Introduction to Social Psychology
Introduction to Social Psychology PSYC 2600
Popular in Course
Popular in Psychlogy
verified elite notetaker
This 12 page Class Notes was uploaded by Ethyl Hammes on Monday September 21, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 2600 at University of Virginia taught by Sophie Trawalter in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 56 views. For similar materials see /class/209729/psyc-2600-university-of-virginia in Psychlogy at University of Virginia.
Reviews for Introduction to Social Psychology
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: 09/21/15
Prosocial behavior acts performed with the goal ofbene ting another person Altruismi The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper Kin selection The idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection Norm 0f reciprocityThe expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future Social exchange theory revisited The rewards of helping often outweigh the costs so helping is in our selfinterest Empathy The ability to put oneself in the shoes of another person and to experience events and emotions e g joy and sadness the way that person experiences them Empathy Altruism Hypothesis The idea that when we feel empathy for a person we will attempt to help that person purely for altruistic reasons regardless of what we have to gain Altruistic personality The qualities that cause an individual to help others in a wide variety of situations Negative State Relief Hypothesis Feel Bad Do Good The idea that people help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress One kind of bad mood clearly leads to an increase in helpingifeeling guilty People often act on the idea that good deeds cancel out bad deeds Sometimes negative moods make us more likely to help others iFeeling guilt iFocusing on others Jl39hinking about personal values Urban Overload Hypothesis The theory that people living in cities are constantly being bombarded with stimulation and that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by it Metaanalytic findings suggest that people are more likely to help in rural than urban areas regardless of where they grew up Critical variable seems to be population density not size Shige Oishi s Residential Mobility H Living for a long time in one place leads to igreater attachment to the community imore interdependence with neighbors and igreater concern with one s reputation inthe community Bystander effect The greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency the less likely any one of them is to help the victim Step 1 Notice the Event Step 2 Interpreting the Event as an Emergency If people assume that nothing is wrong they will not help When other bystanders are present and inactive people are more likely to assume that nothing is wrong Step 3 Assume Responsibility Sometimes it is obvious that an emergency is occurring as when Kitty Genovese cried out Oh my God he stabbed me Please help me Please help me Even if we interpret an event as an emergency we have to decide that it is our responsibilityinot someone else sito do something about it Step 4 Knowing How to Help If people don t know what form of assistance to give they will be unable to help Step 5 Implementation You might not be quali ed to deliver the right kind of help You might be afraid of iMaking a fool of yourself iDoing the wrong thing iPlacing yourself in danger Help may not be desired Pluralistic ignorance Bystanders assuming that nothing is wrong in an emergency because no one else looks concerned Diffusion of responsibility The phenomenon whereby each bystander s sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases EX SMOKE FILLED ROOM What else may lead to diffusion of responsibility iNot knowing the victim iFear of blame iLack of leadership iLack of previous experience with responsibility Exchange V communal relationships revisited Communal relationships are those in which people s primary concern is with the welfare of the other person whereas exchange relationship are government by concerns about equity that What you put into the relationship equals what you get out ofit People in communal relationships are concerned les with the benefits they receive by helping and more with simply satisfying the needs of the other person People are more helpful to friends than strangers Aggression is intentional harm Instrumental aggression Aggression as a means to some goalithe goal isn t to cause pain Hostile AKA emotional aggression Aggression as an end not a means Aggression that stems from feelings of anger or frustration The goal is to cause pain Psychological aggression gender and aggression Overt vs relational aggression Crick amp Grotpeter 1995 7 overtly BOYS Start fights vs covertly GIRLS keep people from being in groups of friends Culture of honor and aggression Honor is valued Honor is defended Manhood courage physical strength warrior virtue Culture of honor stems from social disparities Frustration aggression hypothesis Situational Factors FrustrationAggression theory Frustration leads to aggression Closeness of goal as a factor of frustrationaggression link Aggression increases when frustration is unexpected Displaced aggression Aggression not towards source of the frustration but towards a different lower status target Dollard et al 1939 as cotton prices went down lynchings increased Berkowitz s modi cation of frustrationaggression theory ifrustration leads to anger iAnger with an aggressive cue leads to aggression faggressive cue object associated with aggressive responses e g a gun EX More shocks given when gun present Guns and other aggressionrelated cues prime aggression people will aggress Social learning theory we learn to act aggressively and we lea1n the consequences of aggression EX Bobo doll study Prejudice as affect is an attitude Negative feelings directed toward members of a group based solely on group membership Stereotyping A 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 schema about a group beliefs about characteristics of group members Discrimination Unjustified negative or ha1mful action toward a member of a group simply before f his or her membership in that group Pluralistic ignorance The case in which people think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way when in fact they are not Explicit attitudes Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report Implicit attitudes Attitudes that are involuntary uncontrollable and at times unconscious Colorblind ideology Multicultural ideology Realistic con ict theory Scarce resources cause a threat which leave prejudice and discrimination Ultimate attribution error tendency to make dispositional attributions about an entire group of people We make situational attributions about the unexpected Stereotype threat The apprehension experienced by members of a group that their behavior might con rm a cultural stereotype Collectives V social groups Collectives two or more people who are in the same place at the same time but not interacting Social group two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to in uence each other Social facilitation The tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated Social loafing The tendency for people to relax when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated such that they do worse on simple tasks but better on complex tasks Optimal distinctiveness need to balance belonging and autonomy Balancing need to belong with need for autonomy Social cohesiveness Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between members Social cohesiveness aka groupiness Common task Group or subgroup size 36 members Group similarity Group identity iGroup structure Group social norms Social roles Status systems The more cohesive a group is the more its members are likely to istay in the group iTake part in group activities and iTry to recruit new likeminded members If a task requires cooperation to solve a problem eg football team executing a difficult play writing a grant cohesiveness can increase performance If maintaining good relations among group members seems more important than finding good solutions to a problem cohesiveness decreases performance Groups are likely to outperform individuals when a task is divisible Social roles Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave De individuation The loosening of nonmal constraints on behavior when people can t be identi ed in a large crowd Suicide baiting In a Suicide Baiting correlational study Mann 7 1981 Man was able to show that those in a large group were more likely to partake in Suicide Baiting because of the anonymity that the group allowed them if there was fewer people watching a person about to iurnp they were less likely to yell dump Process 1055 Any aspect ofgroup interaction that inhibits good problem solving Groupthink A kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner Mindguard protect the group from negative information Group polarization The tendency for groups to make decision that are more extreme than the initial inclinations ofits members Persuasive Arguments Explanation Other members often have similar attitudes ndividuals are exposed to supporting arguments they hadn t thought of before Social Comparison Explanation People want to fit in with others in group They sense the group s position and adjust their own attitude even further in that direction to appear to be good group members Risky shift and cautious shift Risky shift The tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals Cautious Shift groups make more cautious more conservative decisions than individuals make Social dilemma A conflict 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 individuals must contribute to a common pool in order to maintain the public good Commons dilemma A social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of good that will replenish itself if used in modern but will disappear if overused Titfortat A means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did cooperatively or competitively on the previous trail Integrative solutions A solution to a con ict whereby the parties make tradeioffs on issues according to their different interest each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side ldennh and itquotECt l NE 3 IiienretiLai Pc 3il f i39 on in people lit 5p other oEvolutionary Perspective Natural selection favors genes that promote the survival of the individual The main mechanism by which genes get selected is survival and reproduction Kin Selection Kin Selection Group Selection The idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection People can pass on their genes by lhaving children 2Make sure their genetic relatives have children DThus natural selection should favor altruistic acts directed toward genetic relatives Reciprocity Norm is a social norm Norm 0f Reciprocity The expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future Lea1ning Social Norms Social norms are leamedithe mechanisms for learning social norms are possibly genetically based hardwired 0S0cial Exchange Theory Helping can be rewarding in a number of ways The norm of reciprocity can increase the likelihood that someone will help us in return ie investment in the future Helping can also relieve personal distress that we feel when we see suffering By helping others we can also gain social approval from others By helping others we increase or feelings of selfworth The other side is that helping can be costly Physical danger Pain Emba1rassment Time OEmpathy Altruism Hypothesis Under some conditions powerful feelings of empathy and compassion for the victim prompt sel ess giving EX Carol Marcy Study llmv nines mum ni tk m helping Imitatiurquot Feel good do good EX dime study and man dropping manila folder Being in a good mood can increase helping for three reasons lGood moods make us look on the bright side oflife 2Helping others can prolong our good mood 3Good moods increase selfattention Negative State Relief Hypothesis Feel Bad Do Good The idea that people help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress One kind of bad mood clearly leads to an increase in helpingifeeling guilty People often act on the idea that good deeds cancel out bad deeds Sometimes negative moods make us more likely to help others iFeeling guilt iFocusing on others thinking about personal values How d residential mobiliiv u in i prayrun ml hehzn wi39 Shige Oishi s Residential Mobility H Living for a long time in one place leads to igreater attachment to the community imore interdependence with neighbors and igreater concern with one s reputation in the community hm are in 5 stqw to intcncmngquoti1 ipiug Notice the event Interpret the event as an emergency Assume Responsibility Know how to Help Implement Decision Vluy Llu W l aggrva awarding m rum1mm biologiml aunt w clwlugiml tlwm39ivx 39 Uzuwiuizm uu l Freudian quotMinus FreudiHydraulic theory of aggression Our aggressive and sexual energy builds and must be released DarwiniEvolution Select for aggression Recent views Pinker o 39l tsl mzlemileremain Males aggress for two reasons iEstablish dominance over other males iMales aggress jealously to ensure that their mates are not copulating with other males Evidence iMales are most likely to engage in violence during their peak reproductive years teens amp 20 s iViolence usually initiated in response to selfthreats eg resources such as money land respect 0 Fraternities and testosterone levels Frusll aliun and Frustration cues hypotheses Situational Factors FrustrationAggression theory Frustration leads to aggression Closeness of goal as a factor of frustrationaggression link Aggression increases when frustration is unexpected Displaced aggression Aggression not towards source of the frustration but towards a different lower status target Dollard et al 1939 as cotton prices went down lynchings increased Berkowitz s modification of frustrationaggression theory ifrustration leads to anger iAnger with an aggressive cue leads to aggression faggressive cue object associated with aggressive responses e g a gun EX More shocks given when gun present Guns and other aggressionrelated cues prime aggression people will aggress i m oration 0 Norm of reciprocity is strong 0 We reciprocate negative behavior especially if we take the provocation personally w lllllu ullifitn lell learning lllt39ul Social learning theoryiwe lea1n to act aggressively and we learn the consequences of aggression People imitate what they see EX media violence he ex lilt lle39 lu 39m lim 6 for and against lestwslerone Ccijsafliiilx to aggression Monkey Studyi chimpanzees vs Bonobos P is lhert evidence that Violent media and iulem cues more genemils 921295 ngressiun ll 90 what is the evidence Watching violence does increase the frequency of aggressive behavior in children Anderson amp Dill 2000 Study 1 examined correlation between amount of time playing violent video games and aggressive delinquent behavior r 46 7 not trivial Reviewed 54 studies with 4200 participants Playing violent video games resulted in Increased aggression Decreased helping Increased aggressive thoughts Increased anger Increased arousal Same effects for males and females children and adults Shortterm effects Primes aggressive cognitions Increases arousal Increases anger Longterm effects Teaches people how to aggress Teaches people that it s ok to aggress People develop aggressive schemas They become desensitized to violence How mn iulvllt v Inquot rulucml l Catharsis Punishment lies Role inmlcls Catharsis Hypothesis watch violence in order to purge aggression Catharsis Doesn t work Punishment Not a simple solution DPunishment has to be severe certain and swift DThis kind of punishment is seldom possible Remove Cues to Aggression a la Berkowitz Provide Better Role Models a la Bandura Increase empathy Women au Wumlci hrll lay an some Llitiltldtlt preiudit39iul Think Eincial Role Vl lltii39il39V fil i 39EUM PCS Wilslt39iiif What mumth of groups mm sin A Social role theory the ways in which women are positively stereotyped constrains their behavioral options How does plinutlis c ignurxun t play out in interracial contact Think Ylliy are all the Hindi kids sitting tugvthcl in the airteri 39 Why are all Ir quothttr kids sitting twg rthel39 in the c1lit39elia i People observe others behaving similarly to themselves but believe that the same behaviors re ect different feelings and beliefs Miller amp McFarland 1987 1991 Own behavior iRe ect fears of social exclusion Other person s behavior iTaken at face value iRe ects the person s true feelings What are the benttits and potential wsts uf lliwrsity Bene ts of diversity is the contact theory The more integration the more they will grow to like each other and reduce prejudice iiy tlH implicit racial biases matter Villa in they predict II in explicit racial attitudes matter lmt tIU they predict How do the perspectiws of Whites um rurizll minorities often diverge during illtcrrau ial mntactquot Think about what inl39unmitimn pmple lime access 39 J t lpllt lt attitude and controlled hehminr V controlled and spunlnnmm bellm iur Whites 7Concem with being perceived as prejudiced Vorauer Hunter Main amp Roy 2000 Vorauer Main amp O Connell 1998 Vorauer amp Kumhyr 2001 7Concems in uence social judgments about and during interracial contact Blacks 7Concem with being treated negatively because of prejudice and being perceived stereotypically MendozaDenton et a1 2002 Shelton 2003 7Concems in uence social judgments about and during interracial contact Whites and Blacks iHarbor fear of rej ection because of their group memberships iFear that outgroup members will perceive them in a way that threatens their identity Steele Spencer amp Aronson 2003 How can lli ergmt erreptium of intergruiip impart peritvrmzmre in mixedrace trams Predictions iAttribute own failure to make the first move to fear of being rejected iAttribute potential partner s failure to make the rst move to lack of interest You enter the dining hall for dinner You are alone because your close friends are in a review session As you look around the dining hall for a place to sit you notice several White Black students who live near you sitting together These students also notice you However neither of you explicitly makes a move to sit together Blacks fear rejection from white and believe that white lack interest Blacks do not feel fear of rejection from other blacks they just lack interest Whites fear rejection from blacks and believe that blacks lack interest Whites fear rejection from blacks and believe that other whites lack interest Divergent perceptions hurt performance in diverse work teams Ho can we ianrm 6 implicit attitudes When does contact grit Get people to interact with outgroup members contact hypothesis 7Contact should involve interdependence 7Contact should involve work toward a common goal iGroups should be of equal status 7Contact should occur in a friendly informal setting 7Contact should be supported by norms regarding equality The company you keep 7Crossrace peers 78amerace peers with nonprejudiced attitudes The images you seek iNegative media exposure iImages of Black role models The mindsets you adopt iAvoidance v approach 7Colorblindness v multiculturalism How do CIHi hlijlilH5 nml innitk ullliralism u 39icl39 nililmlea lmlmiioi39 and ijnergmup dynamim Colorblindness Racial categories do not or should not matter They should not be considered when making decisions In fact social categories should be dismantled and disregarded Multiculturalism Group differences are and should be acknowledged They should be considered when making decisions When appropriate they should be celebrated Vt lien dms mlnrlllimlnm imprme intomum outrun9522 Colorblindness can improve explicit attitudes that predict deliberate discrimination but policy takes care of that Multiculturalism can improve implicit attitudes that predict unintended discrimination Colorblindness might work if people have lots of resources and motivation Vt he are majnr muses uf prejudice 1 Competition for limited resources 2 Attribution Biases 3 Social Categorization In group bias implicit vs elicit attitudes Vt he is stereotype threat Vt lm illl experience it Wider what conditions in people i ipn39it nw it The apprehension experienced by members of some group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype in a particular domain Individuals do not have to believe the stereotype for it to affect performance The apprehension affects performanceiindividuals choke under the pressure of disconfirming the stereotype EX GOLF situation Many Black students fear that bad performance will con rm negative stereotypes about their racial group Stereotype exists widely known Person identi es with domain usually highachieving Tasldtest is dif cult He can multiple remin identities slniclrl people rum Ills effect aI39 Rtrl eul pt threat has factors influence wllellwi people cuul39mnl prejudice Salience of Group Identity Kn0wledge 0f Perpetrator s Attitudes The Inhibitory Effects of Social Cost lwn does the pl i lu ol39nlllers lead to social facililmimx v social loa ng Social Facilitation When the Presence of Others Energizes Us We can understand the in uence others on performance by considering three factors 1 Arousal 2 Dominant response 3 Task dif culty 1 is the jli vwnce all when wn mlimm M39wnsing Alert and vigilance Because other people can be unpredictable we are in a state of greater alertness in their presence This alertness or vigilance causes mild arousal Evaluation apprehension When other people can see how you are doing you feel like they are evaluating you This evaluation can cause mild arousal Distracting People distract us from the task at hand Divided attention produces arousal NOTE Nonsocial sources of distraction such as a ashing light cause the same kinds of social facilitation effects as the presence of other people How can 3m prevent social lml ng groups Personal effort is identi able The group is small THINK dispersion of responsibility There is supervision People do not feel relaxed 7THINK arousal The task is meaningfulimportant The group is meaningful important 7THINK interdependence 7THINK not collective but social group Participate with friends v strangers 7THINK from collective to group process Collectivistinterdependent v individualistic independent orientation THINK prime social norms Gender and cultural differences 7 lm are imme mi ll hillL l ll5 wl39gmnps Why do we join groups anyway iNeed to belong 7To accomplish complexdifficult goals iBecause you are born into groups iGain social status When is de imih illuminn mos liker In occur How are crowds ism Chm an example M39 tlnv i511qu ufnmulf Group members can exchange ideas catch each other s errors and reach better decisions 71f members of the group have expertise or knowledge about the problem at hand 71f members of the group have diverse perspectives and those perspectives are voiced Wisdom of the crowd CONDITION 1 Independent estimates CONDITION 2 Variations in estimates bracket True accrues errors cancel V8 hm are gnnlps likely to uulpvrl39orm imli iluals name at lens farmrm Groups are likely to outperform individuals when a task is divisible Example cooking iPerformance is improved if one person dices one mixes one sets the table one cleans up etc iPerformance is not improved if everyone tries to dice and mix and set the table etc 39lmI are mui39ves of process lam Is diversity a good thing It depends Diversity is hard Social processes amp outcomes Diversity is useful Cognitive processes amp outcomes Process of Loss Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving or decision making Failure to share unique information ishared informationiConsensusiis persuasive ishared information increases cohesion Group think iPeople do not rely on diversity of information opinions or skill sets Group polarization iGroup positions and decisions tend to be more extreme than the positions and wouldbe decisions of its individual members and of 7 hat are some of the in El quot Dchllgmgm 3 1 71 L 1 7 71 7 g L lgwimi gym g m39 v i ii ll l W l m v w zwm39sHuuszv gmpsamrrupsamv aGdeeAddrunsv are a H 0pm Strategies for Avoiding Groupthink 0Correct misperceptions and errors 7Consult outsiders iExercise humility Limit premature concurrence seeking iEncourage critical analysis iEmploy a devil s advocate 7Create subgroups AKA recreate diversity iseek anonymous opinions In social dilemmas Why do people not cooperate by do they compete instead Most people compete vs cooperate thus behaving in line with self interest iBoth in oneshot and iterated versions Why don t people cooperate iGreed iFear and lack of trust EXPRISONERS DILEMA liar strategies encmu age cooperation in social dilemmas Along the same lies what are strategies to resolve social dilemmas Friendship and liking Changing the norms Wall Street Game v Community Game Titfortat strategies A means of encouraging cooperation by at rst acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did either cooperatively or competitively on the previous trial 01ndividuals v groups
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'