Card Set Information

2011-12-06 21:25:48

Show Answers:

  1. Differences among the concepts prejudice:
    • Prejudice is a negative attitude—they may not necessarily
    • act on the prejudice (discriminating). Focus on affect. Discrimination is a negative behavior. Though there is often a relationship, prejudice attitudes don’t necessary cause hostile behavior, and hostile behavior isn’t always
    • rooted in prejudice. stereotypes: This is a generalization about attributes of a group of people. An example is that
    • “professors are outgoing”. The problem is when these are overly generalized or just wrong.
  2. Historical trends in prejudice and research findings:
    • In the 40s, Americans agreed in separate sanctions for
    • different races. By the 80s, 90 percent supported school integration. Today, the
    • question seems to be a nonissue. African American attitudes have also changed.
    • From the 50s through the 70s, black girls preferred black dolls, as opposed to
    • in the 40s when many held anti-black prejudices. Adult attitudes also changes
    • to view Blacks and Whites as similar in traits such as intelligence, laziness,
    • and dependability. People now also hold similar values. 9 in 10 today would
    • vote for a black man. 80 percent believe that in high school, we must learn
    • white and black history. However, racism is still existence- there were almost
    • 8000 hate crimes in 2006, and Obama would have received much more support (6%)
    • if there had been no prejudice. Looking at how much progress, blacks tend to
    • compare today with an ideal world and see us as having little prejudice, where
    • whites tend to compare it to how it was in the past and see great progress.
  3. Automatic processing of prejudice
    • In a study, 9 in 10 whites took longer to associate positive
    • words with African Americans. Consciously, they said they weren’t prejudice.
    • But these unconscious associations may only be indicative of cultural assumptions not prejudice.
    • But some studies show that these implicit biases can leak into behavior. For
    • example: in a Swedish study, the implicit bias against Arab Americans predicted
    • likelihood of not interviewing applicants with Muslim names. Or doctors have neglected to give drugs to
    • African Americans. In a video game, where the players could “shoot” the people
    • on screen- people were more likely to shoot the black person than the white.
    • Also, Australians were more ready to shoot a Muslim than anyone else. If we associate a group with
    • danger, faces from that group will capture our attention and trigger arousal.
    • When looking at people with guns, we are more likely to notice the gun when a
    • black person was holding it. So even if race doesn’t bias perception—it may
    • bias reaction…we’re more willing to “shoot” without evidence against them. Our
    • brain has specific areas dedicated to prejudicial thoughts. When we associate
    • an out-group with “disgust” when seeing pictures of that out-group, we elicit
    • brain activity in areas associated with disgust and avoidance. We use more
    • primitive, less conscious areas of the brain such as the amygdala with
    • automatic prejudice.
  4. Gender stereotypes and roles; their strength as contrasted
    to racial stereotypes:
    • Strong gender stereotypes exist, and members of both genders
    • often agree upon them. Gender
    • stereotypes are much stronger than racial stereotypes. For example, both
    • men and women believed that women were more emotional. Are these
    • generalizations accurate? Penn State study found that the stereoptypes of
    • women’s nonverbal sensitivity, aggressiveness, etc actually represented true
    • gender differences. There are good and bad stereotypes—some believe the women are wonderful- this is a benevolent sexism—for example, women have a
    • superior moral sensibility. A hostile sexism says
    • that “once a man commits, he’s on a tight leash”. Similar to racial prejudice,
    • blatant gender prejudice is dying, but more subtle prejudices continue to
    • subsist.
  5. Role of unequal status in prejudice:
    • Unequal
    • status breeds prejudice. Example: masters viewed slaves as lazy and
    • irresponsible. Where slavery was practiced, there was greater prejudice. Years
    • ago, stereotypes of women and blacks rationalized the lower roles on the
    • hierarchy of both. Also, men who are powerful will often compliment their
    • female subordinates, which is actually patronizing. This suggests that women
    • “need support”. Status may breed prejudice, yes, but some more than others seek
    • and try to maintain status. (see social dominance theory)
  6. Social dominance
    • They tend to view people in terms of hierarchies. And they
    • like their group to have a higher status—and be on top. People who are dominant
    • already tend to take on this position---higher standing, leads to greater
    • prejudice or desire for that hierarchy. This often leads these people to be
    • more prejudice and support political positions that endorse prejudice—for
    • example they’ll support tax cuts for the well off and oppose policies that
    • undermine authority- like affirmative action. Also, they prefer professions
    • like politics and business where
    • they increase status and are able to maintain hierarchies. They are concerned
    • with group’s status.
    • Supported the Iraq war by reducing concern with the possible loss of life.
  7. Authoritarianism:
    • Prejudice isn’t limited to one group—but an entire way of
    • thinking about those who are “different”. Ethnocentric people shared tendencies:
    • to be intolerant towards weakness, a punitive (aiming to inflict punishment) attitude,
    • and a submissive respect for authority of their in-group. Authoritarianism
    • supports that obedience and respect are the most important aspects for a child
    • to have. This type of personality is most likely to engage in prejudice. They often faced harsh
    • discipline when younger also. They are submissive to those above them and
    • aggressive to those beneath them. These tendencies surface during threatening
    • times—like economic crisis. The people who are high in social dominance and
    • authoritarianism are most prejudiced members of society. Concerned with security and control. Supported the Iraq war by intensifying the
    • perceived threat of Iraq to US.
  8. Role of religion in prejudice
    • Leaders often invoke religion to sanctify the present order.
    • Church members express more racial prejudice than nonmembers. Those professing
    • traditional or fundamental Christian beliefs express more prejudice than those
    • professing more progressive beliefs. Protestant ministers and Roman Catholic
    • priests gave more support to the civil rights movement than lay people. It
    • depends on how we define religiousness. If its’ just by church membership,
    • there’s a positive relationship. If it’s by a depth, there’s a negative (less
    • prejudice). It makes and unmakes prejudice.
  9. Face-ism:
    • Two thirds of the average male photo but less than half of
    • the female photo was devoted to face. This desire to show the male face and the
    • female body perpetuates gender bias. People whose faces are shown are seen as
    • more intelligent—African Americans only had their face shown in one of the
    • cartoons over 40 years time in the new Yorker.
  10. Freudian interpretation of prejudice: economic
    competition and scarce resources?
    • Competition fuels prejudice…Realistic group
    • conflict theory. Prejudice arises from competition between groups for scarce
    • resources. Gause’s Law states this from an economical standpoint. Maximum
    • competition exists between species with identical needs. Opposition and racism
    • towards immigrants can be explained through this—as we are losing employment to
    • these individuals.
  11. Ingroup bias vs.:
    • This is the tendency to favor one’s own group.
    • We often need negative feelings for outgroup to have more positive tendencies
    • for ingroup. When we’re the minority, we think about this most.
  12. Own-race bias :
    • We more accurately notice the white faces than the
    • black. When viewing someone in our race,
    • we are less attentive to the race detail and more attentive to details.
  13. Outgroup homogeneity effect:
    • Division into groups can create an
    • outgroup homogeneity effect. We think that “they are all alike” and they are
    • different from “us” and our group. The greater differences we perceive, the
    • greater tendency towards ingroup bias.
  14. Linguistic intergroup bias:
    • This shows ingroup bias, as when we see an
    • action that is negative take place by a member of our group, we describe it as
    • an act but when we see it take place by a member of an outgroup, we describe it
    • as a disposition. For example, someone shoves someone in our group—we say “eric
    • shoved Mary”. If Eric is in our outgroup we say, Eric is aggressive
  15. One’s self-image and its relationship to prejudice:
    • self-conscious interactions between a majority and a
    • minority person can therefore feel tense even when both are well intentioned.
    • Tom, who is known to be gay, meets tolerant Bill, who is straight and wants to
    • respond without prejudice, but feeling unsure of himself, Bill holds back a
    • bit. Tom, expecting negative attitudes from most people, misreads Bill’s
    • hesitancy as hostility and responds with a seeming chip on his shoulder.
  16. Role of distinctive stimuli in description of self and
    • If someone stands out more, we see them as more causal in
    • whatever occurs. We are often described by our most distinctive traits. We take
    • note of those who violate expectations. Students paid more attention to a video
    • of a man who was described as a cancer paient or a homosexual—someone different.
    • The extra attention we pay to distinctive people makes us think they are more
    • different than they really are. Being distinctive also makes us more
    • self-concious. When women had to have a scar put on their face, they rated the
    • people they encountered as patronizing and tense—because they perceived them as
    • being this way.
  17. Stigma consciousness vs. stereotype threat:
    • Stigma consciousness is a persons’ expectation
    • of being victimized by prejudice or discrimination. These people live for
    • stressful lives, as they perceive themselves as being stigmatized often. This
    • is more general. Stereotype threat is self-confirming disruptive application
    • that one will be view on a specific negative
    • streroptype. It has an immediate impact.
  18. Illusory correlation
    • Our attentitivenss to unusual occurrences can create
    • illusory correltions. For example, when seeing people’s flaws and strengths
    • more often in Group A than group B, we tend to see Group B as more likely to do
    • those negative events—bc they stood out more to us and are less versatile.
  19. Just-world phenomenon:
    • Key factor: impossible to restore balance or
    • find perpetrator, so we blame the victim. They often denigrate innocent
    • victims. They attribute more responsibility to rape victims. They have more
    • favorable attitudes towards political brances. They are more trusting of others
    • sincerity. They believe in an active God. They seek to restore justice—look for
    • perpetrator. They have an inner perceived locu of control. They have greater
    • prosocial behavior.
  20. Subtyping vs. subgrouping:
    • Subtyping is where the individual is the
    • exception to the rule. We don’t’ change the rules—we add exception. Subgrouping
    • is when individuals add awareness to the rule—we create new stereoptype to
    • accommodate person
  21. Types of aggression
    • Hostile Aggression- It
    • springs from anger and has a goal to injure people. Instrumemental Aggression has a goal to injure, but this is a means
    • to some other end. Terrorisim is instrumental aggression. Murders, though are
    • often hostile aggression.
  22. Major theories
    explaining aggression, their sub-themes and critiques:
  23. Biological: One sub-theme is it
    • being an instinct theory, seen through evolutionary psychology. Aggression
    • is adaptive not self-destructive. Freud and Lorenz stated that aggressive
    • energy was instinctive—unlearned and universal. It is necessary—must be
    • released. One critique is that this doesn’t give reason-it gives it a name
    • and assumes this explains it. It fails to account to variance between
    • individuals and culture. Another theme is nueral influences. The amygdale seems to have some trigger to more
    • aggressive behavior. Genetic
    • influences are an additional category- Animals can be bred for
    • aggression. A child who isn’t aggressive at a young age, often will remain
    • unaggressive. Biochemical influences
    • show that blood chemistry influences neural sensitivity to aggression.
    • For example, alcohol makes people more aggressive by reducing
    • self-awareness. Testosterone seems to increase aggressin as well. Low
    • levels of serotonin also contribute. A critique is that this approach may
    • not be holistic enough. Biology and behavior interact. Yes, these may
    • predispose people to aggression, but peace isn’t unattainable.
    • F:A hypothesis (and its revisions): First
    • theory stated that frustration always leads to aggression. Frustration is
    • defined as anything blocking our goal. We often displace our aggression to
    • something safer. It was revised to state that frustration doesn’t always
    • lead to aggression. Berkowitz revised that frustration produces anger. An
    • emotional readiness to aggress. Frustration arises from the gap between
    • expectations and attainments. This is also incorporated into the idea of
    • relative deprivation, which states that when there are large income
    • inequalities, happiness tends to be lower and crime rates higher.
    • Social learning theory: rewards of aggression- When our
    • aggression brings about rewards, we are more prone to it. For example,
    • aggression is helpful in ockey- so the hocky players may continually be
    • aggressive. Observational learning-
    • Bandura stated that we learn aggression not only be experiencing its
    • payoffs but watching consequences in others. Children who observe
    • aggressive behavior are more likely to aggress themselves—for example, the
    • children who saw the violent adult with the mallet and the toy then were
    • also aggressive. The family- Physically
    • violent children often have had more physically violent family lives.
    • There’s a correlation between absence parents and aggression.
  24. Relative deprivation and adaptation level phenomenon:
    • Relative deprivation says that being around people
    • who are better off than us makes us less satisfied with what we have.
    • Therefore, when around people of higher income, we’ll feel worse about
    • ourselves. The tendency to notice a given situation and react by adapting to
    • the levels of that situation
  25. Schachter’s two-factor theory of emotion (applied to
    aggression and love):
    • A group that knew of side effects of a drug took on, they
    • felt little emotions associated when placed with someone who was hostile or
    • someone euphoric. When people did not know the side effects of a drug, they
    • blended in more with the people who were hostile. Therefore bodily arousal
    • feeds one emotion or another, depending on how the person interprets it. People
    • who are aroused through listening to a beatles concert or riding a bike are
    • likely to attribute this to provocation. Arousal feeds emotion. These different
    • arousals can amplify each other, then. Someone feels more love for their
    • significant other when experiencing fight or flight. A frustrating situation
    • heightens arousal, an when this happens-it makes for greater aggression.
  26. Weapon’s effect:
    • Guns prime hostile thoughts and punitive
    • actions. Especially when we see a weapon as an instrument to violence and not
    • just a recreational item. The finger pulls the trigger but the trigger can pull
    • the finger as well. Suicide in homes with guns was five times as high.
    • Countries with bans on handguns have lower murder rates.
  27. Impact of viewing violence in movies, video games and
    • Men viewing sexual violence—which may represent the women at
    • first as objecting but then giving in makes men more prone to sexual
    • violence—thinking its okay. When pornography became more available, rapes
    • sharply increased. When men were shown a rape video, those who saw it were more
    • likely to be extend electric shocks to the confederate. TV depicts this wrong as well (violence in
    • general) as the person doing wrong is not shown punishment and the victim does
    • not experience pain. The more violent the content of the tv shows the child
    • watches, the more violent the child. Found that violence was because of the tv
    • exposure—it was causal. Playing violent video games increases arousal,
    • increases aggressive thinking, and decreases prosocial behavior.
  28. Catharsis vs. modeling hypotheses
    • Catharsis hypothesis states that there is an emotional release obtained by
    • not only observing drama but also recalling and reliving past events through
    • expressing emotions and actions. Watching violent drama enables people to
    • release their pent-up hostilities, so violence is actually lessened through
    • this. Facts suggest otherwise, though, as crime rate has actually increased. Social
    • psychologists tend to believe that viewing or participating in violence fails
    • to produce catharsis. After a war, murder rate jumps. In a study where people
    • hit a punching bag, those who did this ended up being more aggressive at the
    • end of the study than those who did nothing. Silent sulking isn’t any more
    • effective because we internalize it and recite grievances in our minds. Modeling
    • hypothesis suggests that we learn through what we watch, so we imitate what is
    • seen on tv. It gives us scripts for how to act. To foster more gentle people,
    • we should model and reward the behavior that is alignment with this. Observing
    • aggressive models lowers inhibitions and elicits imitation.
  29. Functional distance
    • This is defined as how often people’s paths cross. We become
    • friends, often, with those who use the same doors as us or study at the same
    • venues. If you want to make friends, get an apartment near the mailboxes, a
    • desk near the coffeepot, or a parking spot near the main buildings.
  30. Anticipated meeting; and liking
    • Anticipating seeing someone boosts liking.
    • Expecting to date someone simarlarly boosts liking. Also anticipating someone
    • will be pleasant increases the chance of forming a rewarding relationship
  31. “Welcome Week” research
    • In this, different personality tests were given
    • and then dates were randomly assigned. None of the personalities predicted
    • attraction—the only predictor was physical attractiveness
  32. Gender differences in preference of personal ads
    • Men who advertise their income and education and women who
    • adverise their youth and looks receive more responses. These are asset matching
    • ads.
  33. Contrast effect:
    • In a study, those who had recently watched
    • Charlie’s angels rated the women seen in a photo as less attractive. After
    • viewing someone who is very attractive, we in contrast see ourselves and others
    • as less attractive. This social comparison is greatest with women.
  34. Mere exposure effect
    • Mere exposure to novel stimuli boosts people’s
    • ratings of them. University of Michigan students preferred the words seen most
    • recently. Also, we prefer the letters that are in our own name or occur most
    • frequently in our language. This is part of the idea that proximity increases
    • likability. I includes stimuli that is broader than just people. BUT it can
    • have a negative affect if carried too far
  35. Impact of similarity and dissimilarity in liking:
    • We often are drawn to those more like us. We like those who
    • are similar to us. When we believe others are like us, and they turn out not to
    • be, we may start to dislike them. Unexpected dissimilarity has a greater effect
    • on disliking. Bad outweighs good. People
    • are more likely to like and marry those similar to them.
  36. “Bad is stronger than good” principle:
    • Good reviews never make us feel as good as bad
    • reviews make us feel bad. Whether judging ourselves or others, negative
    • information carries more weight because, being less usual, it grabs more
    • attention
  37. Relationship between self-image and liking
    • If people feel worse about themselves, they often like the
    • other person more—they feel more desperate and therefore more willing to
    • receive whatever affected can be received. A study that gave some women low
    • evaluations and some high evaluations then had them rate a man who asked them
    • out. The ones who had lower evaluations given to them rated the man higher
    • (more desperate!)
  38. Sternberg’s theory of love:
    • A study was done to see if through action, one
    • could trigger a deeper love for the other. For example, a male and female
    • (platonic friends) were asked to look into each others eye for 2 minutes, and
    • after, they reported feeling a tingle of romance. Sternberg states that couples
    • must not expect their passion to lat forever or their intimacy to remain
    • unchallenged or else they’ll experience disappointment. It, then, comes from
    • intentionally building and working at the relationships we have with these
    • individuals. They’re constructions and decay overtime if not repaired. We must
    • take responsibility in making our relationships the best they can be---it is up
    • to us. It includes intimacy, passionate love, companionate love, and
    • commitment.
  39. Lee’s types of love:
    • Companionate love---the affection for our significant other
    • whose loves we are fully invested in. Passionate love is an intense, consistent
    • longing for another.
  40. Equity theory
    • What we put into a relationship, we get out. If
    • 2 people receive equal outcomes, they should contribute equally. Both must
    • perceive that these are proportional. This also touches on the fact that most
    • couples bring equal assets to the relationship.
  41. Disclosure reciprocity
    • We reveal more to those who have been open with
    • us. We feel better when we disclose about ourselves to those who care about us.
    • Also, our r elationships are stronger when we disclose more—it allows for
    • companionate love. 75 percents of couples who prayed together reported their
    • marriages as very happy. Women are more comfortable disclosing feelings than
    • men
  42. Altruism defined and illustrated in The Good Samaritan:
    • Altruism is selfishness in reverse. It is seen in the story
    • of the good Samaritan through the Samaritan giving time and money without any
    • expectation of returning this favor. Consider the situational influences, where
    • a person in need needs to have a legitimate request, it should not be there
    • fault, they may seem similar. Also, there’s the personal influences which
    • affect helping, where people are more willing to help if others are watching if
    • they’re self-monitoring people, if they have a belief in a just world they may
    • see the victim as deserving (but Samaritan saw nuances within being the
    • victim—that it could be “unnatural” or “unfair”. Lastly, when looking at the
    • recipient, they may feel comfortable if they can pay the person back for
    • kindness and if it doesn’t threaten their self esteem. If it were only about reciprocacity, the
    • Samaritan wouldn’t have been the “good”.
  43. Major theories that
    have traditionally explained altruism and critiques:
  44. Social exchange theory: This is
    • the theory that our relationships are transactions that aim to maximize
    • one’s results and minimize costs. It focuses on the external rewards of
    • either helping or not helping. This is either external reward or intenral,
    • such as relieved guilt (when we feel bad, we do good) minimax principle- we want the minimum amount of cost and the
    • maximum amount of reward/benefit;
    • egoism- The belief that self-interest motivates all behaviors. This is
    • circular reasoning, though.; moods’
    • relationship: Feel bad, do good theory. When we feel bad about
    • somethong, we’ll respond by being helpful- The exception is when this mood
    • is self-focused like grief or anger. Those, though who are other-focused
    • have a tendency to be helpful. Also, those who are happy and in a better
    • mood (also, other-focused) are more likely to help as well. In a good
    • mood-after being given a gift or feeling success, people are more likely
    • to have positive thoughts and associations. Helping, then, softens a bad
    • mood and sustains a good mood.
    • Social norms: reciprocity & social
    • responsibility: We believe that to those who help us, we should help
    • them in return—not cause them harm. This touches on the idea of social
    • capital, where there needs to be a mutual support and cooperation enabled
    • by a social network. When people cannot reciprocate, they may feel
    • threatened by accepting aid. High self-esteem people may be hesitant to
    • receive help, then. Social responsibility states that we help those who we
    • believe cannot help themselves first. We often need to see the victim as
    • undeserving of the circumstance;
    • role of attributions- This deals with the fact that if we attribute
    • the need to an uncontrollable predicament, we help. If we attribute it to
    • a perosn’s choice, fairness does not require us to help; gender differences: Women
    • receive more help than men. Women helped men and women equally—where as
    • men helped women more. Men, overall, helped more, though- as women
    • wouldn’t help in more dangerous situations—they’re more vulnerable.
    • Evolutionary psychology: kin selection:
    • We help those who are more similar to us, specifically, those who
    • share our genes. We are more
    • likely to look out for those who are like me. reciprocal altruism- We are more likely to do altruistic
    • things towards those who can reciprocate.
    • Latané & Darley’s decision-making
    • tree: This process was 1. We need to notice: If people don’t notice,
    • nothing can be helped. 2. Next we need to interpret. How do we interpret
    • it—is it an emergency. This often is impacted by pluralistic ignorance, as
    • we follow the crowd, and if no one is helping, we may assume it is not an
    • emergency. Schacter 2 factor—we look to our environment for explanation
    • when we ourselves don’t know. 3. We need to take responsibility—do we
    • think we are able to help? Are we expecting others to help instead? How
    • responsible do we assume the “victim” is to their circumstance. 4. Chose a
    • response. Will this be direct or indirect—women are more likely to help
    • indirectly. 5. Take action.
  45. Factors that impact one’s helpfulness:
    • Similarity: We
    • are more empathic towards those similar to us. Students at Purdue dressed a
    • certain way and approached people who looked like them and approached those who
    • looked different from them- those who looked like them were more willing to
    • help. time pressures In the Good
    • Samaritan, the priest and levite were too busy. A study was done where some
    • students were told they were late and others said they had a few minutes. The
    • ones believing they were late, did not stop to help the man in need on the side
    • of the road., personality variables- though
    • there aren’t a set of defined personality traits, but they have found
    • individual differences in helpfulness and showed that these last over time.
    • Also they are looking to see a network of traits and different responses to
    • different situations. Race???

    • Illusion of
    • transparency: This is a tendency to overestimate other’s abilities to readf
    • out internal states. We think that we may look concerned but really look calm
    • and collected. Additionally, others may think they are giving off concerned
    • expressions but we interpret them as seeing calm- so no one does anything,
    • because everyone has been misread/misunderstood.
  46. Strategies to increase helping:
    • Make it less ambiguous and increase responsibility of the
    • potential helper. In a study looking at this, they found that when they gave
    • people a specific way to help stop shoplifting—through directions, here were
    • more people who reported it. Personalized nonverbal are helpful—if hitchhikers
    • look people in the eyes, they are more likely to receive help. When one expects
    • to meet the victim, their willingness helps. If they are more self aware, they
    • are more helpful—similar to the study where mirrors in front of the individual
    • allowed for more helpfulness. Induce guilt. Door in the face—ask large task
    • first and then smaller one.
  47. Self-awareness and its relationship to helping
    • When we are more self-aware, we’re more helpful. Students
    • were giving biographical questionnaires, and others were not. Those who were
    • given these questionnaires were then more helpful than those who did not take
    • any surveys.
  48. Moral inclusion & exclusion
    • Exclusion is when we omit certain people from one’s circle
    • of moral concern. Cruelty is more acceptable towards those we feel are morally
    • excluded. To socialize altruism, we need to include more people so that more of
    • their well being concerns us. If everyone is part of our family, there is a
    • moral claim on them and us—and the “we” and “they” fade.