MISS PROF ONLY

MISS PROF ONLY
Defensive Attributions  unrealistic optimism  The bias that good things are more likely to happen to you and bad things are more likely to happen to others  belief in a just world  The assumption that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people. Social Cognition How We Think about the Social World  Adventurous  Self-confident  Independent  Persistent  Reckless  Conceited  Aloof  Stubborn Donald spent a great deal of time in search of what he liked to call excitement. He had already climbed Mt. McKinley, shot the Colorado rapids in a kayak, driven in a demolition derby, and piloted a jet-powered boat — without knowing very much about boats. He had risked injury, and even death, a number of times…. By the way he acted one could readily guess that Donald was well aware of his ability to do many things well. Other than business engagements, Donald’s contacts with people were rather limited. He felt he didn’t really need to rely on anyone. Once Donald made up his mind to do something it was as good as done no matter how long it might take or how difficult the going might be. Only rarely did he change his mind even when it might have been better if he had. Higgins, Rholes, and Jones (1977)  What do you think of Donald? Impressions depended on the preceding list of words 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % Forming Positive Impression Positive Negative Wo rd s Thought or Cognition  Automatic: thinking that is non- conscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless  Count from 1- 10  Controlled: thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary, and effortful  Count from 1-10 in alphabetical order…starting with eight. Automatic Believing: Controlled Unbelieving  Gilbert’s (1991) theory of automatic believing. Initial acceptance of information Assess truthfulness of accepted beliefs Unaccept if necessary Automatic Controlled Automatic Thinking with Schemas  Schemas are mental structures people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects.  Why do we have schemas?  To make sense of the world Interpreting Ambiguous Information warm industrious critical practical determined Harold Kelley’s Warm/Cold Study Interpreting Ambiguous Information cold industrious critical practical determined Harold Kelley’s Warm/Cold Study Interpreting Ambiguous Information “Warm” people were rated as more: -humorous -sociable -considerate -students asked more questions compared with “cold” people. Both “warm” and “cold” people were rated as more immodest. “Warm” people were rated as more humorous. Ambiguous Non-ambiguous Schemas Guide Attention and Memory  Information that is consistent with our schemas is easier to recall than information that is inconsistent with our schemas.  Magic! Confirmation bias  When observing a situation…  We search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms our beliefs…  …while paying less attention to information that contradicts them Schemas  Memory is reconstructive .  We remember some information and what we do not catch or what we forget, our schemas “fill in” for us.  Loftus & Palmer (1973) All participants were shown a video of a car crash “Smashed” group twice as likely to “remember” broken glass, although there was none. Smashed 40.8 mph Collided 39.3 Bumped 38.1 Hit 34.0 Contacted 30.8 Which Schemas are Applied?  Accessibility the extent to which schemas and concepts are at the forefront of people’s minds  Priming is the process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema Making our Schemas come true: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy People have an expectation about what another person is like Influence how they act toward that person Causes that person to behave consistently with people’s original expectations Making our Schemas come true: The Self -Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968) The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of children ga ining a t least 10 IQ points “Bloomers” Other students Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) Reliance on Schemas  Often helpful  necessary for navigating complex social environment  Can be problematic when inaccurate  Can lead to stereotypes and possible prejudice/discrimination Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts  Judgmental heuristics are mental shortcuts people use to make judgments quickly and efficiently  Tversky and Kahneman (1973)  the Availability Heuristic  the Representativeness Heuristic  Framing Effect  Anchoring & Adjustment Schema vs. Heuristic  Schema  organized set of knowledge  pertains to knowledge structure  Heuristic  mental shortcut  specific processing rule How easily does it come to mind?  The Availability Heuristic is the strategy of basing a judgment on the ease with which you can bring something to mind. Combs & Slovic 1979; Kristiansen 1983 How Similar is A to B?  Representativeness Heuristic a mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case  The base- rate fallacy is the tendency to ignore base- rate information. Frank is a 39- year old man. Twice divorced, Frank spends most of his free time hanging around the country club. His clubhouse bar conversations often center around his regrets at having tried to follow his esteemed father’s footsteps. The long hours he had spent at academic drudgery would have been better invested in learning how to be less quarrelsome in his relations with other people. (Fischhoff & Bar -Hillel, 1984) Base-rate Fallacy  Description drawn from 100 clinical interviews.  Half Ps told 30 are engineers and 70 are lawyers  Half Ps told 70 are engineers and 30 are lawyers  What is Frank’s occupation?  30 engineers/70 lawyers: 80% said Frank is a lawyer.  70 engineers/30 lawyers: 80% said Frank is a lawyer. Base-rate Fallacy Framing effect  We react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented  We are risk-averse with gains: We value a certain gain more than a probable gain.  We are risk-taking with losses: We prefer to take the chance rather than suffer a certain loss. Framing effect  Which would you choose? A. Sure gain of $10,000 B. 50% chance of getting $20,000  Which would you choose? A. Sure loss of $10,000 B. 50% chance of losing $20,000 Framing effect  Which would you choose? A. Sure gain of $10,000 B. 50% chance of getting $20,000  Which would you choose? A. Sure loss of $10,000 B. 50% chance of losing $20,000 Risk-averse when framed as gains: we want the sure bet! Risk-taking when framed as losses: we want the chance of losing nothing! Taking things at Face Value  Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic a mental shortcut whereby people use a number or a value as a starting point and then adjust insufficiently from this anchor Anchoring The Mississippi River How long is it? Anchoring Mount Everest How tall is it? Anchoring on the Self Problems with Anchoring on the Self  False Consensus : The tendency to overestimate the commonality of one’s opinions and one’s undesirable or unsuccessful behaviors.  False Uniqueness: The tendency to underestimate the commonality of one’s abilities and one’s desirable or successful behaviors. Improving Human Thinking Overconfidence Barrier  the finding that people usually have too much confidence in the accuracy of their judgments  people’s judgments are usually not as correct as they think Solutions?  Ask people to play devil’s advocate  Ask them to make a different interpretation  Teach them about probability/stats  Engage them in controlled processing
MISS PROF ONLY
The self How we come to understand ourselves The Nature of the Self  The me, the “known”  The self-concept the content of the self; that is, our knowledge about who we are (thoughts and beliefs)  The I, the “knower”  Self-awareness thinking about ourselves. It makes you more sensitive to your own attitudes and dispositions. The Self-Concept  Self-complexity is the number of different self -schemas and possible selves that a person has  “Who am I?”  Physical descriptors  Social descriptors  Psychological descriptors The Self-Concept The Self-Concept  Self-complexity  Self -esteem is a person’s global or overall evaluation of his or her own self -worth.  The more complex our self -concept, the less any one failure seems to affect our self -esteem. The Functions of the Self  Organizational Function  Self-schemas  Self- reference effect (Markus, 1977)  Executive Function  regulate behavior  make decisions  plan for future  Self-regulatory resource model Cultural Definitions of Self  Independent view  defining oneself in terms of one’s own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions.  Individualistic cultures  Interdependent view  defining oneself in terms of one’s relationships to other people, recognizing that one’s behavior is determined by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others.  Collectivistic cultures Gender Differences in the Definition of Self  Tendencies, not absolutes  Women  Relational interdependence  Ex: Significant others, Children, Siblings  Men  Collective interdependence  Ex: Italian, a Yankees fan Knowing Ourselves  Introspection: the process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings, and motives. Knowing Ourselves  Introspection  How often are people “introspective?”  Self = 8% of total thoughts Csikszentmihalyi & Figurski (1982) Knowing Ourselves  Introspection  Strangers to Ourselves: Everyday Introspection (Wilson, 2004)  Gut feelings without analysis  Pros/Cons lists (analyzing reasons)  It is difficult to know exactly why we feel a certain way Self-Awareness Theory  The idea that when people focus attention on themselves, they evaluate and compare their behavior to their internal standards and values.  What brings attention to the Self?  What are internal standards and values? Self-Awareness Theory  Self-Awareness  When behavior ≠ standards  we change or experience discomfort  When self -awareness is uncomfortable, we often escape (via drinking, watching TV, FB, etc.) The Influence of Self-Focus  Diener and Wallbom (1976)  All Ps say that cheating is wrong.  Half Ps are given opportunity to cheat on an anagram test  71% cheat  Half Ps are given opportunity to cheat on the anagram test, but have a mirror on their desks  only 7% cheat Self-Concept Formation  Daryl Bem’s Self -Perception Theory  When our feelings are uncertain or ambiguous…  Self-perception is the process of inferring our own traits, attitudes, or emotions, by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs Self-Perception  The overjustification effect  The tendency to believe that a behavior was extrinsically (not intrinsically) motivated as external incentives increase  Intrinsic motivation is engaging in an activity for the pure enjoyment of the activity itself  Extrinsic motivation is engaging in an activity to gain external rewards or to avoid punishment The Overjustification Effect  Greene, Sternberg, and Lepper (1976)  4th and 5th grade teachers introduced four new math games to their students.  Greene, Sternberg, and Lepper (1976)  4th and 5th grade teachers introduced four new math games to their students. The Overjustification Effect  Greene, Sternberg, and Lepper (1976)  4th and 5th grade teachers introduced four new math games to their students. The Overjustification Effect Preserving intrinsic interest  Cannot harm interest if no interest to begin with  Task-contingent rewards  Giving reward just for doing it  More harmful  Performance- contingent rewards  Giving reward for doing it well  Less harmful Social Identity Theory  Part of your identity comes from your membership in groups  Family, school, work crew, sports fan  Important source of pride & self -esteem BIRGing (& CORFing)  Basking In Reflected Glory (BIRG)  A way to boost self -esteem  one associates themselves with known, successful others such that the winner’s success becomes the individual’s own accomplishment  Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORF)  A way to preserve self -esteem  Distancing oneself from anyone/thing seen as a failure Schachter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL -Feeling flushed -Hands shaky -Heart racing EXPLAIN AROUSAL – Snake EMOTION – Fear Schacter & Singer (1962)  Cover Story: test “Suproxin’s ” effect on vision  The participants were then put in one of four experimental conditions: 1. Adrenaline Ignorant 2. Adrenalin Informed 3. Adrenalin Misinformed 4. Control Group (placebo)  Participants were then assigned to either the euphoria condition or the anger condition.  Exposed to a confederate who either made them laugh or made rude comments.  DVs: observational measures of emotional response through one- way mirror + self -report measures from participants Schacter & Singer (1962)  Across both the euphoric & anger conditions…  Most emotional display (lots of anger/euphoria) = those who received epinephrine but who were uninformed or misinformed about the effects  Least emotional displays = those who were informed or who received placebo Misattribution of Arousal  Dutton and Aron (1974)  An attractive female assistant surveyed men crossing a 450- foot long, 230-foot high suspension bridge.  Half were interviewed while on the bridge.  Half were interviewed after crossing and resting a few minutes.  Assistant gives her phone number if they have questions. Dutton and Aron (1974) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage of men calling the assistant After Resting On Bridge Surveyed  The misattribution of arousal is the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do. Cognitive Appraisal Theories of Emotion  More recent than 2-factor theory  Does not rely on arousal  Claims that emotions are elicited by evaluations (appraisals) of events and situation.  Accounts for why people may have very different emotional reactions to same event. Relationship ends  Appraisal of loss  Sadness Relationship ends  Appraisal of relief  Happiness Self-Concept formation via other observation Leon Festinger’s S ocial Comparison Theory  When no objective standards exist, we rely on social comparison.  Social comparison is the process of evaluating our own opinions, abilities, or performance by comparing ourselves to others. Social Comparison Theory  When motivated to accurately evaluate the self:  lateral social comparison involves seeking similar others to compare to. Social Comparison Theory  When motivated to improve the self:  upward social comparison comparing ourselves to those who are better than we are on a particular trait or ability  When motivated to enhance or protect our self- esteem:  downward social comparison comparing ourselves to people who are worse than we are on a particular trait or ability Downward Social Comparison  Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & LaPrelle (1985) Earned high marks (16/20) Earned low marks (8/20) Others did worse than you Others did better than you Downward Social Comparison  Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & LaPrelle (1985) Earned high marks (16/20) Earned low marks (8/20) Others did worse than you Others did better than you Downward Social Comparison  Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & LaPrelle (1985)  Ps were then asked whether they would like to look at the tests of some other Ps. Earned high marks (16/20) Earned low marks (8/20) Others did worse than you Others did better than you Downward Social Comparison  Pyszcynski, Greenberg, & LaPrelle (1985) 0 20 40 60 80 100 % wanting to see others’ tests Positive feedack(16/20) Negative feedback (8/20) Others scored better Others scored worse Self-Presentation  Self- presentation is the act of expressing a desired image of the self to an audience.  Impression Management is the attempt to get others to see a person as they want to be seen.  Ingratiation  Self-handicapping: Strategy of creating obstacles and excuses so that they don’t have to blame themselves for poor performance Self-Presentation Self -handicapping  Berglas and Jones (1978)  Ps complete 20 logic problems  For half, all problems are easy  For half, all problems are difficult to impossible  All Ps receive actual performance feedback Self-Presentation Self -handicapping  Ps told they will take another test and must choose to ingest:  “Actavil”: improves intellectual performance  “Pandocrin”: impairs intellectual performance  Results:  Easy problems: Ps chose Activil  Difficult problems : Ps chose Pandocrin
MISS PROF ONLY
Attitudes and Persuasion Influencing Thoughts and Feelings The nature & origin of attitudes “The ability to kill or capture a man is a relatively simple task compared with changing his mind.” – Richard Cohen, Washington Post , What is an Attitude ?  An enduring evaluation (positive negative) of people, objects, or ideas  Classes of evaluative responses (ABC)  Affective an attitude based on feelings and values  Behavioral an attitude based on observations of how one behaves (or intends to behave)  Cognitive an attitude based on beliefs Circle the number on the scale that best describes your feelings toward snakes Hateful -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Love Sad -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Delighted Angry -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Relaxed Circle the number that best describes the traits or characteristics of snakes Useless -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Useful  Harmful -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Beneficial  Foolish -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Wise Where do attitudes come from?  Genetics  Cognitively based attitudes  Behaviorally based attitudes  Affectively based attitudes  Learning (for affectively based attitudes)  Classical conditioning  Operant conditioning Classical Conditioning Stimulus 1 (“thomer ”) Neutral Feelings Negative feelings Stimulus 2 (shock) Before Conditioning Classical Conditioning Stimulus 1 (“thomer ”) Stimulus 2 (shock) Negative feelings During Conditioning Stimulus 1 (“thomer ”) Stimulus 2 (shock) Negative feelings Classical Conditioning Stimulus 1 (“thomer ”) Negative feelings  After Conditioning Operant Conditioning  Rewards & punishments shape our behaviors  Insko (1965)  University of Hawaii  Students were phoned about a “Springtime Aloha Week” (SAW)  Ps asked to agree/disagree with 14 statements  ½ Ps were rewarded with “good” every time they agreed with a statement in support of SAW  ½ Ps were rewarded with “good” every time they agreed with a statement not supporting SAW Operant Conditioning  One week later, same students who had been called the week before were asked to complete a questionnaire including items about the festival  Results  The rewarded attitude was even stronger on the second questionnaire  Even a week later, in a different setting Explicit vs. Implicit Attitudes  Explicit attitudes – consciously endorse and easily report  Implicit attitudes – involuntary, uncontrollable, and often unconscious http://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit Demo of IAT Attitude Strength and Accessibility  Direct Experience  Public Expression  Personal Importance  Rehearsal -3 very negative – 2 negative – 1 slightly negative 0 neither positive nor negative +1 slightly positive +2 positive +3 very positive Attitude Change  Changing attitudes by changing behavior  Persuasive Communication  Yale Attitude Change Approach  Elaboration Likelihood Model Changing Attitudes by Changing Behavior  Attitudes may change due to cognitive dissonance  We want our behaviors to be consistent with our beliefs, and we are uncomfortable when they’re not.  To resolve: we change either our cognitions or our behaviors  Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)  Paid Ps either $20 to lie or $1 to lie  w hen behavior appears to have insufficient external justification…  …changing the attitude to correspond with the behavior provides an internal justification Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) -0.6 -0.4 -0.20 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Control $1$20 Ratings of enjoyment of task Dissonance reduction  Post-decision dissonance  Cognitive dissonance that results from having to reject one appealing choice in favor of another  Post-decision dissonance reduction: We begin disliking the rejected choice to reduce dissonance  Effort justification  Sometimes effort is enough to make something seem worthwhile  Reduce dissonance by justifying the time, effort, or money devoted to something that turned out unpleasant/disappointing Using dissonance to change attitudes  Insufficient incentives  to get someone to DO a behavior  to actually change attitudes, use the smallest amount of incentive necessary to get someone to engage in the behavior change you desire  Insufficient punishment  to get someone to STOP a behavior  when an individual can’t come up with an external reason as to why they resisted doing something they wanted to, she derogates the activity Persuasive Communication & Attitude Change  Persuasive Communication – advocating a particular side of an issue The Yale Attitude Change Approach The Three Elements of Persuasion Who says The Communicator What The Message To Whom The Audience Who: The Communicator  Credibility – Believability  Expertise: communicator has knowledge relevant to the persuasive message  influences our judgments of objective reality  Attractiveness – Physical or Personality  influences our subjective preferences  We like those who are familiar, those who we are similar to, and those who are physically attractive. What: The Nature of the Communication  The message is against the communicator’s self -interest  Ex: Warren Buffet advocating for raising taxes on the rich  The message does not seem to be designed to influence  Walster and Festinger (1962)  Ps were more persuaded if they overheard the message What: The Nature of the Communication  One-sided versus two -sided messages  If the audience already agrees or is less sophisticated, use one sided message  If the audience is initially opposed or more sophisticated, use two-sided message  To go first or last?  Go FIRST when: speech 1, speech 2, time gap, decision (primacy effect)  Go LAST when: speech 1, time gap, speech 2, decision ( recency effect) To Whom: The Nature of the Audience  People are easier to persuade when…  They are distracted.  They don’t have a high IQ.  They have moderate amounts of self – esteem.  They are 18- 25 years old. Richard Petty and John Cacioppo Elaboation Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty and Cacioppo’s ELM  High likelihood of elaboration:  When the audience is motivated and capable of paying attention to the arguments, they engage in a…  …central route to persuasion:  A process whereby the audience listens carefully to and thinks about the communication, and is influenced by the strength of the arguments presented. Petty and Cacioppo’s ELM  Low likelihood of elaboration:  When the audience is not capable or lacks the motivation to pay close attention, they engage in a…  …peripheral route to persuasion:  A process whereby the audience is mindlessly influenced by peripheral cues. Petty & Cacioppo’s ELM  Attitude change lasts longer if it occurs through the central processing route.  A person’s motivation and capability affects the likelihood of elaboration and the route to persuasion  What affects motivation and capability?  Individual differences  need for cognition  Factors in the environment  distractions  Our moods and emotions Emotions and Attitude Change  Fear-arousing communication  Do they work? Fear-Arousing Messages  Leventhal, Watts, and Pagano (1967)  Selected a group of heavy smokers (averaging 70 cigarettes a day before the study).  Ps placed into one of three persuasion conditions: 1. Some Ps receive educational pamphlet 2. Some Ps shown a scary film 3. Some Ps see the scary film and then receive the pamphlet Fear-Arousing Messages Leventhal, Watts, and Pagano (1967) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Before 1 week2 weeks 1 month3 months Cigarettes / Day No film, instructions Film, no instructions Film and instructions Emotions and Attitude Change  Fear-arousing messages—Do they work?  Least effective: Low fear  More effective: Moderate to high fear  Most effective: Moderate to high fear + instructions Other persuasion techniques  Foot in the door  Start small and move big  Door in the face  Ask big(ger than you want); then move smaller (and more realistic)  Scarcity principle  Limit availability  Norm of reciprocity  Give them something; they’ll feel socially obliged to return the favor Resisting Persuasion  Attitude Inoculation Theory (McGuire)  People are more able to resist a persuasive message if they are exposed to small doses of arguments against their position beforehand.  Why?  The weak arguments force people to devise counterarguments which are then available when the “real” message is presented. Reactance Theory  Strong prohibitions (rules) threaten freedom, and the boomerang is an attempt to restore that feeling of freedom.  Pennebaker & Sanders (1976) found that graffiti was reduced more by a sign with a mild prohibition than by a sign with a strong one When do our attitudes predict behavior?  LaPiere (1934) stopped with a Chinese couple at 251 restaurants and hotels.  Of the 251, only one hotel refused them  6 mos. later, he sent a letter to each place asking if they would accept Chinese guests. Of the 128 that replied…  118 (92%) said “No!”  Only one said “Yes.”  Wicker (1969) reported that the correlation between attitudes and behaviors was .33!  General attitudes predict behaviors generally, but only under certain conditions Spontaneous Behavior  People’s attitudes will predict/be consistent with their spontaneous behaviors when the attitudes are highly accessible .  If the attitudes are not highly accessible, then arbitrary aspects of the situation tend to determine behavior. Deliberative Behavior Ajzen & Fishbein’s Theory of Planned Behavior Attitude toward specific behavior Subjective norms Perceived behavioral control Behavioral intention S pecific Behavior
MISS PROF ONLY
CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES Stereotypes, Prejudice, & Discrimination  Cognitive  stereotypes : generalized beliefs, in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of a group, regardless of actual variation  Affective  prejudice : negative, affective evaluations toward an individual or group as a whole, on the basis of group membership  Behavioral  discrimination : unjustified differential treatment of a person based solely on their group membership Type of Bias  Implicit  beliefs and attitudes that involve a lack of awareness and are unintentionally activated  Explicit  beliefs and attitudes of which people are aware and can control in their expression (conscious and deliberative) Expression of bias Identity • IN-group vs. OUT -group • Depends on which part of your identity is most salient • Level of analysis • Social / Collective • Role / Relational • Personal / Individual  Out-group derogation  negative behavior or expressions, specifically based on group membership, directed at an out -group or out -group member  In-group favoritism  positive behavior or expressions, specifically based on group membership, directed at an in -group or in -group member Focus of orientation  Stereotypes can be positive or negative  Problem 1 = often not accurate  Problem 2 = they set our expectations  Examples that are counter to stereotypes get labeled exceptions  We don’t change cognitions.  We fall prey to confirmation bias  Darley & Gross (1983) Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component All Ps watched one of two video tapes depicting a 4th -Grade girl named Hannah playing in a playground .  Lower -class Hannah : the playground was dilapidated/urban slum  U pper -class Hannah : the playground was nice/wealthy suburban area Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component Darley and Gross (1983)  Darley and Gross (1983) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Playground Mean grade level placement Lower-class Hannah Upper-class Hannah Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component All Ps were shown a second tape that depicted Hannah taking an oral exam  She answered ½ the difficult items correct (and ½ incorrect)  She answered ½ the easy items correct (and ½ incorrect) Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component Darley and Gross (1983)  Darley and Gross (1983) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Playground Playground + Test Mean grade level placement Lower-class Hannah Upper-class Hannah Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component Prejudice: The affective component Why do we engage in prejudice?  The way we think  Social Cognition  The way we assign meaning  Attributional Bias  The way we allocate resources  Realistic Conflict Theory The Way We Think: Social Cognition Social Categorization: US vs. THEM  In-group bias  Positive feelings and special treatment for those in our in-group  Negative feelings and unfair treatment for those in our out-group  For self -esteem maintenance  Out-group homogeneity bias  “They’re all alike” The Failure of Logic  Prejudiced attitudes are deeply rooted in affect (emotion)  Logical arguments are not effective in countering emotions  Attitudes affect the way we process information  Confirmation bias  Consistent and inconsistent information with the stereotype The Way We Think: Social Cognition Dual Processes  Automatic processing  Controlled processing  We pick up on and apply stereotypes outside of our conscious awareness; we have to engage in controlled processing to counteract them. The Way We Think: Social Cognition The Way We Assign Meaning: Attributional Biases  Dispositional v. Situational Explanations  Ultimate Attribution Error: group -level application of FAE  The Bell Curve  Stereotype Threat: the apprehension experienced by members of a minority group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype  Blaming the victim/Just world phenomenon  The tendency to blame individuals for their victimization, typically motivated by a desire to see the world as a fair place  Self-Fulfilling Prophecies  Illusory Correlations  A false sense of relation between two distinct events The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic Conflict Theory  Realistic Conflict Theory  Prejudice arises when groups compete for scarce resources.  When competition arises, groups change the way that they feel about each other.  Robber’s Cave Study The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic Conflict Theory Robber’s Cave  Phase 1: Boys were randomly split into 2 groups and sent to different parts of the park (groups were unaware of each other )  Phase 2 : Groups were brought together to compete (e.g., tug-o- war )  Hypothesis : solidarity would develop within groups; prejudice would develop between groups The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic Conflict Theory Robber’s Cave  Inter-group hostility developed almost immediately…  Name calling  Most aggressive members became group leaders  Raids on other group  …as did intra -group solidarity  Groups developed symbols, flags, and mottos The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic Conflict Theory Robber’s Cave  Attempts to eliminate the prejudice failed:  Group lunch = Food fight  Movie night = Fist fight  Cooperation brought the groups together  Find a leak in a water tank  Push a broken down truck The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic Conflict Theory How can prejudice be reduced?  Contact Hypothesis  To decrease prejudice between groups, mere contact is NOT enough.  contact must be between people of equal status who are in pursuit of common goals  When Contact Reduces Prejudice: 6 conditions  Mutual interdependence  Common goal  Equal status  Informal, interpersonal contact  Multiple contacts (to debunk “exception to the rule” ideas)  Social norms of equality Allport (1954) How can prejudice be reduced? The Jigsaw Classroom Cooperation and Interdependence: The Jigsaw Classroom  Traditional Classroom: highly competitive  Jigsaw Classroom: highly interdependent  Students placed in diverse six-person learning groups  Each student assigned one part of lesson material  Each student must teach and learn from other group members
MISS PROF ONLY
WHY WE HURT OTHER PEOPLE Aggression Definitions  Aggression : behavior—verbal or physical —meant to intentionally harm another being  Hostile (affective) aggression : anger leads to aggression; primary goal is to make victim suffer  Instrumental aggression: primary goal is to attain a non – injurious goal (not make someone suffer)  Gender & aggression  Males  direct aggression  Action clearly derived from aggressor & aimed directly at target  Females  indirect aggression  Action NOT clearly derived from aggressor; target may not be aware they are victim of aggression Is it Aggression? 1. A man joins a rugby team. 2. A farmer slaughters a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. 3. A woman tailgates after a driver who passed her on the right. 4. A soldier kills an enemy. 5. A golfer breaks his club over his knee. 6. A hunter kills an elk only for its antlers. 7. Two male college students fight over a female college student. 8. A woman passes along a rumor about another’s affair. 9. A parent spanks a child who has disobeyed. 10. A driver honks at someone who has cut him off. Culture & aggression  Culture of honor  Strong norms suggest aggression is an appropriate response to an insult or threat to one’s honor  Southern US  “asshole” studies ( Nisbett & Cohen, 1996)  “Honor killings”  Family members kills another because victim has “shamed” the family  More prevalent in Arab societies Is aggression inborn or learned ?  Thomas Hobbes (1651)  Leviathan – Aggression is innate  Jean -Jacques Rousseau (1762)  Humans are the noble savage  Sigmund Freud (1930)  Eros vs. Thanatos  Hydraulic theory Is aggression inborn or learned? Instinct/evolutionary theories  An instinct is an unlearned, inherited behavior common to all members of a species  Kuo (1961) – cats & rats  Lore and Schultz (1993)  Universality of aggression = survival value  Universality of inhibitory mechanisms = survival value  Aggression = optional strategy; use determined by previous social experiences and present social context. Is aggression inborn or learned? Genetics/biology  Brain structure  Amygdala: brain area associated with aggressive behaviors  Left temporal lobe: too much/too little activation here associated with inability to control actions  Brain chemicals  Serotonin  Regulates emotion/social functioning; inhibit aggressive impulses  Testosterone  associated with increased aggression  d oesn’t cause the aggression, but makes you less likely to pay attention to inhibiting situational factors Alcohol and Aggression  Alcohol consumption positively related to aggressive behavior (even when unprovoked)  Deindividuates  Lowers inhibitions  Interferes with cognitive processing  Physical Violence (Bushman, 1997)  Misinterpret accident as purposeful provocation  Sexual Violence (Abbey et al., 2001)  Misread signals Frustration and Aggression  Frustration  Upset/annoyance caused by the perception that you are being prevented from attaining a goal  Frustration- Aggression Hypothesis  the theory that frustration increases the probability of an aggressive response  Frustrate the children (Barker , Dembo , & Lewin , 1941)  Children were shown a room full of attractive toys.  Half were allowed to play with the toys immediately.  Half had to wait behind a wire fence for 20 minutes.  Children who had to wait played more destructively .  Closeness to the goal  The frustration is unexpected  Attributions about the source  Hostile attributions  Most recent evidence…  Frustration produces anger, which may or may not lead to aggression Factors increasing frustration General Aggression Model Bushman & Anderson, 2001 Anderson & Dill, 2000  Study 1: Correlational  Demonstrated relationship between exposure to video game violence & aggressive behavior  Especially for males with aggressive personalities  Correlation = chicken or egg?  Study 2: Experimental  Manipulated VGV/trait irritability & measured “lab aggression”  High irritability = more aggression  Violent game = more aggression  GAM playing violent games increased accessibility of aggressive thoughts Being provoked and reciprocating After provocation, do we “ turn the other cheek?” • It depends (Johnson & Rule, 1986) … o All Ps received criticism from “commenter” • Strong vs. Insulting o All Ps told “commenter” had just experienced a difficult event • ½ told before getting feedback; ½ told after getting feedback o All Ps had chance to aggress against “commenter” oLeast aggressive = those who learned of the mitigating circumstance BEFORE getting feedback Does frustration always produce aggression?  Leonard Berkowitz’s hypothesis  Frustration causes anger  Anger is a “readiness to aggress” Frustration Anger Aggressive objects as cues  An aggressive stimulus is any object that is associated with aggressive responses (e.g., a gun, knife, fist, explosion) Aggressive Cue? No Ye s Less likely to aggress More likely to aggress Frustration Anger Does frustration always produce aggression?  College students (Ps) tried to solve a problem.  Partner (confederate) in next room evaluated their performance with shocks  ½ Ps received 1 shock; ½ Ps received 7 shocks  Then the tables turned and Ps waited in another room to test the confederate and deliver shocks  IV: item lying beside shock apparatus  badminton racquet/birdies  revolver/rifle  DV: How long did the shocks they delivered to the confederate last? Aggressive Objects as Cues Berkowitz & Le Page (1967) Aggressive Objects as Cues Berkowitz & Le Page (1967) Imitation and Aggression Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) Other people as cues  Social learning theory: we learn by observing & imitating others (models)  Attention – to modeled behavior  Retention – becomes part of schema  Reproduction – must be able to actually perform behavior  Motivation – must have reinforcement for performing behavior  Children brought into lab to work on “art project”  No model/control: child left alone for 10 minutes  Nonaggressive model: adult plays quietly with Tinker toys  Aggressive model: adult plays roughly with Bobo doll 0 5 10 15 20 25 No model Nonaggressive model Aggressive model Number of aggressive behaviors Imitation and Aggression Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961)
MISS PROF ONLY
Group Process Group Influence on Individual Behavior What is a group? Two or more people… …who are interacting with each other… …and are interdependent —to fulfill their needs and goals they must rely on each other. Why do people join groups?  Survival  Evolutionarily advantageous  Benefits  Provide information  Define identity  Establish social norms for behavior What is the composition of groups?  Most groups 2-6 people  Tendency to be similar  Social norms  Social roles  Group cohesiveness Social norms  “Rules” of behavior that are acceptable in a group/society  Change according to environment; can change over time  Deviation often punished, unless you have idiosyncrasy credits Social norms  Descriptive vs. Injunctive norms  Injunctive norms  what should happen  Descriptive norms  what actually happens  Prescriptive vs. Proscriptive norms  Prescriptive norms  For things we should do  Proscriptive norms  For things we should not do Social Roles All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts… William Shakespeare, As You Like It  Parts we play as members of social groups  Behavior changes to fit expectations you and others have of that role  There are different social norms for each situation & roles stem from those norms Social roles  Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971)  Created “jail” in basement of Psych building  RA volunteers to be guards or prisoners  Both groups quickly took on their roles  Was supposed to last 2 weeks  Lasted 6 days before having to be stopped  Illustrates power of social roles to shape our behaviors Group Cohesiveness  The qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between members.  The more cohesion:  the more likely to retain members  members take part in group activities  members try to recruit new members  The good and bad sides of cohesion  Too much cohesion can impede performance How Groups Influence Behaviors of Individuals  Social Facilitation  When the presence of others energizes us  Social Loafing  When the presence of others relaxes us  Deindividuation  Getting lost in the crowd Social Facilitation  The tendency for people to do better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated .  Norman Triplett (1898)  Children reeled in fishing line faster in groups than alone  Robert Zajonc (1969)  Applied this effect to cockroaches Zajonc et al. (1969 ) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Seconds to navigate maze Simple Complex Alone Audience Social Facilitation: simple vs. difficult tasks Social Facilitation: Arousal and Dominant Response  Zajonc ( 1969)  The presence of others increases arousal.  Arousal (physiological excitation) increases the likelihood of the dominant response  Markus (1978)  The tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks when they are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated .  Max Ringelmann (1913) Social Loafing  Who slacks off the most?  Men more than Women  Western -oriented more than Eastern -oriented  Why do we loaf?  Individual effort cannot be identified and rewarded.  The task is not challenging, appealing, or involving Social Loafing Is a loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension resulting in uninhibited behavior. Deindividuation What causes deindividuation? Anonymity  Large groups (hiding in the crowd)  Mullen (1986) found that the larger the mob, the more savage and vicious the lynching.  Costumes (hiding behind masks & uniforms)  Zimbardo (1970) found that P s in sheets and hoods held a shock lever twice as long as those who wore name tags instead of the costume. Deindividuation Group Decisions  Major function of groups = making decisions  Are two heads better than one?  It depends!  Process Loss  Group Polarization  Leadership in Groups Group Decisions: Process Loss Process Loss: any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving  Groups might not try to find most expert member  Normative social pressures felt by expert  Communication problems  Failure to share unique information  Groupthink Group Decisions: Process Loss  Failure to Share Unique Information  the tendency to focus on shared information and ignore unique information known to only some members  Stasser & Titus, 1995  Student Body President Candidates  IV: Information – Shared vs. Unshared  DV: Which candidate was chosen? Failure to share unique information They all know the same thing about Candidate A: Positive facts #1 #2 #3 # 4 #5 #6 #7 #8 Negative facts #1 #2 #3 # 4 They all know different things about Candidate A: Positive #1 #2 Negative #1 #2 #3 #4 Positive #3 #4 Negative #1 #2 #3 #4 Positive #5 #6 Negative #1 #2 #3 #4 Positive #7 #8 Negative #1 #2 #3 #4 Group Decision 83% = A Group Decision 24% = A Group Decisions: Process Loss  Groupthink: a kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner  Kennedy and the “Bay of Pigs” invasion Groupthink  Preconditions  Highly cohesive group  Group is isolated  Directive leader  High stress  Poor decision -making procedures Groupthink  Symptoms  Illusion of invulnerability  Belief in moral correctness of group  Stereotyped views of out-group  Self-censorship  Direct pressure on dissenters to conform  Illusion of unanimity  Mindguards Groupthink  Defective decision -making  Incomplete survey of alternatives  Failure to examine risks of the favored alternative  Poor information search  Failure to develop contingency plans Group Decisions: Polarization  Group Polarization : the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members.  Myers and Bishop (1970)  Surveyed high schoolers on their racial attitudes and then split them into high and low prejudiced groups.  In like-minded groups, the students discussed racial issues.  After discussion, again measured their racial attitudes. Group Decisions: Polarization -4 -3 -2 -10 1 2 3 4 Before discussion After discusion Prejudice High prejudiced Low prejudiced Why does group polarization occur?  Informational social influence  New information and one- sided arguments are presented that persuade people even more.  Normative social influence  People’s perception of the group norm shifts, freeing them to express more extreme beliefs. Group Decisions: Polarization