Tuesday,
January 16, 2001
Review of syllabus
I. Social
Psychology
-The
scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are
influenced by other people.
A. Similar disciplines
1. Sociology
2. Social work
B. Goals of Social Psychology
1. Description
2. Explanation
II. Five major
perspectives
A. Sociocultural
B. Evolutionary
C. Social Learning
D. Phenomenological
E. Social Cognition
Thursday,
January 18, 2001
Elaboration on
social learning theory: Bobo doll experiment (Bandura, et al., 1961)
I. Activity: Men's
risky behavior explained by the five different perspectives
II. What do the
perspectives have in common?
A.
Social behavior is goal-oriented
1.
Fundamental motives-to establish and maintain social ties, to understand
ourselves and others, to gain and maintain status, to defend ourselves and
others, to attract and retain mates
2. Longer-term goals
3. Day-to-day goals
B. Social behavior represents an
interaction between the person and the situation.
-Social psychology tries to
predict the results of such interactions
-In
social psychology we define person as features or characteristics that
individuals carry into social situations, while the situation is any
environmental events or circumstances outside the person
III. Methodology
A. Descriptive methods
1. Naturalistic observation:
observing behavior in its natural setting
2.
Case studies: an in-depth exploration of one individual or group of individuals
3.
Archival studies: examining systematic data originally collected for other
purposes
4.
Surveys: researchers ask people to report on their beliefs, feelings, or
behaviors (e.g., Kinsey, 1953, 1954)
Tuesday,
January 23, 2001
Extra Credit Study
Participation – Russell Jackson, honors student, guest speaker:
Evolutionary bases
of human behavior
Behavioral genetics: genes do play a
role in predicting behavior, e.g., Y chromosome
Biology may play a role in attraction:
Human universals - there are certain things that most people find attractive
(symmetry) or unattractive (open wounds).
Back to Dr. Bryan:
Continuation of
Descriptive Methods
5. Psychological
Tests
Extensively researched surveys (e.g.,
SAT, MMPI, career aptitude tests)
Associated issues:
1. Reliability- Is the measure
consistent?
2.
Validity- Does the measure actually measure what it says it's measuring?
6. Correlational
(Passive Observational)
Look for associations between two or
more variables
-Ranges from -1.0 to +1.0
-evaluate strength and direction
**CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!**
B. Explanatory
(Experimental) Methods
-Independent
variable (IV): A variable that the experimenter manipulates or changes
-Dependent
variable (DV): The variable that is being measured
-Random
Assignment: each participant has an equal chance of being in a particular
experimental condition
-Confounds:
something that systematically differs between conditions
-Internal
validity: the extent to which an experiment can make confident statements about
cause and effect
-External
validity: the degree to which findings can generalize to other persons,
situations, etc.
- An increase in
one type of validity generally results in a decrease in the other.
Thursday, January
25, 2001
All methods have
strengths and weaknesses
-Full cycle
approach (Cialdini): need full cycle of different methodologies to answer
questions
I. Three Systems
A. Motivational
1. Where do motives come
from?
a. Biology
(fundamental motives)
b. Socialization
(long-term, day-to-day)
-cross-cultural
research
2. How do we achieve these
goals?
a.
Self-regulation: a process by which people select, monitor, and adjust their
strategies to achieve their goals
b. Attention:
environmental cues
-automaticity
-cognitive load
3. What causes a goal to have
priority?
a. priming
b. inhibition
c. chronic
activation
B. Representational
1. How do we perceive the
self, others, and the situation?
a. Exemplars: mental
representations of a category
b. Schema: mental
representations of the characteristics of a particular category
c. Script: a
schema for how an event is supposed to occur
d. Self-concept (or
self schema): What are your characteristics?
1. Self-perception:
inferring things about ourselves by observing our own behavior
2. Reflected
appraisal: inferring internal characteristics by imagining how other people see
us
3. Social
comparison: comparing with other people (typically peers)
C. Affective
1. Components
a. Attitudes:
favorable or unfavorable feelings toward particular people, events, or things
b. Emotions:
intense feelings that are characterized by physiological arousal
c. Moods:
relatively long-lasting feelings that are not directed at any particular target
2. How are they measured?
a. Self-report
b. Behavioral
observation
c. Physiological
measures
3. Where does the affective
system come from?
a. Genetics/
biology
b. Culture and
learning
c. Ongoing
cognition (What are we thinking about?)
-Attribution
of arousal
-Counterfactual
thinking
4. Do emotions serve a
purpose?
a. They tell us how
we're doing in terms of achieving goals
b. They allow us to
take action quickly
Tuesday,
January 30, 2001
Social cognition:
the process of thinking about oneself and others
Four core
processes of social cognition:
1. Attention
2. Interpretation
3. Judgment
4. Memory
We have different
goals when we engage in social cognition.
We might want to:
·
simplify the
world so we can make quick decisions
·
think well of
ourselves or boost our self image
·
be accurate
Depending on the
goal, we adapt our cognitive processes of attention, interpretation, judgment
and memory. We are motivated tacticians
(Fiske and Taylor, 1991)
SIMPLIFYING THE
WORLD
A. Expectancy
Confirmation: we use our expectations about individuals and events, and often
look for information and pay attention to information that confirms our
expectations. Can lead to…
Self-fulfilling
prophecy: when an initially inaccurate expectation leads to actions that cause
the expectation to come true
B. Fundamental
attribution error: the tendency to overestimate the causal influences of personality
on another=s behavior and to underestimate the causal influence of the
situation, while reversing the process for yourself
Jones and Harris
(1967) – the “Castro” study
C. Other cognitive
shortcuts
1.
Representativeness: classify something as belonging to a certain category
because it matches the schema we have for that category
2. Availability:
estimate the likelihood of an event by the ease with which instances of that
event occur in our minds
3. False consensus
effect: tendency to overestimate the extent to which others agree with us
4. Anchoring and
adjustment: begin with a rough estimation as a starting point, and then take
into account the unique characteristics of the present situation
Characteristics of
the Person that Make the Use of Heuristics more/less likely:
Need for structure
- the extent to which people are motivated to organize their mental and
physical worlds in simple ways
Need for Cognition
– the tendency to enjoy thinking, a “preference for deliberative thinking”
GROUP ACTIVITY
Thursday,
February 1, 2001
Last time,
discussed features of the person that affect whether or not cognitive
heuristics and shortcuts will be used.
There are situational influences as well:
A. Situational
complexity - Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull (1988)
GOAL TO MANAGE
SELF-IMAGE
In general, people
want to feel good about themselves, and another goal of social cognition is to
help us to maintain positive self-regard.
A. Social comparison: Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory (SCT)
1. downward social comparison
2. upward social comparison
B. Self-serving
bias: DeMichele, Solomon, & Gansneder (1998)
C. Believing we
have control: series of studies of nursing home residents Langer and Rodin
(1976), Rodin and Langer (1977)
INTERACTION OF
PERSON AND SITUATION AFFECTS USE OF SELF-SERVING BIASES
Kernis, Cornell,
Sun, Berry, & Harlow (1993)
Person:
Level of
self-esteem—High vs. Low
Stability of
self-esteem—Stable vs. Unstable
Situation:
Positive or
Negative Feedback
GOAL TO BE ACCURATE
Very different
goal from others; with others, we actually ignore or distort information to
suit our purposes. Now we need to be accurate in our judgments so we don’t want
to distort our judgments.
1. Unbiased information
gathering and assessment
2. Work to form
accurate attributions about others, the situation, and ourselves
Situations where
individuals are interdependent on another for outcomes produce a motivation to
be accurate.
Need for cognition
is feature of the person associated with accuracy motivation
Person/Situation
Interaction - Pendry and Macrae (1994)
-individuals who
are cognitively busy are less likely to accurate, particularly when
interdependence is high
Tuesday,
February 6, 2001
Lecture by Megan
Lineberger
Class exercise on
what you would do to prepare for three situations: studying on a Sunday
afternoon, a job interview, party on Saturday night.
SELF-PRESENTATION
(a.k.a., impression management): the process through which we try to control
the impressions people form of us
Why do we
self-present? Acquiring resources, constructing self-image, self-perception
Self-monitoring:
the tendency to be chronically concerned with one’s public image and adjust
actions to fit the needs of the situation
-people can be high or low
self-monitoring
When
self-presentation fails: social anxiety, secondary impressions
-can
measure whether people are being “truthful” about themselves via physiological
“lie detectors”
Reasons for self-presentation:
1.Acquiring status
-status
is conveyed by the use of props, conspicuous consumption, nonverbal behavior,
and our associations (BIRGing and CORFing)
-there
is a gender difference such that men are more likely to engage in
self-presentation for status; displays of status by women are costly, convey
coldness
-status
is displayed when position is threatened or when competing for scarce resources
2. Being seen as
competent (self-promotion)
-competence
is conveyed by staging performances, claiming competence, using props, and
making excuses/creating obstacles (self-handicapping)
e.g., Study by Berglas & Jones
(1978) on self-handicapping
Thursday,
February 8, 2001
Self-Handicapping
(cont'd)
Components
1. Setting up the
roadblock
-Ferrari and Tice (2000)
IV1: Evaluated math test or
"fun" task
IV2: Procrastinators or
non-procrastinators
DV: Amount of time playing
games during practice period
Results:
Procrastinators played more when evaluated. No difference when told they would be doing a "fun"
task
2. Making excuses
-Mello-Goldner and Jackson (1999)
-more reported PMS symptoms =
more self-handicapping
-Men are more likely to self-handicap
-People with more
intense desire to be seen as competent more likely to self-handicap
Does it work?
-Rhodewalt, et al. (1995)
IV: No excuse, intended low
effort, anxious, on drugs
DV: Subjects' evaluation of
speaker
Results: No excuse > low
effort, anxiety, drugs
Goal: To be
likable (ingratiation)
How do you do it?
1. Flattery- Social
flirting
2. Creating
similarity- may require compromise
3. Appearing
attractive- many rewards associated with being attractive
4. Projecting
modesty
-Holtgraves and Dulin (1994)
-black
participants rated a description of a truthful bragger more positively than did
white participants
-suggests different cultural
preferences for modesty
-women, in
general, are better at ingratiation strategies
-social and biological reasons
Multiple audience
dilemma: Having to present to distinct groups at the same time
-can try to moderate presentation, but
that may leave both groups unhappy
(Activity)
-we often make
many inferences about people from a single piece of information
-Bryan, Aiken, and
West (1999)
-viewed video of male condom proposer in
an initial sexual encounter
IV: Proposed or did not propose condom
DV: Perceptions of male
Results: If
proposed condom, seen as more mature, more responsible and more concerned, but
also less exciting, less romantic, and less spontaneous
-Gerrard and
Gibbons (1995)
-Prototype willingness model
-Prototype º
willingness to engage in a behavior º actual behavior
Tuesday,
February 13, 2001
ETHICS in RESEARCH
What are
responsibilities?
-Set by APA
guidelines
Ethics in research
1. Risk-benefit analysis:
physical, psychological, emotional
2. Informed
consent:
-voluntary participation
-can quit at any time without penalty
-no harmful consequences
3. Rights of
privacy
4. Deception
-social desirability- we do what we
thing people want us to
-demand characteristics- cues that
give information about influential hypotheses
-these are both threats to
internal validity
-Christiensen (1988)
-deception studies didn’t
result in psychological harm
5. Confidentiality
of data: keep separate and secure
6. Debriefing
-discuss procedures
-alleviate any problems subjects had
-address negative reactions of
subjects
Thursday,
February 15, 2001
MIDTERM EXAM #1
Tuesday,
February 20, 2001
Organ Donation
Attitude Study
-Theory of Planned
Behavior
Attitudes, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control à
Intention à Behavior
Moderating
variables: variables that change the strength of the IV DV relationship (in
this case, death anxiety is hypothesized to be a moderating variable)
Persuasion
Definition: A
change in private attitude or belief as a result of receiving a message
Strong attitudes
can be resistant to change:
1. commitment
2. embeddedness
How do we measure
attitude change?
1. Direct measures
-post only design: only
measure after communication
-pre-post design: measure
attitudes before and after communication
-problems: pretest
may create demand characteristics, social desirability
2. Indirect measures
-Milgram, Mann & Harter
(1965)
"lost
letter" technique
-measured percentage
of people who mailed letter to integration support organization
-problem: we don't know why people
behaved as they did
Dual Process Model
of Persuasion
-Petty and Cacioppo (1986):
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
-Chaiken (1987): Heuristic systematic
model
Two routes to persuasion
1.
Central (systematic): high motivation, high ability; deep processing focus on
argument quality long-lasting attitude change
2. Peripheral (heuristic):
low motivation, low ability superficial processing, focus on
surface features temporary attitude change,
susceptible to persuasion
Thursday,
February 22, 2001
Motivation
-Situation
-Petty & Cacioppo (1984)- Motivation to
process deeply
-proposed
implementation of comprehensive exams (this yr. or in 10 yrs)
-increased
personal relevance à greater systematic processing
-Person:
high need for cognition
Ability
-Do we have the information we need?
-Do we have adequate cognitive resources?
-Do we have time?
Medium
-Chaiken
& Eagly (1983)
IV1: medium (radio, tv, print)
IV2: likeability of the communicator
Results: Situations with audio and TV
presentation of information were more persuaded by
likeable communicators (more peripheral
processing)
Goals of
Persuasion
1. Accuracy
-credibility of communicator (expertise,
trust)
-other people's opinions, responses
-Kassin & Kiechel (1996)- False
accusations
IV1: cognitive load
IV2: eyewitness corroboration with
experimenter
Results:
high cognitive load and eyewitness corroboration increased likelihood of signed
confession
-Person
features:
1.
issue involvement
2.
mood
-Situation
features
-Cooper,
Bennet & Sukel (1996)
IV1:
expertise of communicator
IV2:
complexity of message
Results: more expertise and more complexity
resulted in greatest persuasion
-Priester
& Petty (1995)
IV1:
Trustworthiness
IV2: need for cognition
Results: high trustworthiness and low need
for cognition results in greatest persuasion
2. Consistency
-The consistency principle: people will change
attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and actions to make them consistent with one
another
-Balance Theory
(Heider): we like harmony in our lives
-+/-
relationships among three entities must be positive or else the relatioships
are not balanced
-Cognitive
Dissonace (Festinger): an uncomfortable physical and psychological arousal
resulting from inconsistency
-Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
Peg turning task
IV: Paid $1 or $20 to lie
Results: People paid $1 experienced
greater attitude change
-didn't
receive enough money to justify lying
-counter-attitudinal action: a behavior
that is inconsisten with an existing attitude
Conditions for dissonance:
1. Action has to be freely chosen
2. Action cannot be justified as due to
strong rewards or threats
3. Action cannot be withdrawn
4. Action produces negative consequences
that were not foreseen
Post-decisional dissonance: after choosing
between options
-goal changes from accuracy to consistency:
make option you chose more attractive
-Person
features
1.
arousal
2.
preference for consistency
-Situation
features
1.
consequences
2.
salience of inconsistency
Aronson, et al. (1995)
-giving testimonials about the importance
of safe sex behavior induced dissonance (which resulted in attitude change) in
people who had not been engaging in safe sex behaviors
Tuesday,
February 27, 2001
Class activity
Group activity: Persuasion
Persuasion: changing attitudes
Influence: changing behavior
3 Categories of Persuasion
1. Conformity: behavior change to match the
actions of others
2. Compliance: behavior change as a result
of a direct request
3. Obedience: behavior change as a result
of a direct request from an authority figure
-Milgram
(1974): Video
Thursday,
March 1, 2001
Remaining portion of Milgram film
Factors that contribute to obedience
1. Salience of authority figure
2. Salience of the victim
3. Affilitation with respected institution
4. Others in group (conformity)
5. Decrease authority of experimenter
6. Have victim request more shocks
7. Conflicting orders by experimenters
Conformity: Behavior change to match
actions of others
-Asch
(1956)
-groups
of 8 people (7 confederates, 1 real subject)
-control
(correct answer): 95% chose correct line
-experimental
(wrong answer): 25% chose correct line
Compliance: Behavior change as a result of
a direct request (more general)
-6 Principles of Influence
1. Reciprocity
2. Commitment/Consistency
3. Authority
4. Social Validation
5. Scarcity Principle
6. Liking/ Friendship
Goals of Influence
-Accuracy (we want to choose correctly)
1.
Authority
-Hofling,
et al. (1996)
-Doctors
instruct nurse to give patient 2 times maximum safe dose of drug
-95%
of nurses complied
2.
Social Validation
-Asch
study
-Characteristics
of the person
-uncertainty
-Sherif,
et al. (1936) Autokinetic effect
-no
right answer
-ambiguous
stimuli à uncertainty à social validation
-task
difficulty and shaky grasp on reality also result in uncertainty
-Characteristics
of the situation
-Consensus-more
likely to go along with a majority opinion
-Similarity-
increase social validation use with increased similarity
-Baron,
Vandello, Brunsman (1996) Uncertainty and Accuracy
-IV1:
desire for accuracy (paid $20 or $0)
-IV2:
Uncertainty (shorter or longer presentation of picture)
-DV:
Conformity to majority opinion
-Results: Low motivation to be accurate
($0): Moderate conformity for both certain and uncertain
High motivation ($20): Uncertain= high
conformity to majority opinion
Certain= low conformity to majority opinion
Tuesday, March
6, 2001
Social Influence (cont'd)
Goal: To gain social approval
-Descriptive
norms: What do people actually do?
-Injunctive
norms: What is socially appropriate? What do people think I should do?
-Henry
(2000): Influence of norms on aggression
-Elementary
school children
-Injunctive
norms had large impact on aggressive behavior
Characteristics of the Person
-Anticonformists:
do not seek social approval à not as susceptible to norms
Characteristics of the Situation
-More
likely to want social approval if the person or group trying to influence us is
appealing
-Observability of behavior: more likely to
be influenced if behavior is visible/ overt
-Mayhew
(1968): Religion (anti- birth control)
-IV:
prominence of woman's husband in church
-DV:
Fertility (# of children)
Goal: To be seen as consistent
1.
Foot-in-the-door technique: Agree with a small request and then a subsequent
larger request
2.
Lowball technique: Get commitment to an initial request then raise cost of
carrying out behavior
3.
Bait and Switch: Gain commitment then make the arrangement unavailable but
offer a more costly alternative
4. Labeling: Assign label to individual and
request a favor consistent with that label
-Cialdini,
et al. (1998)
-Kids
labeled as those who thought penmanship was important chose handwriting task
during free time
5. Door in the face: As for a large
request, then get them to agree to a smaller request
Thursday,
March 8, 2001
Motive of Affiliation: Desire to be around
others
-McCrae
& John (1992): Circumplex
1.
Everyone prefers to associate with people who are agreeable
2.
People prefer others who compliment their level of dominance
Goals of Affiliation
1. To get social support
-The emotional, material, and/or
informational assistance provided by other people
-Bolger
& Eckenrode (1991)
-Medical
students: Good and bad social support
-Pierce,
et al. (2000): Depression and alcohol consumption
-low
social support à depression à alcohol use
Components
of social support
1.
Tangible assistance
2.
Appraisal/ availability of trusted person
3.
Self-esteem support
4.
Belonging/ availability of social group to relax with
-Birth
order
-Schachter
(1959)
-IV:
receiving painful shocks or not
-DV:
wait alone or with others
-1st
borns more likely to wait with others
-Self-focused
attention
-Flory,
et al. (2000)
-experience
sampling
-Positive
or negative social interaction
-Positive
or negative mood
-Highly self-focused people more likely to
be in neg. mood after neg. interaction
-Embarrassment
-Sarnoff
& Zimbardo (1961): Oral phase activities
-don't affiliate with people who will
evaluate us when we're embarrassed
-Self-perpetuating
cycle of loneliness
-Lonelinessà
Uncomfortable around others à Avoidance àSelf-defeating thoughts à Depression à
Negative interpersonal behaviors à Others
avoid you à Loneliness
2. To Get Information
-Festinger's Social Comparison Theory: we
compare with similar others because we get the best information from those like
us
-Self-disclosure:
the sharing of intimate information about oneself
-Aron,
et al. (1997)
-Liked interaction partners at end of
session better when disclosing personal information
-Gender
is the best predictor of self-disclosure
-defining
feature of same-sex friendships
-Martin
(1997)
-Conversation
between 2 men or 2 women
-Altered
voices, references to gender specific info.
-Ss could still discern gender of speakers
by content of conversation
Tuesday, March
13, 2001
Self-Disclosure (cont’d)
-higher
for women than for men
Group Activity
Goal of Getting Information
-Situations of Uncertainty
-Kulik
& Mahler (1990)
-Coronary
bypass patients
-room with someone who had had the procedure
or was also awaiting surgery
-most preferred to wait with someone who
had already had the procedure
-Depression and the Situation
-Lyvbomirsky
& Ross (1998)
-IV1-
Happy or depressed
-IV2-
Others performed better or worse on anagram task
-DV-
Estimate of own ability
-results indicative of self-esteem
maintenance- we avoid information that will decrease self-esteem
Goal of Gaining Status
1. We
promote the success of our friends
2. We
want our friends to succeed
3. We
affiliate with powerful people whose status helps our own
- Males
more likely to gain status with affiliation
-Ways to obtain status through affiliation
1. Kissing
up- affiliate with people of higher status (BIRG)
2. Kissing
off- dissociate from low-status others (CORF)
-Snyder, Lassegard & Ford (1986)
IV:
Failure, success, or no feedback about team performace
DV:
Take badge
-Those in failure conditions far less
likely to take badge than those in success conditions
Goal of Exchanging Material Benefits
-Evolutionary
bases: survival of family groups in hunter-gatherer societies
-Social exchange
-Equity: when a person’s costs and benefits
from a relationship are proportional to costs and benefits incurred by the
partner
Four forms of social exchange
1. Communal
sharing : take what you need, put in what you can
2. Authority
ranking: goods are divided by status within group
3. Equality
matching: put in and get out same amount
4. Market
pricing: get out what you put in- looking for the “best deal”
Thursday,
March 15, 2001
Love and Romantic Relationships
-Sternberg
1. Passion: physiological arousal, romantic
attraction, sexual desire
2. Intimacy: close bond, desire to take
care of a partner, concern for partner’s happiness
3.
Decision commitment: short term decision to love, long term commitment to
maintain the relationship
Evolutionary perspective
-Trivers (1971) Differential Parental
Investment (minimum)
-females-
internal gestation, long period of care
-males-
single act of copulation
-females have more to lose from
indiscriminant mating ® selective
pressure to be choosy
-selective
pressure on males to compete for females (scarce resource)
-Reversed
trend in some animals
-Kenrick, Sedalla, Groth & Trost (1990)
-Qualified Differential Parental Investment
-Type of relationship matters (DPI pattern
emerges for short-term relationships)
Goals
1. Sexual
Satisfaction
-Characteristics of the person
-Erotophobia
(sex guilt): negative affect about sexuality
-Sociosexual
orientation
-Simpson
& Gangestad (1991)
-restricted
vs. unrestricted (not related to erotophobia or sexual desire)
-Gender
-Kenrick,
et al (1990)
-males less selective about intelligence in
female partner when interested in casual sex only relationship than in other,
more committed types of relationships
-Clark & Hatfield (1987)
-Confederate approaches and asks men and
women for a date, to go back to their apartment, or to have sex.
-Males more likely to agree to go to apartment
and to have sex than females
-Bailey
finds same patterns in homosexual population
-Social Norms
-Generations: -Kinsey (1948, ’53) by age
25, 71% of men and 33% of
women had had premarital sex
-Hunt
(1974) figures change to 97% of men and 67% of women
-Age
at first intercourse
-college
students: 16
-inner
city high school students- 14
-incarcerated
kids- 12
-Interaction between culture and evolution
-Shepher
-children
in Israeli kibbutzim
-children
in same kibbutz not attracted to each other
-Proximity-attraction principle: more
attracted to familiar people, but for a critical time period, we know not to be
attracted to those in very close proximity (incest prevention)
Goal of Establishing Family Bonds
-Attachment
System (mother and child à family members, spouse)
-Hazan
& Shaver (1987)
-Secure
(60%): Stay in love longer, more satisfying relationships
-Avoidant
(20%): Fear of intimacy, prone to jealousy
-Anxious/Ambivalent
(20%): Lots of highs and lows
Tuesday, March
20, 2001
Buss, et al. -Women are more upset by
emotional infidelity- gets mate's resources from emotional commitment
-Men:
more paternal uncertainty with sexual infidelity
Goal: Acquire status and resources
Polyandry:
1 female, many males
Polygyny:
1 male, many females
1.
Steep social hierarchy
2.
Rich environment so one male can attain vast wealth
3.
Occasional famines so the poor face danger of starvation
Effects of Gender
-women place more importance on wealth and
status of partner
-women prefer older men
-men place importance on physical
attributes, esp. those related to fertility
-Singh
(1993)
-Waist
to hip ratio- men prefer lower (.7): most reproductively capable
Problems with media
1. Which came first, preferences or media?
2. Pattern is consistent across time and
cultures (Buss(1989) 37 Cultures Study)
3. Research with homosexual men and women
Kenrick,
Keefe, Bryan, Barr & Brown (1999)
-Gay
men's preferences were the same as heterosexual men
-Lesbians:
in between
-Jensen-Campbell, Graziano & West
(1995): Do nice guys finish last?
-IV1:
level of dominance
-IV2:
level of agreeableness
-Results:
No one liked those low in agreeableness, but for those high in agreeableness,
those that were more dominant were liked more
Thursday,
March 22, 2001
MIDTERM EXAM #2
Tuesday &
Thursday, March 26 & 28, 2001
SPRING BREAK!!
Tuesday, April
3, 2001
1. Prosocial Behavior- Any action that is
intended to help another person
2. Benevolence- Action intended to help but
not to gain an external reward
3. Pure altruism- Actions intended solely
to benefit another and not to gain internal or external rewards
Why do we help?
Genetic benefits
-Hamilton (1964): Inclusive fitness (the ability
for ones genes to survive)
-Likely to help if the cost of helping is
less than the benefit to another * degree of relatedness (C < BR)
-Cunningham, et al (1995): Willingness to
help
-More
willing to help those who are more closely related
-Trivers (1971) Reciprocal Aid
-helping
that occurs in return for prior help, norm of reciprocity
We perceive psychological closeness: sense
of we
-may
be even more important than genetic bonds
-much
of this is learned
-Burnstein, Crandall, Kitayama (1994)
-if
costs are minimal, will help almost anyone
-if
costs increase, those more related receive more help
Gain Status or Approval
-Bystander intervention studies
-Latane & Darley (1970)
-diffusion of responsibility: the tendency
for each individual to dilute personal responsibility for acting by spreading
it among others in the group
-Latane & Darley (1968)
-Interaction
via intercom, hear someone having a seizure
-alone:
85% helped
-2
(1 confederate): 62%
-5
(4 confederates): 31%
-Latane & Darley
-smoke
in room
-w/
confederate who didn't react, only 10% sought help
Helping & Gender
-Men more likely to help in emergency
situations, and in general (experimental situations)
-Eagly & Crowley (1986): helping
associated with masculine and feminine gender roles
-Men:
strong, heroic, willing to risk life to save others
-Women:
caring, sensitive, emotional support
-Helping makes us feel good about ourselves
and if we perceive ourselves as being helpful, we will continue to help to be
consistent (managing self-image)
-Fisher, Nadler, DePaulo: Aid recipients
-receiving
help can damage self-image (especially men)
-Ruddy & Adams (1995)
-mothers
less likely to respond to cries of infant males
Age
-elderly less likely to seek help, more
likely to have feelings of hurt pride after receiving help
Thursday,
April 5, 2001
Another reason we help--Managing moods and
emotions: 2 models
1. The Arousal Cost Reward Model of
Emergency Helping (see chart in book)
-Fritsche, Finkelstein, Penner (2000)
-Read
50 scenarios about someone needing help
-IVs:
Arousal, sense of "we"ness, costs and benefits of helping
-76%
of variability due to these 3 factors
2. Negative State Relief Model
-mood
management hypothesis: we use helping tactically to help manage mood
-managing
sadness: social learning explanation
-Cialdini
& Kenrick (1976): Children's helping behavior
6-8
yr olds: no difference in helping
10-12:
small difference
15-18:
sad helped significantly more than neutral
-Bauman
& Cialdini (1984)
-IV1: Mood (happy, neutral, sad)
-IV2:
Placebo or "mood fixing" drug
-given
opportunity to help by calling blood donors
-Happy
and neutral helped, regardless of drug
-Sad
with drug didn't help
Debate: Does pure altruism really exist?
-Empathy: cognitive- perspective taking
emotional- experiencing what the other
person is feeling
Batson: Empathy-Altruism sequence
Empathy
ÔAltruism
Ô
selfless helping
Batson, et al. (1981)
-Elaine
(confederate)- watch her receive shocks
-IV1:
Easy vs. Difficult escape
-IV2:
Info about Elaine: Similar or not
-low
similarity: helped less if they had easy escape
-similar:
no difference in helping
But if we help because we can see the
perspective of others, are we helping them or ourselves?
Cialdini, et al. (1997)
-IV1:
Relationship (Stranger, acquaintance,
good friend, sibling)
-IV2:
Type of help needed (phone call, eviction, orphaned children)
-closer
= more likely to help -more help
needed = more likely to help
-Mediators: intervening variables that
account for the relationship between an IV and DV
Closeness Ô ? Ô Helping
Cialdini: Incorporated person into self
(oneness)
Batson: Empathy
Kinship, etc. Ô
oneness Ô egoistic helping
|
Perspective-taking
Empathy
Tuesday, April
10, 2001
-Review of Batson and Cialdini arguments
-Review of group activity
Agression
3 Components
1. Behavior- actually doing something
2. The behavior has to be intended
3. The behavior must be aimed specifically
at hurting another person
To cope with annoyance
Dollard,
et al. (1939): Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Berkowitz
(late 80’s early 90’s) Reformulated
Frustration Aggression Hypothesis
-Really
only applies to emotional aggression
-The
frustration has to lead to negative feelings, which lead to aggression
-any
unpleasant state can lead to negative feelings
Zillman:
Excitation Transfer Theory
-not
just negative feelings, but any physiological arousal can lead to aggression
Cantor,
Zillman & Einseidel (1978)
-IV:
Bland or erotic film
-DV:
How do they react to someone upsetting?
-Result:
More aggressive after erotic film
Type A personality: more likely to transfer
arousal --> aggression
Situation
1. Frustration
2. Pain
Berkowitz
(1993)
-IV:
Hand in cold water or room temperature water
-Cold
water --> more aggressive supervisors
3. Heat
Kenrick
-summer:
more aggressive traffic behavior
4. Poverty
-Hovland
& Sears (1940)
-Archival
- records from the south (1882-1930)
-Aggression
= # of lynchings
-Increased
poverty --> increased lynchings
-Hepworth
& West (1988)
-Time
series analysis- a statistical method in which 2 or more recurring events are examined for
linkages over time
Interaction
-Berkowitz & LePage (1967)
-The
weapons effect
-IV1:
Good or bad feedback
-IV2: Guns or badminton racquet on table
-DV:
Shocks given
-Gun
X negative affect interaction: guns lead to more aggression in annoyed people
School shootings: Frustration (teasing)
& exposure to weapons
-Moffit
(1993): Temperament
-antisocial behavior - aggressive behavior
- alienation - failure/rejection - frustration - aggressive
behavior
Thursday,
April 12, 2001
-Extra credit
study
-Abbey (1982)
observation study
-Males and females observe others
-Males perceived greater sexual
interest in females' interactions
-Men cannot differentiate between
friendly and sexually interested behavior
-Shotlund &
Craig (1988) scenario study
-Male vs. female target X friendly vs.
sexual intent
-M>F sexual interest,
but they could discriminate between the two types of behavior
-Explanations
-socialization (men more interested in
sex, more salient)
-motivation (based on perceiver's personal relationship goals
-purpose of
current study: determine whether seeking short- vs. long-term relationships
predict perceptions of sexual intent
--------------
Instrumental
aggression
-done to gain some reward
Goal: To gain
material rewards, social rewards
-social learning perspective
(Bandura's Bobo doll experiment)
The person
-Psychopathy-
impulsive, irresponsible, low empathy, lack of conscience, lack of sensitivity
to punishment
-inclined toward
acting aggressive for personal gain
-Williamson, Hare
& Wong (1987)
-violence by
psychopaths was 3 times more likely to have been motivated by personal gain
-"" 10
times more likely to be motivated by emotion
Media violence
-meta analysis:
the statistical combination of results from different studies of the same topic
-Wood, Wong,
Chachre (1991)
-28 studies- exposure to media and
behavior (small to moderate effect)
-Black & Bevan
(1992) Movie study
-more violent movie induced more
aggressive feelings
Goal: To gain
social status
-sexual selection: non-choosy sex has
to compete for access to mates
-aggression is used as a tool to
increase status
Assumptions
1. Because humans
are mammals and females invest more in offspring, we expect to see competition
in human males more often than between human females
2. When males
enter reproductive years, the sex difference in aggression should increase
3. Once males have
a long-term mate then aggression should decrease
-Daly & Wilson
(1988)
-85-100% of same sex homicides are
committed by men
-Dabbs
-Inmates with
increased testosterone committed more violent crimes and had been involved in
more fights
-Delinquents- more testosterone than
age-matched normals
-Military
personnel- increased testosterone= more AWOL, more violent, more trouble with
law
Tuesday, April
17, 2001
Aggression
(cont'd)
-Men involved more
in direct aggression, women in indirect
-Women more at risk in direct
confrontation
-Evolution?
-Palmer (1983)- hockey player study
-young unmarried players more
hostile, act more aggressively
-Cohen &
Nisbitt- culture of honor
-societal norms
whose central idea is that people should be ready to defend their honor with
violent retaliation if necessary
-(1996)- northern
vs. southern college students
-southern
students, when provoked, experienced increased threat to masculine reputation,
increased cortisol levels, increased physiological priming, increased dominant
and aggressive behavior
Goal: Protect self
and others
-Domestic violence
-Effect/ Danger
Ratio: assessment of the likely beneficial effect of aggressiveness balanced against
likely danger
Threat
-Reducing violence
-Prevention strategiesà 4 major stages
1. Early childhood: strategy:
self-regulation
quality adult-child interaction, low
adult-child ratio
**key
stage
2. Middle childhood: strategy- normative
beliefs about aggression
increase
interpersonal negotiation skills
3. Early adolescence: strategy-
develop stable, non-violent peer group
4. Middle
adolescence: strategy-form and consolidate an identity (personal, ethnic)
Stereotyping and
Prejudice
Prejudice: a generalized attitude
toward members of a group (positive or negative)
Stereotypes:
generalized beliefs about members of social groups (blind us to
individual
differences within groups)
Discrimination:
actual behaviors directed toward people on the basis of their group membership
-Harmful to
targets: feel insecure, affects
performance and behavior
people who hold
beliefs: affects social interactions, causes them to make erroneous
evaluations, causes missed opportunities
Thursday, April
19, 2001
Lecture by Megan
Lineberger – Stereotyping and Prejudice
Class activity on
stereotyping in the media
Approaches to
stereotyping:
Crocker et al.
(1987) – the sorority study, IV’s were high and low self-regard and high or low
status sorority; greater outgroup denigration among high SRs in low status
sorority
Scapegoating and
the frustration-aggression hypothesis
Authoritarian
personality
“Kernel of truth”
hypothesis
Social Role Theory
(e.g., Eagly & Steffan, 1984) – behavior is determined by our social roles,
and we view people through the social roles they occupy
Realistic conflict
theory: stereotyping and prejudice result from perceived intergroup conflict
e.g., Sherif – the “Robber’s Cave Studies”
Social
categorization divides the world into social groups
Social identity
theory (Tajfel & Turner) – we see our group as “better”
Tajfel (1971) –
minimal groups study
Stereotypes as
heuristics – Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser (1994), positive mood increases
stereotyping
Tuesday, April
24, 2001
Completion of
lecture by Megan Lineberger – Stereotyping and Prejudice
Effects of MOOD on
stereotyping:
Bodenhausen et al.
(1994)
Bodenhausen,
Gabriel, & Lineberger (2000)
-sadness and stereotyping
-people in sad moods increase their
use of anchors
·
We all have stereotypes
that come from learning and we think about them automatically
·
It takes
effort NOT to think about them
Devine (1989)
-presented negative stereotypic traits
of African-Americans either 20% of the time or 80% of
the
time along with other words in task
-did
impression task using “Donald paragraph”; Donald behaves ambiguously in way
that might be perceived as aggressive
DV:
measure of trait attributes in Donald
-those
who saw stereotypic traits 80% of time believed Donald was behaving significantly
more aggressively
How do we measure
implicit (automatic) stereotypes?
1. Semantic priming: measure reaction times to stereotypic, counterstereotypic, and neutral words
2. Implicit association test
3. Physiological/neurological measures (e.g.,
ERP, MRI)
Person Factors
-Social dominance
orientation
-Pratto & Sedanius
-The extent to
which a person desires that his or her own group dominates other groups and be
materially superior
-high SDO= not
prone to believe in equality, more sexist, more racist, more homophobic
-men higher
-Personal need for
structure (high PNS, more likely to stereotype
-Religion
-extrinsic reasons: prejudiced in both
thought and deed
-intrinsic reasons: prejudiced in
deed, but not thought
-quest: express few prejudices in
thought or deed
-Stereotypes:
faster way of categorizing an individual
-assign group membership, infer
characteristics they might possess
-Outgroup
homogeneity effect: exaggerate differences between groups and minimize
differences within groups; overestimate the degree to which members of an
outgroup are the same
-Ethnic slurs
-Simon & Greenberg (1996)
-IV: Participants (strong anti-black,
strong pro-black, ambivalent)
-IV: Contents of paper that was passed
(solution, "black" note, "nigger" note)
-Results: Hearing/
reading ethnic slur makes those with a negative attitude have more negative
attitudes
Reducing prejudice
-Contact hypothesis: mere contact is
not enough
-work towards
common goal, interdependence (have to learn about individuals to be successful)
Thursday,
April 26, 2001
Group processes
-Triplet- groups=
faster performance (sense of competition)
-Zajonc- groups=
faster performance (arousal)
Social
facilitation
presence of others
à arousal à dominant response (mastered= facilitated, not mastered=impaired)
Deindividuation:
losing sense of personal identity which makes it easier to behave in ways
inconsistent with one's normal values
-Dodd (1985)
-antisocial,
nonnormative, neutral, prosocial behaviors caused by deindividuation
Crowds: mask
identity, allow for deindividuation, distracted both from individual norms and
morals as well as societal norms
What is a group?
1.
Interdependence: shared goals, need for cooperation
2. Group identity:
common identity shared by all members of the group
3. Structure:
status, hierarchy, communication network
Benefits of groups
-Transactive
memory: group memory system made up of the knowledge held by individual members
(communication network)
-Michaelson,
Watson & Black (1989)
-class worked in groups all semester
-took final alone & in groups
-group scores were better and exceeded
best individual scores
Drawbacks of
groups
-Social loafing:
decreasing effort by individuals as the group grows larger
-especially likely when:
-contributions are anonymous
-task is not meaningful
-all group members have the
same job
-people work with strangers
-How can you decrease it?
-make sure everyone has
specific job and contribution is identifiable
-everyone has "buy
in"
-everyone has a different
task
-allow people to pick those
they work with and work with strangers, too
Group
decision-making
-Group
polarization: group discussion leads members to make decisions that are more
extremely on the same side that the group originally favored
Why?
1. The whole group
feels the same way, so all arguments favor the same decision
2. Discussion
reveals the group norm
-Groupthink: a
style of group decision-making characterized by a greater desire to get along
and agree than to critically evaluate options