* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Unit 14, Social Psych
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
Social loafing wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Attitude change wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Myers’ Psychology for AP* Chapter 14: Social Psychology David G. Myers Some PowerPoint Presentation Slides by Kent Korek Germantown High School Worth Publishers, © 2010 *AP is a trademark registered and/or owned by the College Board, which was not involved in the production of, and does not endorse, this product. Unit 14: Social Psychology Unit Overview Social Thinking Social Influence Social Relations Introduction Social Psychology = the scientific study of how we think about, influence, and relate to one another. Social Thinking Social Context *the real, imagined, or symbolic presence of other people; the activities and interactions that take place among people; the settings in which behavior occurs; and the expectations and social norms governing behavior in a given setting. Social Thinking *Attribution theory *Persuasion *Foot-in-thedoor Phenomenon *Role-playing *Cognitive dissonance Attributing Behavior to Persons or to Situations Attribution theory = tendency to give a causal explanation for someone’s behavior, often by crediting either the situation or the person’s disposition Dispositional vs. situational attribution Fundamental attribution error Self-serving bias Social Thinking *Fundamental Attribution Error *tendency for observers, when analyzing another’s behavior, to underestimate the impact of the situation and to overestimate the impact of personal disposition *dual tendency to overemphasize personal traits while minimizing situational inferences. ***Always try to find a situational explanation et.al. Did the person brake for strange or bizarre suddenly in front of you because behavior of others before he is a jerk, or because a dog ran “blaming” them with out in front of his car? dispositional explanations. Social Thinking How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we react to it Situational attribution “Maybe that driver is ill.” Tolerant reaction (proceed cautiously, allow driver a wide berth) Dispositional attribution “Crazy driver!” Unfavorable reaction (speed up and race past the other driver, give a dirty look) Negative behavior Attributing Behavior to Persons or to Situations The Effects of Attribution Personal relationships Political relationships Job relationships Social Thinking *Attitude *belief and feeling that predisposes one to respond in a particular way to objects, people and events **OUTSIDE INFLUENCES ON WHAT WE SAY AND DO ARE MINIMAL (2002, with most Americans supporting preemptive war in Iraq, most Democrats publicly supported the idea while having private reservations) ** THE ATTITUDE IS SPECIFICALLY RELEVANT TO THE BEHAVIOR (proclaim love while yelling at mate, cherish honesty while cheating on test) **WE ARE KEENLY AWARE OF OUR ATTITUDES (we mindlessly follow habit or others’ expectations while our attitudes lie dormant) Attitudes and Actions Attitude Central route persuasion = attitude change path in which interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thoughts. Peripheral route persuasion = attitude change path in which people are influenced by incidental cues, such as a speaker’s attractiveness Social Thinking Our behavior is affected by our inner attitudes as well as by external social influences Internal attitudes External influences Behavior Social Thinking Attitudes follow behavior Cooperative actions feed mutual liking SHOW: Psych in Film, Ver 2, #14, The War (attitude/violence) Attitudes and Actions Actions Affect Attitudes The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon = the tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request. “start small and build” Attitudes and Actions Actions Affect Attitudes Role-Playing Affects Attitudes Role = a set of expectations (norms) about a social position, defining how those in the position ought to behave. Stanford prison study Abu Ghraib The Stanford Prison Experiment, by Philip Zimbardo underscores the power of social situations to control human behavior. This was the major theme to emerge from social psychological research in the past 50 years. Click here to go to websitehttp://www.prisonexp.org/ THEMES IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 1) POWER OF SOCIAL SITUATIONS: In the prison experiment and others, we will see how the situation can produce conformity to group standards --- even when the group is clearly “wrong.” Other studies demonstrate how situational forces can lead many average people to blindly follow orders -- even orders to harm others. 2) SUBJECTIVE SOCIAL REALITY: Psychologists know we do not respond to objective reality, but rather to subjective interpretation--our perception--which can vary widely from person to person. 3) PROMOTE THE HUMAN CONDITION: Important implications regarding prejudice, violence and terrorism for resolving conflicts among individuals, groups, and nations. Social Thinking *Social Roles *set of expectations about a social position *defines how those in the position ought to behave *when you adopt a new role (college student, marry, new job), you strive to follow the social prescriptions. May feel phony at first while you “act” the role. No one “teaches” you your role. *Social Roles: involves a person’s knowledge about the sequence of events and actions that are expected of a particular social role. Attitudes and Actions Actions Affect Attitudes Cognitive Dissonance: Relief From Tension Cognitive dissonance theory = the theory that we act to reduce the discomfort (dissonance) we feel when two of our thoughts (cognitions) are inconsistent. For example, when our awareness of our attitudes and of our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes. “Attitudes follow behavior” *Cognitive Dissonance *When we voluntarily undergo unpleasant experiences. Generally speaking, when *voluntarily produce people’s cognitions and discomfort with ideas that actions are in conflict (a clash with their attitudes state of dissonance) they and values often reduce the conflict *et. al. Republican speaker in by changing their thinking a Democratic auditorium to fit their behavior. *Cognitive Dissonance Theory *people are motivated to avoid uncomfortable state of dissonance *must change either one’s behavior or one’s cognitions *et.al. when we become aware that our attitudes and our actions clash, we can reduce the resulting dissonance by changing our attitudes Social Thinking Cognitive dissonance COGNITIVE DISSONANCE EXPLANATIONS People don’t want to see themselves as foolish or inconsistent. It explains why: *smokers rationalize their habit *why people who volunteer (putting a lot of time/effort into something) will become more committed *why a woman is attracted to a man who abuses her--her drive for self-justification may make her reduce her dissonance by focusing on his good points and minimizing the abuse “Cognitive dissonance theory predicts that people are attracted to those for whom they have agreed to suffer…..” Social Influence *chameleon effect *conformity *Solomon Asch *Normative social influence *obedience *Stanley Milgram *social facilitation *social loafing *deindividuation *group polarization Social Influence Social Norm *an understood rule for socially accepted and expected behavior (socially appropriate attitudes and behaviors) *prescribes “proper” behavior *”unwritten rules” for the ways members should act *Can be broadly defined: appropriate religious or political attitudes *Can be loosely defined: being *Can guide conversation: quiet in library or shining shoes restricting discussion of for job interview. *Can define sensitive or taboo dress codes: subjects in front of certain uniforms, people. business suits, **In the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards developed norms for abusive behavior. That norm was not already present in the situation--it was an Emergent Norm. Adjustment to a group typically involves discovering social norms. First, by noticing the uniformities and regularities in certain behaviors and second, by observing negative consequences for violating the social norm. Conformity and Obedience Chameleon effect Mood linkage Social Influence The chameleon effect Number of times 0.8 0.7 When with a 0.6 face-rubbing 0.5 and foot0.4 shaking 0.3 confederate, participants Participant tended to rubs face Confederate rubs face likewise rub their face or shake their Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 foot. Participant shakes foot Confederate shakes foot Conformity *adapting one’s behavior or thinking/opinions to coincide with a group standard *used to avoid rejection Conformity increases when: *one is made to feel incompetent or insecure *the group is unanimous *one admires the group’s status and attractiveness *one has made no prior commitment to any response *others in the group observe one’s behavior *one’s culture strongly encourages respect for social standards Social Influence Asch’s conformity experiments (1955) Imagine you are a subject who has volunteered to participate in a VISUAL PERCEPTION STUDY. When you arrive, seven other participants are already seated in a row. The experimenter reveals a pair of cards and asks you to determine which of the three comparison lines is the same length as the standard line. You look at the lines and immediately decide on the correct response….. DO NOT BLURT A RESPONSE!!!! Social Influence Asch’s conformity experiments Social Influence Asch’s conformity experiments Starting at the far end of the row, each person gives their response one at a time…..giving the same OBVIOUSLY correct answer. On the next trial the card is revealed and each subject gives their answer. However, this time they all choose the wrong line!! It’s now your turn to respond. HOW WOULD YOU ANSWER??? Do you maintain your opinion or conform? Social Influence Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments RESULTS: Each subject participated in the experimental situation several times. Approximately 75% of them went along with the group’s consensus at least once. Social Influence 50% Difficult judgments 40 Percentage of 30 conformity to confederates’ 20 wrong answers 10 0 Conformity highest on important judgments Easy judgments Low High Importance Baron, Vandello & Brunsman (1996) p.705 Participants judged which person in Slide 2 was the same as the person in Slide 1 When the task was unimportant, people conformed about 1/3 of the time. When the task appeared important, people rarely conformed when the task was easy, but conformed half the time when the task was difficult. Conformity and Obedience Group Pressure and Conformity Conditions That Strengthen Conformity One is made to feel incompetent or insecure Group has at least three people Group is unanimous One admires the group’s status One has made no prior commitment Others in group observe one’s behavior One’s culture strongly encourages respect for social standards Conformity and Obedience Group Pressure and Conformity Reasons for Conforming Normative social influence Informational social influence Social Influence Normative Social Influence *being sensitive to social norms *influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or avoid disapproval Conformity and Obedience Group Pressure and Conformity Informational Social Influence *influence resulting from one’s willingness to accept others’ opinions about reality Here, the naïve individual (#6) display obvious concern about the majority’s erroneous judgment. Conformity and Obedience Obedience Obedience Milgram’s studies on obedience Procedure Results Ethics Follow up studies OBEDIENCE Stanley Milgram knew that people often comply with social pressures. But how would they respond to direct commands? *Punish the student for wrong answers p.706 A volunteer subject, called “teacher” believed that the research was aimed to improve learning and memory. To administer punishment for not answering a question correctly, the teacher was told to throw a switch which would deliver an electric shock to the learner each time he made an error. The teacher was told to increase the level of the shock by a fixed amount with every error. The experiment was overseen by the “experimenter” in a white coat---an authority figure presenting the “rules” and ordered the teacher to do their job whenever they hesitated or dissented. The “shock generator” was clearly labeled that featured a row of 30 switches ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, marked “XXX”. The “student” was play by a pleasant, mild-mannered man about 50 years old who mentioned having a “heart condition.” He was strapped to an “electric chair” in the next room HOW FAR WOULD THE PEOPLE GO BEFORE THEY DEFIED THE AUTHORITY FIGURE AND REFUSED TO GO ON??? At 75 volts, the student made a moan and grunt. At 150 volts he would cry out that he could not stand the pain any longer. The learner’s protests increased up the scale. At 300 volts the learner shouted that he would no longer participate in the experiment and must be freed. At 375 volts, the learner screamed out and there was a thud and then silence. The experiment ended when the “teacher” reached the 450 volt maximum or refused to go on. HOW FAR WOULD THE PEOPLE GO BEFORE THEY DEFIED THE AUTHORITY FIGURE AND REFUSED TO GO ON??? Conformity and Obedience 2/3 delivered the 450 volts. Most who refused Obedience maximum, stopped at 300 volts. ***NOONE who got to the last 5 switches refused to go all the way. THE BUZZER Sitting with the number eight platter at the restaurant Four twenty nine for almost anything I want Add it up, it's cheaper than the stuff I make myself I get by, I never needed anybody's help And I tore out an ad and they told me that I Would press the buzzer, would press the buzzer At the graduate lab, they were doing some tests I pressed the buzzer, pressed the buzzer Ride the circle off of the highway, spiral into the driveway In the maze of old prefabs, they'll be waiting at the lab I don't know how everybody makes it through the daily drill Paint the nails, walk a dog, pay every bill I'm feeling sorry for this guy that I press to shock He gets the answers wrong, I have to up the watts And he begged me to stop, but they told me to go I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer So get out of my head, just give me my line I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer Ride the circle off of the highway, spiral into the driveway In the maze of old prefabs, they'll be waiting at the lab. They called me back to the lab to discuss the test I put my earrings on, found my heels, wore a dress Right away I knew, it was like I'd failed a quiz The man said, do you know what a fascist is? I said, yeah, it's when you do things you're not proud of But you're scraping by, taking orders from above I get it now, I'm the face, I'm the cause of war We don't have to blame white coated men anymore. When I knew it was wrong, I played it just like a game I pressed the buzzer, I pressed the buzzer Here's your seventy bucks, now everything's changed I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer But tell me where are your stocks, would you do this again? I press the buzzer And tell me who made your clothes, was it children or men? I press the buzzer Ride the circle off of the highway, spiral into the driveway In the maze of old prefabs, they'll be waiting at the lab THE BUZZER, by Dar Williams The ultimate demonstration of this effect was seen in the World War II era, with the emergence of Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy. These leaders transformed rational citizens of whole nations into mindless loyal followers of a fascist idealogy bent on world domination. Similar cases would include Jim Jones in Guyana, David Koresh in Waco, Texas, Marshal Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate fame, and Osama Bin Laden. WHY DO WE OBEY AUTHORITY? From Milgram variations of the study, we can conclude: **When a peer modeled obedience by complying with the authority figure’s commands **When the victim was remote from the “teacher” and could not be seen or heard. **When the “teacher” was under direct surveillance of the authority figure so he was aware of his presence **When a participant acted as an intermediary bystanders, merely assisting the one who was delivering the shock, rather than actually throwing the switch. **When the authority figure had higher relative status, as when he was billed as “doctor” or “professor.” All of these result from SITUATIONAL variables not PERSONALITY variables. All of the participants were wellmeaning individuals Social Influence Some individuals resist social coercion…. …… roughly 1 in 3 in Milgram’s experiment, as this unarmed man did in Beijing in 1989. Conformity and Obedience Lessons From the Conformity and Obedience Studies Ordinary people being corrupted by an evil situation Group Influence Individual Behavior in the Presence of Others Social Facilitation = stronger responses on simple or well-learned tasks in the presence of others. Task difficulty Expertise effects Crowding effects Social Influence Social Facilitation *occurs with simple or well-learned tasks but not with tasks that are difficult or not yet mastered *research shows that people who work in small groups in class learn more and are more productive than people who work alone. For example, after a light turns green, drivers take about 15 percent less time to travel the first 100 yards when another car is beside them at the intersection than when they are alone. But on difficult tasks, people perform less well in the presence of others. p.709-710 Social Facilitation Home Advantage in Major Team Sports Sport Games Studied Baseball 23,034 Football 2,592 Home Team Winning Percentage 53.3% 57.3 Ice hockey 4,322 61.1 Basketball 13,596 64.4 Soccer 37,202 69.0 Group Influence Individual Behavior in the Presence of Others Social Loafing = tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts toward attaining a common goal than when individually accountable Reasons why? Less accountability View themselves as dispensable People who are a part of a group feel less accountable. Group Influence Individual Behavior in the Presence of Others Deindividuation *loss of self-awareness and selfrestraint in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity Group Influence Effects of Group Interaction Group Polarization = If a group is likeminded, discussion strengthens its prevailing opinions enhancement of a group’s prevailing attitudes through discussion within the group GROUPS CAN ALSO BE PRESSURED TO CONFORM Group Influence Effects of Group Interaction Groupthink *mode of thinking that occurs when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives SIX CONDITIONS LIKELY TO PROMOTE GROUPTHINK: *isolation of the group *illusion of invulnerability *incomplete survey of objectives *directive leadership *collective rationalization *incomplete survey of alternatives *lack of norms requiring methodical procedures *belief in inherent morality of the group *poor information search *homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology *stereotypes of outgroups *failure to examine risks of preferred choice *high stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than that of the group leader *self-censorship *selective bias in processing information at hand *illusion of unanimity *failure to reappraise alternatives *self-appointed mind guards *failure to work out contingency plans. *high group cohesiveness *direct pressure on dissenters This concept was first developed to help understand bad decisions made by the U.S. Government regarding the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam War, and the invasion of Cuba’s Bay of Pigs. Later, others have cited groupthink as a factor that contributed to the faulty decisions in the space shuttle disasters, the bankruptcy of Enron Corporation, and the decision to wage war against Iraq. Fastow, Lay, Skilling Powell, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Bush HOW TO AVOID GROUPTHINK *encourage vigorous debate *make recommendations on unbiased reports *leader shouldn’t make his/her opinions known *make sure group members are not cut off from out side input. *get new perspectives *assign one person to be “devil’s advocate” Social Relations Prejudice How Prejudiced Are People? Prejudice Stereotype Discrimination Prejudice How Prejudiced Are People? Prejudice *an unjustifiable (and usually negative) attitude toward a group and its members *involves stereotyped beliefs, negative feelings, and a predisposition to discriminatory action Stereotype *a generalized (often overgeneralized) belief about a group of people Prejudice How Prejudiced Are People? Discrimination = unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group and its members. Self-fulfilling Prophecy = occurs when one person’s belief about others leads one to act in ways that induce the others to appear to confirm the belief Prejudice How Prejudiced Are People? Social Relations Does perception change with race? SOURCES OF DISCRIMINATION: Economic Competition: *where one group wins economic benefits or jobs at the others’ expense *studies show that prejudice against black Americans to be the greatest among white groups poised at an economic level just about the black Americans average---or those who would feel their jobs most threatened by black Americans. Scapegoating may also explain why the number of lynchings in the southern U.S. between 1882 and 1930 was related to the price of cotton. When cotton prices dropped, the lynchings increased. When cotton prices rallied, the number of lynchings fell. Scapegoating is most effective when propoganda can create differences in the minds of the dominant group. SOURCE OF DISCRIMINATION: CONFORMITY TO NORMS *unthinking tendency to maintain conditions the way they are *secretaries male or female? *executives male or female? *when people see that the majority of a profession is of a particular gender or race, we assume that is the social and economic norm *the opposing gender or race may avoid taking classes to become a part of that group. Historically, powerful groups have discriminated against out-groups by: *withholding privileges *sending to different schools *making them sit in back of bus *forcing them into low-wage jobs *forcing them into jails and ghettos Prejudice Social Roots of Prejudice Social Inequalities Us and Them: Ingroup and Outgroup Ingroup (Ingroup bias) Outgroup Emotional roots of prejudice Scapegoat theory Social Relations Ingroup *“Us”- people with whom one shares a common identity Outgroup *“Them”- those perceived as different or apart from one’s ingroup *people mentally place these people at greater social distance then members of your own group. *less likely to view these people as socially equal *this inequality easily translates into inferiority, making it easier for you to treat members of an outgroup with contempt. Social Relations SOURCES OF DISCRIMINATION: Ingroup Bias *tendency to favor one’s own group Scapegoat Theory *theory that prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame Prejudice Cognitive Roots of Prejudice Categorization Outgroup homogeneity Other-race effect = the tendency to recall faces of one’s own race more accurately than faces of other races. Also called the cross-race effect and the own-race bias. Prejudice Cognitive Roots of Prejudice Vivid cases Just-world phenomenon = the tendency for people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Hindsight bias In April 1968, a student in Jane Elliot’s third grade classroom in Riceville, Iowa, said, “They shot that King yesterday. Why’d they shoot that King?” So Mrs. Elliot devised an activity to allow her students to experience the power of prejudice which led to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Jane Elliot told the children that brown-eyed children were superior to blue-eyed children. They were smarter, more tolerant, fewer germs etc. Blue-eyed children were given collars and armbands to wear to differentiate them from the superior brown-eyed children. The two groups were not allowed to play together at recess. Non-brown children had to use cups when drinking from the drinking fountain and sit in the back of the classroom. Brown-eyed students were praised when they answered questions correctly. Jane Elliot Riceville, Iowa Within 15 minutes, a fight broke out on the playground when one boy called another boy, “brown-eyed.” A smart blue-eyed girl who had never had problems with multiplication tables started making mistakes. She slumped. At recess, three brown-eyed girls ganged up on her. "You better apologize to us for getting in our way because we're better than you are," one of the brownies said. The blue-eyed girl apologized. When Mrs. Elliot asked the students to write an essay on what they had learned, a typical response was "I felt like quitting school. . . . I felt mad. That's what it feels like when you're discriminated against." On Monday, Elliott reversed the exercise, and the brown-eyed kids were told how shifty, dumb and lazy they were. Later, it would occur to Elliott that the blueys were much less nasty than the brownies had been, perhaps because the blue-eyed kids had felt the sting of being ostracized and didn't want to inflict it on their former tormentors. After her experiment got national television coverage, Elliot recalled, townspeople made threatening phone calls, beat and spit at her children, and boycotted her parents' coffee shop, eventually forcing it out of business. They feared black people would think that they all thought like her and blacks would think life was good in Riceville and move over there in droves. Her father went bankrupt. Of course this created chaos within the family. "My mother thought I'd gone crazy and asked me, 'can't you just stop with this nonsense?'" She has never forgiven me. "My brothers, self-made millionaires and conservative Republicans wondered what the hell my problem was?” Her father, however, has never stopped her. In fact, it was his contradictory attitude that made Jane the odd one out in her family. "My father always said, 'never put a stone on another man's path' or 'justice will never be disadvantageous to man' or 'a just cause is a good thing.'" At the same time he wouldn't have his daughters marry a black man. I thought that wasn't right. I was crazy about my father. It's a shame he was so prejudiced." SHOW: Psych in Film, ver 2, #35, Snow Falling on Cedars. FEB 2013: Chief Justice Roberts votes to declare section 4 of the Voters Rights Act unconsitutional which would keep states from changing election rules without permission from the Federal Government. He states this provision “. . . is no longer justified because racism is no longer the problem it once was.. . .” APRIL 2014: Clivin Bundy, nicknamed the “Welfare Cowboy” because he refused to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government for his use of federal land to feed his cattle. His antics drew support from other ranchers throughout the west when they flocked to his defense by arming themselves as militia. “I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.” --Cliven Bundy (April 24, 2014) The Pygmalion effect (or Rosenthal effect or teacher-effectiveness effect) *refers to situations in which students performed better than other students, simply because they were expected to do so. *if teachers were led to expect enhanced performance from some children, then the children did indeed show that enhancement. *Can also result from racial expectations. *When students in Jane Elliot’s class were given tests on the day of the experiment, the students scored very low on the day they were racially “inferior” and high on the day they were racially “superior.” Aggression Aggression = any physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt or destroy. Aggression The Biology of Aggression Genetic Influences Neural Influences Biochemical Influences Aggression Psychological and Social-Cultural Factors in Aggression Aversive Events Frustration-aggression principle = principle that frustration – the blocking of an attempt to achieve some goal – creates anger, which can generate aggression Fight or slight reaction Social and cultural influences Aggression-replacement program Aggression Psychological and Social-Cultural Factors in Aggression Observing models of aggression Rape myth = idea that some women invite or enjoy rape and “get swept away” while being “taken.” Acquiring social scripts Do video games teach, or release violence? Catharsis hypothesis? Do video games teach, or release violence? In 2002, two Grand Rapids, Michigan, teens and a man in his early 20s spent the night drinking beer and playing “Grand Theft Auto III,” using cars to run down simulated pedestrians, before beating them with fists and leaving a bloody body behind. (Kolker, 2002) Then they went out on a real drive, spotted a 38-year old man on a bicycle, ran him down with their car, stomped and punched him, and returned home to play the game some more. The man, a father of three, died six days later. Do video games teach, or release violence? **Most abused children don’t become abusive adults. **Most social drinkers don’t become alcohol dependent. **Most youths who spend hours playing video games don’t become teen assassins. Although most will never commit slaughter, how many will become desensitized to violence and to violent acts?? Biopsychosocial Understanding of Aggression Social Relations Uncomfortably hot weather and aggression Murders 8.0 and rapes per day in 7.5 Houston, Texas From the available data, Anderson projects that global warming of 4 degree Fahrenheit would induce more than 50,000 additional assaults and murders in the U.S. alone. 7.0 6.5 6.0 40-68 69-78 79-85 86-91 92-99 Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit Social Relations Men who sexually coerce women Sexual promiscuity Coerciveness against women Hostile masculinity Social Relations Juvenile violent crime arrest rates Arrest per 1,000 100,000 15- to 17- 900 year-olds 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Social Relations Americans today express much less racial and gender prejudice Percentage 90 answering 80 yes 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Would you vote for a woman president? Do whites have a right to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods? 1936 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year Aggression and Violence Robber’s Cave Experiment *Muzafer Sherif (1961) *boy scout camp: 11 and 12 year old boys *random assignment: Eagles and Rattlers *allowed within-group activities to build group cohesiveness, solidarity, loyalty, membership *prizes awarded creating competitive atmosphere Eagles arranged to arrive hour early. Half the food was mouth-watering; the other half deliberately unappealing. When Rattlers arrived Eagles had devoured the more desirable food. What happened? Zimbardo Aggression and Violence As you might expect, this led to name-calling and scuffling, culminating into a food fight. Sherif tried various tactics to bring the groups together--complete failure. Social events, such as movies, eating in same room et.al. were only opportunities for more hostility. What did help was cooperative events--NO competitive events. Researchers created a “broken water line” in the camp: created a harmonious energy Next day: broken truck; can’t go to town to get food. The two groups had to work cooperatively to pull a rope to get truck running. Zimbardo Aggression and Violence CONCLUSION: To serve it’s own needs, each group had to cooperate in order to serve their mutual interests. Suggests that effective conflict resolution can come from identifying goals of mutual benefit and persuading the antagonistic groups to pursue these shared goals. Mutual interdependence *working relationship based on shared goals In the end, groups actively sought opportunites to mingle with each other. One group even used it’s own money to buy treats for the other group. Zimbardo Fuel for Terrorism *poverty, hunger, powerlessness, and hopelessness. *much of the world sees no way out. *ethnic hatred and wars aggravate the situation *most of the world’s growing population is in poorer countries *jobs in these countries depend on resources that are being depleted (fisheries, forests, soil, water) *millions flee traditional environments to the overpopulated cities and leads to Zimbardo Fuel for Terrorism Terrorism is really about psychology. Terrorism typically involves: *relatively small group of people *take dramatic, violent action against a larger group *intention of spreading fear *inducing anxiety and uncertainty about their government’s ability to protect them. Fuel for Terrorism TERRORISTS DO NOT WANT TO CONQUER LANDS-THEY WANT TO CONQUER MINDS!!! The politicians’ easiest response is to demonize those who perpetrate the evil deeds. Labeling others as “evil” usually turns them into objects of scorn and prevents any attempt to understand the reasons for their actions. Fuel for Terrorism CONFLICT RESOLUTION APPROACH *applied lessons from the Eagles & Rattlers to the Israelis and Palestinians Herbert Kelman, PhD 1951, Yale University Professor, Harvard University *brings community leaders from both sides together for small group discussion *mid-level leaders, not high-profile leaders *encourage cooperation *minimize rewards for hostile behaviors *although inspired by science, most of the variables remain uncontrolled Fuel for Terrorism Terrorism does not always involve international conflict. *Columbine High *Federal Building in Oklahoma City *Virginia Tech Massacre *hate crimes (racial, ethnic, gays, ) *violence against abortion facilities CROWD CONTROL SHOW: Psych in Film, ver 2, #34, To Kill A Mockingbird. Attraction The Psychology of Attraction Proximity Mere exposure effect Physical attractiveness Similarity Reward theory of attraction Social Relations- Attractiveness Mere Exposure Effect *repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them *Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture Attraction: Romantic Love Passionate Love *an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another *usually present at the beginning of a love relationship Companionate Love *deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined Attraction: Romantic Love Equity *a condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it Self-disclosure *revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others Social Relations- Attractiveness Proximity *mere exposure effect- repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them Physical Attractiveness *youthfulness may be associated with health and fertility Similarity *friends share common attitudes, beliefs, interests It is no surprise that we are attracted to people who have something to offer us. Reward Theory of Attraction *attraction is a form of social learning *we like those best who can give us maximum rewards at minimum cost. Powerful sources of reward that predict interpersonal attraction: Most of us choose our friends, *proximity *similarity *self-disclosure *physical attractiveness associates and lovers because they offer some combination of these factors with relatively low social cost. Principle of Attractiveness *fair or not, good looks are a real social asset. *potential employers prefer good-looking employees. *attractive children are judged as happier and more competent. *both males and females are strongly influenced by physical attractiveness, but men seem to be more influenced than women. *can be bad news for very attractive people; while they are generally seen as more poised, interesting, sociable, independent, exciting, sexual, intelligent, well-adjusted, and successful, they are also perceived as more vain and materialistic. *double standard; public favors good-looking male politicians but disparages their attractive female counterparts. Show Psych in Film, ver 2, #32,The Thrill of it All Altruism Altruism = unselfish regard for the welfare of others Kitty Genovese Bystander Intervention Diffusion of responsibility Bystander effect Social Relations--Bystander Problem In 1964, Kitty Genovese returned to her apartment after work in a quiet, middleclass Queens neighborhood. She left her car and was viciously attacked by a man with a knife. She screamed for help as she was being stabbed. After one neighbor yelled out the window, “Leave that girl alone”, the attacker stopped, walked away, but then returned and continued to assault Genovese. She continued to scream until someone finally called the police. By the time the police arrived, Genovese was dead. Social Relations--Bystander Problem The attack had lasted 35 minutes. Not one person telephoned the police during the assault!! At least 38 people in the surrounding apartments had witnessed the attack, but had not called the police. One couple had moved their chairs closer to the window in order to watch the violence. One person called police only after Kitty had been raped and murdered The murderer was never found. Social Relations--Bystander Problem 100 Percentage attempting to help Bystander Effect 90 90 80 80 *tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present *more that are present, the slower they are to help 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 20 30 10 20 0 10 0 11 22 3 3 Number of others presumed available to help 4 4 Social Relations--Bystander Problem The decision-making process for bystander intervention Yes Yes Notices incident? Interprets incident as emergency? No No help Yes Assumes responsibility? No No help Attempts to help No No help Individuals who perceive themselves part of a large group of potential interveners experience DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY, a reluctance to become personally involved. For those who do help people in distress, it was found that most have had some medical, police, first-aid, or CPR training in emergency situations. Another study by Tom Moriarity (1975) arranged 2 experiments: (1) New Yorkers watched as a thief snatched a woman’s suitcase in a restaurant when she left her table (2) People watched a thief grab a portable radio from a beach blanket when the owner left for a few minutes. Most onlookers did nothing. However, it was found that if the victim asked the observer to “keep an eye on my stuff”, almost all bystanders intervened---even to the point of tackling the runaway thief on the beach. Lessons: *Ask for help **Reduce the ambiguity of the situation, “Someone broke into my house--call the police and give this address” ***Identify specific individuals so they do not dismiss responsibility. Altruism The Norms of Helping Social exchange theory = the theory that our social behavior is an exchange process, the aim of which is to maximize benefits and minimize costs Reciprocity norm = an expectation that people will help, not hurt those who have helped them. Social-responsibility norm = an expectation that people will help those dependent upon them. Conflict and Peacemaking Conflict *perceived incompatibility of actions, goals, or ideas Social Trap *a situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing their self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior Conflict and Peacemaking Person 1 Person 2 Choose B Choose A Choose A Choose B Optimal outcome Probable outcome Social trap by pursuing our self-interest and not trusting others, we can end up losers Also called Game Theory or Nash Equilibrium Conflict and Peacemaking Enemy Perceptions Mirror-image perceptions = mutual views often held by conflicting people, as when each side sees itself as ethical and peaceful and views the other side as evil and aggressive. Self-fulfilling prophecy = a belief that leads to its own fulfillment. Conflict and Peacemaking Contact Cooperation Superordinate goals =shared goals that override differences among people and require their cooperation Communication Conciliation GRIT Social Relations Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-reduction (GRIT) *a strategy designed to decrease international tensions *one side announces recognition of mutual interests and initiates a small conciliatory act *opens door for reciprocation by other party CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Cultural Influence Culture = the enduring behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values, and traditions shared by a group of people and transmitted from one generation to the next. Culture within animals Culture in humans Ethnocentrism: judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture Sumner was a critic of “natural rights,” famously arguing: "Before the tribunal of nature a man has no more right to life than a rattlesnake; he has no more right to liberty than any wild beast; his right to pursuit of happiness is nothing but a license to maintain the struggle for existence..." —William Graham Sumner, "Earth-hunger, and other essays," p. 234. William Graham Sumner (1840-1910) **Held the first professorship in Sociology at Yale College. Lev S. Vygotsky (1896-1934) *humans use various symbols and items that help us to develop cultures *we change, interact and go through development within our cultures *higherハthinking skills depend on the internalization of the items we used to develop within our culture and communicate. *used blocks to distinguish children's mastery of the concept from simple memorization **His work was suppressed by Marxist Russian authorities for over 20 years after his death. Born in Russia (Jewish) Law degree Unive of Moscow PhD Literature & Linguistics CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY SHOW: Psych in Film, ver 2, #31. Mr. Baseball Cultural Influence Variations Across Cultures Norm = an understood rule for accepted and expected behavior. Norms prescribe “proper” behavior. Personal space = the buffer zone we like to maintain around our bodies. Pace of life Cultural Influence Variation Over Time Changes over the generations The Power of Individuals Social control vs personal control Minority influence QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW RECALL 1) The Stanford prison experiment illustrates the power of ____ to influence people’s behavior a) Personality b) Heredity c) Childhood experiences d) The situation e) Habituation RECALL 2) Which of the following would be a social role? a) Prisoner b) Student c) Professor d) All of the above e) None of the above RECALL 3) In the Asch studies, which of the following produced a decrease in conformity? a) The task was seen as difficult or ambiguous b) The subject had to respond publicly, rather than privately c) The majority was not unanimous in its judgment d) The group was very large e) The group was very small RECALL 4) In Milgram’s original study, about what proportion of the teachers gave the maximum shock? a) About two-thirds b) About 10% c) About 3% d) Nearly all e) About 50% APPLICATION 5) In an emergency situation, you would have the best chance of getting help from a a) Lone bystander b) Large group of people c) Group of people who are friends of each other d) Group of six people e) Group of strangers UNDERSTANDING THE CORE CONCEPT 6) Which of the following best illustrates people in ambiguous situations taking their cues from others? a) Those who obeyed Milgram b) Those who disobeyed Milgram c) Helpers who have had CPR training d) The experimenter in the Latane & Darley study of bystander intervention e) The majority of participants who expressed false judgments in the Asch experiments. RECALL 7) According to Aronson, we can explain almost everything about interpersonal attraction with a theory of a) Love b) Rewards c) Genetics d) Gender e) Environmental influences RECALL 8) Which of the following does the research say is most important in predicting initial attraction? a) Physical attractiveness b) Money c) Personality d) Nurturing qualities e) Sense of humor RECALL 9) Which theory of attraction best explains why people who are considered extremely competent are often not the people we are most attracted to? a) Reward theory b) Expectancy-value theory c) Cognitive dissonance theory d) Psychoanalytic theory e) Conformity theory APPLICATION 10) According to cognitive dissonance theory, which of the following would be the best strategy for getting people to like you? a) Give them presents b) Show interest in their interests c) Tell them that you like them d) Reward them for good behavior e) Persuade them to perform a difficult or unpleasant task for you. RECALL 11) Prejudice is a(n) _____, while discrimination is a(n) _____. a) Behavior/attitude b) Instinct/choice c) Attitude/behavior d) Stimulus/response e) Choice/ethic RECALL 12) The evidence suggests that one of the most effective techniques for eliminating racial prejudice has been a) Education b) Threat and force c) Legislation d) Tax incentives e) Choice UNDERSTANDING THE CORE CONCEPT 13) Reward theory, expectancy-value theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and attribution theory all tell us that we respond not just to situations but also to a) Our cognitive interpretations of them b) Our social instincts c) The intensity of the stimuli d) Our biological needs and drives e) Our unconscious needs. RECALL 14) Conflict between the groups in the Robbers cave experiment was encouraged by a) Punishing nonaggressive boys b) Showing movies featuring hostile role models c) Competitive games d) Putting a particularly aggressive boy in charge of each group e) Encouraging cooperation RECALL 15) In Kelman’s work in the Middle East, he removed much of the incentive for competitive responses by a) Punishing those who responded competitively b) Holding the meetings in private c) Taking hostages from both sides d) Publicly denouncing those who responded competitively e) Encouraging cooperation UNDERSTANDING THE CORE CONCEPT 16) In both the Robber’s Cave and Kelman’s work in the Middle East, helping people to build a sense of mutual interdependence encouraged them to a) Become more aggressive b) Punish those who had encouraged hostilities c) Become more creative d) Adopt new personality traits e) Alter their perceptions of each other MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink C _______ 17. A negative attitude toward an individual based solely on her or his group membership. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink F _______ 18. A decrease in an individual’s performance because of being in a group. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink A _______ 19. Knowledge about the sequence of events and actions that is expected in a particular setting. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink E _______ 20. An increase in an individual’s performance because of being in a group. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink G _______ 21. A person’s loss of personal identity and responsibility as the group “assumes” the responsibility for behavior. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink J _______ 22. An excessive tendency to seek concurrence among group members. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink D _______ 23. Blaming an innocent person or a group for one’s own troubles. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink I _______ 24. When individuals in a group have similar, though not identical, views, their opinions become more extreme. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink B _______ 25. A highly motivated state in which people have conflicting thoughts, especially when their voluntary actions conflict with their attitudes. MATCHING a) Script f) social loafing b) Cognitive dissonance g) deindivduation c) Prejudice h) norms d) Scapegoating I) group polarization e) Social facilitation j) groupthink H _______ 26. The rules of conduct for a group. Show # 19 Zimbardo, Situation #20 Zimbardo, Social #26 Zimbardo, Cultural #24 Zimbardo, Applying Psychology in Life Social Influence Testing facilitated communication