Exam 3 Study Guide Flashcards Preview

Psyc 140- Social > Exam 3 Study Guide > Flashcards

Flashcards in Exam 3 Study Guide Deck (54):


Beliefs about the attributes of a group of people

-positive, negative, or neutral
-over generalization (always exceptions)
-resistant to change (confirmation bias)
-used to justify unfair/unethical practices

The COGNITIVE component

If we meet non-steoerotypical group members
Subtyping- create a category for exceptions



If we meet non-steoerotypical group members
-create a category for exceptions



An unjust negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people, based solely on their membership in that group


The AFFECTIVE component
Not always explicitly negative (benevolent sexism)
-positive view, that could still be demeaning
-can be about power (keep below power they should have)


Benevolent sexism

Not always explicitly negative

Women good at cooking



Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or it's members

The BEHAVIORAL component



An individual's prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race
-also institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given race
-similar definitions for sexism


Modern racism

A more subtle form of racism; more socially acceptable

-believe it is wrong to be prejudice
-believe racism no longer exists
-believe that certain groups have been pushing too hard for equal rights
-believe that the government has give certain groups too much preferential treatment


Causes of prejudice

Realistic group conflict
-Prejudice and discrimination are likely to arise when groups compete for limited resources

-direct observation of others

In-group Bias
-tendency to favor one's own group

Minimal Group Paradigm
-create groups that have no social reality (randomly place people in groups)

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect
-perception of out-group members as being more similar to one another than in-group members

Just-World Beliefs
-belief that the world is just and that people get what they deserve


Realistic group conflict

Cause of prejudice
Prejudice and discrimination are likely to arise when groups compete for limited resources

-an economic explanation for prejudice and discrimination
-example: working class Americans showed most anti-black prejudice following the civil rights movement (competition for jobs)
-example: Israelis and Palestinians (competition for land)



Cause of prejudice
Direct observation of others

-place people in stereotypical roles
-certain groups are under-represented
-"faceism" in print media, 2/3 of the avg male photo was devoted to face; less than 1/2 of female photo ads devoted to face
-> face focus- more intelligent, more ambitious

Study: 1989
42 yrs cartoons, only ONE with black in it when topic not race

Crayons- flesh colored (pinkish white); Indian red


In-group Bias

Cause of prejudice
Tendency to favor one's own group

-"us" - a group who shares a sense of belonging and a feeling of common identity
-example: UCR students, Californians

-"them" - a group perceived as distinctly different are apart from the in-group
-example: USC students, Southerners


Minimal Group Paradigm

Cause of prejudice (In-group Bias)
Create groups that have no social reality (randomly place people in groups)

Klee & Kandinsky study
-students asked which abstract painting they preferred
-asled to allocate money to other participants (only info given was painting preference)
-showed in-group boas and gave more money to those who liked the same painting they did

Classic examples of minimal group paradigm
Stanford prison study
-randomly assigned participants to be either prisoners or guards
-intended to run row 2 weeks, reality 6 days
-"guards" -> sadistic
-"prisoners" -> depressed, extreme stress
->everyone chosen randomly
->split into groups
->given labels (cause by situation)


Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Cause of prejudice
Perception of out-group members as being more similar to one another than in-group members

Own-race Bias
-better at identifying own race (false positives for out group)

Line-up studies
-own race bias
-identify their race first when out-group
-focus more on features when in-group


Just-World Beliefs

Cause of prejudice
Belief that the world is just and that people get what they deserve

Carli and colleagues (1989, 1999)
Date scenario study
-description changes of date after wine (happy ending- proposal; bad ending)
-say both are predictable and believable (blamed woman for her behavior in bad ending)
[Derogating the victim]


Effects of Prejudice

Sociofunctional Approach to prejudice
-the consequences of prejudice vary depending on reactions to the group

Self-fulfilling Prophecies
-because of what we expect, act a certain way that creates the expected result out of the other

Stereotype Threat
-a disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will verify the negative stereotype


Sociofunctional Approach to prejudice

Effects of Prejudice
The consequences of prejudice vary depending on reactions to the group

Emotional reactions to certain groups predict specific prejudice and discrimination behaviors
anger -> aggression
disgust -> avoidance/resistance
fear -> escape
pity -> prosocial behavior
envy -> theft
guilt -> reconciliation


Self-fulfilling Prophecies

Effects of Prejudice

Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) Interview study
Part 1
-white Ps interviewed RAs posing as White and Black job applicants
->black applicant: sat further away, ended interview sooner, more speech errors by interviewer

Part 2
-trained RAs conducted interview in "White style" (good interviewer) or "Black style" (bad interviewer)
->all White applicants; other people rated performance on video
->"Black" interview style = applicants performed objectively worse


Stereotype Threat

Effects of Prejudice

A disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will verify the negative stereotype
(Distracted because worried about fulfilling)

Spencer & Steele (1995)- Women and math tests
When in room with men, performed worse when labeled as "math test" (reminded of stereotype)
(objectively equally good)

Study with Asian women (positive stereotype)
-working self-concept: reminded by questions (either ethnicity or gender)
-did worse when reminded women as opposed to control
-when reminded Asian, did better than control


Reduce Prejudice

Contact Hypothesis
-contact between members of different groups leads to more positive intergroup attitudes

Equal Status
-contact must be with people of EQUAL STATUS; best if FRIENDSHIPS form

-sometimes more than contact is required
->Superordinate goals- shared goals that require cooperative effort
->Shared threats


Contact Hypothesis

Reducing prejudice

*Equal status
Contact between members of different groups leads to more positive intergroup attitudes


Equal Status

Reducing prejudice
Contact must be with people of EQUAL STATUS; best if FRIENDSHIPS form



Reducing prejudice
Sometimes more than contact is required

Superordinate goals
-shared goals that require cooperative effort

Shared threats

Sherif's Robbers Cave Study (1961)
-summer camp; create then resolve conflicts
-create separate teams (conflict) brought together for non competitive things, then shared goals, by end all friends



Any physical or verbal behavior INTENDED to hurt someone or something
-distinct from assertiveness

-aggression driven by ANGER and performed as an END IN ITSELF
->goal is to injure or inflict pain
-aggression that is a means to achieve ANOTHER GOAL (someone attacks you, hurt them to escape)
->goal is not necessarily to cause pain
->e.g., act of war (typically), hitman


Situational Causes of Aggression

Certain people may be aggression-prone (genes, personality), but CIRCUMSTANCE triggers aggression
-true, but RARE that no trigger is needed

More violence in
-hotter places (culture)
-during hotter months (no school)
-on hotter days (outside)
*remember two factor theory*

Social rejections:
-consistent with sociometer theory (self esteem)
-rejection is literally painful (doesn't take much e.g., cyberball)

Media Violence


Media Violence

Situational Causes of Aggression

Correlational research shows
-violence is on TV
-violent children watch violent TV
-children who watch violent TV grow up to be violent adults (opposite is not as strong)

Experimental studies
-show kids violent TV or not
-watching violence DOES have an effect on behavior
-HOWEVER the effect is small and short-lived

Increases arousal in viewers
Provides a cue to violence
Leads to imitation (social learning)
Gies an inaccurate view of the world (norms)
-desensitizes people through repeated exposure (habituation)
-people overestimate the frequency of violence


Frustration-aggression theory (Dollard et al., 1939)

Frustration: blocking of a goal-directed behavior (e.g., traffic jam, failing grade, romantic competitor)

Assumptions of theory
-frustration ALWAYS leads to aggression
-aggression is ALWAYS the result of frustration

What increases frustration (and thus, aggression)?
Greater anticipated satisfaction from original goal
Proximity to goal completion PRIOR to frustration
More COMPLETE goal blocking
More FREQUENT goal blocking

Criticisms of the theory:
Aggression can occur WITHOUT frustration (heat, pain, etc.)
Frustration can, but does not always, lead to aggression
->learned helplessness (when an animal is repeatedly exposed to inescapable adverse stimuli, they will eventually give up trying to avoid it)


Neo-associationistic Account of aggression (Berkowitz)

Bad thing happens, might get angry (if don't, won't lead to aggression)

People have unpleasant experiences (not just frustration)
Unpleasant experiences MIGHT produce anger
-physiological arousal- fight or flight
-event-related cues- blame-worthiness, injustice
-unrelated cues (e.g., weapons)
-social learning- Bandura's bo-bo doll studies
-culture- culture of honor
-> more violent acts particularly in South East as opposed to NE (assumed because heat, reality because of culture of honor- concerned about own and loved ones' reputation)

If people respond to the unpleasant experience with anger, aggression is more likely


Prosocial behavior

Any act designed to help others



Unselfish behavior that benefits others WITHOUT REGARD to consequences for oneself

Ongoing debate about the existence of "true altruism"
-helps society run smoothly, seems unrealistic


What motivates prosocial behavior?

Social rewards
-esteem and respect, status, praise

Personal distress
-watching someone suffer causes distress (empathy)

Empathic concern
-identifying with someone in need


Social rewards

Motivates prosocial behavior
Esteem and respect, status, praise


Personal distress

Motivates prosocial behavior
Watching someone suffer causes distress (empathy)


Negative state relief hypothesis

Personal distress
Give help in order to get out of bad mood

-if give ppl another way to feel better, not as likely to help
-if believe helping WON'T make them feel better, NOT as likely to help

Kids DON'T know this yet
-learn around 7 or 8


Empathic concern

Motivates prosocial behavior
Identifying with someone in need


Happiness motive for helping

It feels good

Dunn's research on selfish vs. prosocial spending
-feel better when spend on other than spend on self

We help more when we're in a GOOD mood, in part to maintain it
-Quarters in pay phones study
->found money or not, those who found were more likely to help when someone dropped papers


Natural selection motive for helping

Evolution makes us do it

-more likely to help people who share our genes


Reciprocity motive for helping

We might get something in return

Might explain what we help non-kin


Decision-making model for helping behavior (Darley & Latane)
5 steps for helping

1. Notice the event (that someone is in need)
-"Smoke in the test room" study (Latane & Darley, 1968)

2. Interpret event as emergency (ambiguity diminishes helping behavior -- pluralistic ignorance)
-Married vs. stranger study

3. Take responsibility for helping (Bystander effect)
-Seizure study (Darley & Latane)

4. Must know how to give help

5. Must decide to help (rewards vs. costs- Social exchange theory)


Decision-making model for helping behavior
1. Notice the event

We will not help unless we first notice that someone is in need

"Smoke in the test room" study (Latane & Darley, 1968)
-participants fill out fake questionnaire
-emergency staged (smoke)
-participant alone: notice under 5s
-with others: notice in 20s (really focus on questionnaire)


Decision-making model for helping behavior
2. Interpret event as emergency

Ambiguity diminishes helping behavior

Pluralistic ignorance
-we assume that when other ppl appear unconcerned in an ambiguous situation the situation is not an emergency

Married vs. stranger study
-staged physical fight (pushing/shoving)
-"I don't know you" (65% of time, stranger helped) or "don't know why married you" (19% of time, stranger intervened)


Decision-making model for helping behavior
3. Take responsibility for helping

Even if it is clear that an event is an emergency, ppl may not help if others are around

Bystander effect
Greater the # of bystanders who witness an emergency, the LESS LIKELY anyone of them is to help
-because diffusion of responsibility (bystander and social loafing)
--> Seizure study (Darley & Latane)
-participant on phone with another
-just one other (85%; 52s to alert)
-two other ppl (62%; 93s)
-six total (31%: 166s)


Decision-making model for helping behavior
4. Must know how to give help

People cannot help if they don't know how
(e.g., knowing CPR)


Decision-making model for helping behavior
5. Must decide to help


Social exchange theory
-ppl take rewards and costs into account when deciding whether to help

We are more likely to help with rewards OUTWEIGH costs

Rewards include benefits to other person

Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1973)


Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1973)

Seminary students asked to give a lecture on Good Samaritan OR on some other topic

Half told late and to hurry

Who helped?
-if early, 65% helped
-if on time, 40% helped
-if late, only 10% helped

Topic of lecture made NO difference



1. Proximity

Physical distance

Functional distance
-how often people's paths cross

Simply being closer to someone makes a relationship more likely to develop

Apt study (Festinger et al., 1950)
randomly assigned apt (6 months later)
65% said closest friend lived in same building
Of that 65%
-41% lived next door
-22% two doors away
-10% other end of hall

ppl live near staircase, most friends

-more likely to meet and get to know each other
-might have proximity b/c shared interest
-mere exposure effect
-->tendency for novel stimuli to be more liked or rated more positively after repeated exposure

*Expectation of contact = more psychologically generous (benefit of doubt)


Functional distance

1. Proximity

How often people's paths cross


Mere exposure effect

1. Proximity

Tendency for novel stimuli to be more liked or rated more positively after repeated exposure

Nonsense syllables (Zajonc, 1968, 1970)
-exposed to set of novel syllables
-rate big rotation of syll.
-even when subliminal, rested heard better than never heard before

Photographs vs. mirror images (Mita et al., 1977)
-one pic and more mirror image (flipped), asked which one liked better and asked friends
-self: liked mirror better
-friends: liked regular better


2. Physical attractiveness

Welcome week dance study (Hatfield et al., 1966)
-hundreds of freshman, made up dating service and randomly assigned with partner to attend with
-2.5 hours, told matched based on something, what aspects might make them want to seem them again
-only thing that mattered was physical attractiveness

Halo effect
-belief that physically attractive people also have a wide range of other positive characteristics

-Effects of plastic surgery (Kalick, 1977)
-->rate impressions either before or after
-->after- more attractive rating; more kind, sensitive, likable

-Attractive students (Clifford & Walster, 1973)
-->fifth graders rated on attractiveness (take extremes)
-->teachers rate and only pictures differ
---->cute kids better (smarter, socially skilled, fewer behavioral problems)


What do we find attractive (on average)?

2. Physical attractiveness

"Avg" faces

Evolutionary preferences (Buss, 1989)
-gender preferences
->indicators of good health
-->women: baby face (youth, nondominace)
-->men: height, muscular, distinguished (older)

Contrast effects (momentary comparison):
Charlie's Angels study (Kendrick & Gutierres, 1980)
-male college dorm; opinion about avg looking woman
->if watching, rated her as less attractive than those who were not watching at the time

Centerfold study (Kendrick, 1989)
-men in lab; view centerfold models or pics not of women
->when viewed avg pics (centerfold- less attractive)
->when rate wives (centerfold- less attractive)

Matching hypothesis
-tendency to choose as partners those who are a MATCH in attractiveness and other qualities

Matching vs. most attractive? depends on fear of rejection

UCLA Dating study
study 1:
-attractiveness of participants and women's photos have been rated
-picked women who was closet to them in attractiveness

study 2:
-all want to date you
-all went for hottest person (no fear of rejection)




Birds of a feather flock together!

Housing study (Newcomb, 1961)
-3 months later
-most similar- most likely to become friends

Little evidence for the complementarity hypothesis (opposites attract)

Why is similarity important in attraction?
-less conflict when viewpoints are similar
-validation of our own characteristics and beliefs
-we may believe that similarity will lead to reciprocity


Reciprocal liking


We like people who like us

The "I overheard you" study (Aronson & Linder, 1965)
Participant overhears other talking about them after interacting each time
1. Smack talk from start to finish
2. Positive whole time (they are ok)
3. Positive -> worse (felt worst and liked least)
4. unsure -> positive (like them the most)


Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love (3 parts)

1. Passion
Imp. and strongest EARLY in the relationship

Speed dating studies (Finkel & Eastwick's, 2008)
-chemistry is mutual (specific and unique)
-if felt chemistry with everyone, others did not feel the same

2. Intimacy
With more time together, passion fades and intimacy (comfort, security) becomes stronger and more imp

3. Commitment
Necessary for long-term success

Romantic love (passion and intimacy)
Companionate love (intimacy and commitment)
Fatuous love (passion and commitment)


Predictors of relationship instability or dissatisfaction

1. Communication problems
How we deal with CONFLICT says a lot about the state of the relationship

Gottman's 4 warning signs
1. Criticism- constantly finding fault w/ partner
2. Defensiveness- refusing role in conflict
3. Stonewalling- refuse to talk about problem
4. Contempt- looking down on partner (WORST)

2. Investment model (Rusbult)
Predicts commitment in relationships from three factors
1. Rewards- what you get out of it? 5:1
2. Alternatives- what happen if left (break up side)
3. Investments- what have put in relationship

3. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1960s)
-infancy, develop models of close relationships that carry throughout their lives (adult attachment style mimics)

Ainsworth: stronge situation
Secure attachment- reliable caregiver
Avoidant attachment- unavailable caretaker
Anxious/ambivalent attachment- undependable, unpredictable caretaker

4. Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (Karney & Bradbury)
1. Vulnerability- what bring into rel. (attachment, personality, etc.)
2. Stress- external events (death in fam., job loss, etc.)
3. Adaptation- coping strategies (communication, etc.)


5 strategies for happy relationships

1. Share the GOOD times
More imp. than hard times (Gable et al.)

2. Create NOVELTY
*Hedonic adaptation model (Lyubomirsky)
-get used to good and bad things
-try new hobby, move to new place, etc.

3. Laugh together
Two-factor theory

4. Idealize your partner, but also recognize faults
*Murray's trait rating study

5. Don't have kids (kidding)
*Still fiercely debated
-some good (meaning of life, positive emotions)
-some bad (sleep, finances, negative emotions... relationship satisfaction)