will cause angry thoughts, feelings, arousal, hostile actions
the three variables that increase the likelihood of aggression
aggressive cues in an environment
cues in the environment that signal possibility/appropriateness of aggressive actions
poster of gun vs. poster of peace sign in game of aggression?
gun poster - more likely to behave in aggressive fashion
alcohol on aggression
implicated in about 50% of violent crime!
acts as a disinhibitor - interferes with normal prefrontal cortex processes of self-control
unable to read social cues
unable to distinguish between general friendliness and actual sexual interest (sober guys have higher criteria for knowing if they display interest or not)
arousal and aggression
associated with aggression b/c aggression requires the body to gear up in response to the aversive event
pre-existing arousal can amplify aggressive reactions to the aversive event via misattribution
Excitation Transfer Theory
excitation transfer theory
arousal from one source can be transferred to a new situation and amplify aggression that you have toward the situation
does diet influence aggression?
nutrition imbalances can actually contribute to violence
the impulse control system can be impaired by dietary imbalances (the prefrontal cortex can be impaired)
does the mass media fuel aggression?
correlational evidence for more violence exposure - more aggressive
experimental evidence also shows this
why does the mass media contribute to aggression?
MOdeling: people learn to behave by observing role models! - social learning theory!
social learning theory and aggression
aggression is socially learned! - you learn from what other people are doing
a short cut for knowing what to do - better than trial and error learning
Imitation of aggressive models
what are the key factors to social learning theory for aggression?
imitation of aggressive models
see role models being rewarded for their aggression - you learn it as a good thing to do!
a reason for why the media fuels aggression
convey a message that aggression is the right way to resolve conflicts
(use force to take on the bad guys in the media)
habituation/desensitization in the media and its effects on aggression
if you see so much violence in teh media you lose your sensitivity to it
do violent video games contribute to aggression?
increased aggressive thoughts/affect/behavior
reduced prosocial behavior
reduced empathy (desensitization)
what is the evidence for desensitization to violence/aggression?
violent video gamers have a much less pronounced neural reaction to violent images specifically
violent video gamers are not as bothered by violent images
any voluntary action that is intended to benefit others
what do thinkers such as Darwin, Freud, Skinner, Hobbes, Nietszche, think of the essence of human nature?
we are motivated by the pursuit of our own personal needs, rather than the needs of others
the concern for others seen in primates
collaboration - lending a helping hand
offer comfort in times of distress through vulnerable contact
consolation behavior in chimps that is similar to humans?
kinship matters, friendship matters, sex matters, status matters
is helping biologically wrong to do?
people are more lilely to help those who are blood relatives b/c it will increase the odds of gene transmission to future generations
suggests that there is a "kin reognition" mechanism
we want our genes to survive! "survival of the fittests genes"
like kin selection in that we take in relatives when thinking of survival/helping
we will help our relatives!
reducing your fitness by helping another with the expectation that they will help you later
cooperation in altruistic acts
what promotes prosocial acting?
social responsibility norm
what is empathy? How does it promote prosocial behavior?
Batson's Empathy-Altruism Model
Is it a true empathic concern or personal distress of not helping them?
Escape or assist?
Batson's Empathy - Altruism model
feeling empathy for a person in need evokes a motivation to help that person in which these benefits to the self are not the ultimate goal of helping (unintended consequence to feel good by helping people)
what determines if you help someone or escape?
if you have high or low empathy
if there is a hard or easy escape
the biological substrates for empathy
evidence of innateness (natural to us)
evidence of heritability
is socialization crucial for empathy?
violent video games can impair empathy
social responsibility norm
promotes prosocial action
can vary across cultures, persons, situations
the obligation, responsibility, to help society - especially if you are in leadership positions
results of Good Samaritan study
even an empathic person, with clear social responsibility norm activation can fail to help
certain situational factors (like in a rush) can override the need to help
women who was yelling outside her apartment building
people heard her but she still wasn't helped!
b/c of bystander inaction!
related to Kitty Genovese case
individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present
the more bystanders the less likely an individual will help!
the model for helping in emergencies
we must first notice the event
then we must define the event as an emergency
the problems that come with defining an event as an emergency
when a majority of group members privately reject hte norm but they assume most others accept it
thus they conform to these norms - to the supposed norm
effect on definiing events as emergencies
assumptions based on insufficient reasoning
sometimes you may think a rape episode is just a lover's quarrel or something
has an effect on defining events as emergencies
what happens after you define the event as an emergency?
you must accept the responsibility
access your ability to help - possibly diffuse responsibility to others
implement help - which may come at some costs
cause of bystander effects! long model to help, comes at costs, ambiguity
humans, a social animal?
YES - group living is clearly fundamental - defining adaptation
advantages/challenges to group living
tensions between selfishness and cooperation
our fate is connected with others!
principle of coaction
are we better off doing something as an individual? or when people are around us??
mere presence hypothesis
mere presence hypotehsis
the mere presence of others energizes are performance (its arousaing to have people around - extra energy to do the task)
helps the performance of easy/well-learned tasks
inhibits performance of difficult/new tasks
how does social facilitation (mere presence) help performance?
presence of people is physiologically AROUSING -- can be channeled to the task and help with easy tasks
OR it could be EVALUATIVE APPREHENSION - the concern of being evaluated by other people --> who the audience is matters
and DISTRACTION: the presence of other people divides attention from the task and from the other people
the flipside to having people improve performance
people in groups pulling a rope were not equal to their ability x the number of people. - get underperformance
people put less effort in when working in a group than as an individual
b/c of diffusion of responsibility
motivational losses - b/c of diffusion of responsibility and division of attention
diffusion of responsibilty
when alone your performance depends on you alone
when it is a group - your responsibility is shared
if the performance is based on an aggregate level - social loafing will be seen b/c the individuals sole performance doesn't matter
The disadvantages of working in a group
motivation losses and coordination losses
motivation - social loafing, social distraction (stimulation causes divided attention = less motivation)
coordination - solo individuals don't have to coordinate, but in groups you must spend time and energy for coordination --> production blocking
occurs in groups - part of coordination loss (disadvantage to a group)
can be seen when you have a great idea but its not your turn to speak - you may forget later
the advantages of working in groups
more resources - more information, skills, labor - the bigger the group the more resources
potential for error-checking: feedback can be provided, objective views of ideas, everyone has their own different biases for how they view the world --> the distortions can balance out in a group
analagous to g-factor (general inteligence for individuals)
exists - groups good at one task are good at other tasks too (generalizes)
what predicts group performance?
NOT average member intelligence or the max member's intelligence
its something about the groups - not the individuals
what predicts collective intelligence?
NOT individual intelligence, group cohesion, or group satisfaction
IS average social sensitivity (able to read social cues)
IS equal distribution of turn-taking (if one dominates, their biases won't get cancelled out)
IS proportion of women in the group (more women = higher collective intelligence)
does diversity help or hurt group performance?
advantage - diversity and creativity, diverse perspectives
research indicates that diversity benefits include greater creativity and deeper cognitive engagement by the majority group
disadvantage - threats to group harmony - can undermine group function
important modulator = diversity beliefs! (if think diversity is a good thing, group with profit) --> self-fulfilling prophecy
were businesses more profitable if had diverse employess?
diversity predicted greater business success
Interdependence in groups and the tensions that are causes
exists when each person's behavior can affect other people's outcomes
competition - think about getting more for yourself
cooperation - oriented to what other people get as well
tensions between these!
a mixed motive situation - shows tension in groups between competition and cooperation
prisoner's dilemma game!
cooperate - don't confess and testify
defect - confess and testify against partner
from a rational standpoint it is better to defect - but by being competitive you screw over your partner
what do most people do in prisoner dilemma game?
one game - people mostly defect
play over and over again - become more competitive - cooperation drops
Tit for Tat program in Prisoner Dilemma game
a very simple program for hte game
always cooperate on the first turn and then after that reciprocate what your partner did
NOT ENVIOUS - doesn't keep track of relative performance
tragedy of the commons
communities structures so they share pasture land
finite resource tho - if over graze it it won't renew!
individual selfishness causes overconsumption - animals die etc.
the take-some game
shows the cost of defection to the whole group but the benefits of defection to the individual that defected
if take too many fish - the sea will not replensih the fish
strategies to increase cooperation in groups
create social structures that enforce cooperation (dictator, rules)
allow people to communicate, build trust with the person (build trust that they won't be selfish)
establish a group identity/communal orientation - not a selfish orientation
things that go wrong in groups - how groups can bring out bad tendencies even if the people have no preexisting ties to one another
Mob violence - lynchings (wouldn't happen if just the single person)
Mass hysteria - mass psychogenic illness, groups behave in ways that reflect deviance - lack of contact with social reality
mass psychogenic illness
individuals/groups develop a set of symptons without any underlying reason for it
if you talk abotu feeling ill - it will pass like contagion, may develop symptoms of what they are afraid will happen to them
more prevalent in groups in which there is some degree of cohesion
compulsory dancing that occured in teh middle ages
thought they were possessed by demons -- it took on a psychological reality
key symptoms of deindividuation
reduction of normal inhibitions/constraits
loss of normal sense of identity/self-awareness
altered states of consciousness
increases in impulsive/deviant behavior
what predicts that a group will have deindividuation
anonymity - easier to lose self-awareness
diffusion of responsibility - feel they aren't responsible for what happens
arousal - strengthens likelihood that you will respond with dominant impulses
group size - bigger the group the more anonymity, diffusion of responsibility, and arousal!
is deindividuation always a bad thing?
you can have a loss of restrictive inhibitions (they can get in people's ways sometimes)
you feel a happy sense of connection to other people
and altered state of intense happiness/love
BURNING MAN festival (no money system - positive connectedness to others)
occurs in groups - very bad - don't take advantage of possible benefits of groups
premature consensus - rush to agreement with one another
illusions and misconceptions
premature consensus in group think
strong conformity pressure to go with the leader - don't get rid of biases, etc.
self-censorship of dissent - illusion of unity
mindguards - protect the leaders ideas (defeats the purpose of having groups)
illusions and misperceptions that happen in groupthink
they feel invulnerable - feel that they are the good guys and other groups are bad
collective rationalization (rationalize away criticisms of their ideas)
what causes groupthink?
high group cohesiveness - idea cna spread easier if members feel strong connection to each other
insulation of group - don't consult with outsiders
inadeguate information gathering (biased ways to get informatino - just get supporting evidence)
strong, dynamic leadership (hard to criticize a leader you like)
high stress levels - dont' want to add to stress by disagreeing
how do you avoid groupthink?
social process technologies - created to bypass groupthink
World Cafe approach
no top-down control of process
openness to diverse opinions
contexts that minimize stress
world cafe approach
break down into smaller groups - rotate members and talk about previous ideas
diversity of opinions
low stress approach
are groups riskier or more cautious than individuals?
riskier - feel stronger, less vulnerable, diffused responsibility
choice dilemmas suggest a RISKY SHIFT: each individual after group talk would move toward risky end
but this is not always true --> just shows a general polarization effect (amplify initial tendency of the individuals
group polarization effect
pushed toward more extreme view - amplifies initial tendencies of hte individuals
why is there group polarization?
Normative Social INfluence - social comparison theory - hear what others say, compare yourself to what other people are thinking, understand group norm - don't want to be deviant
Information Social influence - persuasive arguments theory - hear novel arguments in favor of groups dominant perspective - more information to the extreme view
illusion of invulnerability to social influence (review)
third person effect
observers vs. participants
fundamental attribution error
reality is socially constructed (review)
attitudes bias interpretation
culture shapes construal
groups exert informational social influence
illusion of unamity in groups
pluralistic ignorance (what we perceive to be the norm is not the actual group's preferences!)
The invisibility of construal (review)
implicit vs explicit attitudes
naive realism - we think we have objective view of world
fallibility of introspection - we don't have an accurate view of why we do what we do
the person and the situation are inextricably bound!
interactionsim (person and situation work together to shape behavior)
6 examples of interactionism
PERSON and SITUATION shape behavior
1. different responses to same situation
3. situations choose people
4. persons choose situations
5. persons change situations
6. situations change people
prejudice directed at other racial groups that exists along with the rejection of explicitly racist beliefs
if you act in discriminatory manner will depend on situation
favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrance conventional roles
glorifying one's own group while vilifying another group
"we" feeling for ingroup, loyalty
otherness with outgroup
a way to reduce group conflict
goals that transcend interests of one group and that can be achieved by two or more groups working together!
minimal group paradigm
groups based on meaningless criteria
still more interest in relative gain for ingroup than for outgroup
just the existence of boundaries can create group discrimination
social identity theory
person's self concept and self esteem not only derive form personal identity and accomplishments, but from teh status and accomplishments of teh various groups to which the person belongs
to boost your self esteem!
basking in reflected glory
a tendency to identify with the winning team - take pride in accomplishments of those whom we are in some way associated
you also derogate outgroups to bolster self-esteem
frustration leads to generalized aggression --> displace aggression onto a safer target like a minority group
people will vilify outgorups under conditions that increase aggression
motivational perspective for why prejudice/discrimination exists
minimal group paradigm
social identity theory
frustration aggression theory
we draw us/them distinctions, and groups are tied to enhance their own self-esteem, agression is also caused by frustration
economic perspective to wy there is prejudice/stereotypes
develop prejudices against each other when they compete for material resources - protect own interests by lashing out against htose that threaten their power
realistic group conflict theory
cognitive perspective to why we prejudice/discriminate
stereotyping is inevitable - stems from necessity of categorization (simplifies the stimuli)
its a conservation of mental resources- efficient processing
but this can cause inaccurate judgments/errors
ingroup similarity/outgroup difference
outgroup homogeneity effect
explain away exceptions
outgroup homogeneity effect
tendency to assume that within group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups
acting in a way toward members of certain groups in ways that encourage behavior they expect -- reinforces stereotypes
Illusory correlations and Distinctiveness
the erroneous belief about a connection between events, characteristics, or categories that are not in fact related
we attend more to distinctive events - minorities, bad acts, minorities doing bad acts is even more distincive
the pairing of two distinctive events that stand out even more because they co-occur
explain away exceptions to a given stereotype by creating a subcategory of hte stereotyped group that can be expected to differ from the group as a whole
are abstract terms used to describe stereotype consistent or inconsistent actions?
abstract terms used for consistent actions!
members of stigmatized groups live in a less certain world
don't know whether to attribute positive feedback to their own skill or to other's condescension
don't know to attribute negative feedback to own error or to other's prejudcies
fear that we will confirm the stereotypes that others have regarding some salient group in which we are a part of
leads to increased arousal - can interfere with performance
can also elicit negative thinking
how to reduce stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination
interaction between the groups!
shared goal to work together
broader social norms should support intergroup contact
contact should be one on one contact
internal state that accompanies the thwarting of an attempt to achieve some goal
act in aggressive way when are frustrated!
depends on amount of satisfaction anticipated, how blocked the person is, how frequenlty the goal is blocked, how close they are to their goal
also associated with frustration
passive/depressive responses when goals are blocked and they think they have no control over their outcomes
rape prone cultures
use rape as act of war, ritual, threat vs women so they remain inferior
in violent cultures
in cultures where women have lower status
unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to consequences to the self
what are the motives for altruism?
empathetic concern - feeling/understanding what the other is experiencing
culture and altruism
in more rural areas - more empathetic concern - more likely to help
why? b/c there is too much sitmulation in urban places, in rural areas you are more similar - help more similar people, more people in urban areas
its not where you are norn but your current culture context
cooperation/competition depends on
culture situations (if live in culture where they need to work together they cooperate more) (interdependence)
5 reasons why the tit for tat strategy is good
easy to read/do
definition of a group
collection of individuals who have relations to one another than make them interdependent to some significant degree
more likely to occur with mere presence of others
the response you are most likely to make
for easy tasks - dominant response is correct response
for hard tasks - dominant response is likely incorrect - hinders performance
distraction conflict theory
being aware of another's presence creates a conflict between attending to that person and attending to the task at hand - it is this attentional conflict aht is arousing and produces social facilitation effects
emergent properties of groups
behaviors that only surface when people are in groups
enhanced self of individual identity produced by focusing attention on the self - leads people to act carefully and deliberately and in accordance with sense of propriety and values
when people focus their attention inward they are more concerned with self evaluation and how their curent behavior conforms to their internal standards and values
a conviction that other people are attending to them more than is actually the case
what happens with groupthink
shallow examination of information
narrow consideration of alternatives
sense of invulnerability, moral superiority
discourage others to come forward with their ideas
is groupthink more prevalent in East Asian cultures?
yes - b/c the drive twoard harmony is even greater!
managers solve this tho by discussing individually with people before the meeting
persuasive arguments account
reason for group polarization
if people predisposed to take a chance, they think of more and better arguments in favor of that risk
when discussed - you hear more arguments - new arguments are skewed to whatever the people are predisposed to
exposes average persons to more extreme views
social comparison theory
cause of group polarization
when there isn't an objective stanard of evaluation, people evalutate opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others
people tend to think they are on the correct side of things but farther out than most people - will go more extreme if encounter person who also thinks this
will homogeneous or heterogenous groups do better?
heterogeneous - take in different perspectives/sources of information