1
Q
xWhat is the current view of an attitude
A
represents object evaluation, an association stored in memory.
2
Q
3 functions of attitudes:
A
- Object appraisal
- Instrumental/utilitarian
- Value expressive
3
Q
Object appraisal as an attitude function
A
Helps us organise and simplify our experience with object/class of objects and orients us towards relevant info.
Its a knowledge function…based on FACT
4
Q
Instrumental function of attitudes
A
Utilitarian - orients us towards things that SHOULD be rewarding and away from things that WOULD be costly and threatening
5
Q
Value expressive function of attitudes
A
The identity function - attitudes can help people express the self, can affirm important relationships (expressing same attitudes = shared values)
6
Q
C’s (cognitive) of attitudes
A
- Benefits, costs, why is particular objects better fit for what we need
- Evaluation based on properties of object
Function: Object appraisal (is this good thing or bad thing)
- Evaluation based on properties of object
7
Q
B’s (behavioural) of attitudes
A
- Based on observations of how we behave towards particular object
- Basically self-perception theory
- Works for things that are relatively novel (not already well-established attitude)
Eg., over time, amount of vegetables in shopping cart gets more, might infer from that that you feel more positively towards plant based/healthy diet
8
Q
A’s (affective) of attitudes
A
- Attitudes that are not necessarily based in logic
Based on our emotional reactions to object (like/dislike, values, personal preference, moral beliefs, aesthetic reactions)
9
Q
Are attitudes genetic
A
- Findings: identical twins share more attitudes, more likes and dislikes than fraternal twins. - Jazz = hereditary component (indirect function of genetics which can effect temperament and predisposition towards liking this music)
10
Q
How much of variance in peoples attitudes can be accounted for by genetics
A
35% of variance can be accounted for by genetics alone
11
Q
Attitudional ambivalnce
A
- Both Valences (mix of pos and negative feels about object)
( lack of consistency)
12
Q
Cognitive ambivalence: (Mixed beliefs)
A
- Mixed beliefs (tom is honest, but really unreliable = may have ambivalent feelings towards tom)
13
Q
Affective ambivalence: (Torn feelings)
A
Simultaneous love and hate - theme in popular media
14
Q
Affective-cognitive ambivalence (Heart vs mind)
A
Brain says one thing, heart says another - donating blood = good thing, heart = scared
15
Q
Do attitudes guide behaviour
A
- If attitudes predict behaviour = expect strong correlation
Found a weak correlation (0.3) - if attitudes guide behaviour would expect a lot stronger
16
Q
Under what conditions will attitudes guide behaviour?
A
If you are trying to predict a specific behaviour, with a very general attitude (it wont work very well)
If trying to predict a specific behaviour with a specific attitute, it will work better (and same for general-general)
17
Q
Qualities of the situation (for when attitudes guide behaviour)
A
- Sometimes, plenty of time, plenty of info, and can use attitude to make decision
A lot of times, our cognitive capacity is limited and we don’t have this
18
Q
Study on male choice between hiring man or woman and attitudes
A
Time pressure = attitudes would predict behaviour. Managers who were opposed/negative towards working woman = more opposed to chose qualified woman as didn’t have time to override effect of attitude. - When men had plenty of time to go over made-up applications, businessmens attitudes towards working women did not predict choices made
19
Q
Attitude strength
A
Not extremity
More talking about accessibility - strong attitude = one that is highly accessible (and has potential to guide behaviour more than something less accessible)
20
Q
4 aspects of an attitude that determines strength
A
- Persistence
- Resistance (to anything trying to change it)
- Greater impact on information processing (because of accessibility)
Guidance of behaviour
21
Q
Theory of Reasoned Action
A
- Attitudes can guide behaviour with deliberation
- People make decisions based on deliberation (of costs and benefits)
22
Q
“attitudes dont directly affect behaviour, but do affect behavioural intentions” - what is behavioural intention?
A
- Attitude toward the behaviour (eg., attitudes towards a treaty MARCH - not the treaty itself, not underlying etc)
Subjective norms regarding behaviour (what does individual think other people view as right thing to do)
23
Q
Attitude behaviour process model
A
attitudes guide behaviour without deliberation (assumes that we often dont deliberate/have thoughtful reflection of our actions) - involves both automatic AND conscious elements
24
Q
Fazio proposed Automatic Activation Model
A
An automatically activated attitude acts as a perceptual lens that immediately shapes how we interpret a situation. This happens in two key ways:
Guides Immediate Perception: It colors our perception of the attitude object itself (e.g., seeing a disliked food as “disgusting”).
Defines the Situation: It influences how we define the entire social situation, making us more likely to notice and adhere to the social norms that are consistent with our activated attitude (e.g., a positive attitude toward a party makes you more likely to notice the norm to “be social and have fun”).
25
Fazio subsequent model
MODE
Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants
- - If there are reasons you want to undo/counter it requires both motivation and capactiy
- Apathetic/don’t care = wont change
Are motivated, but don’t have capacity = can't change
26
To have any effect, the attitude must be:
- Accessible
- Appropriate (to the intended behaviour)
Useful in the context
27
Who are we more likely to be persuaded. by
- Credible speakers (experts_
- Attractive speakers (in number of different ways, any positive associations - physical, liking)
28
What are 3 aspects that influence the "what" of persuasion
1. Perceived intent
2. One vs Two sided
3. Order
29
Perceived intent - persuasion
○ message more persuasive if not perceived as persuasive appeal - avg. person not paid should be more persuasive - influencers not perceived as actual persuasive appeal = more buy
30
If your talking to a group of people that do/don't agree with you, what to present for persuasion?
○ If your talking to a group of people who already agree with you, present one side (look at these things we all agree to)
If your talking to a mixed audience, present both sides (makes you seem fair and balanced) - present other side as part of your argument
31
Primacy effect
Second person ALWAYS compared to first one, if decision is made immediately, want to be first person
32
Recency effect
If separated in time, and decision comes later, you want to be last person to present
33
What factors make us more easily persuaded
- Distracted (lower cog. capacity)
- Age (most persuadable between ages 18-25)
- Individual difference variables
34
Individual differences that influence propensity to distraction
Self-monitoring (high self-monitors = more easily persuaded)
Need for cognition (individual's tendency to engage in and enjor thinking - more need for cognition = less persuasion)
Intelligence
35
Elaboration of Likelihood Model (ELM)
There are 2 routes to persuasion, central and peripheral
36
Central route to persuasion
Involves 4 things before the actual persuasion:
- Attending (attend to the message)
- Comprehend (intelligence comes into play)
- Reacting (elaborating - why persuasive appeal true/false/evidence)
- Accepting
and finally, persuasion
(more system 2, deliberate thinking)
37
Peripheral route to persuasion
- Relys on heuristics and quick cues to reach persuasion
Some of these cues can lead us to make decisions we shouldn’t (because not willing to put in effort)
38
When do we use peripheral route (3 situations)
- Not self relevant (unimportant to you = reliance of heuristics)
- No motivation (don’t care)
- No capacity (too cognitively limited)
39
The expertise heuristic
Part of the peripheral route of persuasion.
- Expertise does matter
- Confidence
- We can trust signs of expertise that are not expertise but regardless if influences susceptibility for persuasion via peripheral route
40
4 heuristics relevant to peripheral route
Expertise heuristic, attractiveness heuristic, familiarity heuristic, message length heuristic, affect links to attitude
41
Pen study & linking affective directly to attitude object
- 2 identical advertisements, but only changed music (liked/disliked music)
- Advertised pen/liked music = chose 3x as more often than other pen
(liking/disliking can be associated with ut arritude towards thing)
42
Attractiveness heuristic
Tendency to agree with those we like. - More prominent & stereotypically attractive = more effective
Attractive = liked = more likely to agree
43
The familiarity heuristic:
Familiar stimuli are favoured
- The more you can make something feel familiar, the better
- Processing fluency (more frequently you see something, more fluently its processed, and mistake for liking)
44
Message-length heuristic:
- Longer persuasive appeal = more persuasive it is
- Number can overweigh quality
Quantity can WIPE OUT quality
45
When do we use central route?
- IS personally relevant
- ARE motivated
- DO have capacity
46
Do heuristic cues matter when taking central route?
No!! Its more strength and persuasion of arguement
47
High and low personal relevance with expertise indicators or not
High personal relevance
- Regardless of level of expertise (or attractiveness, or any of the peripheral cues) when its self relevant, strong argument is more persuasive than weak argument
Low personal relevance
- Peripheral cues matter
- Low expertise, weak and strong arguments both low (even strong argument is good, you don’t care, person is bozo)
- High expertise, argument is STILL persuasive (and weak argument is also somewhat persuasive)
48
High expertise, and low personal relevance =
we don't care about strength of logic of argument and change our opinions regardless
49
Agitated/high arousal emotions and persuasion
- more persuadable through peripheral route
less persuadable through central route
50
Low arousal emotions and persuasion
- More persuadable through central route (sad = something wrong in environment, = more engaged in processing info to correct it and feel better)
Less persuadable through peripheral route
51
Fear and persuasion
- Has to evoke enough fear but not too much!!
○ Too much = shut off and avoid.
- Have to be able to communicate what you have to do in order for this not to happen
Evoke enough fear + here's how to avoid = good
52
Is subliminal advertising ACTUALLY something real
- People think it works
- In studies that present things subliminally = SO much experimental control
Could NEVER happen in television show or cd
53
Resistance to persuasion
- Forewarning, Cognitive reactance
54
Forewarning and persuasion
Attitude inoculation - allows you to build up mental resources about how to counter arguement
- Works if you warn someone about persuasive appeal
This IS a persuasive attempt, get ready to counter
55
Cognitive Reactance and persuasion
If you tell people what they can't do, they want to do it more
- If perceived as taking away freedom to do as I choose, that freedom becomes more attractive
Choosing limited thing = reinstating freedom
56
Boomerang in persuasion
opposite effect, do the opposite of what trying to be persuaded to do.
57
Fixed-action patterns
- Regular, blindly mechanical patterns of action
○ Ie., stimulis --> behaviour
§ Regularly, consistently, in same form every time, no thought, no evaluation
58
Photocopy study and asking to step in like findings about word becomming stimulus
The word "because" communicates to the other person that we are about to give a reason
- Becomes the stimulus
- Whatever the reason is, doesn't matter.
THE WORD BECOMES THE STIMULUS
59
Reciprocity when discussing how norms guide behaviour
The rule: We should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided for us
Universal norm - useful evolutionarily speaking (helps societal growth, shared resources, distribution of labour)
Obligation = easy to exploit
60
How can reciprocity be used for changing others behaviour
- Free samples (feel obligation to purchase = reciprocal)
- Free book (religious text)
- People given coke by confederate selling raffles buy FAR more raffle tickets than people that didn't (bought 50c more tickets) = 5x more paid simply because of felt obligation
61
Reciprocal Concessions
We feel an obligation to make a concession to someone that has made one for us
62
Rejection-then-Retreat technique (door in the face)
Part of reciprocal concessions, start with big request then give lesser one. Makes people feel like someone's made a concession to them (therefore obligation to say yes) to second one
63
Talking the top of the line
Show the customer the most expensive model first, then make a concession and show them the cheaper (in middle of line), they more likely to buy it.
64
Are people subsequently upset about being tricked after reciprocal concessions (ie., talking top of the line)
- People aren't subsequently upset about being tricked - we feel greater responsibility & satisfaction with out decision (nice computer + did someone nice for someone who "did something nice for us")
65
How to avoid reciprocity influencing behaviour
- Recognising that concession is in fact not a concession
Once you know trick = less of an impact
66
Commitment & Consistency driving behaviour
The rule: Once we make a choice, or commit to a course of action, we encounter personal and interpersonal pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.
- Generally a good thing, pressure to go through with things we agree with
- Can be manipulated (not in best interest)
67
How to use commitment and consistency to change behaviour
- Foot in the door technique (exact opposite, smaller than bigger)
Start with small request, than larger…
ie., ask to put safety sign in yard, people more likely to do it after starting by putting a sticker or something smaller up first
68
Low balling:
People make a committment to a particular purchase and then whoever sold it to them changes the deal (for external reson). - Since its not sales persons fault, and you’ve already made commitment/agreement, people still feel pressure to remain consistent with the commitment they've already made
69
Social Proof in norms shaping our behaviour
We view a behaviour as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it
Ie., laugh tracks
70
Injunctive Norms
- Perceptions of appropriate behaviour
What you should do
71
Descriptive norms
- Perceptions of how people actually behave
We get cues about what people actually do by looking around
72
Litter and student housing study
People very least likely to litter when 1 peice of litter in the room compared to 0. 1 piece = more SALIENT in telling you thats what people dontusually do
73
Liking and compliance
- More likely to comply with liked others
- Separating out request from requested can be difficult
If we feel we have relationship with someone, increases familiarity, feelings of liking
74
Authority and compliance
- Strong pressure to comply with requests of an authority
Symbols vs substance
75
Authority as a PERCEPTION!!
You should question authority - often we just respond to symbols of authority but do we actually have a reason to trust them
76
Scarcity and compliance
- Opportunities seem more valuable when they are less available
- "you cant have this" "now I want this"
- Limited time only!!
Comics, diamonds, etc
77
What drives scarcity driving our behaviour>
FOMO (fear of missing out)
- Things that are difficult to get typically are better (works fine as heuristic)
- High fat, high sugar
78
Social influence and behaviour
- Norm-based forms of persuasion
Social norms that are INCREDIBLY adaptive for us can be used against us
- Doesn’t make them bad or maladaptive
79
Social norm
A generally accepted way of thinking, feeling or behaving that people in a group agree on and endorse as right and proper
80
Relations between norms and attitudes
Attitude: Individuals evaluation (individual parent loves their child)
Norm: Groups evaluation (parents should love their children)
81
Line study
3/4 of people will conform at least once in non-ambiguous situations
82
Public conformity
compliance, complying due to social pressure (knowing it is wrong but feeling pressured to behave in that manner regardless)
- Surface level change, no way to know what person actually believes
83
Private conformity
accepting that norm/consensus is actually correct
84
Why conform (through compliance)
- Fear of making other people uncomfortable
Want to be accepted (and avoid being rejected, ostracized, viewed as weird and wrong)
85
False consensus
- tend to overestimate no. of people that will do the same thing we did
86
Populist & false-consensus effect
- The more populist a persons belief, the more they believe other people agree with them
- And the more they believe media sources are biased against them
(very loyal followers)
87
Informational influence
(norms provide reality insurance as a function)
88
At what point is a consensus, actually a consensus
at about 3 people
89
The presence of 1 non-conforming confederate....
Pressure to conform is gone just from ONE non-conforming confederate (even if their answer was also wrong, or this person elderly, or looked "dumb"
90
Normative influence
- Maintain valued social identity
- Feel accepted from others
Brings connectedness
91
Motive behind informational infleunce (it seems correct)
- Mastery
92
Motive behind normative influence (others think this is correct)
Connectedness
93
What does consensus imply
Correctness, "a lot of people are saying" = commonly used but not indicative of everyone actually thinking that
"everyone is talking about"
94
How do ingroups become more persuasive
- Others similar on relevant attributes but different in other ways
- Listeners can keep track of individuals and their arguements
- Arguements seem distinct and independent and are therefore persuasive
- Ingroup has influence
95
How out groups become LESS persuasive
Group members seem all alike
Listeners cant remember who said what
Arguements seem the same, suspect contamination and therefore not persuasive
Outgroup has little/no influence
96
Is public or private conformity better at predicting future behaviour
Public conformity, its hard to know whether conforming bc they believe its correct or bc they feel public pressure
Private conformity = better predictor of future behaviour (as they believe it to be correct)
97
Consensus without acceptance
- You can have consensus in which virtually nobody agrees
But you will not know as everyone can outwardly say what is agreed upon
98
Minority influence conditions (3)
1, Offer alternative consensus (cannot have different parties pushing for different things, have to try find a consensus between them)
2, - Negotiate similarities and differences (in-group = way more capacity to drive change)
3, Promote systematic thinking
99
Offer alternative consensus as a minority influence condition
○ Has to be consistent (majorities slow to change why would you??)
Negotiate reasonableness with rigidity (resistant but not dogmatic)
100
Minority influence conditions - Negotiate similarities and differences
○ Offer consensus that focuses on things you share and agree
○ Then say BUT (ie., we disagree in how to achieve it and why)
"I'm one of you, but…" (establish in-group credentials)
101
Promote systematic thinking as a minority influence conditions
○ Evaluation, questioning beliefs
○ Exposure to consistent minority messages fosters greater thought and leads to more creative thinking
Convergent thinking = unreflective majority position
102
What happens when minority becomes majority
- Minority position in a group (someone going against consensus)
○ People in majority view it as a loss (losses worse than gains are good)
Equality = take away unearned advantage = perceived as a loss
103
Perceived Entitativity
- The degree to which an aggregate of individuals represents a real and meaningful entity
In other words "groupiness"
104
4 types of groups
Loose associations, intimacy groups, task-oriented groups, social catgories
105
Intimacy groups
Group of friends, family, street gang.
- More important
- Greater interaction
- Higher perceived similarity among members
Higher duration (thank task oriented but shorter than social categories_
106
Task-oriented groups
- groups put together to achieve and outcomes (sports steam, study groupm jury)
- Tend to be smaller, short-lasting (do not typically endure beyond task completion)
- Relatively permeable
107
Social categories
- Large
- Race/gender/religion
- Kinds of groups we tend to focus on for stereotypes and prejudice
Low boundaries/permeability (often just who you are)
108
Perceived entitativy of different groups
Intimacy groups > Task-oriented> Social
109
How important majority groups are to their members
Doesn't really matter as majority does not tent to think of themselves in terms of the group they belong to. Things DISTINCT from majority provide more diagnostic information
110
What functions do groups serve?
- Evolutionary - safety in numbers, groups outperform individuals (farming, building etc)
111
Why the individual cares about the ingroup - Ingroup as a social research
Taken from lots of different social psych theories
- Realistic conflict theory - material interests and max rewards
- Evolutionary theory - safety in numbers
- Social identity theory - self worth
- Optimal distinctiveness - sense of acceptance and uniqueness
- Terror management theory - our groups live on after our death (symbolic immortality)
112
Perceived value in a group =
Merit + power + reputation + consensus + belonging
113
What is merit in terms of group needs fulfilment
- The overall valence of characteristics associated with a group
- General positive view (characteristics & behaviours associated) then that’s positive merit (ie., doctors)
General negative view = Negative merit (ie., pedophiles)
114
What is Power in terms of group needs fulfilment
- The extent to which a group can achieve its goals/exert its will over others
Value = you as an individual as member of this group may have greater individual power to influence others
115
What is reputation in terms of group needs fulfilment
- Reflected appraisal of group
- If you think other people hold positive view = positive reputation & vice versa
- This is related (to some extent) the merit factor HOWEVER does not always co-exist
Ie., being a very GOOD and PROMINENT gang member you may have negative merit but this may be a good thing reputation wise
116
What is consensus in terms of group needs fulfilment
- The degree to which a group can come to consensus, develop norms, guide behaviour the more they can provide
- Highly stratified/fractured = cannot really guide behaviour of members compared to one that has higher consensus in behaviour & belief
117
What is belonging in terms of group needs fulfilment
- How well does the group foster a sense of acceptance
Connectedness motivation, people want to fit in
118
Level of identification in a group
- How strongly you identify as a member
You don’t feel especially strongly identified with every group you are part of
119
What constitutes psychological value of a group
Perceived value x level of identification x perceived entitativity
120
3 main functions of groups
Affiliative, achievement, identity
121
Affiliative as group function
Connectedness based
Being accepted
122
Achievement as a group function
Largely mastery based
123
Identity as a group function
Who am I as an individual (valuing me & mine kind of)
124
Intimacy group and functions
Affiliative > Identity > Achievement
125
Task oriented and functions
Achievement > Affiliative = Identity
126
Social categories and functions
Identity > Affiliative = Achievment
127
Does perceived entitativity predict need fulfilment?
Perceived entitativity does somewhat predict need fulfilment, but this is mediated by ingroup identification
128
Social facilitation
Enhanced performance in easy, well/learned or atuomatic tasks in the presence of others
Presence of others can decrease performance in non-dominant responses, complex, not well learnt tasks
129
What does the cockroach study say the mechanism of social facilitation & explain
Arousal, Presence of others increases our arousal, and this can help or hurt depending on task
- When cockroaches had an audience
○ We FATSER on simple maze
Were SLOWER on complex maze
130
Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation
- As humans, as a social species, we may be worried about other evaluating us
Human tendency to be concerned of what other people think about us
- Brick study, Does not even have to be another person there, just knowing you will be evaluated
For simple task, knowing you would be evaluated facilitated, but they were less creative
131
Distraction/conflict and social facilitation
- We have to think about what is that person doing, what are they thinking
Creates conflict between task we try to do & thinking about what person is thinking
Well learned task = more cognitive capacity to think about what other people thinking
Complex task = putting effort into knowing what others thinking = less cognitive capacity to do more complex thing
132
Social facilitation as challenge or threat
for well-learned tasks (which others facilitate) the pattern of cardiovascular response matched that of challenge - people viewed task as challenge to overcome
He found that for unlearned task (which others decrease performance) heart pattern matches that under threat - viewing task as a threat to self (increased cardiovascular response & vascular resistance)
133
Conjunctive tasks
○ Performance is determined by weakest member of groups
○ Groups can be worse than individuals
Ie., relay race
134
Disjunctive tasks
○ Performance determined by strongest member of group
○ Group can be better than individuals
Ie., maths quiz etc
135
Additive tasks
○ Sum of individual performances to get group performance level
Groups generally do worse than individuals
136
Social Loafing
Group does more poorly than it should because individual inputs are below what they would be own their own
137
Ringelmann effect study
- In group situation, individuals pulled significantly less than individual
Additive rope pull performance different to what you would pedict based on individual performance
138
Diffusion of responsibility
Explains why group performance different to sum of individuals.
- As number of people cheering or clapping increases, amount of sound per person decreases
139
How to solve for social loafing in group-work situations
- Make sure individual performance can be evaluated
- Social identity and cohesiveness (cohesive groups encourage cooperation, better able to exercise social influence
Cohesive groups engender loyalty (random group project, 3,4 students you don't know = you don’t care!)
140
Collective Effort Model (CEM)
- Social loafing is about PLAUSIBILITY (whether the task is perceived as possible) and MOTIVATION (do ppl care)
141
What makes social loafing more likely
○ Task is perceived to be impossible (no plausibility)
○ People don’t care (no motivation)
Its about PLAUSIBILITY and MOTIVATION
142
Leadership
A process by which one or more group members are permitted to influence and motivate others to help attain group goals
143
2 types of leaders
○ Decision making & task performance
Enhancing cohesion/liking
144
What makes someone look competent?
- Decreased face roundness (roundness = more competent)
- Closeness of eyes and brows
- Greater jaw angularity
All of these attributes are associated with MASCULINITY (social dominance and status)
145
Who gets chosen as leader??
- Talks more = more confident = not NECESSARILY more competent
- Height can be good predictors
- Older people
Men
146
Why do men get chosen as leaders?
General belief: a good leader is competent and assertive
Stereotype: Men are more competent and assertive than women
Outcome: Men are more likely to be approached for leadership roles
147
Female led countries do better in COVID (why)
Because the countries that are more likely to elect a female leader are
- Smaller
- Substantially more progressive
148
Who hold the group together? (socioemotional)
- Women do better than men
- Women are expected to be more emotional, more emotionally responsive, to recognise emotions & to nurture and care (socialisation)
This is expected and acceptable (male leaders may not feel like they can act emotionally)
149
Do men or women get task done better
No difference (women slightly better but no diff)
150
Who do people think make better leaders
○ Men perceived as better leaders
151
Woman in leadership position
- Short hair
- Embrace more masculine look
- All old/middle aged
Most are ALSO more conservative
152
Effective leadership is about
Person x Situation (adaptive domain)
Example:
Dominance x Conflict (ie,, WAR)
Trustworthiness x Cooperation/peace
Competence x Knowledge (ie., COVID)
Attractiveness/health x Physical Challenge
- Situation determines which personality traits will be successful
153
Social impact theory
Impact of other people on target depends on
○ Number of people present
○ Strength of importance
○ Immediacy to target person
154
Social impact increases and decreases as....
Social impact increases
- As source factors increases
Social impact decreases
As target factors increase
155
"leveling off" effect
- As number of influencing persons increases, individual impact decreases
Second person has less impact then first, and nth person has less effect than the (n-1)th
156
Strength of influencers depends on:
- Status
- Expertise
- Power
157
How does social impact increase similarity
Latane found that people who are physically closer/in regular direct contact with each other become more similar in attitudes and beliefs than those seperated.
158
Dynamic social impact
People organised into social clusters where they collectively reinforce one anothers similarly held attitudes, values, and worldviews
159
Attitude inoculation
- Consider argument about your attitude before someone attacks it
A way of resisting persuasion
160
Individuals inoculated with weak arguments and resistance to persuasion
Individuals inoculated with weak arguments = time to think about them as false = more able to contradict
161
Best tool against product placement and persuasion
forewarning
162
How to resist peer pressure
- Peers = basis for our behaviour, source of social approval
Can inoculate with doses of emotional appeals they may encounter
163
Reactance theory
- People do not like to feel that their freedom to do or think whatever they want is being threatened
Too threatened = unpleasant state of reactance = reduce reactance by performing threatened behaviour
(boomeranging more likely)
164
Groupthink
- Tendency of group members to think alike
Group sticks to its preferred course of action, and in this, refuses to consider alternatives fairly & does not recognise its own flaws
165
What makes groupthink more likely
- Group starts out cohesive and similar
- Strong directive leader
- Group isolated (in some sese) from others
- Group has high self esteem (regards itself as superior)
166
Signs of groups that have groupthink
1. Pressure towards conformity
2. Appearance of unanimous agreement because dissent is suppressed (even through self-censorship)
3. Illusion of invulnerability
4. Sense of moral superiority
5. Underestimation of opponents
167
Why do committees fail?
Pressure towards group harmony mean focus on commonalities rather than differing perspectives (less than sum of parts)
168
The risky shift
The tendency for groups to take greater risks than same individuals would have taken inficiually
169
Group polarisation effection
- Found the primary effect of groups vs individuals is to drive the group towards a greater extreme to which they were already headed
○ If the group leans initially toward risk, the group discussion = greater risk
If group leans toward caution, discussion will make it even more cautious
170
What is attraction
The tendency to positively evaluate another person, involves cognitive, affective and behavioural components
171
Arsonsons dissonance theory of attraction
spending time with someone, you assume your attracted to them due to dissonance theory (if im spending this much time w/ someone I must like them)
= oversimplification
172
Why do we feel attraction?
As part of the motivation to seek balance of thoughts, feelings and experiences - proximity, familiarity, similarity
173
Evolutionist view of attraction - Buss
Attraction is driven by a combination of evolved biological mechanisms involved in species survival (protection, reproduction, gaining resources)
- Systems that are innate
174
Lotts attraction & reward
"under the conditions in which you get rewarded with someone else you will be more attracted to them, regardless of the relationship between the other person and the rewarding event"
175
Who are we most attracted to?
- Attractive people, the strongest predictor of attraction is physical attractive
(even infants prefer looking at attractive faces)
176
Attractiveness bias
Humans, across age and cultures, fashions, and times, inherently like/doesn't like people based on nothing other than attractiveness
177
3 qualities that makes a face physically attractive
Averageness, symmetry, sexual dimorphism
178
Averageness (normativity) and facial attraction
- Our brains like when we can process faces easily
- People will consistently rate a face that is a blend of faces rather than the individual faces they are made up from
We like what appears to be comfortable and normative
179
Symmetry and facial attraction
When a face is more symmetrical it is more easy to process
People will consistently prefer exactly symmetrical (artificial mirrored faces) as more attractive than real faces
180
Sexual Dimorphism and facial attraction
- Our brains like categories (such as male and female)
- Ease of categorisation is pleasant so we prefer faces that are sexually dimorphic
People prefer more feminine or more masculine faces, but not those in the middle (does not matter whether male or female face, just whether more masc. or fem.)
181
What is it about easily categorised faces that make us think they are attractive
They are signals of
- Sexual maturity (happen after people have gone through puberty)
-Health
- Higher reproductive success
(this has not been proven)
182
Eye tracking of men's preferences for WHR and breast size of women
- Characters with smaller WHR more attractive (and there is no difference between them regardless of breast size)
- Breast size did not correlate with attractiveness
- Pictures with .70 WHR were rated as more attractive than .9 WHR
183
Visual fixations results for Eye tracking of men's preferences for WHR and breast size of women
- Men's typical first visual fixation was on the images breasts; men looked more often and longer at breasts - but they did not correlate with attractiveness evaluations
184
Physical attractiveness in male bodies
Mesomorphic bodies were most attractive
Then ectomorphic and then endomorphic
185
What makes females more physically attractive
- More feminine, normative and symmetric facial features
- A WHR closer to .70
- No consistent evidence that breast size is related to attractiveness
Visual fixation research supports that judgements track biological signals of sexual maturity in female bodies
186
Eye tracking result of physical attractiveness in male bodies study
Eye tracking indicated that women looked more often and longer at
- Lower backs
- Upper backs
Buttocks
187
What makes males more physically attractive
- Normative and symmetrical faces (but sexual dimorphism not too much), and more symmetrical
- A WHR closer to .90
- A higher chest-to-waist ratio; taller
Visual fixation research supports that judgements track biological signals of male bodies sexual maturity
188
What are the most important aspects of psychological attraction
→ Warmth/trustworthiness (Loyalty, kindness, love)
→ Attractiveness/Vitality (More attractive, fun, sense of humour)
Status/resources (having or potential to have money, education career)
189
Attractiveness bias
Humans are NOT aware of it. If a bunch of attractive people got hired, and unattractive people get hired, you do not know why unless explicitly told (compared to race/gender)
190
John Bowlby Attchment theory & the "working model"
This model guides our behaviour when we
- Want proximity with others
- Want to avoid separation from others
Use others as a secure base to explore environments
191
What shapes an individuals schema/attachment style
As an adult, when we are stressed/distressed/challenged
→ Response to this stress is a support seeking response (but it can be withdrawal)
From this response, an attachment figure will respond in some way
192
Attachment styles & bookshelfs
- Attachment system is a bookshelf (same way of organising our experiences)
But everyone has uniques experiences, and relationships which are organised
193
Dimensional model of romantic attachment
Attachment styles are not categorical and instead high vs. low levels of the two dimensions, anxiety and avoidance.
194
"High in anxiety/High in avoidance"
Also known as fearful, destructive. 5% of population which is about the same percentage as those with BPD and narcissistic personality disorder that it could be said to be measuring the same thing
195
What is anxiety as a dimension
How you feel about yourself when stressed
196
What is avoidance as a dimension
How you feel about other people when stressed
197
Secure attachment
I could help myself, but others could help me
198
Low Avoidance, High anxiety attachment
I cant help myself, I need others to feel good about myself
199
High avoidance, low anxiety
I will sort things out myself, other people will make it worse
200
High avoidance, high anxiety
I cant help myself, nobody can help me
201
What does our attachment system do?
Cognitive toolkit to learn fundamental information about the social world so we can navigate it, even if its hurts/isharmful, even if things are wrong
202
The attachment system is activated in contexts of…
- Individual threat (feeling sick, tired, afraid, overwhelmed)
- Relationship threat (an attractive alternative, conflict)
Relationship-bonding (needing/giving support)
203
Attachment-relevant situation/context leads to
Activation of attachment system ---> Attachment system ---> individual perception and response ---> romantic partner response ("responsiveness")
We get feedback loops that go back into the attachment system which guides thoughts & behaviours...
- Towards the context/threat
- Towards the self
- Towards the other person (the attachment figure)
204
Examples:
Want a hug but high attachment anxiety
- Just go straight for hug
- Mixed responses
Feeling of uncertainty, do they even like me? How does the world work??
205
Want a hug but high attachment avoidance
- Wait for partner to realise they want a hug
- Partner response: they will not realise you want one
Reinforce worldview of "other people are terrible at knowing what I need, I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me"
206
Study on attachment systems & torture room findings
Secure people - the more you are afraid, the more you seek comfort, support and seeking from partner
Avoidant - the exact opposite pattern. The more afraid they were, the more they withdrew. Initially, high in cuddles and kisses, then get stressed out and disappeared once fearful
Partner feels more distant, feels like they cant help
207
Can you become less avoidant/anxious over time if someone is responsive to your needs
Yes, but the very people that help you get more insecure
208
Do individuals higher in avoidance just not have the natural human desire for closeness
NO!! these individuals do seek out connections with others but worry that if they give into their desire for closeness that they will be hurt. This likely stems from their childhood expeirences (ignoring) where they lurn to switch off their desire to belong to avoid feeling hurt.
209
Preoccupied (high anxiety low avoidance) and sex
More likely to have sex when they dont want to or engage in risky sex because afraid to say no & be left. = more lifetime sexual partners and unwanted pregnancies
210
Individuals higher in avoidance and sex
- Either avoid it
- Or seperate sex and love throagh one night stands
211
Issues with bith high and low self esteem in relationships
People with low self esteem doubt they are lovable and expect others to leave them
People with high self esteem think they are lovable so think they can find a new partner easily
212
Why do many celebrities get divorced
Being a celeb tends to push people into narcisissm and this leads to relationship problems especially when new partners are readily available
213
Self acceptance and relationships
Self-acceptance linked to more positive interactions (neg. views of self can interfere with capacity to love)
214
Define close relationships
Are enduring and involve strong, frequent, diverse interconnections
215
People tend to perceive that their close relationships are...
- A priority in life
- The most meaningful part of life
Central to their happiness
216
Supportive social network = major protective factor against...
cardiovascular disease (objective health) self-reported poor health (subjective) and depression, anxiety, suicide (psychological)
217
People with any close relationships are ______
20% more likely to survive than people who did not
… and 90% higher for people who had strong social support
Close social connection has same health effect as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day
218
The Dunedin longitudinal study - socially isolated children 20 years later
- Parents and teachers ratings of children's social problems predicted health outcomes in adulthood
- Children with poorer social integration had higher adult blood pressure, cholesterol, and BMI (even after controlling for other factors)
219
Hostility and healing
- Relationship with high hostility = SLOWER wound healing than low hostility
220
In sum, these studies all say that peoples close relationships OBJECTIVELY:
- Reduce stress & detrimental health behaviours
- Promote physical and mental health
- Increase survival
221
Two theories on the benefits of support
1. Reduce the negative psychological and physiological effects of stress and negative life events
2. Engages people in the mutual development, achievement and outcomes of goals
222
Core types of support behaviours
Action facilitating and nurturant support
223
Action facilitating and its two sub-types
- Support that lets you do stuff involving instrumental goals
Informational - advice, suggestions, planning
Tangible - offers of help or alternative assistance (can be indirect)
224
Nurturant Support and its two subtypes
- Support that provides comfort, empathy, and emotional help
Esteem - Encouragement, complimenting ability, praise
Emotional - Empathy, expressions of love, affection, and care
225
Negative support
Unhelpful behaviours that can emerge when people are seeking & giving support
-Blame, minimising, invalidation, controlling behaviours
226
Nurturant support & relationship/recipient outcomes
Increased
- Relationship satisfaction
- Trust
Increased
- Mood/self-esteem
- Diet, nutrition, sleep quality
- Immune, endocrine, and cardiovascular functioning
227
Action-facilitating support & relationship/recipient outcomes
- No measurable benefit
- Can reinforce support dynamic (make more dependent)
Increased
- Resources outweigh demands, can lower stress
Decreases
- Views of the self as capable
228
Negative support & relationship/recipient outcomes
Decreases
- Relationship satisfaction
- Positivity during relationship conflict
- Relationship longevity
Decreases
- Sleep quality
- Positive mood/self esteem
229
Farrel and Simpson Model
- Support does not prevent things from being stressful
- Support does not prevent cortisol from being produced
- BUT it does help you return to baseline faster
Stressful event --> Produces cortisol --> Social support helps you return to baseline --> Living longer
230
A dyadic view of support study on support requested vs provided
If someone discloses emotions
1. Emotional support (positive)
2. Negative support (negative)
Informational support (even more negative)
If someone requests advide
1. emotional support has no effect
2. informational support has small (almost not significant) effect
3. Negative support has negative effect
231
Perceived social support, attachment anxiety and healthcome outcomes
People higher in attachment anxiety report low outcomes regardless of perceived support. In other words, the benefits of social support are reduced for people higher on anxiety (dogs)
232
Aggression
Any form of behaviour that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologically
233
Two goals of aggression
Instrumental aggression vs emotional aggression
234
Instrumental aggression
Using aggression as a means to an end
Harming someone is not the main purpose. Instead, to:
- Coerce
- Gain power or dominance
- Self preservation
- Impression management (create reputation)
- Steal someone's wallet
235
Cues that signal opportunities to aggress:
Higher inmates were on psychopathy, the more accurate their indications of vulnerability were.
When asked why, said things like "walks with confidence, looks like easy target etc"
This shows something in behaviour has cued psychopaths to view ease of victimhood
236
Part of instrumental aggression is consideration of Costs & Rewards, some of these are:
- Personal ability (your own perception of ability to successfully aggress)
- Gender differences (generally viewed as more acceptable or even encouraged for men to aggress)
Impact of models (social learning theory, we see from other peoples behaviour what is likely to work & when)
237
Emotional aggression
Aggression as an end to itself
A.k.a hostile aggression
- Response to real/perceived threats to status.
Isolation & frustration are keyy causes of aggression
238
Dollard & Millers Frustration-Aggression theory
Frustration = Blocking of a goal
- Argued then that frustration always leads to aggression and aggression is ALWAYS caused by frustration
- This is a strong case hypothesis
Neither of above is always true (frustration does not always produce aggression and aggression can be triggered by many things that are not frustration
239
Lenny Berkowitz: Negative affect as source for aggression
- He argued that ANY negative feeling CAN set off aggression (fear, frustration, worry, guilt, pain)
- It can be due to something in the environment (high temperatures, crowding, smoke, foul odour, noise, social stress)
- Aggression has two purposes
- Lessen unpleasant condition
- Make someone else suffer
240
Negative affect creates primitive associational reaction, which isssss
(fight or flight)
Fight = aggression-related tendencies
Flight = escape related tendencies
- Both of these require physiological arousal, and then the arousal can be perceived as anger or fear
241
Rudimentary anger, rudimentary fear
Processed by higher order thinking & differentiating feelings
If you perceive it as anger = irritation, annoyance, anger = more likely to aggress
If you perceive it as fear = fear = escape
242
What Increases likelihood of aggression
- Intensity of internal agitation
- Availability of suitable target (s) - if they are no longer there, nothing to direct aggresion toward
- Poor emotional regulation
243
What decreases likelihood of aggression
- Possibility of punishment (cost/rewards)
Good emotional regulation
244
Baron - Anger & the Desire to Hurt findings
Neutral mood, when they knew shock would be painful they lowered it for the other people
Angry mood, when they new shock would be painful, they cranked it up
○ Increased intensity of internal agitation + availability of targets = high
○ Possibility of punishment = low
Then you get aggression
245
Lorens instinct to aggression theory
- There is a natural buildup of aggression
- Needs to have little releases (pressure gauge)
Provided the pressure can be released, you wont get big violent outburst
246
Appeasement gesture and aggression
When animals are fighting, there is a pose that immediately signals "im done"
- Once this gesture is given, aggression stops immediately
- For humans, these signals do not turn off the aggression for the other person
247
Genetics & aggression
- Aggressiveness and assertiveness show strong heritability, MZ = higher correlation than DZ
- Temperament based on genetics feeds into aggressiveness
248
Social learning & aggression
- Bandura bobo doll study - Modelling aggression
- Children observe and then can go and play
- Children who watch her behave aggresively, did the same (same actions and phrases)
- When is this not true: If this model was punished for her behaviour (as long as not punished = mimicry
249
Family violence causes
- Intergeneration transmission (maj. of domestic abusers have exp. DV)
- Social class, poverty, economic and life stresses
- Personality
○ (impulsiveness, BPD, antisocial personality, poor ER)
- Alcohol
250
Sports and DV
- Major sporting events correlate with increase in DV report
- Alcohol related violence increases quite dramatically
- Whether the home team WON or LOSS
251
Alcohol Myopia
○ Decreases field of focus (focus on most salient things in that moment)
○ Decreases cognitive capacity (less likely to consider consequences)
- There is no predicting how someone will respond ( - Drinking alcohol can decrease aggression if the cues in the environment are non-aggressive)
252
The Norm of Family Privacy
- The idea that peoples private family lives are their own
Most people will avoid direct confrontation if the fight/confrontation is in context of existing relationship
253
Study on the norm of family privacy
- Men and women fighting, man grabs woman's arm she says either
○ "I don’t know you" - 65% will help
"Why did I marry you" - 19% will help
254
History of women being aggressed against/portrayed as inferior in magazines & advertising and aggression
- Women have slowly gained equality
- But this is perceived by men as a LOSS
○ This loss is threatening and that threat can produce violence
Relative deprivation theory
255
Honour killings
○ 15 honour based attacks in UK a year
Someone (usually a woman) shamed her family and killed/injured to pay for that shame
256
For men, the idea of "manning up" + aggression
- Men, especially kiwi men not particularly encouraged to talk about emotions
- And not enough clinicians to deal w it
Swallow the frustration - builds up and eventually has effect (Lorenz)
257
- Does exposure to violent media cause aggressive behaviour
Correlation, experimental and longitudinal evidence says YES
Doesn't mean everyone who consumes this media will aggress, it DOES account for lots of the variance
258
Greater violent media results in
- Lower sensitivity to pain/suffering of others
- More fearful belief in the world
- Increase in aggression
- Decrease in arousal (desensitisation to violence)
259
Mechanism by which greater violent media has negative effects
- makes aggression relevant cognitions accessible
- Can activate mental representations of aggression
- Tell us when/how aggression works
- Children are especially vulnerable as they don't have great inhibitory control, the hardware just is not there yet
260
Weapons effect
- Simple presence of aggression can increase aggressive responding
People engaging in task when they COULD aggress were more aggressive when there was a weapon vs non-weapon present
261
General aggression model
Person
- Gender, age, genetic predis, personality, values
Situational
- Stress, social stress, heat, irritation, presence of weapon
Person X situation produce internal state
- Affect
- Cognition
- Arousal
This determines how we interpret the situation
If we appraise as threatening, more likely to behave aggressively
262
The role of family/discussion in aggression
Discussing feelings about violence/social consequences of aggressive behaviour can mitigate all of these effects
263
why do people have reduced inhibitions in groups
arousal and diffused responsibility
264
Deindividuation
loss of self awareness and evaluation apprehension, occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms good or bad
265
Self awareness in groups issss
opposite of deindividuation
- Less cheating
Better decisions
266
Why does proximity breed liking?
- Availability
Discover commonalities and exchange rewards
267
Can anticipating interaction boost liking
Yes, Anticipatory liking (expecting that someone will be present and compatable is adaptive because it Increases chance of forming rewarding relationships)
268
How does the mere-exposure effect violates prediction of boredom
-UNLESS repitions are incessant, familiarity will increase liking
People we like seem more familiar
269
Familiarity CAN inrease contempt only once
dissimilarity was perceive
270
Were high levels of obedience restricted to America
No, Australia 68%, Jordan 63%, Germany 85%
271
Results of milgrim study
65% obeyed up to max voltage and all obeyed up to 300 vaults, much more than predicted (even though the participants were visibly uncomfortable + putting up a fight, they still shocked)
272
How do groups influence obedience
Conforming onfederates slightly increased obedience, non conforming dropped it to 10% (but 75% of participants who disobeyed in presence of non-conforming peer also ssa they would have stopped it without their example which is simply not true)
273
In a 21st cent. replication of Milgrims study...
There was no decrease in absolute obedience and shows that willingness to obey has not diminished over time
274
AObedience alone vs in groups
In groups, possibility of collective actions exists
275
Physical anonymity in groups and lessening inhibitions
Asked to deliver electric shocks, woman in white coats and hoods delivered for twice as long as unconcealed woman wearing name tags
276
Evidence that anger does not cause aggression
When participants believe their angry mood would not change in the next hours (because of a fake pill that froze their mood), their anger would not lead to aggression
277
Hostile attribution bias
Tendency to perceive ambiguous actions by others as hostile
278
Hostile perception bias
Broad tendency to perceive social interactions in general as being aggressive (ie., seeing two people having a convo and inferring they having a fight)
- more prevalent in aggressive ppl
279
Hostile exception bias
Tendency to expect others to react to potential conflicts with aggression
- increased from vid games
280
Gender difference in violence
Is universal, seen in every cultures that men are more physically violent
- But woman are more relationally aggressive (intentionally harming anothers relationships, feelings of acceptance, or inclusion in group)
281
Replenishable resource dilemmas
Conflicts about the consumption of renewable resources (forests/ocean fish)
- Individuals personally benefit by harvesting but if too much is taken, cannot be replenished and disappears
282
Public goods dialemma
Public good is one that has to be provided for everybody or nobody (cannot be given to some and witheld from others).- strong national defene, unpolluted air
283
In social dilemmas, most people
Follow individual interest, overestimate fair share, greed
284
5 steps to helping
Steps for helping
Step 1. Noticing the event
Step 2: Interpreting the event as an emergency
Step 3: Assuming Personal Responsibility
Step 4: Knowing how to help
Step 5: Deciding to help
285
Prosocial behaviour vs altruism
Prosocial behaviour
- Behaviour with intention to help
Altruism
- Helping another person when there is no benefit whatsoever to person giving help
Purely selfless
286
Darley & Batson time pressure study
Under time pressure, people did not offer help to confederate because they did not even perceive/notice them (63% helping w no time pressure vs 10)
287
Pluralistic Ignorance
- We rely on other people to give us signals to tell us what is right
If nobody else seems concerned, the informational influence consensus shows its not a big deal so you do not interpret as emergency
288
Attribution --> Affect --> Action Model (AAA)
We are especially unlikely to offer help if we make an attribution to an internal controllable cause.
What drives this? The answer is Affect, we make internal, controllable attribution and feel anger/disgust, rather than pity
If we perceive something as uncontrollable, or external, we are most likely to help
As we don’t perceive it as THEIR fault, therefore feel pity and try to help
289
Why are people incredibly generous after a natural disaster
What is more external & uncontrollable than Tsunami, Earthquake and other natural disasters - goes back to the attribtuion, affection, action model
290
Bystander effect
The more people there are in an emergency, the less likely help giving will be (part of step 3, assuming personal responsibility)
291
Headphone epilepsy study fidings
as you add more people, the likelihood of helping decreases
292
Crash while waiting for experiment study
findings
equally as likely to help alone vs with a friend (high) compared to with stranger (low)
293
Sociobiology: Kin Selection
- We help those who are most likely to also be able to pass on shared genes
We are evolutionarily programmed to want to pass on genes
294
Genetic Similarity Theory
- We engage in greater prosocial behaviours to those that are similar to us
Similarity in appearance indicates some level of genetic similarity (many evolutionary biologist thinks this is stupid and misunderstands sociobiology)
295
Social Exchange theory (reciprocity fits in here)
- Not helping for selfless reasons
- Consider costs and rewards and aim to maximise rewards
○ Rewards = romantic interest, prestige, money, social standing
Are the gains better than the costs are bad??
296
Is there such thing as altruism from social exchange perspective
No!! It posits you will always get smth out of helping someone, even if its just feeling good
297
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
- If you feel empathy for a person in need, you will help regardless of whether or not its in your self-interest
(if you feel empathy, costs dont matter)
298
Toi & Batson tapes for radio show study and wheelchair lady fidnings
Observe + Low cost = low help
Observe + high cost = high help
Imagine REGARDLESS OF COST = high help
299
What is empathy
"The ability to sense other people's emotions coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling."
300
2 types of empathy and what they are
- Affective empathy
○ Not only identifying what they're likely feeling, but feeling it yourself
- Cognitive empathy
Perspective taking, imaging what they think
301
2 sub-types of affective empathy
Feelings of personal distress
- Alarmed, upset, worried, disturbed by seeing others in need of help
○ Help to alleviate your own distress = social exchange
Feelings of empathy
- Sympathy, compassion, feeling, kindness seeing others in need of help
Help for the sake of helping = Empathy altruism
302
What kind of affective empathy produces helping vs altruistic behaviour
Both feelings of personal distress and feelings of empathy can produce helping behaviour, but its feelings of empathy that produce altruistic behaviour
303
Egoistic motivation for helping
Occurs when feelings of person distress are evoked (I am helping you to alleviate my own distress)
304
Altruistic motivation for helping
Occurs when feelings to empathy are evoked - I am helping to help that person regardless of cost to myself
305
Negative-state relief hypothesis
- Helping someone else can serve my own purpose
If I feel distressed at someone else's distress, helping will make one feel better and relieve the negative state (social exchange theory)
If my negative mood so bad it is blinkering to the rest of the world, wont notice and wont help (failure of step 1)
306
Positive mood and helping
- More likely to help as more likely to notice your environment
If you think helping will enhance your mood = WAY increases helping behaviour
If you think helping will harm you mood = decreases helping behaviour
307
How to increase prosocial behaviour in society
1. Reduce ambiguity = make needs clear (and give responsibility to people_
2. Increase internal attributions for helping (you are helpful)
3. Teach norms that support helping (teach generosity, helping etc)
4. Activate prosocial norms
5. Infuse, don't diffuse responsibility (say I need "your" help)
Promote identification for those in need
308
Cyberball
Virtual game that measures ostracism, rejection & exclusion with 2 conditions, Inclusion: Everyone get ball same number of times
Exclusion: Get the ball 1-2 times early then no more
309
What does cyberball measure?
Needs threat.
we have 4 needs, belonging, control, meaningful existence, and self esteem.
Affect (positive negative)
Behaviour ( aggression, pro social behaviours)
310
Cyberball findings of needs threats
Positive correlation between exclusion and each needs threat.
Strongest = loss of sense of control and meaningful existence
Still moderate = belonging and self esteem
311
Cyberball findings of affect
Negative (go up a moderate amount) = 0.33
Positive (go down a moderate amount) =-0.48
(stronger effect for positive affect going down)
312
Cyberball findings for behaviour
- Aggression (more aggressive) = 0.41
Pro social behaviours (less pro social behaviours) = -0.56
313
How rejection can have biological effects?
- Same areas of brain active when you process socioemotional exclusion pain as physical pain
Anterior cingulate, Right Ventral PFC (words can literally hurt)
314
In what cases do people continue to feel rejected?
When playing with control computer, when playing with preprogrammed people, when other was white supremacist
315
Ghoster vs ghostee experiences from the study
Ghoster
- Lower belonging
- Less control
- Less meaning
- Lower self esteem
- More sad and lonely
Ghostee
- More in control
- Have more belonging
- More meaning
- Less sad
Less lonely
316
RQ1 - what are the motivations that drive people to ghost someone
67% = other person (personality, actions, motives, etc)
44% = due to self (protect oneself, too busy etc)
29% = ease of ghosting
22% = no obligation to commit
16% didnt wanna hurt the other
317
What are consequences of being ghosted
- Sad, hurt (42%)
- Angry (31%)
- Disappointed (23%)
- Lowered self esteem (biggest - 43%)
- Distrust (10%)
- Worried about ghoster (8%)
318
How do people cope with being ghosted
25% = rationalise (part of dating experience)
8% = move on (life goes on)
9% = change expectations going forward
319
Reactive abuse
- Focusing on someone's reaction to being abused/mistreated not what caused it (creates a justification for ostracising behaviour)
320
Resignation
- If someone be ostracised for long time, become too great, and give up
Alienation, withdrawal
321
The Stages of Ostracism
Reflexive Stage, reflective stage, resignation stage
322
"Reflexive Stage"
Initial pain, needs threat triggered, more negative affect
323
"Reflective Stage"
Trying to make sense of an event, trying to "recover" from social injury
- Lash out (aggression, hurt people hurt people)
- Go along to get along (cooperate, conform, obey, seek approval)
- Lick one's wounds (Withdrawal)
324
"Resignation stage"
- If unable to repair social injury in stage two, you have long lasting effects
Ego depletion, depression, hopelessness, despair
325
How do we see rejection aggression come up
- Rejected people give
○ More negative evaluations
○ Chose more unpleasant stimuli for partner
○ Give louder blasts of noise to partner
Give more hot sauce to partner who dislikes spice
326
Some suggested coping mechanisms for rejection =
Changing perspective
- Distancing self from event
- Reframe event positively (dodged a bullet)
- Mindfulness
- Refocusing/distraction
Strategies to restore needs
- Self affirmation
- Derogation of perpetrators
Reminders of social bonds
327
Tendency to help and inter/independence
More likely to help in-group members in interdependent countries
328
Structural solutions to public goods dilemma problems
- Require authority to impose
- Met with reactance
- Necessities a bureaucracy to monitor compliance
-
329
What demographic highest cooperation
Women, interdependent cultures
330
A way to increase cooperation in social diellemas (reading)
When individual identification with group is an important aspect of social identity
331
What occurs when idnviduals identify with groups (reading)
- Greater good = top priority
- Group working together, people assume other group members help, rather than hurt, group effort
- Internalised norms about cooperation become salient and guide individual action
332
How to enhance connectedness group to increase cooperation
- Communication among group members
- Equality of opportunities and outcomes among group members
- Accessibility of group norms
- Linking individual effort to group good
333
The tragedy of the commons
Some shared, limited but renewable resource when the group interest (taking less for good of group) is pitted against group interest (take as much as you can)
334
Examples of tragedy of the commons
- Antibiotic resistance
- Global warming
- Littering
- Deforestation
- Bottled water
335
Tragedy of the commons - how to solve the social dilemma
- Regulation
- Social norms of cooperation
- Communication
- Public commitment
- Importance of group
- Cohesiveness of group
336
Tragedy of the commons - do individual actions matter
- Yes but no
- Systemic change is required and hyperfocus on individual level is a classic way to blame individuals for the actions of bad system-level actors (BP example and carbon footprint)
337
Different values/ways people can respond to social dielemmas
Cooperators - concerned with maximising joint rewards
Competitors - concerned with maximising relative gain, expect competition and compete (causes reciprocal competition)
Individualists - Maximising own gain, no concern for gain or loss of other
338
Criticisms of game theory
- Too abstract/removed from real-world
- Assumes self-interested (rational) players
- Too focused on competition
339
4 things needed for smth to be a game
- People playing
- Rules governing the game
- Rules need to set up situations in which there are:
Consequences and Payoffs
340
The prisoners dilemma
- You and a friend are both arrested under suspicion of cimmiting crime together
Put in two separate rooms and question seperately - can either cooperate or defect
341
The trust game
- The SENDER can give the RECEIVER anywhere from 0-10 of their points
- Whatever points the sender gives will be tripled
The receiver then decides how many points will be returned to sender
342
Optimal solution to prisoners dielemma for game theory
the choice you should make if you are only interested in your self is you should ALWAYS defect (choose B)
- You get minimum of 2 or maximum of 12
343
Game theory solution (based on self interest) for the trust game
Sender: Assume the other is self interested and will return nothing, so send nothing
Receiver: Keep everything (self interest)
344
The ultimatum game
- One assigned as PROPOSER one assigned as RESPONDER
- The PROPOSER proposed a division of points between two of you
- If RESPONDER agrees, division of points will be allocated
If the RESPONDER disagrees, no points will be allocated to either of you
345
Game Theory solution to ultimatum game
- Proposer should offer as little aspossible, receiver should accept anything better than 0
- Receiver should accept any offer (it is better than original position of 0)
PSYC221
flashcards
Decks in class (6)
# Cards
