Asks How and What do people THINK of one another.
How and How much do people INFLUENCE each other.
What effects the way we RELATE to one another.
the main areas of research today are
is tendency to exaggerate, after learning an outcome, one's ability to have foreseen it - or the "I knew it all along" phenomenon. Events are more obvious in hindsight than before.
Forces in larger social groups such as:
norms within cultural groups
social class differences
Genetic predispositions inherited from our ancestors; that promoted their survival and reproduction.
Basic Principles of Social Behavior
is goal oriented and represents a continual interaction between the person and the situation
mean the features or characteristics that individuals carry into social situations.
the environmental events or circumstances outside the person
a process of generating ideas & testing them by making observations
specifies a specific phenomenon and the procedures used to produce or measure something in a numerical way.
set of concepts & propositions intended to describe or explain a phenomenon
They are used to:
1) Explain a phenomena
2) Predict new information (i.e., suggest possibilities you don't yet know for sure are true).
a. Psychologists generally want to make predictions about large numbers of people, but the same principles holds when you make predictions about your own life (e.g., how will your roommate react to a situation you haven't seen him/her in before).
educated guesses or predications specific enough for their validity to be tested with the scientific method.
this makes for a good theory and is simple & concise - making few assumptions
this makes for a good theory, the different propositions should be consistant - NOT contradictory
this makes for a good theory, capable of generating testable hypotheses that are precise & can be confirmed OR disconfirmed. Vague can't be adequately evaluated.
being supportive to the theory
this makes for a good theory, predictions should be supported by data
interviews, questionnaires, scales, tests, etc. Pro's: lot's of data quickly, inexpensive, easy to quickly have results - Con's: can't be used on infants, cultural / age differences in understanding question, socially desirable responding.
This reflects the fact that people tend to portray themselves in a good light (socially desirable ways) when they can.
• Information provided by someone else about another person
• Provide access to information not attainable through other sources
• Multiple observers can be used to assess a person
Observers witness and record events that occur in the normal course of lives of the participants. That is, observing people in their everyday (non-lab) setting.
has the advantage of being able to secure information in realistic context, but at the cost of not being able to control events witnessed
An experiment conducted in a lab or other artificial settings or situations.
has the advantage of controlling conditions and eliciting relevant behavior, but at the cost of sacrificing realism
Information provided by standardized tests or testing situations. The idea is to see if different people behave differently in identical situations. Typically the situation is designed to elicit behaviors that serve as indicators of personality & then the elicited behavior "scored" without reliance on inference.
Information that can be gleaned from events, activities, and outcomes in a person's life that is available for public scrutiny—e.g., marriage, speeding tickets
• Can serve as important source of "real life" information about personality
Degree to which measure represents "true" level of trait being measured. That is, consistency across repeated measures.
That is, are you measuring what you think you're measuring
The breadth of applicability of a conclusion, must be based on the observation of many people. The more people you look at, the more convinced you can be that what you see is true of people in general
tells you there is a relationship b/w 2 variables. NEVER TELLS YOU CAUSALITY!!!! A correlation only means there is a relationship b/w A & B. It cannot tell you that A CAUSES B. It can tell you that as levels of one variable increase levels of another does as well. Conversely, it can tell you that as levels of one variable increase levels of another decreases.
indicates that as scores on one variable increase, scores on the second variable increase or as scores on one variable decrease so do scores on the second variable. In other words: high scores on one variable go with high scores on another variable and low scores on one variable go with low scores on another variable.
indicates that as scores on one variable increase, scores on the second variable decrease; as scores on one variable decrease, scores on the second variable increase. So here: high scores on one variable go with low scores on the second variable and low scores on one variable go with high scores on the second variable.
phenomenon of seeing the relationship one expects in a set of data even when no such relationship exists
used to show cause-effect - typically involves the experimenter manipulating one variable to see it's effect on another. Allows the experimenter greater control by eliminating as many other variables other than the independent & dependent.
variable(s) the experimenter manipulates
variable (or behavior) the experimenter measures
small subset of the population
(e.g. subject pool)
type of sample that closely resembles the ENTIRE population in it's percentage of blacks, whites, Hispanics, males, females, old people, etc. OR whatever characteristics might affect the results
type of sample where every individual has an equal chance of being selected
type of sample that involves observations comparing the behavior of people from at least 2 cultures
receives the treatment that the experiment is designed to test.
treated the same as the experimental group BUT doesn't get the treatment that the experiment is designed to test.
every subject has the same probability as any other to being assigned to either group.
tendency of an experimenter to distort the results or procedure of an experiment based on the expected outcome of the study.
There are 3 ways to overcome this bias
1) blind observer: records data w/out knowing what the study is about
2) single-blind study: either the observer or the experimenter is unaware of which subject receives which treatment.
3) double-blind: both are unaware
In-depth examination of the life of one person
Advantages - can find out about personality in great detail & give insights into personality that can be used to formulate a more general theory that is tested on a larger sample. Also can provide in-depth knowledge about an outstanding figure, such as a political or religious figure.
Downside: largely anecdotal, can't be replicated & / or generalized
. Attention: Selecting Information
process of social cognition in which the process is consciously focusing on aspects of one's environment or oneself
Interpretation: Giving Information Meaning
process of social cognition where we Interpret information in numerous ways & the manner by which we interpret colors our impressions
Judgment: Using Information to Form Impressions & Make Decisions
process of social cognition where Social impressions & decisions are difficult because they involve uncertainty (don't have all the information we'd like before forming an impression) so we have to make our best guess
Memory: Storing Information for Future Use
process of social cognition that Contribute to new judgments & can indirectly influence impressions by affecting what we pay attention to & how we interpret it (remembered encounter increases likelihood of how you will interpret future interactions)
Generally, we are creatures unwilling to expend more than the minimum amount of cognitive effort required in a given situation.
• sometimes this is to reduce cognitive load and effort
simple decision-making rules we often use to make inferences or draw conclusions quickly. That is, a mental shortcut to make a judgment
refer to the errors and distortions that often appear in social thought; they are often are derived from the use of heuristics.
type of bias where Making a judgement on the basis of a relatively simple rule: The more similar an individual is to typical members of a given group, the more likely he or she is to belong to that group.
type of bias where The easier and more salient a group or event comes to mind, the more we presume that this information is more frequent or important. That is, a mental shortcut through which one estimates the likelihood of an event by the ease with which instances of that event come to mind
False consensus effect bias
type of bias where The tendency to assume that others behave or think like we do, to a greater extent than is actually true.
) False Uniqueness Effect bias
type of bias where the tendency to underestimate the number of other people who share one's most prized characteristics and abilities"
type of bias where Some effects of increased availability occurs when stimuli or events increase the availability of specific types of information in memory. AKA: cueing - planting or activating an idea in someone's mind
Anchoring & Adjustment Heuristic bias
type of bias where Framing and Anchoring: Both refer to the fact that the way information is presented (either in a positive or negative light) can strongly effect judgments about it.
type of bias where An organized collection of beliefs and feelings about some aspect of the world. Schemas act as scaffolds, providing structure for the interpretation and organization of new information that we encounter.
deliberate & conscious
effortless & without awareness.
people often ignore or down play general information but are quick to infer a general truth based on a single vivid event or story.
3. misperceive correlation and control: When we expect significant relationships, we easily associate random events
when an initially inaccurate expectation leads to actions that cause the expectation to come true
The process through which we attempt to understand the cause of others behavior by inferring their traits, motives, and intentions.
Correspondent inference theory
. Jones & Davis (1965)- people determine whether a behavior corresponds to an actor's internal disposition by asking whether 1) the behavior was intended, 2) the behavior's consequences were foreseeable, 3) the behavior was freely chosen, & 4) the behavior occurred despite countervailing forces - that is, low in social desirability
Kelly's theory of causal attribution AKA the Covariation model.
That is, we often begin with a preliminary question: was the behavior primarily caused by...
- internal causes: an individuals own traits, motives, intentions
- external causes; some aspect of the world
or by both
the extent to which actions by one person are also shown by others or how others behave in the same situation (one of kellys 3)
the extent to which an individual responds to a given stimulus or situation on different occasions. Or, how actor behaves in the same situation (one of kellys 3)
the extent to which an individual responds in a similar manner to different stimulation or situations. Or, how actor behaves in other situations (one of kellys 3)
a tendency to discount one potential cause of behavior when others are also present; as the number of possible causes for an event increases, our confidence that any particular cause is the true one should decrease
we attach greater importance to potential cause if the behavior occurs despite the presence of an inhibiting causes; if an event occurs despite the presence of strong opposing forces, we should give more weight to those possible causes that lead toward the event
Fundamental attribution error
the tendency to overestimate dispositional influences and underestimate situational influences on others' behaviors (AKA correspondence bias).
tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational causes but others' mainly to internal - dispositional causes.
tendency to attribute success to internal causes (e.g., ability) and negative outcomes or failures to external - situational causes.
organized collection of beliefs & feelings about ones self. This includes specific personality dispositions.
represents the single most important aspect of one's personality. A special type of schema. Consists of all the knowledge we process about ourselves. It is developed out of our interaction with others.
The Looking-Glass Self
People learn about themselves from others. Cooley (1902) developed the term.
your image of how others see you
your image of how others will judge you
your emotional response to that potential judgment
process by which a person examines the contents of his or her mind and mental states
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954)
we have a fundamental drive to evaluate our abilities & opinions & often do so by comparing themselves with others
Downward social comparison
comparing ourselves with those who are less well-off
-Enhance self-image if we can view the other person as clearly less well off than we are
Upward social comparison
comparing ourselves with those who are better off than ourselves
-May motivate toward self-improvement but risky because you may realize you aren't as good as someone else
-Need to convince yourself that you're in the same general range as those better off than you & if you focus on this connection you can feel better about yourself
tendency for intrinsic motivation to diminish for activities that have become associated with rewards. Someone who gets paid for doing what they love to do may decrease in their love for that activity.
Self-perception theory - Bem (1965)
theory that people observe their own behavior to infer what they are thinking and how they are feeling
wanting to perform an activity for its own sake
performing an activity because of something that results from it
putting obstacles in the way of one's own performance, so that anticipated or possible failure can be blamed on the obstacle instead of on lack of ability
different roles a person plays, as in a play or a movie
Self and Culture
The self comes from an interaction of inner biological processes and the sociocultural network.
attention directed at the self includes evaluation as well as simple awareness.
an individuals attitude about their self worth, involving self-evaluation along a positive (high) - negative (low) continuum.
Essentially, we are eager to assess our competence, verify our self-schema, and motivated to maintain & enhance that image.
low self esteem
Some associations related to unpleasant childhood experiences.
- hospitalization, re-marriage, or death of a parent
- worries about grades
- worries about parental punishment
- self-perception of unattractiveness
- self-perception of parental disapproval
Outcomes associated with low SE:
- more neg. emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression)
- poor grades - delinquency
- fearfulness - drug abuse
high self esteem
- positive self-image
- self-perceptions of strengths & weaknesses & the tendency to evaluate strengths as more important
- better adjustment
- less afraid of failure & death
- express anger appropriately
- more likely to engage in self-serving bias
- rate their work & their group's work more positively
- function better in interpersonal situations
locus of control
When control is less obvious, some individuals believe their actions play a large role in maximizing good outcomes and minimizing bad ones
hopelessness and resignation that there is no controlling neg. outcomes.
refers to wanting to present a desired image both internally and externally (public & private selves).
disposition that ranges from the tendency to regulate behavior based on situation (high self-monitors) to basing behavior on internal (dispositional) factors (low self-monitors).
general evaluations people make about themselves, others, issues, & objects.
They are enduring mental representations of various features of the social or physical world.
learning based on association. Basically, when 1 stimulus regularly precedes another, the one that occurs first may soon become a signal for the one that occurs second.
Learning to express the "right" view. Children receive positive reinforcement stating views that correspond to the parents.
process of acquiring new forms of behavior & beliefs (including attitudes) from social interactions. This can be direct experience, vicarious, or observational.
Learning by example. Even when parents are not specifically trying to influence their children's attitudes, kids are watching & trying to imitate that behavior.
Mere exposure effect
tendency for people to come to like things simply because they see or encounter them repeatedly. This does not apply to things you initially dislike; exposure makes you like it less.
when attitudes influence behavior
1) When external influences are minimal
2) When the attitude is specific to the behavior
3) When we are conscious of our att.
type of schema that refers to expectations associated with a particular social position
(Heider, 1946, 1958): people prefer harmony & consistency in their views of the world. Associate good things w/ good people, bad things w/ bad people
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
(Festinger, 1957): unpleasant state of psychological arousal resulting from an inconsistency within one's important attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. we feel dissonance (tension) when faced with inconsistency between behavior & attitude; thus, we adjust our thinking to reduce this tension.
when our attitudes are unclear we look to our behavior to tell us what they are. Basically, we are observers not actors
Strong Attitudes Resist Persuasion
Strong attitudes are more stable than weaker ones & are better able to withstand persuasive attackers or appeals specifically directed at them
Commitment: more certain that it is correct, that they won't change it, & that their position is extreme
Embeddedness: connected to additional features of the person such as self-concept, values, & social identity
finding that people's attitudes become more extreme as they reflect on them
change in overt behavior caused by real or imagined pressure from others
Differs from persuasion in that persuasion refers to change in private attitudes & beliefs not necessarily leading to behavioral change
When individuals alter their behavior to adhere to existing social norms (Social norms being widely accepted ideas or rules that indicate how people should behave in certain situations).
Exerted directly by individuals rather than beliefs or norms. This involves a direct request from 1 person to another. It can also involve other techniques that enhance compliance.
Compliance that occurs in response to a directive from an authority figure. That is, 1 person simply orders 1 or more people to perform some action(s). Typically, the order has power but that is not necessary.
Normative social influence
the pressure to conform to the positive expectations or actions of other people or going along with the crowd in order to be liked and accepted
Informational social influence
the pressure to accept the actions or statements of others as evidence about reality or going along with the crowd because you think the crowd knows more than you do
what is typically done
a. Inform of what is likely to be effective action
b. Goal of accuracy: By following what most people do, can usually make an accurate choice
what is approved/disapproved of
a. Goal of social approval
b. Norm of reciprocity: requires that we repay others with the form of behavior they have given us
Asch's Research on Group Influence
interested in submission of individuals to group forces & capacity of people to act independent of conformity pressures
-Asked students in groups of 8 to match the lengths of different lines
-Control condition had no group pressure (95% got all 12 line matches right)
-Experimental condition had subjects faced with a social consensus that contradicted their own eyes
-5 before them unanimously agreed on an answer that was clearly wrong & only 25% ignored the group & gave a correct answer
In most of Asche's studies you tend to see that overall roughly 24% never conform & around 76% conform at least a little - with about 58% conforming 3 times or less.
doing or saying what others around you say or do
actually coming to feel or think what they do
effects of conformity
1. Conformity increases with Cohesiveness (liking the group or individual that's exerting influence) & the number of people exerting that influence.
2. Conformity is reduced by the presence of social support (others that share like views or have also departed from the majority view in some manner).
3. Although early finding suggested a gender difference recent evidence suggests none exists.
4. BUT, this is not always a majority dictating to minority - sometimes minorities actually have significant influence over minorities.
Involves direct efforts by individuals to change the behavior of others. Typically, this involves a direct request from 1 person to another.
involves efforts by individuals to enhance their attractiveness to others to enhance compliance. People have a strong desire to be liked by others. We realize that if others like us their more willing to do things for us, help w/ tasks, evaluate us favorably, & say yes to our requests.
more willing to comply w/ requests from those who have provided such things in the first place. Or the obligation to return in kind what another has done for us. Reciprocity is found in all cultures.
The "Foot-in-the-Door" Technique
increases compliance with a large request by first getting compliance with a smaller, related request - sm request leads to big request.
Door in the face
influence technique based on reciprocity, in which one starts with an inflated request and then retreats to a smaller request that appears to be a concession. It increases compliance by asking a small request after getting turned down with a large, related request - lg request leads to sm request.
It does not work:
1. If the first request is outrageous.
2. If the first and second requests are made by different people, therefore there is no sense of reciprocation.
is an influence technique based on reciprocity, in which on first makes an inflated request but, before the person can answer yes or no, sweetens the deal by offering a discount or bonus. When an unfamiliar person makes a request more available, a sense of reciprocity is expressed.
is an influence technique based on commitment, in which one first gets a person to comply with a seemingly low-cost request and only later reveals hidden additional costs. A commitment is made. Despite a change in the original commitment, an individual seeks consistency and maintains the commitment.
is an influence technique based on commitment, in which one draws people in with an attractive offer that is unavailable and then switches them to a less attractive offer that is available. People make a commitment and because of the need for consistency, they keep to their commitment despite a less attractive offer.
is an influence technique based on consistency, in which one assigns a label to an individual and then requests a favor that is consistent with the label.
is an influence technique in which a requester makes a small amount of aid acceptable. Request such as "every penny will help" are easier to commit to because everyone has a penny or two.
more willing to follow the directions/recommendations of someone they view as an authority
interpersonal way to locate & validate the correct choice. "Largest selling" "Fastest growing" etc. are used by advertisers. Tendency to follow the crowd often sends us in the right direction
The most direct form of social influence, It involves direct orders from 1 person to another - 1 person simply orders 1 or more people to perform some action(s).
when obidience occurs
1. When there is a gradual escalation
2. When there are visible signs of power
a) Showing individual they're responsible - not experimenters (e.g. Milgram)
b) Exposure to disobedient models
c) Inducing individual to question the motives or legitimacy of those in authority
Collectivism vs. Individualism
cross-culturally differences are seen. Trafimow & Finlay (1996): people who define themselves in individualistic ways make decisions on the basis of personal attitudes rather than group norms. Cultures that differ in the extent to which they are individualistic or collectivistic also produce this effect
we react against threats to our freedoms by reasserting those freedoms, often by doing the opposite of what we are being pressured to do
change in private attitude or belief as a result of receiving a message. Occurs only when a message brings about inner change in your views on a topic
Cognitive v. Affective components
The cog. component of att. predicts certain types of behavior better than the affective component (i.e., instrumental actions).
how much the source knows. Experts are more persuasive than non-experts. Arguments carry more weight when the speaker is credible and knowledgeable. Must have expertise & trustworthiness (honesty & lack of bias).
whether a source will honestly tell you what he or she knows
People are perceived as credible when:
a. They do not have anything to gain from the persuasive message. (e.g. car salesmen are not credible because they are perceived as wanting one's money).
b. They talk fast.
c. They are powerful speakers.
Those similar to us are more persuasive
people are viewed as having other likeable traits - e.g. intelligence, agreeableness. Popular & attractive communicators (having qualities that appeal to an audience) are more effective in changing attitudes than unpopular or unattractive people.
are people who others perceive as credible sources because they are arguing against their own previously held attitudes and behaviors. Convert communicators are effective because they are similar to the audience and they are able to overcome undesirable behaviors.
Appeal to emotions
Persuasion can be enhanced by messages that arouse strong emotions (especially fear) in the audience. Particularly when the message provides specific recommendations about how a change in att. or behavior will prevent the neg. consequences described in the fear provoking message. There is a U-shape relationship between the effectiveness of low fear versus high fear. Eliciting no fear or high fear is not effective in persuasion. Eliciting some fear is.
Present Cold, hard facts
Intelligent and analytic thinkers appeal more to this method
persuasive message actually generates MORE att. change sometime after it has been presented than immediately after - this is the
analytic people are more persuaded by two-sided arguments, and more receptive to persuasive messages because of a longer attention span.
Need for cognition
a tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking, analysis, and mental problem solving. People high in cognition: Are more persuaded by strong arguments & are more resistant to attitude change
Individualistic cultures are more influences by ads which endorse separateness and individuality. Collectivist cultures are more influences by ads which endorse togetherness and groups.
Desire for Social Approval
Impression motivation: motivation to achieve approval by making a good impression on others - can sometimes conflict with the pursuit of accuracy & consistency
a cognitive approach
here the key question has shifted from "who says what to whom with what effect" to "what cog. Processes determine when someone is actually persuaded.
Cognitive response model
theory that locates the most direct cause of persuasion in the self-talk of the persuasion target. Best indication of how much change a communicator will produce lies not in what the communicator says to the persuasion target but in what the target says to him/herself as a result of receiving the communication.
Dual process models of persuasion
accounts for the 2 basic ways that attitude change occurs - with & w/out much thought
2 routes to persuasion
3) Central route: (systematic processing): is the route to persuasion that involves careful and thoughtful consideration of the content of the message (conscious processing).
It involves careful, thoughtful consideration of the issue & argument. Change occurs to the extent that the arguments are convincing & strong. (if weak & unconvincing - little change)
4) Peripheral route: (heuristic processing): is the route to persuasion that involves some simple cue, such as attractiveness of the source (automatic processing).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model
2 processes are involved - which one is selected depends on the amount of elaboration (careful scrutiny) individuals give to the message. Basically - deeply or superficially
there are 2 ways attitude change can take place - with heuristic shortcuts or processing information systematically -Message recipients will consider a communication deeply when they have both the motivation & the ability to do so
route to persuasion- (systematic processing): is the route to persuasion that involves careful and thoughtful consideration of the content of the message (conscious processing).
route to persuasion- (heuristic processing): is the route to persuasion that involves some simple cue, such as attractiveness of the source (automatic processing).
the degree to which people expect an issue to have significant consequences for their own lives. The more personally relevant, the more the person will feel motivated to process the message.
need for cognition
tendency to enjoy & engage in deliberative thought
message that tried to persuade the audience by acknowledging and then refuting opposing arguments
Exposing people to counterarguments will reduce the influence of persuasion. However, too much exposure may produce the opposite effect.
Negative attitude change (boomerang effect)
This is doing exactly the opposite of what one is being persuaded to do
Example: Trying to get little Bobby to clean his room his mother finds he has actually made it even more messy.
collection of 2 or more interacting persons who share common goals, have a stable relationship, are somehow interdependent, & perceive
why people belong to groups
1. Groups help us satisfy important psychological or social needs (e.g., belonging, receiving attention or affection from others, etc.)
2. Groups help us achieve goals - it helps us perform tasks we couldn't do alone.
3. Group membership contributes to a positive social identity & contributes to self-concept. The more prestigious / restrictive the group to which an individual belongs, the more self-concept is bolstered. Social Identity.
the set of behaviors / functions that individuals in specific positions are expected to perform
relative social position or rank within a group. Many people desire high status thus groups can use it to control members by using it as reward / punish.
rules - implicit & explicit - established by various groups to regulate the behavior of its members. Norms tell people HOW to behave (prescriptive) & how NOT to behave (proscriptive).
all forces acting on group members to remain part of a group. That is, strength of the bonds among group members
Common identity, beliefs, values and practices are often contributors to group unity.
individuals' performance on tasks is often affected by the presence of others, or by the potential evaluation of their work. This includes both enhancement & reduction of performance.
argues that the mere presence of others is arousing (e.g., feelings of tension or excitement).
suggests that social facilitation stems from the conflict produced when individuals attempt, simultaneously, to pay attention to others (audience - AKA co-actors) & the task at hand.
the conflict produced by these competing tendencies is arousing.
this in turn enhances the tendency to perform dominant responses.
As with above, if response is correct - performance is enhanced; if incorrect - performance is hindered.
contributions of each member are combined into a single group project. The task is additive - the groups output is the sum of their individual efforts
job in which success is achieved only if each member performs successfully; the groups final product is determined by it's weakest member.
groups final product is determined by it's strongest or most competent member. Many complex problem-solving tasks are disjunctive - 1 member figures out the correct solution & then convinces the others of it's accuracy.
contribution of each member is averaged together to form a single outcome.
Diffusion of responsibility
responsibility is shared among all group members. As a result, each individual feels less responsible than if they were alone.
the tendency of some group members to "take it easy" & let others do most of the work. This stems from the belief that their effort will be pooled with that of others & from the fact that effort can't be evaluated.
loss of individuality & individual accountability and reduction of self-awareness, mainly due to the presence of others. That is, the loss of self-awareness and of individual accountability in a group. Deindividuation generally is problematic
social decision schemas
rules relating to the initial distribution of the members views that relate to the groups final decision.
the tendency for individuals to recommend riskier courses of action after group discussion) could work either way (conservative or risky).
. A shift toward a more extreme position resulting from group discussion.
The commons dilemma
the tragedy of the commons is the tendency for shared or jointly owned resources to be squandered and not used in an optimal or advantageous fashion.
attitude (usually negative) toward the members of some group, based solely on their membership in the group. Individual traits or behaviors play little role here.
prejudiced attitudes toward a particular race
generalized belief about members of a social group that associate groups of people with certain traits. They are cog. frameworks consisting of knowledge & beliefs about specific social groups that suggest that all members of such groups possess certain traits or characteristics A key source of prejudice.
harmful actions directed towards persons or groups that are the targets of prejudice. That is, behaviors directed toward people on the basis of their group membership. It is unequal treatment of different people based on the groups or categories to which they belong.
instances in which persons may perform trivial positive actions for members of an out-group toward whom they feel strong prejudice. This tokenistic behavior is then used as an excuse to refuse more meaningful or beneficial actions toward that group.
tendency to evaluate or treat persons belonging to the out-group (particularly those that are the object of strong ethnic or racial prejudice) more favorably than members of one's own in group.
The "ABCs" of intergroup relationships
A - affective: prejudice - negative feelings or emotions experienced when in the presence of that group. Research has found that many people experience arousal or anxiety.
B - behavioral: discrimination - tendency to act in a negative way or have the intention of doing so.
C - cognitive: stereotyping - beliefs & expectations about group members. Also information processing.
natural tendency of humans to sort objects into groups
("them") are people who belong to a different group or category than we do.
("us") are people who belong to the same group or category as we do
we perceive members of out-groups as the same & similar. We see our group as diverse & different. This is the in-group differentiation hypothesis.
The realistic conflict theory
view that prejudice sometimes stems from direct competition b/w social groups over scarce & valued resources, or opportunities & commodities. People maintain the most negative attitudes toward those who are in opposition to them. These attitudes are the strongest when there is a scarcity of resources.
e.g., jobs, adequate housing, good schools
situation in which people can attain their goals only if others do not
situation in which people must work together with others to help all achieve their goals.
blaming problems and misfortunes on outgroups contributes to negative attitudes toward these groups.
us v. them (remember group level social comparison). Based on the assumption that people divide the social world into 2 distinct categories us & them.
Others belonging to your group are the in-group; if they belong to another - out-group.
Persons in the 'us' category are viewed pos.; 'them' are more neg. - they possess undesirable traits, are more homogeneous (alike) than in-groups, & are often disliked.
This suggests that prejudice may stem from a basic aspect of social cog: a tendency to perceive others as belonging to OUR group or some other group of outsiders.
Remember Tajfel & group social comparison? It increases self-esteem to identify with a social group BUT only if that group is superior to other groups. Prejudice arises out of this conflict of social perceptions of competition: thus, a type of social competition, NOT based on conflict over resources.
Social Learning Theory
Bandura: children acquire neg. att. toward various groups b/c they are exposed by parents, friends, teachers, etc. to these att. & may be rewarded (praise/approval) for adopting them.
view that increased contact between different groups can decrease prejudice.
BUT, this only works under certain circumstances!
1) interacting groups must be = in social, economic, or task-related status. Otherwise communication is diff. & may increase prejudice
2) there must be cooperation & interdependence so that groups work together toward shared goals e.g., superordinate goals)
3) contact should be informal so that indiv. can get to know each other on a 1 on 1 basis.
4) Must occur in setting in which norms favor group equality.
5) contact should permit disconfirmation of neg. stereotyped beliefs about each other.
6) they must view each other as typical of their group in order to generalize to other persons or situations
When these things happen - contact works!
cooperative learning technique for feelings of prejudice. Studies show that friendly & cooperative contact b/w individuals from different groups promotes respect & liking.
redrawing/shifts in the boundaries b/w an individual's in-group & some out-group.
- As a result, persons' formerly viewed as out-group may now be viewed as in-group.
- Strategies such as blending the line - so that all are working together (e.g., competition) is a promising approach
people only learned what members of other groups are truly like, they wouldn't stereotype, be prejudiced, or discriminate against them
-After putting individuals from different groups together or simply teaching them what members of other groups are really like, they would discard their stereotypes & prejudices
"any behavior directed towards the goal of harming another living being who is motivated to avoid such harm" (Baron & Richardson)
behavior intended to express dominance or confidence
aggression that has as its goal extreme physical harm, such as injury or death. All violent acts are aggressive acts, but not all aggressive acts are violent.
behavior that either damages interpersonal relationships or is currently undesirable. Problems with this is that:
a. Used inconsistently by research psychologists.
b. Aggression can be, but is not always, antisocial.
c. Aggression may allow individuals to resolve disputes. Culture provides a better way of resolving disputes.
d. Culture puts limits on aggression.
behavior intended to hurt someone without face-to-face confrontation (e.g., gossip)
behavior intended to hurt someone "to his/her face" (e.g., physical or verbal assaults)
"hot," impulsive, angry behavior that is motivated by a desire to harm someone. That is, hurtful behavior stemming from angry feelings (e.g., throwing a chair at someone in a blind rage).
"cold," premeditated, calculated harmful behavior that is a means to someone practical or material end. Hurting another to accomplish some other (nonaggressive) goal (e.g., punish someone or to increase one's status; soldier's killing an enemy to protect his own life; assassin killing for money)
delivered via a physical route (e.g., hitting, scratching someone's car)
delivered via a verbal route (e.g., yelling obscenities, spreading rumors)
harming others by withholding a behavior (e.g., purposely failing out convey an important message).
harming others by performing a behavior (e.g. spreading vicious rumors).
The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Berkowitz developed a model based on agg. cues. He posited that an aversive stimuli in the environment (i.e. frustration or pain) leads to arousal or a readiness for agg. + a cue (i.e. another person being agg. or a stimuli that connotes agg. leads to aggressive behavior. This is a model of classical conditioning - the relation of stimuli (i.e. gun) with aggression.
increase in aggression that occurs as a result of the mere presence of a weapon.
Bandura's Social Learning Theory
does not believe that people are born aggressive; conversely...
A. Bandura holds that aggression is a learned behavior that is:
2) instigated &
3) regulated by a myriad of factors.
Aggression is first acquired through biological factors, or the physical ability to hurt, and behavior learned through observation and experience. The second issue is the factors that instigate aggression; for example, provocation, attitudes and cognitions that facilitate aggression, and motives that make aggression a viable solution, all facilitate aggression in becoming a behavior. Thirdly, aggression is regulated by either internal or external systems of possible rewards and consequences.
Social Information Process model (Dodge & Crick, 1990)
A. a five step cognitive process:
1. Encoding - encoding of social cues. Relevant schemas are called into action; individual differences such as personality traits, attitudes, and external influences also contribute to the immediate interpretation of cues as they are made salient.
2. Interpretation - these cues are interpreted; at this point the intentions of others are evaluated and attributions are made. It has been shown that aggressive children are more likely to interpret intent as hostile (Dodge & Frame, 1982; Dodge & Somberg, 1987; Slaby & Guerra, 1988) much like we see in their adult counterpart.
3. Response Search - this information is used in a response search for the most accessible reply; as research has shown that aggressive children tend to respond aggressively to provocation (Deluty, 1981), it is likely that after enacting the hostile schema, and attributing the behavior to hostility, that the aggressive child will respond aggressively.
4. Evaluation of Response choice - The child then evaluates the response for the acceptable or appropriate response (i.e., fight, or flight).
5. Action - Finally, the child acts on the chosen response. Thus aggressive behavior is the result of poor social and cognitive skills.
Whereas social information processing (Dodge & Crick, 1990) provides a model for how aggression happens, social learning theory (Bandura, 1973) provides a possible etiology.
Hostile attribution bias
the tendency to perceive ambiguous actions by others as aggressive
1. Unpleasant Environments - Violence is more likely in hot temperatures, with loud noise, and unpleasant odors, and in crowded environments.
2. Poverty-Economic hardship is correlated with increased aggression. Most Violence & competitiveness are more pronounced in poor men in late adolescence/early adulthood. May be a strategy adopted only when other options are limited
3. Wounded Pride - Aggressive individuals do not have low self-esteem but high self-esteem. When someone questions this esteem that is when aggression may occur. Narcissistic people are likely to aggress when they receive a blow to their ego.