Find study materials for any course. Check these out:
Browse by school
Make your own
To login with Google, please enable popups
To login with Google, please enable popups
Don’t have an account?
To signup with Google, please enable popups
To signup with Google, please enable popups
Sign up withor
Also, people with very high self-esteem are more likely to use a maladaptive self-handicapping strategy (sabotaging oneself so one has an excuse for failure).
To be primed is to have “activated associations in memory,” which influence how we perceive the world.
- Can be seen when our perceptions confirm our (chronically primed) preconceptions.
“Red came up three times in a row, it has to come up black this time.”
Wilson’s “two systems” view: The Verbal production system and the Behavior production system are not as connected as we think!
(we may think we know why we do X, but we don’t really)
Maybe – self-esteem correlates with happiness and other “good stuff.”
Maybe not- People with high (narcissistic) self-esteem are more violence-prone.
Also, in collectivistic cultures, people function fine without strong self-esteem. (less excuse-making, blaming in these cultures).
1. Cut the person off from their past life.
2. Give them a powerful role to play.
3. Make pretense necessary for survival.
4. Use their greed against them.
a consensually-shared standard for correct or appropriate behavior.
In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise. People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches soon made smaller judgments like 4 inches. Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4 inches. People changed to more resemble the others in the group.
Sherif's subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects directly, "Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments," most denied it. However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed to the group judgment they recently made. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving about 4 inches. These subjects had been changed by the group experience, whether they realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms.
-Asch’s line-length studies show how much pressure norms can exert
--Nearly 75 percent of the participants in the conformity experiments went along with the rest of the group at least one time. After combining the trials, the results indicated that participants conformed to the incorrect group answer approximately one-third of the time. In order to ensure that participants were able to accurately gauge the length of the lines, participants were asked to individually write down the correct match. According to these results, participants were very accurate in their line judgments, choosing the correct answer 98 percent of the time
In Asch's experiments, students were told that they were participating in a 'vision test.' Unbeknownst to the subject, the other participants in the experiment were all confederates, or assistants of the experimenter. At first, the confederates answered the questions correctly, but eventually began providing incorrect answers.
The person conforms in order to avoid disapproval (compliance).
The person conforms because he/she is convinced (acceptance).
Obedience: the tendency to do what authorities tell us to do simply because they tell us to do it.
Conformity: the tendency to do what others do simply because others are doing it.
The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.
Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.
we take in the norm or behavior and make it our own.
-A communicator’s credibility is higher when s/he talks fast and directly, and makes eye contact.
-Being thought an expert and being attractive also helps.
-Going first helps (a primacy effect),But, if there is a delay, going last can be better (a recency effect)
-So are distracted, uninterested, or unprepared audiences
- Help them develop counterarguments against these challenges
their parts (they have “emergent properties”).
we identify our selves with our groups (I’m an “American,” a “Tiger”, a “tennis player”).
Our groups can vary in size and inclusiveness
the tendency of people to perform better when others are present
Complex, less well-mastered skills break down when we are under pressure, taking us back to our automatic habits.
the strengthening of “dominant responses” when others are present
What will they think of me? Produces arousal.
What will they think of me? Produces arousal.
-enhances easy behavior, impairs difficult tasks
the tendency to exert less effort, the more group-members there are.
Others can do it, I can’t get blamed if we fail.
- If one is tight with other group-members
- If the task is very challenging, appealing, or involving
Can a “group mind” be more intelligent than the individual minds
that compose it?
-Creating a workable legal system is even harder.
-The Challenger shuttle launch decision
-The Iraq war?
In the early 1970s, Craig Haney, Curt Banks, Carlo Prescott, and Philip Zimbardo conducted a landmark situational study at Stanford University. The experiment tested the fundamental attribution error: our tendency to attribute causes of behavior to personal factors, underestimating the influence of situational conditions.
For this study, a small group of college students volunteered to be subjects and were carefully tested for sound psychological and physical health. Half of the students were randomly selected to act as prisoners, the other half to act as guards. The study took place in a simulated jail facility in the Stanford University Psychology Department.
Once the study subjects entered the simulated jail, uniforms, rules, and other details distinguished the two groups from each other, and blurred the line between the reality of the study and life in prison. The students spent much of the day cramped in tiny cells, undergoing physical trials, and enduring the overall claustrophobic atmosphere of a small jail 24 hours a day. The guards, however, were allowed to return to their homes and normal surroundings after their shifts.
What happened during the study, originally planned to last two weeks, was more dramatic than anyone had anticipated, even the researchers themselves.
As the days passed, the boundary between roles and real life disappeared. Civilized students became aggressive guards, while formerly active students became listless, disengaged prisoners who passively underwent their trials and became depressed or disoriented. Some of the prisoners were so overpowered by the situation that they developed extreme stress reactions and had to be released from the study.
Eventually, after only six days, the study was forced to end. The behavior induced by the situation and physical environment shocked everyone, both students and researchers. But through this extreme example of situational manipulation, new understandings of social psychology, as well as the dynamics of life in a prison environment, were gained. When the study was over, the students returned to their normal lives, and extensive follow-ups have shown no negative long-term effects on the students.
(In real life, almost all “main effects” are qualified by “interactions.”)
-So are distracted, uninterested, or unprepared audiences.
Optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT): Says that the need to belong and the need to be distinctive can conflict.
-Get belongingness by connecting to the group, and distinctiveness by comparing the group to other groups
-this leads to Us” versus “Them,” in-group versus out-group
(original def.): the tendency of people to perform better when others are present
-- when people are under pressure- Complex, less well-mastered skills break down when we are under pressure, taking us back to our automatic habits.
-(current def.): the strengthening of “dominant responses” when others are present
a BELIEF about the personal attributes of a group of people
A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information (and sometimes accurate).
“Discrimination against Blacks is no longer a problem in the US.”
“Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.”
“Affirmative action should be abolished.”
(1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race, or (2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given race.
(1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given sex, or (2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given sex.
Social dominance orientation
A motivation to have one’s group dominate other social groups.
Believing in the superiority of one’s own ethnic and cultural group, and having a corresponding disdain for all other groups.
A personality that is disposed to favor obedience to authority and intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status
a person's expectation ofbeing victimized by prejudice or discrimination
1. They share a common goal.
2. There is interdependence (they
need each other).
3. Much informal contact occurs between groups (work
together, play together).
Says: Differences in aggression can be explained by differential learning (positive reinforcement) of aggressive behaviors. For some, these pay off.
Aggression can also be learned by watching others benefit from it (modeling, observational learning; no direct reinforcement needed).
Many such models can be found in TV, movies, relationships, video games, culture
people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people
The average child sees 100,000 acts of violence and 8,000 murders by age 10.
The rate of violence on prime-time TV is five to six incidents per hour but on Saturday mornings, it's 20 to 25.
- Those who report playing more violent video games in junior and high school engage in more aggressive behavior as adults.
- Playing Halo (vs. Myst) in the lab causes more aggression in a later task.
- Chronic gamers show diminished brain responses to images of real-life violence but not to other emotionally disturbing images.
1) Practice: you repeat the act over and over.
2) Reinforcement: They make you feel good/have a good time. Games are very entertaining and interactive.
3) You develop a direct script for acting aggressively
4) You become desensitized to violence and aggression. They seem OK.
De-individuation: lose touch with identity, values in a mob (lynchings)
Diffusion of responsibility: its not really me, its us.Conformity: Everybody else is doing it, I better go along
Not through suppression -- instead, responsible expression.
- Give training in communication/problem-solving/empathy.
- Model non-aggressive responses to provocation.
We prefer the letters in our own name.
We even tend to live in places thatstart with that letter
Women: having a .7
waist/hip ratio or a BMIbetween 19-25
having a V-shaped
torso and prominentmuscles
women prefer men whose MHC (Major histocompatiblity complex) is dissimilar (as indexed by smell)
The tendency for one person’s intimacy of self-disclosure to match that of a conversational partner
Romantic, Companionate, Fatuous, Consummate love
Romantic? (intimacy, passion, no commit)
Companionate? (intimacy, commit, no passion)
Fatuous? (passion, commit, no intimacy)
Consummate? (passion, commit, intimacy)
The key is 5 to 1
(positive experiences for every negative experience)
Why? Unfortunately, “bad is stronger than good”
1. Validating: compromising, calm, acknowledging each other, working things out.
2. Volatile: thriving on emotional intensity, may fight very bitterly.
3. Conflict-avoiding: side-stepping or denying disagreement.
Child-rearing negatively impacts couples’ well-being.People say they like interacting with their kids, more than they actually do
25% of those who don’t marry rate themselves as “very happy”.
40% of married adults rate themselves as “very happy.”
Educate the jury about the difficulty of discounting such information?
-Jury-members can’t remember or understand everything they’re told
-Solution: Educate the jury re: complex issues (DNA testing)?
Make trial transcripts or videotapes available?
Positive affect + Life-satisfaction – Negative affect
-What’s more, people who strive for extrinsic values (money, fame, image) more than intrinsic values (growth, connection, community)…
… are somewhat
-Moral: Adequate money is necessary but not sufficient for real happiness.
And, wanting it too much may even
drag you down.
-People (and economists) don’t seem to know this. Leading to a global “tragedy of the commons?”
1. Advertising, media, and social comparison processes
These make us believe, at some level, that more $, beauty, and status will make us happier.
2. The general policy assumption
that economies have to be based on continual growth
But, growth can be like a cancer when unregulated
3. Powerful vested interests Resisting change because “they’ve got theirs.”
4. Rising Insecurity makes people orient more towards extrinsic values. Sheldon & Kasser (2008) showed that feeling insecure about death, poverty, or social rejection increased extrinsic valuing.
5. Evolutionary theory
Are we programmed to compete with each other, at the expense of the whole?
In every culture, women preferred older men with
resources, status, and maturity.
Men preferred younger women with looks and
-Says gender differences are mostly learned, not innate. Acquired through gender role socialization.
-in every culture, men are socialized to be assertive providers, and women submissive care-takers
-Psychological sex differences are based on evolved differences between male / female bodies (strength, size), not evolved differences between male / female minds. More parsimonious?
Male = strength = hunt = dominate
Female = babies = nurture = submit
-Evolution provides the foundation, but culture fills in the details.
-So, we can be “all the same” and “very different” at the same time?
-Personality traits: Empathy, Self-Monitoring (if norms say to help), Religiosity
People don’t give enough to a common resource
2. “Punish” if necessary
3. “Forgive” when opponent repents
Sign up for free and study better.
Get started today!