The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
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.
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.
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.
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
Role of unequal status in prejudice:
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
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.
explaining aggression, their sub-themes and critiques:
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.
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
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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
“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
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
- 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.
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
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.
“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
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!)
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
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.
- 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.
- 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
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”.
Major theories that
have traditionally explained altruism and critiques:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.