topic. In other words, focus on the topics that come up across lectures.) What is Social Psychology? ● The Scientific study of the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of individuals in social situations Research Methods ● See presentation Social Cognition ● refers to a specific approach in which these processes are studied according to the methods of cognitive psychology and information processing theory Attribution ● attribution: a judgement that is made about the cause of a behavioreither our own or someone else’s. ● attribution theory: a description of the way in which people explain the causes of their own and other people’s behavior ● correspondence bias (fundamental attribution error): tendency to infer that people’s behavior corresponds to or matches their disposition/personality ● actorobserver bias: correspondence bias tends to be applied unevenly. more likely to use internal causes for other’s behavior. external causes for own behavior ● selfserving attributions: explanation for one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors. explanations for one’s failures that balme situation external factors The Self ● self concept: beliefs people have about themselves ● working self concept: currently activated selfconcept, changes from situation to situation ● The self consists of multiple self aspects. People vary in their degree of selfcomplexity. ○ High selfcomplexity = large # of distinct self aspects ○ Low selfcomplexity = small # of nondistinct self aspects ● SelfKnowledge: How do we know ourselves? ○ Through introspection ○ Through selfperception ○ Through social comparison ● Self Perception: Infer attitudes from behavior. Attitudes must be ambiguous. Limitations: also may be biased ● Self comparison: Comparing ourselves to others. More likely to occur when uncertain. Comparison targets depend on our goals ○ upward comparison: comparing with better people gives information about improvement ○ downward comparison: comparing with worse people. makes our situation seem better. ● Self Esteem: evaluation of the self ● Self Discrepancies: We often experience discrepancies between our actual self and either our ideal self or ought self and when that occurs, we experience negative emotion ● SelfAwareness: Focusing attention on the self. Causes comparison to internal standards. Makes selfdiscrepancies more noticeable ● SelfHandicapping ○ Create obstacles to successful performance ○ Provide a readymade excuse for failure ○ Makes success seem more impressive ○ Protects selfesteem and the selfimage ● Selfcontrol conflict: conflict between smaller, nearterm temptations and larger, longterm reward goals Cognitive Dissonance ● Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A theory that maintains that inconsistencies among a person’s thoughts, sentiments and actions create an aversive emotional state (dissonance) that leads to efforts to restore consistency. ● Example ○ Consonance: “I believe safety is important and I always wear a helmet when biking.” ○ Dissonance: “I believe safety is important and I rarely wear a helmet when biking.” ○ Irrelevance: “I believe safety is important, and I like rom coms.” Attitudes ● attitude: an evaluation of an object in a positive or negative fashion that includes 3 elements: affect, cognition and behavior ● ambivalence: things you like/dislike ● explicit attitudes: attitudes that are at the conscious level, are deliberately formed and easy to report ● implicit attitudes: attitudes that are formed at the unconscious level and involuntary formed. typically unknown to us. ● Tripartite model of attitudes: affect, behavior, cognition. ○ Example: ■ affect: chipotle makes me really happy ■ behavior: I eat it all the time ■ cognition: it’s good for me ● Direct VS Indirect measures. ○ Direct ■ selfreport measures ■ likertscale ■ semantic differential ■ they are obtained through selfreport (asking people what they think/how they feel about themselves) ○ Indirect ■ non verbal ■ physiological ■ “implicit” ■ don’t ask directly, make an inference about the attitude by observing something else ● What types of attitudes will predict spontaneous behavior ○ implicit attitudes. automatic attitudes predict automatic behavior ● Explicit: @ conscious level ● Implicit: not @ conscious level Persuasion ● Persuasion: a method of changing a person’s cognitions, feelings, behaviors or general evaluations (attitudes) toward some object, issue or person ○ Purpose: make your evaluation of an object, person or idea more favorable or unfavorable. Influence behavior ● Yale approach of attitude change ○ who says what to whom ○ who ■ the source ■ credibility, likeability, attractiveness ○ what ■ the message ■ strong arguments ■ positive emotions ○ whom ■ the recipient ■ knowledge ■ personal relevance ● Peripheral vs central route of persuasion ○ peripheral route: people do not think critically about the contents for the message but instead focus on the superficial characteristics. Occurs with low elaboration. ○ central route: people are influenced by the strength and quality of the message arguments. Occurs with high elaboration. Involves careful thought about the message ○ peripheral can have high elaboration. for example: low elaboration... “she's attractive and uses maybelline so I like their products”… then thinks deeper (high elaboration)... “maybe she's so attractive because she uses those products. Stereotypes & Prejudice ● Stereotype: a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned virtually to all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among members ● Discrimination: hostile behavior toward a member or group that is based on their group membership ● Prejudice: a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people based solely on their membership in that group ● Ingroup vs outgroup ○ ingroup are social groups to which an individual feels he or she belongs. while an individual does not identify themselves with out group ○ outgroup homogeneity: tendency people get to sort people into ingroup vs outgroup. Outgroup being those who don’t identify themselves with the ingroup Social Influence ● conformity: the tendency to change our perceptions, opinions or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms. ● types of social influences ○ informational: influence of other people that results from taking their comments or actions as a source of info about what is correct, proper or effective ○ normative: the influence of other people that comes from the individual's desire to avoid their disapproval, harsh judgement and other social sanctions ● Social norms ○ 2 reasons people conform ■ conformity that occurs when a person believes others are correct in their judgement (informational) ■ social norms: to abide by social norms/gain acceptance ● Conformity = changes in behavior through implicit social influence ● Compliance = changes in behavior through a direct request. ● Ambiguous: open to more than one interpretation ● Private acceptance/ pubic conformity ○ Private acceptance: genuine belief of their correctness. We believe the group is right (informative social influence) ○ Public conformity: we want to be accepted (normative social influence). changes in behavior, not beliefs ● Footinthe Door ○ ‣ The influencer starts with a small request in order to gain eventual compliance with a related larger request Group Processes ● Definitions ○ Group: two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other ■ Important components: interact/independent ○ Collective: ○ Group: ■ Direct interactions over an extended period ■ Share a common fate ■ Example: the OSU football team ○ Collective: ■ Engaging in a common activity ■ Little interaction with each other ■ Example: all OSU football fans ● Collective Processes ○ Social Facilitation ■ Social Facilitation: tendency to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks in the presence of others ■ Triplett Fishing Reel Study (1897) ● Asked children to wind up fishing line on a reel ● Did so alone or in the presence of other children ● They were faster when other children were present ● Takehome point – the mere presence of others improves performance on simple, welllearned tasks ■ Zajonc Cockroach Study (1965) ○ Social Loafing ■ Social Loafing: the tendency for people to exert less effort when their efforts are pooled toward a common goal ■ Clapping Study (Latane et al., 1979) ● Manipulated # of people cheering/clapping ● Measured individual sound output. ● Less individual cheering as group size increased. ○ Facilitation vs. Loafing ■ When do others promote arousal and when do they promote relaxation? ● Ask: “Can individual performance be evaluated?” ○ Yes → Social Facilitation ■ E.g. answering trivia questions ○ No → Social Loafing ■ E.g. group projects ○ Deindividuation ■ What it is ● In a group, people can lose a sense of personal identity. ● More likely to engage in deviant behavior ● Behavior people wouldn’t engage in by themselves ■ When it happens ● Factors that promote deindividuation: ○ Similar appearances (e.g., uniforms) ○ Members disguised (e.g., masks, hoods) ○ Individual decision making is discouraged (e.g., “just following orders”) ○ Appeals to group cohesiveness (“team spirit”) ■ Why it happens ● Accountability: when we aren’t personally accountable, we’re more likely to engage in deviant behavior ● Attention: when attention isn’t on the self, we’re less likely to act according to internal standards ● Group Properties ○ Three Major Properties: ■ Roles: set of expected behaviors that certain individuals perform. ■ Norms: shared expectations about how group members will act ■ Cohesiveness: extent to which group members have strong bond with one another ● Social Roles ○ Roles are helpful because people know what to expect from each other ○ But, people can get so far into a role that their personal identities and personalities get lost ● Socials Norms ○ Groups have different social norms ○ Powerful determinant of our behavior ○ Consequences when norms are violated: ■ 1. Pressure to conform ■ 2. Rejection ● Group Cohesiveness ○ Members of cohesive groups are more likely to: ■ 1. Stay in the group ■ 2. Take part in group activities ■ 3. Try to recruit new members ○ Stanford Prison Experiment ■ Randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards ■ Guards began to treat prisoners sadistically ■ Prisoners showed emotional disturbance ● Why do people join groups? ○ Fulfills basic human needs: ■ Makes hunting / growing food easier ■ Finding mates ■ Caring for children ■ Source of information ■ Part of our identity ■ Establish social norms ○ People have an innate need to belong to groups Origin of Groups ■ Need to Belong: ● Biological drive to seek social bonds ● Exclusion causes psychological distress ■ Social Identity Theory ● Group membership → selfesteem boost ● Evidence from minimal group paradigm ○ Arbitrarily assigned group membership ○ Still favor ingroup when allocating resources ■ Optimal Distinctiveness Theory ● People satisfy two competing motives through group membership: ○ Belongingness ○ Distinctiveness ● Group DecisionMaking ○ Groupthink ■ Cohesiveness becomes more important that rationality or truth ■ Leads to bad decisions ● Closedminded, resist alternatives ● Don’t examine all information, options ● Systems of Groupthink: ○ Selfcensorship: people don’t voice contrary opinions, in order to “not rock the boat” ○ Illusion of invulnerabilit group thinks it is invincible and can do no wrong ○ Illusion of unanimity: everyone thinks they are agreement by overlooking or ignoring those who are in disagreement ● Preventing Groupthink ■ Consider outside opinions ■ Leader should encourage criticism and act as moderator, not director ■ Create subgroups who meet separately and then convene ■ Seek anonymous opinions / secret ballots ○ Group Polarization ■ Discussion leads group decisions to be more extreme ● Persuasive Arguments Explanation: group members develop extreme arguments to convince the others ○ Persuasive arguments – Hearing others’ similar arguments validates own arguments ● Social Comparison Explanation: first adopting the majority opinion but become more extreme to feel like independent thinkers ○ Social comparison – Become even more extreme to gain approval ● Occurs for two main reasons: ○ 1. Persuasive arguments interpretation each member presents strong arguments that other members had not considered 2. Social comparison interpretation to be liked, people will adopt a slightly more extreme position that is similar to others’ position Attraction ● Predictors of Attraction ○ Familiarity ○ Physical Attractiveness ○ Similarity ○ Mimicry ○ Reciprocal Liking ○ Reactance ○ Secrecy ● Familiarity ○ Combination of proximity and exposure ● Propinquity Effect ○ The more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to be our friends ○ Festinger et al. (1950): “Housing Study” ■ Looked at friendship patterns in MIT student housing ■ Room/apartment assignments were random ■ Who became close friends? ● 65% of friends lived in same building ● 41% were nextdoor neighbors ● 22% lived two doors down ● 10% lived three doors down ● People on first floor near the stairs had more upstairs friends ● Mere Exposure ○ Exposure to a stimulus increases liking of it ○ Overexposed stimuli might lose their impact ○ Ex: subliminal exposure of Chinese symbols ○ Moreland & Beach (1992) ■ Female confederate sit in on large class 0, 5, 10, or 15 times ■ At end of semester, students shown woman’s photo ■ “How attractive is she?” ● Physical Attractiveness ○ People generally like attractive people ○ Strong predictor of attraction for both sexes ○ Certain features are universally attractive ○ High agreement for facial attractiveness across ages and cultures ○ Certain features are reliably associated with judgments of attractiveness ○ Men are attracted to features that signal fertility and health ■ Skin condition (reflects ratio of hormones) ■ Body fat distribution (low waisttohip ratio) ■ Sometimes scent ○ Women put more emphasis on characteristics of providing and honesty ■ (Male fertility less tied to physical features) ● Composite Faces ○ Men ■ Childlike, big eyes ■ Narrower facial shape ■ Less fat ■ Full and symmetrical lips ■ Darker eye brows and lashes ■ Upper half of the face broader in relation to the lower half ■ Higher cheek bones ■ Prominent lower jaw, and chin ○ Woman ■ Childlike, big eyes ■ Narrower facial shape ■ Less fat ■ Fuller lips ■ Slightly bigger distance between eyes ■ Dark, narrow eyebrows ■ Long and dark lashes ■ Higher cheek bones ■ Narrower nose ● Evolutionary Perspective ○ Evolutionary psychology: an approach to psychology in which evolutionary biology is used to understand mental processes ○ Evolutionary pressures may have shaped what we find is physically attractive. ● Halo Effect ■ People associate attractiveness with other good qualities ■ Ex: extraversion, happiness, adjustment, intelligence ■ Functions like a stereotype about attractive people ■ Can lead to a selffulfilling prophecy when interacting ● Attractiveness Stereotypes ○ SelfFulfilling Prophecies ■ Sny ■ der, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977): Phone Study ■ Men talk to women on phone ■ Either thought she was attractive or unattractive ■ Men were warmer/more sociable with “attractive” woman ■ Women responded by being objectively more confident, animated, warm ● Similarity ○ People tend to associate with similar others ■ Ex: demographics, interests, values, etc. • Similar others validate our traits ● Matching Hypothesis ○ People tend to become romantically involved with others who are equal /similar to them in attractiveness ● Mimicry ○ Chartrand & Bargh (1999): Mimicry Study ■ Participants interact with confederate ■ Confederate either mimics participant or engage in neutral mannerisms ■ Participants rate confederate and interaction ● Reciprocal Liking ○ Curtis & Miller (1986): Reciprocal Liking Study ■ Participants paired up ■ Experimenter privately tells each that the other does or does not like them ■ Participants meet up again ■ Results: ● 1. We like people who we think like us. ● 2. We act more likeable when we think the person likes us ● Balance Theory ○ • Balance Theory: People prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced ■ Imbalance →Distress (like dissonance) ■ We can either change attitude or end association ● Reactance: when people feel their freedom to do something is threatened, they respond by performing that behavior ● Romeo & Juliet Effect: Parental interference in romantic relationship only intensifies attraction ● Secrecy ○ Wegner et al. (1994): Footsie Study ■ Strangers induced to play footsie under a table with another pair of participants present ■ The other people either knew or did not know ○ Secret relationships occupy our thoughts more ○ People view secret partners as more attractive Emotion ● Help humans meet goals ○ Brief & specific (e.g., NOT the same as moods) ○ Valence & arousal ○ Psychological & physiological ○ What is an emotion? ■ “Brief, specific psychological and physiological responses that help humans meet social goals” ● TwoFactor Theory ○ Undifferentiated state of arousal (same across emotions) ○ Attribution of arousal (explanation) ○ step 1: experience/recognize arousal ○ step 2: seek an explanation ■ Misattribution of arousal: attributing arousal produced by one cause to another stimulus in the environment ● Emotional Expression ○ Emotional Expression: an observable sign of an emotional state ● Universality Hypothesis ○ Universality Hypothesis: emotional expressions have the same meaning for everyone = crosscultural ● Display Rules ○ Display Rules: norms for the control of emotional expression ■ More expressive in Southern U.S. ■ Japanese avoid negative emotions ■ Boys express anger but not sadness ● Emotional Intelligence ○ The ability to reason about emotions and to use emotions to enhance reasoning ○ Four skills involved: ■ 1. Understand one’s own emotions ■ 2. Use current feelings in making decisions ■ 3. Manage one’s emotions in ways that are fitting to the current situation ■ 4. Accurately perceive others’ emotions ● Emotions & Social Cognition ○ Different emotions lead people to reason in different ways ■ Sadness àless likely to stereotype others ■ Anger à more likely to stereotype others ● Creative thought experiment ○ IV: induce positive emotion ○ DV: creativity in word associations ○ Results: Happiness à flexible and creative thought ○ Broadenandbuild hypothesis E ● Moral Judgments (automatic vs. controlled) ○ Moral Judgments ■ 1) Automatic: experience gut feelings that orient them to the nature of the moral wrongdoing ■ 2) Controlled: rely on more deliberative processes to arrive at a final moral judgment ● Assessments of costs and benefits ● Causal attributions ● Considerations of prevailing social norms ● Happiness ○ Most powerful source of happiness = RELATIONSHIPS!!! ■ Romantic relationships ■ Friendships ■ Family ■ Neighborhood ties ● Pleasure experiment ○ Pleasure Experiment (Fredrickson & Kahneman) ■ IV: Participants watched pleasurable films ■ DV: Used a dial to rate their experience of pleasure throughout the whole clip ■ Results: ● 1. Peak moments ● 2. How you feel at end of event ● 3. Duration neglect ● Affective Forecasting ○ We are often poor at affective forecasting ○ Predicting future emotions ○ Often, life events impact us less than we expected ● Focalism ○ Focusing too much on a central aspect of an event ○ Makes us bad at affective forecasting Aggression ● Defining Aggression ○ Aggression: ■ 1. Behavior intended to harm another ■ 2. Harm can be physical or mental 3. Includes both action and inaction ○ Types ■ Instrumental Aggression: Harm is inflicted as a means to an end ● Ex: Harming for personal gain/attention ■ Emotional Aggression: Harm is inflicted for its own sake ● Ex: Hurting someone who caused you pain ● Origins of Aggression ○ Nature vs. Nurture ■ Are we born aggressive or is it learned? ■ Is it a trait or the situation? ○ Nature ■ Evolutionary: aggression advantageous for securing dominance and resources ■ Biology: brain regions, hormones, and neurochemicals can provoke aggression ○ Nurture ■ Classical Learning Theory ● Positive Reinforcement: Aggression produces desired outcomes – ● Negative Reinforcement: Aggression stops undesired outcomes ● Aggression → Rewards ■ Social Learning Theory ● Learn behavior by observing others ● Attend to rewards and punishments ■ By watching aggressive models, people: ● Learn specific aggressive behaviors ● Develop positive attitudes & beliefs about aggression ● Learn rewards and punishments for aggression ● Individual Differences ○ Gender ■ Socialization reinforces gender differences ■ Overt aggression more accepted in male roles ■ Aggression by women less accepted ○ “Culture of Honor” ■ Aggression protects honor and status ■ Minor conflicts are seen as challenges ● Culture of Honor (Cohen et al., 1996) ○ All White males from North or South ○ Walk down corridor and drop off form ○ IV #1: insult from confederate (vs. control) ○ IV#2: game of chicken ○ DV: when do people get out of the way? ● Situational Influences ○ FrustrationAggression Hypothesis ■ Frustration produced by interrupting progress toward a goal elicits motivation to aggress ■ Frustration → all aggressive behavior ■ Toy Study (Barker et al., 1941) ● Kids told they would play in a toy room ● Some kids allowed to play right away ● Kids forced to wait played more aggressively ■ The closer to the goal, the more frustrating Harris (1974) had confederates cut in line ● Cutting at front of line → more aggressive response ■ • Unexpected frustration ○ Negative Affect ■ Frustration is only one form of negative affect ■ Any negative affect can trigger aggression ○ Automatic Cognition ■ Environments can prime aggression ■ Ex: Guns vs. Badminton Racquets (1967) ● Media Violence ○ Effects of Violent Media ■ Myth 1: “The level of violence in the mass media simply mirrors the level of violence in the real world” ■ Reflection Myth: The mass media is a mirror that provides a distorted violent image of reality ■ Myth 2: Violent media are cathartic and therefore decrease aggression ■ Myth 3: Violent media has a trivial effect on aggression ○ Video Game Study (Bushman & Anderson, 2002) ■ IV: played Mortal Kombat or 3D Pinball for 20 mins. ■ DV: completed ambiguously aggressive story stem ■ Mortal Kombat players wrote more aggressive stories ■ Results: ● A large body of literature now shows that violent media can have many effects: ○ perception of world as a violent place ○ reduction of inhibitions toward aggression ○ imitation of specific aggressive acts ○ misattribution of arousal to anger ○ desensitization to the severity of violence ○ decreased empathy for victims of violence ○ endorsement of violence to solve problems. ○ Longterm Effects ■ Measured violent TV exposure at age 8 ■ Related to aggressive behavior at age 30 ■ Found effects only for boys (not girls) ○ Stopping Aggression ○ Catharsis ■ Dates back to Aristotle ■ Term comes from the Greek katharsis, which means to cleanse or purge. ■ Catharsis theory posits that acting aggressively or even viewing aggression purges angry feelings and aggressive tendencies or drives ■ Does it work? ● Research indicates that: ○ Venting keeps arousal levels high ○ Venting keeps aggressive thoughts active in memory ○ Venting keeps angry feelings alive ■ Venting anger does NOT reduce aggression ■ Ex: football players more aggressive at season’s end ■ Aggressing makes future aggression more likely ○ Cognitive Restructuring ■ Think about an aggressioninducing event in a different way ■ Actively enabling anger to dissipate ■ Express your feelings calmly ■ Apologize ■ Model nonaggressive behavior ■ Train people in conflict resolution ■ Increase empathy Prosocial Behavior ● Definitions ○ Prosocial Behavior: any act performed with goal of benefiting another person ○ Altruism: the desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper ■ – Not at all selfinterested ● Motivation: Why Help? ○ Cynical view: We help other people because human beings are selfish ■ Support for cynical view: Evolutionary Psychology: Humans are selfish. Humans care about two things: ● Surviving ● Reproducing ■ What helps us reach these goals? ● Brains (intelligence) ● Strength ● Other people ○ Evolutionary Origins ■ Kin Selection ■ Reciprocal Altruism ○ You help me now, Iʼll help you later ○ Tit for tat strategy ○ Multiple examples of this in both animals and humans ○ Social Exchange Theory ■ When the benefits of helping someone outweigh the costs, people help ■ When rewards > cost → help ■ When rewards < cost → no help ■ Assumes no real altruism ○ EmpathyAltruism Hypothesis ■ Empathy: ● empathy: ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events the way that person does ○ Feeling of empathy → ○ Altruism/Helping ○ If no empathy, you might help if in selfinterest ■ NoteSharing Study (Toi & Batson, 1982) ● NoteSharing Study (Toi & Batson, 1982) ● Everyone hears an interview with “Carol” ● She was in a car accident and needs class notes ● Manipulated empathy and cost of helping ● IV1: “Try to imagine how Carol feels” vs. “Be objective” ● IV2: Costs of helping: Will see Carol often vs. will not see Carol ● DV: agreement to help ● Personal Determinants ○ Personality: are some people just more helpful than others? ■ Some people naturally inclined to help ■ Personality factors related to helping: ● – Empathy – Religion – Agreeableness ○ Mood ■ Sometimes positive mood → helping ■ Dime Study (Isen & Levine, 1972) ● People in mall used a pay phone ● They found a dime in the coin return (or not) ● Confederate walks by and drops some papers ● Who helps? ○ Someone who found a dime or someone who didn’t? ■ Sometimes negative mood → helping ■ “Helping will make me feel better” ■ Especially when the negative feeling is guilt ■ Confession Study (Harris, Benson, & Hall, 1975) ● Churchgoers gave to charity more before (vs. after) going to confession ● Situational Determinants ○ Urban Environments ■ Urban overload hypothesis: urban overload hypothesis: cities bombard people with stimulation – Keep to self to avoid being overwhelmed (Milgram, 1970) ○ Time Pressure ■ If you’re in a hurry, less likely to help ■ Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1973) ● Seminary students gave lecture on “The Good Samaritan” or another parable ● Told to go to second study ● Go quickly (“Hurry or you’ll be late”) ● Get there on time ● Take your time ● Man in distress on the way to study 2 ○ Bystander Apathy ■ Bystander Effect: the more people who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help ■ Seizure Study (Darley & Latané, 1970) ● Participants in a “group discussion” (over intercom) ● One student (confederate) has a “seizure” ● Would you do something? ● 5 Step Model ○ Why do more witnesses → less helping? ○ When do people help? ○ Answer: “5 Step Model” (Latané & Darley, 1970) ■ The five things that must happen for someone to give help in an emergency. ■ ● Implement decision ● Charity Behavior ○ Identifiable Victim Effect ■ identifiable victim effect: people are more generous toward identifiable (vs. statistical) victims ○ Personal Experience ■ People are more likely to donate when they have experience with a charity’s cause ■ Friends with Victim Study (Small & Simonsohn, 2008) – ● When people were friends with a victim, they showed more sympathy toward other victims ● But only the same kind of victim (e.g., cancer)
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'