Midterm II Flashcards

Question

What was Gilbert, Pelham and Krull's (1988) Study on the Three Stage Model of Attribution?

Answer 1

- Gilbert and colleagues (1988) had participants watch a videotape of a very fidgety woman discussing various topics. -> Participants asked to rate how anxious this person generally was. - The videotape was silent, ostensibly to protect the woman’s privacy, but participants were shown one- or two-word subtitles indicating the topics she was discussing. - One video where woman described her ideal vacation, fashion trends - One video talking about her hidden secrets, sex life - Half of the participants cognitively busy and half not cognitively busy. If observers have sufficient resources (under normal conditions), they should initially jump to an internal attribution for the fidgety behaviour and view the woman as anxious, but in the condition in which the topics are anxiety provoking, they should make a correction and view the woman as a less anxious person. - Found when ppl weren’t cognitively busy, they rated her as more anxious. - Cognitively busy → unable to make that effortful correction to attribution -> lacked the resources to correct for the situational factor (embarrassing topics) -> and therefore judged the anxious-looking woman to be just as prone to anxiety if she was discussing sex and secrets as if she was discussing travel and fashion. - they just thought she was an dispositionally anxious person when she was discussing anxious topics (instead of talking about uncomfortable subjects)

Answer 2

- Observer Attributions (perceptions of other’s behaviour) → We tend to attribute other people’s behaviour to internal reasons and assume their behaviour is caused by their disposition. - Actor Attributions (perceptions of own behaviour) We tend to attribute our own behaviour to external reasons and assume that our behaviour is caused by the situation.

Answer 3

1. We want to see ourselves as flexible – and that we can change according to the demands of the situation - We also use our estimate of the personality in a self-serving way. * Self-serving attributions * Success = It was all me! -> internal attributions * Failure = Excuses, excuses, excuses -> external attributions 2. We understand situations better * We realize that situations can constrain our own behaviour. We know our behaviours differ in different situations and are not due only to our disposition. * Role of perceptual salience → when u are doing sth, perceptually, you do not see yourself. → the stimulus you are looking at is sb or sth else, not yourself. - if you are watching sb do sth, they are the most salient stimulus → cause of that behaviour 2. We fail to use information * The situation is the first automatic attribution and then only after do we consider disposition.

Answer 4

by shifting the individual’s visual perspective. - Eg. Storms (1973) replicated the actor-observer effect by showing that when pairs of participants sat across from one another and had a conversation, they generally thought their partners were determining the things they talked about. - They attributed the direction the conversation took to the person they could see—their partner. - If shown a video playback of the conversation from the discussion partner’s perspective (now the actors were watching themselves talk), participants were more likely to think that they were the ones steering the direction of the conversation.

Answer 5

- Attribution Theory and Research suggests that we are often not accurate because of the following biases: - Fundamental attribution error (FAE) - Actor/observer difference - Defensive (self-serving) attributions Vs. - Impression Formation Research suggests that we can be surprisingly accurate in our assessment of personalities from thin slices of information.

Answer 6

- Bottom-up factors: we watch their actions, gestures, facial expressions, and we listen to them - Top down – we use our schemas (prior knowledge/expectations) - Our impressions of others are influenced by both bottom-up and top-down factors - Recent research uses diverse methods to better understand how we form impression of others and the impact of both bottom-up and top-down factors

Answer 7

Impression from bottom up * Gathering individual observations of a person in order to form an overall impression * Negativity bias * Thin slices * Theory of mind

Answer 8

- part of Bottom-Up forming - Evolutionary advantage to weighting negative behaviour more strongly - Norm adherence failure - Attribution: person-level or internal - Labelled ‘Bad’ behaviour - Not always though, sometime these displays are seen as unique, genuine, dominant, ‘cool’, etc… - E.g. partner study → in the partner study, prof is sitting in chair formation in the room → experimentor says they are waiting for the 4th person → the person who is part of the study (not prof) says they forgot their phone → trips over prof (confederate’s) feet → prof (confederate) says sth like “that guy was such an asshole” → or other awful things → ppl kept choosing him (Prof) over and over again despite him being awful (saying awful things about the other person)

Answer 9

- Impression formation based on 'quick peeks’ at behaviour or physical attributes - Face - 30 sec video - Personal space - Website/Social Media - RECALL Narcissism and Facebook - Surprisingly accurate - Ambady & Rosenthal 1992 - Eg, Two Tinder profiles → only difference is toque he is wearing → the vegan guy got more right swipes than ‘bacon’ toque guy - Was funded by PETA - putting bacon a toque is weird - putting vegan on toque is less weird → identity → can’t relate identity to bacon

Answer 10

- Physiognomy - Body/face reflect personal characteristics - if you’re an angry person, you have an angry face - Old idea - Pseudoscience - Recalls phrenology - Face perception and thin slice research? - finding that face perception extends to understanding characteristics - Thin Slice → a very small piece of information about that person → face → and you are able to predict sth about them based on that thin slice.

Answer 11

- Can you understand individuals based on face and only face? - Nick Gruell UofT - Looking at faces and trying to judge who is more of one characteristics - Who is more powerful? (first slide) - Left guy is more powerful CEO of mobile company - right guy is CEO of Wendy’s - Who is the Democrat and who is the Republican? - Guy on right is Democrat - Guy on left is Republican - Mormon or Non-mormon? - Guy on right is mormon - Guy on left is not mormon - “I ran into the TA whom I asked to speak on the Holy Ghost for my baptism. I was very excited to see him. There was this sense of “glow” from him, which I heard about many times yet never understood, like a “Mormon Radar.” But I saw it for the first time and I finally understood what it is. It is the Spirit!” - Mormons are generally healthier - Strict no-substance diet - Skin is ‘shinier’ - Early leaders explained this adv. - “The gift of the Holy Ghost … develops beauty of person, form and features. It tends to health, vigor, animation, and social feeling”

Answer 12

- Theory of mind → children in kindergarden realize ppl have different thoughts and feelings than you do. - Smarties box but has raisins inside → asked them what they think their sibling would think was in the box → said smarties - Asked where the ball was → the first child thought that the other kid would check the first place where the ball was put - Theory of mind is a specialized social cognitive skill that comes in early childhood - —a set of ideas about other people’s thoughts, desires, feelings, and intentions, given what we know about them and the situation they are in - recognize that other people have thoughts, emotions, goals. → we can intuite what they are based on what we know about them, how they look, etc. - Face experts: - We can read another’s mental state based on very little information

Answer 13

- Bottom-up impression making - Theory of mind is a specialized social cognitive skill that comes in early childhood - —a set of ideas about other people’s thoughts, desires, feelings, and intentions, given what we know about them and the situation they are in - recognize that other people have thoughts, emotions, goals. → we can intuite what they are based on what we know about them, how they look, etc. - Face experts: - We can read another’s mental state based on very little information

Answer 14

- SEE IMAGES IN SLIDES 1. Eg. I say interested 2. Decisive 3. Insisting 4. Cautious → very good at this Mind in the Eyes Test - Reveals a mental ability of using minute facial cues to read another’s cognitive/emotional mental state - Bottom-up - Useful for quickly ‘sizing-up’ others - Friend/enemy? - Information on environment and social situation - Romantic interest - Ability predicts: - Emotional intelligence - probably some relationship between reading them emotion of sb else and reading their own emotions - Belief in god - Why??? - you’re more likely to believe in God the better you are at Theory of Mind tests

Answer 15

- a set of ideas about other peoples’ thoughts, desires, feelings, and intentions based on what we know about them and the situation they are in. (Malle and Hodges, 2005). Related to particular network in the brain - Dorsal medial pre-frontal cortex (DMPFC) - Two conditions: - a joke vs not - found that when people are engaged in theory of mind → thinking of intentions, psychological state of sb else → this reliably involves the dorsal prefrontal cortex.

Answer 16

SEE IMAGES - ‘Social brain’ (blue) - Dorsal medial pre-frontal cortex -> DMPFC - Temporal Parietal Junction - Right - Precuneus/Posterior cingulate - Anterior temporal pole - Inferior frontal gyrus - Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus - Self-referential (red) * MPFC * PCC

Answer 17

- Certain neurons that are activated both when one performs an action oneself and when one observes another person perform that action. - Perception – Action link in the brain - Monkeys at rest, even using the hand related to the neuron even if it hasn’t fired yet - Same pattern firing in your neuron - Wasn’t mere observation → was intention → the goal - Activated by intention (e.g., to grasp an object) not just the action - Not just encoding an action, but encoding another person’s goal - Very useful for social judgements and impressions - ToM Simulation theory - ToM arises from mental rehearsals of behaviours and states - when I’m trying to think about u and why you’re doing what you’re doing, I’m simulating it as myself → putting myself in your shoes. - Mirror neurons support this - So does overlap between self-related and ToM-related brain regions - Mirror neuron activity correlates with emotional empathy scales

Answer 18

- Using preconceived ideas and schemas as (part of) the basis for impression formation - Transference - False consensus - Implicit personality theories

Answer 19

- Freudian idea - top-down impression making - In therapy Freud noticed how patients began to treat him like someone else in their life - Key to therapy - Non-psychodynamic version - We apply attributes to unfamiliar people from similar others - when those people are similar to others we think of them in terms of the person we find them similar to, in both positive and negative attributes - Positive and negative

Answer 20

- Another idea with Freudian associations - Top-down impression making (based on schemas) - Like projection - We assume other people are like ourselves - Perhaps based on self-related mental simulations? - Multi-determined, however: - Salience and accessibility - Prominent schema e.g. self-concept - Self-serving biases - Consensus supports a positive view of self - Close others are actually similar - We are attracted to similarity - Eg. we think Friends are actually more genetically similar than strangers - Akin to Fourth-Cousin level of similarity

Answer 21

- Some traits are more central than others to overall impressions (e.g., warm vs. cold) - weighted more - traits more important to overall impression, eg being warm vs being cold - Assumptions of cross-situation consistency - **Halo effect**: The tendency of social perceivers’ assessments of an individual on a given trait to be biased by the perceivers’ more general impression of the individual - why we stick celebrities into commercials → we think they’re good so we associate them with good → assume the things they interact with are good

Answer 22

- The impact of perceived similarity on face processing (Kawakami, Williams, Friesen, & Hugenberg) - Twenty items from an ambiguous personality test (Bernstein, Young, & Hugenberg, 2007) - I usually place myself nearer to the side than in the center of the room) - I prefer to isolate myself from outside noises. - Participants responded on a scale from - 1 - strongly disagree to 7 - strongly agree\ - Look at faces then and see which of them is similar to them - Based on responses on the personality survey, we have identified the degree of overlap between your personality and these other students. - Yellow → not like me - Orangish → kind of like me - Brownish → a lot like me - Eye tracking task -> tracked where they looked for 6 seconds RESULTS: - Looked at eyes the most - The gaze proportion for the eyes was dependent on similarity - The more similar somebody was, the more you would look at the eyes. - Clear effect of looking at the eyes more when you think sb is more similar to you

Answer 23

- RECALL: Mind in the Eyes: The eyes provide critical information about others - about their intentions, emotions, and identities. - A greater focus on the eyes may indicate our willingness to “know” others (and see them as individuals). - to know these people that are more similar to you - more willing when they’re more similar

Answer 24

the process whereby ppl judge how frequently an event occurs on the basis of how easily they can retrieve examples of that event. - (Schwarz and colleagues, 1991) → asked college students to recall either 6 instances when they acted assertively or 12 instances when they acted assertively. - Researchers found that: Participants asked to recall 12 instances of assertiveness ranked themselves as *less* assertive than those asked to recall only 6 instances. - For most people, coming up with 12 distinct episodes is actually pretty difficult; it’s much more difficult than recalling only 6 instances of assertiveness. - People thus seem to make the following inference: If I’m finding it difficult to complete the task that is asked of me (recalling 12 acts of assertiveness), then I must not act assertively much, and so I must not be a very assertive person. - People asked to recall 6 instances ended up thinking they were more assertive than participants asked to recall 12 instances.

Answer 25

- Heider: assumed the same kinds of rules that influence the organization of visual sensations also guide most people’s impressions of other people and social situations. - In one study (Heider and Simmel, 1944), people watched a rather primitive animated film in which a disk, a small triangle, and a larger triangle moved in and out of a larger square with an opening. - The participants were than asked to describe what they saw (see figure 4.2). - People tended to depict the actions fo the geometric objects in terms of causes, effects, and intentions, such as “The Larger triangle chased the smaller triangle out of the room [the larger square].” - This tendency, along with his observations of how people talked about their social lives in ordinary conversation, led Heider to propose that people organize their perceptions of action in the social world in terms of causes and effects. - Referred to as CASUAL ATTRIBUTIONS (explanations of an individual's behaviour)

Answer 26

- Dweck and colleagues (Dewck, 2012; Hong et al., 1995) proposed that intelligence and other attributes need not be viewed with this *fixed*, or entity, *mind-set*—that is, as stable traits that a person can’t control of change. - Rather, they could be viewed as attributes that change incrementally over time. - When we take an incremental mind-set, we believe an attribute is a malleable ability that can increase or decrease. - Children and adults with fixed mindsets make more negative stable attributions about themselves in response to challenging tasks and then tend to perform worse and experience more negative affect in response to such tasks. - they also tend to eschew opportunities to change such as abilities, even when the abilities are crucial to their success. - Eg. exchange students who had stronger fixed mind-sets about intelligence expressed less interest in remedial English course when their English was poor, even though improving would facilitate their academic goals (Hong et al., 1999) In contrast, those with incremental mind-sets viewed situations that challenged their abilities as opportunities to improve, to develop their skills and knowledge.

Answer 27

- Edward Jones and Keith Davis (1965): proposed that when ppl observe an action, they have a strong tendency to make a **correspondent inference**, meaning that they attribute to the person an attitude, a desire, or a trait that corresponds to the action. - Eg. if you watch Ciara pick up books dropped by a fellow student leaving the library, you will automatically think of her as helpful - Correspondent inferences are useful bc they give us quick information about the person we are observing, in terms of either their dispositions or intentions.

Answer 28

1. *The individual seems to have a choice in taking an action* 2. *A person has a choice between two courses of action, and there is only one difference between one choice and the other.* Eg. if Sarah must choose between 2 similar colleges, except one is known to be more of a party school, and she chooses the party school, you may conclude she’s into partying. But you would be less likely to do so if the school she chose was more of a party school but also closer to her home and less expensive. 3. *Someone acts inconsistently with a particular social role*. Eg. if a contestant in a game show wins a car but barely cracks a smile and simply says “Thank you” you would be likely to infer that she is not an emotionally expressive person. But if she jumps up and down excitedly after she wins the new car, you would not be as certain what she is like because most people in that role would be similarly exuberant. - but this tendency is so strong that we often jump to correspondent inferences without sufficiently considering external situational factors that may also have contributed to the behaviour witnessed. - People’s tendency to draw correspondent inferences, attributing behaviour to internal qualities of the actor and, consequently, underestimating the causal role of situational factors, it is so pervasive that it is known as fundamental attribution error (FAE).

Answer 29

The tendency of the co-occurrence of a potential causal factor (Frank’s arrival) and an outcome (a fight) to lead to a causal hypothesis (Frank causes fights) is called the covariation principle (Kelley, 1973). → the tendency to see a causal relationship between an event and an outcome when they happen at the same time. Eg. if Frank arrives late to a party and, soon after, a fight breaks out, it is likely that you’ll entertain the hypothesis that Frank caused the melee, especially if the co-occurence of Frank’s arrival and fights happens repeatedly.

Answer 30

- CONSISTENCY (across time) - eg. see a superhero movie and you really like it the first time, but not the second time→ the outcome would be labelled low in consistency → would probably conclude that there was sth unique about the first time you saw it that prompted your first reaction → eg. you really need a distraction the first time you saw it → attribution to an unstable factor that might be different each time you saw the move. - if you loved it every time (pride and prejudice) → outcome high in consistency across time → stable internal attribution to sth about you or a stable internal attribution to sth about the movie. - distinctiveness (across situations) - eg. if you rarely like superhero movies and you liked one you just saw: rate it high in *distinctiveness* → lead you more toward an external attribution to the movie. - if you always like superhero movies → reaction the the movie is low in *distinctiveness*. - consensus (across people). - how did others react to the movie? → if you loved it and most others loved it → high consensus, suggesting that sth about the movie was responsible for your positive reaction. - If most ppl didn’t like the movie, you would be most likely to attribute your reaction of liking the movie to sth about you. → In short, when a behaviour is high in consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus, the attribution tends to be external to the stimulus in the situation; whereas when a behaviour is high in consistency but low in distinctiveness and consensus, an internal attribution to the person is more likely. - Recent findings confirm that when distinctiveness is low and consistency is high, observers tend to make trait attributions to the person (Olcaysoy Okten and Moskowitz, 2018)

Answer 31

whereby the importance of any potential cause of another’s behaviour is reduced to the extent that other potential causes are salient. (Kelley, 1971; Kruglanski et al., 1978). - Eg. years ago most of the baseball-watching world was in awe of players such as Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez, attributing their remarkable accomplishments to their incredible athletic ability and effort. - However, when allegations of steroid use surfaced, many fans discounted the players’ skills, attributing some of their accomplishments to an alternative causal factor: performance-enhancing drugs.

Answer 32

YES! - Eg. one way to preserve the belief that the world is just is to view people as being responsible for the outcomes they get. - When ppl are strongly motivated to believe the world is just, they are especially likely to blame people who have had bad things happen to them, such as those who have contracted STIs, rape victims, battered spouses, and poor people. - BC we value ppl who affirm our preferred way of viewing the world, we tend to like those who buy into the world being just and think they are more likely to be successful. - When ppl proclaim that the world is unjust and has given them a raw deal, we assume they will be less successful even if they are otherwise just as competent as those endorsing just world beliefs.

Answer 33

- the process of imagining how some event could have turned out differently. (Roese and Epstude, 2017) - Counterfactuals are deeply ingrained in how we react to events; they are associated with unique patterns of activation of regions of the brain (De Brigard and Parikh, 2019) and they often affect us without our conscious awareness.

Answer 34

the Stronger Our Reaction to It. - SEE TEXTBOOK NOTES CHP 4- People who read stories like version B don’t think they are nearly as tragic as do those who read stories like version A. - Kahneman and Tversy: explained Version A is seems more tragic (despite that both versions have the exact same outcome) because it is easier to generate a counterfactual with Version A; it’s very easy to imagine a counterfactual in which Carmen made it safely to Greece: All she had to do was stick to her original flight plan! - But with Version B, no such obvious counterfactual is available. → we would have to think for a while about ways her tragic death might have been avoided. General principle: If sth bad happens, the easier it is to imagine how the bad outcome could have been avoided, the more tragic and sad the event seems. - Negative outcomes resulting from unusual or almost avoided actions are easier to imagine having gone better and therefore arouse stronger negative emotional reactions.

Answer 35

- an imagined alternative in which the outcome is better than what actually happened. - When bad things happen, people often generate upward counterfactuals and the more easily they do so, the worse the negative outcomes that actually occurred seem. - We also generate upward counterfactuals for our own less-than-desired outcomes: “If only I had studied harder”; “If only I had told her how much I care about her”. - Upward counterfactuals generally make us feel worse about what actually happened. BUT ALSO studies have found that when older ppl look back on their lives, they tend not to regret actions they did but actions they didn’t do : “if only I had gone back to school and got that master’s degree” ; “if only I had spent more quality time with my kids”

Answer 36

- Neal Rose and colleagues (eg. Epstude and Roese, 2008; Roese, 1994) proposed that by making us consider what we could have done differently, upward counterfactuals serve an important function: They can provide insight into how to avoid a similar bad outcome in the future. - Roese found that students encouraged to think about how they could have done better on a past exam reported greater commitment to attending class and studying harder for future exams. - → They prepare us to avoid similar ills in the futures.

Answer 37

- An imagined alternative in which the outcome is worse that what actually happened. - Don’t help us prepare better for the future, but they help us feel better about the past (Roese, 1994). - Consolation function. - Eg. after a robbery you might conclude that although the thieves took your television, at least they didn’t take your laptop. - When ppl want to put a positive spin on an outcome, they choose the downward counterfactual.

Answer 38

Subjective, emotional reactions of satisfaction or regret are not determined so much by what you did or did not accomplish as by the counterfactuals you generate about those outcomes. - Eg. Researchers asked participants to judge the happiness of athletes at the 1992 Barcelona Summer Olmpics who had won either the silver or the bronze medal by watching silent videotapes of them at the awards ceremony (Medvec et al., 1995) - On the basis of an analysis of which counterfactuals are most likely for silver and bronze-medal winners, the researchers predicted that the bronze-medal winners would actually be happier than the silver-medal winners. - They reasoned that for silver-medal winners, the most salient counterfactual is likely to be the upward counterfactual that “If only I had gone X seconds faster, or trained a little harders, I could have won the gold medal!” - In contrast, bronze-medal winners are likely to focus on the downward counterfactual that “If I hadn’t edged out the fourth-place finisher, I would have gone home with not medal at all!” - RESULTS: In support of this reasoning, Medvec and colleagues found that bronze-medal winners were rated as appearing happier than silver medal winners on the awards stand.

Answer 39

the inability to recognize familiar faces.

Answer 40

- Occurs for 2 reasons: - 1st: there’s a likely adaptive tendency to being particularly sensitive to detecting the negative things in our environment (Ito et al., 1998) - 2nd: most of the time, people follow norms of good behaviour, so bad behaviour is more attention grabbing and may seem to reveal a person’s “true colours”. - As a consequence, we are particularly likely to remember when sb we thought was good does a bad thing, but we easily overlook when a person we’re used to observing do bad things does sth good (Bartholow, 2010)

Answer 41

- A general tendency to assume that other people share our own attitudes, opinions, and preferences. (Mullen et al., 1985; Ross, Greene and House, 1977) - Eg. people who are in favour of gun control think most people agree with them. And people who are against gun control think they are in the majority. - We are more likely to assume consensus among members of our ingroups than with members of outgroups (Krueger and Zeiger, 1993) - Our ingroups are more likely to remind us of ourselves - in part bc of this tendency, we often assume that, as a group, our friends are more similar to each other than people we don’t like are, even tho having more information about our friends suggests that we should recognize the differences between them. (Alves et al., 2016)

Answer 42

- - Our own opinions and behaviours are most salient to use, and therefore, more cognitively accessible. → so more likely to come to mind when we consider what other ppl think and do. - It is validating for our worldview and self-worth to believe that others think and act the way we do. → so when feel under attack, we’re motivated to think that others share our viewpoint and validate our actions (Sherman, et al., 1984). - eg. teenagers caught smoking explain his actions by saying: “everybody does it!” → research suggests that teenagers who engage in behaviours that might be bad for their health actually do overestimate the degree to which their friends are engaging in the same behaviours. - We tend to like and associate with people who are in fact similar to us. - If our group of friends really do like to smoke and drink, then in our own narrow slice of the world, it does seem as if *everyone does* it because we forget to adjust for the fact that the people we affiliate with are not very representative of the population at large. - Eg. on the internet, where our group of Facebook friends or Twitter followers generally validate and share our opinions (Barabera et al., 2015) and the news outlets we sook out package news stories in ways that seem to confirm what we already believe.

Answer 43

- One way we use our preexisting schemas to form impressions of a person is to rely on our *implicit personality theories*. - These are theories that we have about which traits go together and why they do. - Asch (1946): found that some traits are more central than others, and the more central traits affect our interpretation of other traits that we attribute to a person. - Asche’s participants were asked to consider two people with traits like those ascribed (see table). - Asch’s participants viewed someone like Bob (whose only difference was that he was described as “warm”; as opposed to Jason having all the same qualities but being described as “cold’) as generous, wise, happy, socialable, popular and altruistic. - They viewed someone like Jason as ungenerous, shrewd, unhappy, unsociable, irritable, and hard headed. → The only difference in the descriptions of the two guys was that *warm* was included in the traits for Bob and was replaced with *cold* for Jason. - Yet changing that one trait greatly altered the overall impressions of them. - “warm” and “intelligent” was seen as “wise” - “cold” and “intelligent” was viewed as “shrewd”. - RESULT: Warmth and coldness are therefore considered central traits that help organize overall impressions and transform interpretation of other traits ascribed to a person.

Answer 44

- (a tendency to assume that people with one positive attribute (eg. who are physically attractive) also have other positive traits.)(Nisbett and Wilson, 1977a; Thorndike, 1920). - If the general impression is good, then any individual assessment of the person’s friendliness, attractiveness, intelligence, and so is likely to be more positive. - The same halo effects can be negatively bias our perceptions of the people we dislike, but they tend to be stronger for positive information than for negative information (Graf and Unkelbach, 2016).

Answer 45

a cognitive shortcut or heuristic, a quick and easy way to get an idea of what a person might be like. - Stereotyping is an application of schematic processing. - Forming a completely accurate and individualized impression of a person (ie. one that is unbiased by stereotypes) is an effortful process. - we often fall back on mental shortcuts when the stakes are low or we aren’t especially motivated to be accurate. - But even when the stakes are high and our judgments matter, we can still be biased by our stereotypes when we are tired or fatigued. - Eg. when a participants are asked to judge the guilt or innocence of a defendant on the basis of ambiguous evidence, their decisions are more likely to be biased in stereotypical ways when they are in the off-cycle of their circadian rhythm—such as 8:00am when they are normally at their cognitive peak in the evening (Bodenhausen, 1990). - Sometimes we take a bit of information we might know about a person and erroneously assume that the person is part of a larger category merely because he or she seems to map onto our schema of that category.

Answer 46

- the tendency to overestimate the likelihood that a target is part of a category if the person has features that seem representative of that category. - In this case, “lacking interest in political issues and enjoying mathematical puzzles” seems more representative of an engineer than of a lawyer. - even when the statistical evidence showed that far more people in the pool were lawyers than engineers (that is, a 70% base rate of lawyers), the pull of the heuristic was sufficiently powerful to override this information.

Answer 47

As we get to know a person better, we come to view him or her more as an individual than as a member of a stereotyped group (Kunda et al., 2002) - We are more likely to use a bottom-up approach and perceive a person as an individual unique from social groups when we are motivated to get to know and understand who that person is (Fiske and Neuberg, 1990). - such motivation is often activated when we need to work together with the person on a project (Neuberg and Fiske, 1987) or when we are made to feel similar to them in in some way. - When this happens, we attend closely to the person’s specific words and actions and form individualized impressions of the unique individual with whom we are interacting.

Answer 48

- The idea that what we learn early colours how we judge subsequent information. - First studied by Asch (1946): - In this study, Asch gave participants information about a person named John. In one condition John was described as “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious”; in a second condition, he was described as “envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent” - even tho participants in the two conditions were given exactly the same traits to read, the order of these traits had an effect on their global evaluations of John. - RESULTS: they rated him more positively if they were given the first order, presumably bc the opening trait, “intelligent” led people to put a more positive spin on all of the traits that followed it.

Answer 49

Social influence! - In 1978, US congressman, Leo Ryan, visited Jonestown on a fact-finding mission after receiving concerned letters from families of members. - During this visit, Ryan established that only a small portion of the Jonestown group wished to leave and offered to take them back. - As Ryan and team were boarding their flight, a group of Jonestown members shot at them and killed five including Ryan. - Jim Jones then gathered his members and told them the time had come for ‘revolutionary suicide’. - With little resistance, most drank cyanide laced punch. - Parents even gave it to their children first before consuming it themselves. - That day, 914 people died including 276 children. - Why would so many willingly give up their lives based on request of one individual? - and kill their children for him? - due to heavy social influential forces at work

Answer 50

- Social influence refers to the effects of other people on an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, values, or behaviour (ABCs). - Types of social influence: - Social Learning - Conformity - Compliance - Obedience - History replete with examples of people doing unexpected things because of social influence.

Answer 51

- **Social learning:** The capacity to learn from observing others - We can either be encouraged or discouraged from engaging in both new or known behaviours.

Answer 52

- Behaviourism: - How might people learn without direct outcomes - Psychodynamics - Catharsis - aggression → where do people learn aggression → psychodynamics says it is a way to literally let off steam → let go of the valve once in a while to let go of the impulses - Modeling - Observed S-Rs can be learned through observation - No direct RF - don’t actually have to engage in the behaviour → can learn from that observation - Good and bad behaviour - Social display = social acceptance - seeing good and bad behaviour → this is what ppl do, so I’m going to do it. - Model aggression? - those who had been exposed to the modelled aggression made them replicate those aggressive behaviours → but it was not cathartic - See how other people react to good and bad behaviour

Answer 53

- In these studies, mildly frustrated nursery school children (between ages three and six) watched a film of a young woman punch and kick a large inflated Bobo doll and hit it with a mallet. - Children readily imitated this behaviour when they were later given an opportunity to play with the Bobo doll; they punched and kicked the doll and hit it with a mallet in a manner eerily similar to the model’s behaviour, right down to repeating the same aggressive remarks the model had made (eg. “Pow, right in the nose, boom, boom.”) - Bandura notes opposite of catharsis - Dominant psychodynamic idea - People learn behaviours without first enacting them (operant conditioning) - and see outcome of those behaviours - Clear implications: Media and learning (Movies, Video Games, Sports, etc.,) - these things that influence how we act socially - Observing and learning a behaviour doesn’t necessarily means we will imitate it: - According to Bandura’s (1965) social learning theory, we can be encouraged or discouraged to engage in both new and known behaviours, depending on the consequences of the action. - Thus, children were more likely to imitate the Bobo doll bashing if the model was rewarded for the actions (eg. supplied with a soda and candy) but were less likely to do so if the model was punished for the actions (eg. a second adult spanked the aggressive model with a rolled-up magazine) (Bandura, 1965). - Social learning is also more likely if the behaviour observed fits the motivational state of the observer. → kids who were frustrated were more likely to imitate a violent model.

Answer 54

- Social learning is more likely when observers identify with the model—that is, when the model is liked and seems similar to the observer. - Helps account for the value of role models for members of underrepresented groups in various fields, such as women in STEM fields (science, tech, engineering, and math) - This underrepresentation is due to many factors, such as stereotypes about women’s math ability, but research has shown that it can be combatted by exposing women to successful role models in STEM field (Dasgupta, 2011). - This may be especially important during adolescence, when young women face pressures that turn them away from science-related interests. - - In one study, middle school girls attended a science outreach program (O’Brien et al., 2017). - Those randomly assigned to write about their favourite female role models in the program later reported an increased sense of fit in since compared to those not writing about their role models.

Answer 55

- Definition: Altering behaviours or beliefs to bring them in accordance with others. - Good or bad? - In general, has a negative tinge to it but is it good or bad is a loaded question.

Answer 56

- Two different influences leading to conformity: - **Informational influence**: Influence producing conformity when a person believes others are correct in their judgment. - **Normative Influence:** Influence that produces conformity when a person wants to fit in or fears the negative consequences of appearing deviant. - Sources of influence produce two different types of conformity: - **Private Conformity**: Change in beliefs (or intentions) when a person truly accepts the position taken by others. - informational more related to private (not always tho) - **Public Conformity**: Superficial change in behaviour produced by real or imagined group pressure without change in opinion. - normative more related to public (not always tho)

Answer 57

- **Private Conformity**: Change in beliefs (or intentions) when a person truly accepts the position taken by others. - informational more related to private (not always tho) - **Public Conformity**: Superficial change in behaviour produced by real or imagined group pressure without change in opinion. - normative more related to public (not always tho)

Answer 58

- Sherif (1936) sought to study the possibility that even basic perceptions of events can be affected by efforts to bring one’s own perceptions in line with those of others. - took advantage of a perceptual illusion: - If a small, stationary point of light is shown in a pitch-black room, it appears to move. → this false perception of movement is called the *autokinetic effect*. - Sherif sought to determine whether other people could influence an individual’s perceptions of how much the point of light moves. - 1st he had people individually judge how much the point of light moved. → He got various estimates. - Then he put two or three people together in a dark room and had them call out estimates of how much the light was moving. - RESULTS: People started out with varying estimates, but after only a few trials, they came to agree on a particular estimate of how much the light moved. - He also showed that a confederate planted in the group who made a particularly large assessment of the distance moved could push the group norm to a higher estimate. - If the confederate was replaced by new, naive participants, the remaining group members would sustain the group norm and bring the new participants on board with them (Jacobs and Campbell, 1961) - This body of research demonstrated a group norm on the basis of **informational influence** (the processes of using others as sources of information about the world) - they were trying to figure out how much the light was moving and used other ppls’ estimates as information. - Generally, informational influence leads to private acceptance—a genuine belief that the attitude expressed or the behaviour engaged in is correct. - Ppl most often seek others and information sources when they aren’t sure what to think or how to behave.

Answer 59

- Private acceptance (conforming by altering private beliefs as well as public behaviour) Rohreer and colleagues (1954) brought people back individually to judge the movement of the light. - Those who had come to group norm about the distance the light moved still viewed the light moving the amount the group had agreed upon a year earlier—a compelling example of the social construction of reality. - This body of research demonstrated a group norm on the basis of **informational influence** (the processes of using others as sources of information about the world) - they were trying to figure out how much the light was moving and used other ppls’ estimates as information. - Generally, informational influence leads to private acceptance—a genuine belief that the attitude expressed or the behaviour engaged in is correct. - Ppl most often seek others and information sources when they aren’t sure what to think or how to behave.

Answer 60

1. When the situation is ambiguous 2. When there is a crisis 3. When others are experts E.g., earthquake → eg. when prof moved to Christchurch New Zealand → tectonically active place → every 4 or 5 days an earthquake that you didn’t feel most the time → was in the tallest building in campus → and as he sitting at the computer he realized his chair was moving left to right → building was rocking about 5-6ft. → when he panicked, he realized no one was doing anything so he followed those around him and sat back down. - informationally, he was lacking, but there were a ton of experts around him

Answer 61

- Conforming in order to be liked and accepted or to fulfil others’ expectations. This type of conformity results in public compliance (but not private acceptance) of the group’s beliefs and behaviours. - Conformity when we use others to know how to fit in.

Answer 62

- Table full of actors, an experimentor and one real participant. - They’re told to make clear line judgements: which line is the same as the line on the left. - Go around the table, sometimes ppl would say the right answer, but sometimes everyone would say the wrong one → when it came to you you may conform - A good number of percentage never conformed - 75% of participants conformed at least once - Because the stimulus being judged was not ambiguous, participants had sufficient perceptual information to make a confident judgement. - It is unlikely that people conformed to others in this study because they were sources of information. - Rather, Asch teaches us that people also conform to the norms of a group even if it means discounting what they know to be true. - This process, referred to as **normative influence (**the process of using others to determine how to fit in) ****can be contrasted with *informational influence.* - In Asch’s experiment many participants acknowleged that they made choices they didn’t believe were right simply to go along with the group. - These participants reported feeling anxious, fearing the disapproval of others, and wanting to avoid sticking out. - When we stick out, we run the risk of looking foolish, and many people are reluctant to face that possibility (Cialdina and Goldstein, 2004).

Answer 63

- Group size (Asch, 1951; Campbell & Fairey, 1989; Gerard et al., 1968; Insko et al., 1985): - Group Unanimity (Asch, 1956; Gilovich et al., 2011; Allen & Levine, 1969; 1971): - Culture (e.g. Milgram, 1961; Bond & Smith, 1996; Berry, 1979): - Gender (e.g. Eagly & Chrvala, 2006; Bond & Smith, 1996; Sistrunk & McDavid, 1971): - Individual differences (e.g. Santee & Maslach, 1982; Singh & Prasad, 1973; McClelland et al., 1953; Strickland & Crowne, 1962). - Age differences (e.g. Berndt, 1979; Pasupathi, 1999).

Answer 64

- Group size (Asch, 1951; Campbell & Fairey, 1989; Gerard et al., 1968; Insko et al., 1985): - Not surprisingly, size of the group matters with larger groups exerting more influence. However, effects of group size level off quickly (after about 4-5). - 2 groups of 2 is more effective → causes more conformity (two groups of two ) → more influential in influencing the participant than the group of 4 → more influence because its like you had two different groups arrive at the same thing on their own - Important to see the group’s opinion as independent. In fact, two groups of two more effective than one group of four.

Answer 65

- Group Unanimity (Asch, 1956; Gilovich et al., 2011; Allen & Levine, 1969; 1971): - Even having one other dissenter reduces conformity by almost 80% - Conformity decreases even when other dissenter does not share same opinion or does not appear too competent. - Appears that any dissent can reduce normative pressure - mere act of dissent is critically important

Answer 66

- Culture (e.g. Milgram, 1961; Bond & Smith, 1996; Berry, 1979): - People in collectivistic societies tend to conform more than those in individualistic societies. - A review of 133 studies worldwide shows conformity rates vary considerably (from 18% to 60%) across culture. - Slight decline in conformity within the US over time. - rise of individualism over time in US

Answer 67

- Weak gender differences in conformity, but even this tendency only in public conformity. - Effects are moderated (there are boundaries to receiving this effect) by content of the judgment issue such that women tend to conform more in stereotypically male domains, whereas men conform more in stereotypically female domains.

Answer 68

- ndividual differences (e.g. Santee & Maslach, 1982; Singh & Prasad, 1973; McClelland et al., 1953; Strickland & Crowne, 1962). - People with strong sense of self as reflected in high self-esteem, motivation to achieve, leadership ability, and minimal concern about others’ judgments conform less. - However, only a weak effect.

Answer 69

- Conformity especially high among teenagers (ages 14-15). - ironic - Among adults 18-85 years of age, conformity tends to slightly decrease with age.

Answer 70

- Changes in behaviour elicited by direct requests from others. - Different strategies for compliance that rely on various psychological processes.

Answer 71

- Compliance technique in which one makes an initial small request followed by a larger request involving the real behaviour of interest (e.g. Freedman & Fraser, 1966; Burger, 1999; Schwartzwald et al., 1983). - For example, asking to sign a petition and then requesting donation. - Researchers found that only 17% of people agreed to display a ‘Drive Safely” billboard on their lawn, but 55% complied when they first agreed to stick 3 inch sign on window or sign petition. - Similarly, while only 22% of women complied with request to take inventory of their homes, 53% complied when first agreed to answer questions about household items. - “Are you the home owner?” - I was doing the survey already, and he was fully prepared for the Renter response - doing the survey already - Compliance may occur here because: - When people comply with a small request, they may engage in self perception process of seeing themselves as ‘helpful’ and become motivated to maintain self image when second request made. - After agreeing to an initial request, people may feel that refusing a second one would be a public inconsistency. - In fact, people high in preference for consistency more likely to comply with subsequent request than those low on measure.

Answer 72

- Giving a small gift to someone or doing a small favour increases the likelihood to complying with a subsequent request (e.g. Breckler et al., 2006). - For example, charities sending out unsolicited gifts to potential donors. - “so here’s the entry ticket, all yours” - Norm of reciprocity: Norm dictating that people should provide benefits to those who benefit them (e.g. Gouldner, 1960; Fiske, 1991; Regan, 1971; Strohmetz et al., 2002; Kunz & Woolcott, 1976). - For example, over 20% of strangers returned xmas cards → when they sent out random fake Christmas cards to random addresses - Participants bought twice as many raffle tickets from confederate when they were given a free drink by same person. - People tip better when receive thank you message or candy with bill. - However, desire to reciprocate wears off with time. - so second request has to come quite quickly

Answer 73

- Situations in which receiving a gift from different person may lead to compliance because of positive mood (e.g. Isen et al., 1976; Carlson et al., 1988; Isen, 1999). - For example, although almost 70% of participants complied with request to relay a message immediately after receiving a gift, only about 45% did 10 minutes after receiving the gift and about 10% more than 20 minutes after receiving the gift. - Feeling good (elicited by good music, food, feedback, etc) generally leads to greater compliance (e.g. requests for blood, experimental participation, donating to charity, etc).

Answer 74

Cialdini (1984), author of ‘Social Influence’ writes: “I was walking down the street when I was approached by an 11 or 12 year old boy. He introduced himself and said that he was selling tickets to the annual Boy Scouts circus to be held on the upcoming Saturday. He asked if I wished to buy any at 5 dollars a piece. Since one of the last places I wanted to spend my Saturday evening was with the Boy Scouts, I declined. “Well”, he said, “if you don’t want to buy any tickets, how about buying some of our big chocolate bars? They’re only a dollar each.” I bought a couple and, right away, realized that something noteworthy had happened. I knew that to be the case because: (a) I do not like chocolate bars; (b) I do like dollars; (c) I was standing there with two of his chocolate bars; and (d) he was walking away with two of my dollars.” (p. 47)

Answer 75

- Making a very large request that one will certainly refuse and then following that it with a more modest request (e.g. Cialdini, 2007; Cialdini et al., 1975; Harari et al., 1980; Cann et al., 1975). - Subsequent request tends to be seen as a concession that the target feels compelled to honor. - For example, classic study on topic found 17% of students were willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a trip to the zoo, but 50% complied when it was first prefaced by request to counsel delinquents for 2 hours a week over the next two years. - Technique may be effective because pressure to respond to change in position of the requester. The second request may be seen as a concession on their part requiring concession on ours (reciprocal concession). - Also, perceptual contrast between two requests might be at play. - Technique works best when: - First request is large, but not enough to be considered illegitimate. - Requests made close to each other in time. - Requests made by same person. - “Are you able to answer a few more questions…Not a problem, then can I quickly get your name and email to enter that ticket there?

Answer 76

- People are more likely to comply with requests from those who are likable, similar, or attractive (e.g. friendly or attractive salesperson harder to reject; e.g. Cialdini, 2001; Drachman et al., 1978; Dariusz et al., 2001; Burger et al., 2004). - For example, only 28% of people agreed to request for making collections for an orphanage when simply asked, but 68% agreed after a brief friendly conversation. - Similarly, people more likely to comply with request for assistance or donation when sharing a date of birth or first name. - “Hey man” “cool” “amirite”

Answer 77

- Strategy in which appeal of item increased by making it appear rare or temporary (Cialdini, 2001; 2007; Worchel et al., 1975; Kurtz, 2008). - For example, retail stores boost sales using messages like: “Hurry, a limited time offer!”, “Only 5 items left at this price”, etc. - Cookie rated as more desirable when taken from a jar with 2 cookies than 10 cookies. - Similarly, people more likely to purchase an item when told it is in limited supply. - “Letting people know, just in the neighbourhood” → hint of now, and only now.

Answer 78

- Strategy in which something is added as a bonus or reduced as a discount from the original offer (e.g. Burger, 1986; Burger et al., 1999; Pollock et al., 1998). - For example, salesperson offering ‘free’ bonus or discount on product even before chance to respond. - 44% of participants told that cupcakes cost 75 cents bought them compared to 73% of participants told that it was a dollar that was reduced to 75 cents. - Similarly, only 40% bought cupcake and two cookies when sold all at once for 75 cents, but over 70% did when sold cupcake with two bonus cookies (for the same price) - “It’s for company X, so that ticket also gets you entered into the yearly draw for a new car”

Answer 79

- Strategy in which the person secures agreement with a request, but then increases the size of the request by revealing hidden costs (e.g. Cialdini et al., 1978; Cialdini, 2007; Burger & Cornelius, 2003). - For example, car dealer getting agreement at lower rate and then increasing price later on. - When asked to participate in a study starting at 7AM, 31% agreed and 24% showed up; however, 56% agreed to participate and 53% showed up when not told study time until later. - Similar effects found in many domains including fundraising and reducing harmful habits like smoking. - Strategy may be effective because: - Once people make a commitment to something, they focus on its positive aspects and see choice more favourably. - Also, once people make a public commitment to a course of action, they feel obligated to follow through.

Answer 80

- Obedience: Behaviour change produced by the commands of authority. - In many ways, social order depends on respect to authority. - However, also creates vulnerability to destructive social influence. - Original interest in topic stemmed from events of WWII. - Milgram studies classic in area, but later replicated by others.

Answer 81

- “Teachers” believe they are delivering shocks to a “learner” (appear to be randomly assigned to the roles). - Every time the learner gets an answer wrong, he gets a shock that increases in intensity. - Strongly encouraged by the experimenter to continue, even when the “learner” protests. - How long the participant would continue administering escalating levels of shock before refusing to continue was the indicator of level of obedience. - In subsequent variations of the study, the learner grunted, complained, and screamed as the shocks escalated, but these reactions did not affect the level of obedience exhibited by the participants. - when confronted with silence as the learner stopped making noise -> 26 of the 40 participants (65%) obeyed fully to the point of delivering 1 450-v shock to the learner

Answer 82

- Normative social influence – He says “It is absolutely essential that you continue” (You think “… I did commit to doing this study…what will he think of me if I mess up his study now?”) - Informational social influence – Because the situation is ambiguous/novel, we are unsure, and so we look to the expert/the experimenter (You think “… he must know what he is doing”)

Answer 83

- Explanations (other than normative and informational influences) for why people obeyed: - We are socialized to obey. - Increased in small increments (foot-in-the-door technique). Self-justification. - at each point you’re like “well, it’s just a little bit more…” - Hard to say no to authority figure; hard to face and challenge situational norms. - On automatic pilot to “obey the experimenter.” We may adhere to norms in mindless ways. Fast-pace doesn’t allow for much thought. - Not evil people but bad situation. - not bad people, bad situation.

Answer 84

- Studies conducted worldwide (for a review, see Blass, 2012; 1991; Miller, 1986). - Replications conducted in 1980s and even 1990s in Spain, Austria, Germany, South Africa, Jordan, Scotland, Australia, India, Netherlands, Canada, and Puerto Rico. - Evidence of even higher rates of obedience in most countries compared to the US. - No gender differences observed across studies. - gender is a non-factor - Recent replications in the US have found high obedience rates similar to original work (e.g. Burger, 2009). - However, slightly less obedience than original work (about 70% went until 150V in recent work compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s original work). - might coincide with the increase in individualism - Participants did not mindlessly obey. - Almost all called experimenter’s attention to suffering or implicitly pleaded to stop. - Many got out of chair or asked to stop before continuing. - Illustration of indecisive disobedience more than blind obedience. - Should i do it should I not? before following authority

Answer 85

- Attitudes are evaluations of a target expressed with some level of intensity (e.g. Fazio et al., 1986; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Aizen & Fishbein, 2005). - Attitudes represented by how we evaluate a person, a group, an object, an issue, or an ideology. - Attitudes vary in strength along positive and negative dimensions leading to attitudes that are positive, negative, ambivalent (both positive and negative), or indifferent (don’t care one way or another).

Answer 86

- Behaviour → Attitudes - Cognitive dissonance - Self-presentation - Intuitive assumption that attitudes or how we evaluate an object will influence how we behave towards it. - However, called into question in 1930s starting with La Piere’s (1934) classic study. - La Piere traveled around US with Chinese-American couple visiting 251 establishments and only denied service at one. - However, La Piere found that 90% of these services in later survey indicated refusal to serve Chinese-Americans. - but only one did in actuality - wild divergence between attitude and behaviours - Review suggested that attitudes only weakly predict behaviour (*rs* between 0.15 and 0.30, the famous number is **10%**; e.g. Wicker, 1969). - Led to crisis in confidence. - → attitudes are not great predictors of behaviour - If you understand a person’s attitude, you understand 10% of variance in their behaviour.

Answer 87

- However, several factors may impact the relation between the two (e.g. Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Kraus, 1995; Regan & Fazio, 1977; Davidson et al., 1985). - Attitudes sometimes conflict with other determinants of behaviour. - Attitudes based on direct experience more strongly predict behaviour than those based on second hand experience. - Attitudes less predictive when assessing general attitude and behaviour toward specific target. - eg. Birth control attitude toward the Pill

Answer 88

- Morrison (1989)—correlational study - Do women’s attitudes toward birth control predict using the pill over the next two years? - IV = attitudes about birth control - DV = how often take the pill? - The more specific the questions, the more predictive of behaviour - Specific attitudes predict specific behaviours better: what is your attitude toward using the birth control pill in the next two years -> high correlation vs what is your attitude toward birth control. - General attitudes predict classes of behaviour better

Answer 89

- Matching attitude to behaviour - Specific attitudes predict specific behaviours - General attitudes predict general classes of behaviour - Self-presentational concerns - Public versus true attitudes - Measuring implicit attitudes (spontaneous behaviour prediction) and explicit attitudes (deliberate and reasoned behaviour prediction) - Attitude Accessibility - Attitude Strength

Answer 90

- Accessible attitudes predict behavior, but attitudes are not always accessible. - Self-awareness - Eg. putting a mirror in front of you while you do something - Priming - A reminder of attitudes brings behaviour in line

Answer 91

- Planned behaviour best explained by combined influence of (e.g. Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005; 1977): - Attitudes: attitudes toward specific behaviour more important than general attitudes. - Subjective norms: beliefs about how people around them view their behaviour. - Perceived behavioural control: ease with which people think they can engage in particular behaviour.

Answer 92

- Attitude toward a behaviour - Subjective norm - Perceived behaviour control These all lead to intention which in turn results in behaviour

Answer 93

- It is very rational and deliberative. - Intentions are not great predictors of behaviour. - Behaviours are sometimes spontaneous and unintentional. - For example, habits are very non-deliberative actions and intentions do not predict habits. - It does not take into account implicit attitudes and how behaviour can be influenced by implicit associations that may be different than explicit attitudes.

Answer 94

- Attitudes are a strong predictor of behaviour (rs up to 0.60 or 36% explained; e.g. Kraus, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2009; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005). - Meta-analysis of about 100 studies reveals that self-reported attitudes significantly and substantially predict future behaviour. - Meta-analysis of about 100 studies using the IAT reveal that implicit attitudes predict behaviour. * r ~= .27 or about 7% - do a good job but less so - Explicit a better predictor in low self-presentation domains - IAT, for e.g., better for race-related attitudes - ppl don’t really care how they look - for high self-presentation domains implicit attitudes tend to do better than explicit attitudes - recent figure puts IAT at 5%

Answer 95

Definition: A shift in attitude or behaviour as the result of the influence of appeals by other people or other sources. Eg. commercials: - What do ads & commercials try to accomplish? - Create a behaviour…purchase a product - Buy trident chewing gum - Eat at Tim Horton’s - Shop at Canadian Tire

Answer 96

- How do ads do this? - By creating a positive, favourable attitude toward the product in the consumer. - MAJOR ASSUMPTION: If attitude is created → leads to behaviour (purchasing the product) - Based on what we know from earlier in the class, when does a behaviour follow from an attitude? * 1. Salience * 2. Positive Associations

Answer 97

REPETITION - The mere exposure effect (Zajonc) - Novel stimulus → more exposure → more liking - Attraction effect → eg you’ll find ppl in this class more attractive bc you’ve seen them more than those from a random class COMPLEXITY - RECALL: Culture and Beauty (lecture 4). We like what we know or expect - Simpler = more liking quicker, but less liking in the long run - Like songs on the radio that are catchy, we know the pattern already - Normal/excited range of heart beat - Bee Gees Stayin’ Alive - Then everyone hated disco/Bee Gees

Answer 98

- Complex = less liking in the beginning, but more over time, longer lasting. - Like classical music. There are more subtleties in the music that you didn’t notice before that keep you interested. - Initial reaction can be negative. We might not like novelty in complexity (RECALL novel art) *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP42C-4zL3w - Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring - discordant → ppl didn’t think it sounded good at first → squeaky and sqwacky - people got really upset → started getting up and rioting. - First time: Riots → into the streets and into Paris - Second time (year later): The crowd carried Stravinsky out of the theatre on their shoulders, he was a hero! - Was hard to appreciate if you’ve never heard sth like that → now it’s in fantasia

Answer 99

- Not just an evaluation of the product, but a cognitive link between product and positive event - Janis, 1965 Pepsi & peanuts - Had subjects sit down and view several persuasive messages (speeches) - Allowing subjects to have pepsi & peanuts while watching the appeals (persuasive messages) (vs. not) increased the general appeal of each of the messages because subjects were in a better mood. - Those who had snacks were in a better mood → rated them better

Answer 100

- Humor - Attraction - Famous people - RECALL: Clooney and Coffee - Music - Positive image, event, or ideal * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUk17uw_pDc - Samsung throwing everything positive in the commercial → dinosaurs, gladiators, car crash in order for people to buy a TV where you move the screen with your hand → no one bought it - Nostalgia * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suRDUFpsHus - eg. Mad Men → trying to come up with an ad for a projector → the most important idea in advertising is new → but a deeper bond is nostalgia → its delicate → nostalgia in Greek → the pain from an old wound, a twinge in your heart far more powerful than an old wound → takes us to a place where we ache to go again. - Nostalgia is a different positive association → you can go back to a thing/time that was lost - Self (or self-esteem boosting) - Nostalgia is probably based on self and that’s probably why it works - If I get that, this will make it better for me.

Answer 101

- Two routes to persuasion (e.g. Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken et al., 1989; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; 1979): - Elaboration Likelihood Model (again, a dual process model) - Central or Systematic Route: Process by which people think carefully about the content of a message and are influenced by the strength and quality of the argument. - engage with the content of that message and are convinced by the quality of that argument - Peripheral or Heuristic Route: Process by which people are influenced by superficial cues in a message such as the length of the message, the attractiveness of the communicator, or the theatricality of the message. - postive associations - salience - eg. the ad for Samsung TV

Answer 102

A theory of persuasion which proposes that persuasive messages can influence attitudes by two different routes: central and peripheral - Which route a person takes depends on his or her motivation and ability to elaborate on--or think carefully about--the information to which he or she is exposed. - People follow the central route to persuasion when they think carefully about the information that is pertinent, or central, to the true merits of the person, object, or position being advocated in the message. -> information referred to as argument. -> so their attitudes are influenced primarily by the strength of the argument. - people follow the peripheral route to persuasion when they are not willing or able to put effort into thinking carefully about the argument. -> people's attitudes primarily influenced by peripheral cues, which are aspects of the communication that are irrelevant (peripheral) to the true merits of the person, object, or position advocated in the message. -> eg. might focus on a candidate's physical attractiveness instead of the argument.

Answer 103

Persuasive message -> Is the audience motivated and able to elaborate on the message? if YES -> Central route: - processing is effortful, comparing arguments with prior knowledge, generating thoughts - persuaded by strong arguments - "She made good points. I'll agree with her" if NO -> Peripheral routes - Automatic and effortless - Use peripheral cues and heuristics - persuaded by presence of peripheral cues -> "She's popular around here, I'll agree with her"

Answer 104

- Ability to Process: YES; motivated: NO = Central - Ability to Process: YES; Motivated: NO = Peripheral - Ability to Process: NO; motivated; YES = peripheral - Ability to Process: NO; Motivated: NO = peripheral

Answer 105

- Central route influenced by: (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1998) - Personal relevance of the message – i.e. whether it bears on our goals, concerns, and well-being. - Knowledge about the issue – i.e. the more we know, the more we scrutinize thoughtfully. - Whether the message makes us feel responsible for some action – i.e. we use it more when we have to explain it to others. - SUM: Increased motivation and ability - central route triggered by things that increase motivation and things that increase ability - Peripheral route triggered by: (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty & Wegener, 1998) - Factors that reduce our motivation. - if we can’t get into that mode of thinking for some reason we will go with peripheral/sensory route - Factors that interfere with our ability to attend to the message (e.g. multitasking or cognitive load).

Answer 106

- Persuasive communication involves three components: - Message (What was said?) - Source (Who said it?) - Audience (To whom?)

Answer 107

- Informational Strategies (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Harkins & Petty, 1987; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993): - When people use a central route, the more information the better as long as the information is factual and not comprising weaker arguments. - When people use a peripheral route, the longer the message, the better. - Message Tone (e.g. Bochner & Insko, 1966; Edwards & Smith, 1996; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993): - In order to be persuasive, better to take a less extreme position and convey moderate amounts of discrepancy (upside down U). - Extreme arguments maybe counterproductive because people spend more time scrutinizing points of contention and judge them as weak. - now you are running into things ppl feel like they know more strongly → cause them to judge them as weak

Answer 108

- Strength of argument and repetition (e.g. Cacioppo & Petty, 1985; 1981; Eagly & Chaiken, 1984) : - Strong arguments usually persuasive, while weak arguments are not. - Frequency of exposure to message can also impact attitude change. - E.g., college students listened to strong or weak arguments for using comprehensive exam before graduation. - Heard the message 1 or 3 times. - Strong argument led to more support for exam, but effect magnified when message repeated 3 times. - Fear Appeals (e.g. Leventhal et al., 1967; Boster & Mongeau, 1984; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993): - Powerful tactic to persuade (e.g. public health ads, political ads, etc). - eg. Homeland Security Advisory System after 9/11 → issue with it was it was always either orange (high risk of terrorist attack) or yellow (elevated → significant risk) → but it also went up during election time → get people to vote for those who will up security - However, fear appeals don’t always work because: - People perceive danger, but feel capable of acting against it. - People believe in a just world and think bad things happen only to those who deserve it. - People assess the severity of the situation and the probability of something bad happening. - Fear appeals most effective when includes strong (but not extreme) message and offers advice on how to cope with danger. - For example, graphic smoking video and pamphlet on quitting smoking more effective than either of the two methods independently. → this is really bad, here’s what you can do.

Answer 109

- Emotion appeal and objective statistics (e.g. Hamill et al., 1980; Collins et al., 1988; Shedler & Manis, 1986; Taylor & Thompson, 1982): - Personal narratives and vivid images more effective than abstract statistics. - E.g., story of ‘welfare queen’ more likely to change attitudes toward welfare than those given objective statistics or those who heard story and given statistics. - Reagan ‘76 campaign → use the story of a welfare queen who is living large off the gov’t → found this story was more effective at changing attitudes towards welfare than those given statistics or those hearing the story and given statistics.

Answer 110

If message 1 and message 2 are close and the response comes much later: - Primacy Effect: Information presented first has the most influence If there is a longer time between message 1 and 2, and the response comes shortly after message 2: - Recency effects: Information presented last has the most influence. An IMMEDIATE DECISION leads to RECENCY EFFECT A DELAYED DECISION leads to the PRIMACY EFFECT

Answer 111

RECALL: Compliance - Credibility: Refers to the combination of expertise and trustworthiness (Petty et al., 1981; Kiesler & Mathog, 1968; Maddux & Rogers 1980; Cooper & Neuhaus, 2000). - Expertise effective especially when people are using the peripheral route. - However, source also needs to be trustworthy. - People are suspicious of people who have something to gain. - E.g., Ps less persuaded by expert who was paid more. - People more persuaded by those arguing against their own self interest. - E.g., speech accusing corporation of polluting a local river more persuasive when author was a pro-corporation candidate compared to a pro-environment candidate.

Answer 112

- Attractive communicators more effective than less attractive ones (e.g. Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken, 1980; Petty et al., 1983; Chaiken, 1979). - E.g., Ps more likely to comply with request made by an attractive than unattractive target. - Attractiveness especially effective when people are not motivated or not knowledgeable in the domain (peripheral route). - Similarity of source also important for persuasion (e.g. Berscheid, 1966; Mackie et al., 1990; Hilmert et al., 2006). - E.g., Ps more influenced by similar than dissimilar confederate’s opinion on music even when (dis)similarity on completely different issues.

Answer 113

- When the credibility of the source matters and when it doesn’t - Do the rants of an extremist on radio or TV influence us? - Sleeper effect: A delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a noncredible source (e.g. Kelman & Hovland, 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Pratkanis et al., 1988; Greenwald et al., 1986). - Classic study: - Ps read essay written by Oppenheimer or a journalist from a propaganda newspaper on the possibility of nuclear submarines. - Oppenheimer very credible, the other not - Ps then shared attitudes on issue immediately and 4 weeks later. - Immediately Oppenheimer more persuasive than the propagandist - 4 weeks later they found the High credibility source less convincing and the propagandist more convincing. - Appears that over time, people dissociate the source of the message and the message itself. - However, sleeper effect emerges specifically when people only learn of the source after processing the information.

Answer 114

- Various characteristics about the receiver influence persuasion (eg. personality, age, mood). - Need for cognition: Personality variable that distinguishes people on the basis of how much they enjoy effortful cognitive activities. (people enjoy effortful cognitive activities: wordle, crosswords) - People high in need for cognition are more persuaded by high quality arguments, but less influenced by peripheral cues. (e.g. Cacioppo et al., 1983; 1996; Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992). - Mood (McGuire, 1985; Wegener & Petty, 1994; Schwarz et al., 1991; Bless et al., 1996): - People more persuaded when they are in a positive mood - For example, people are more persuaded when they are eating, listening to pleasant music, viewing pleasant scenery, etc. - Positive moods appear to activate the peripheral route allowing superficial cues to influence us. - Age (e.g. Sears, 1986; 1992; Visser & Krosnick, 1998): - Younger people expected to be more susceptible to persuasion than older adults - Relationship appears to be U shaped such that youngest and oldest show most attitude change, while middle show least. - Raises questions about the influence of advertisements on children.

Answer 115

- Assumption that ‘other’ people are more prone to being influenced by persuasive messages than we are (called third-person effect; e.g. Duck & Mullin, 1995; Vallone et al., 1985; Perloff, 1993). - Evidence for media effects, but effects are surprisingly weak (McGuire, 1985; 1986). - Consumer Advertising: Weak correlation between ad budget and revenue. - However, ads create awareness, loyalty, and +ve associations with product. - Political advertising: Weak correlation between campaign ad spending and electoral success (mostly driven by late deciding voters). - However, negative ads do appear to turn off potential voters.→ used to be that whoever spent the most in the states, typically won. → not the same since 2008 - Public service announcements: Weak effectiveness of such programs. - However, using scenarios to teach adolescents to turn away from requests for unsafe sex found to be more effective.

Answer 116

- Although media might not influence specific choice for one product versus another, it may shape our conception of reality. - Media shapes what we think is important and true (called agenda control; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). - Media’s focus on various issues influence social perception (Gerbner et al., 1986; Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Eibach et al., 2003). - E.g., only 24% of Ps not exposed to news stories on oil dependence rated it as most important current issue, compared to 50% of Ps exposed to 3 news stories on topic and 65% exposed to 6 stories.- - Shape general attitudes → general behaviour - Almost creating a culture - eg. Apple → they have essentially new products every year → might not be so susceptible but they have these conventions where ppl treat the people they make these products as a rockstar → cheering for a new model

Answer 117

- Attentional biases: People are inclined to selectively attend to information that confirms their original attitudes(e.g. Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Sweeney & Gruber, 1984). - E.g., Ps spent more time trying to listen to arguments in favour of their position on marijuana than arguments against their position. - People also selectively evaluate information they agree vs. disagree with. - E.g., female caffeine users found an article about the dangers of caffeine use for women less convincing than male caffeine users and both male and female non-drinkers.

Answer 118

- Inoculation: Exposure to weak versions of a persuasive message increases later resistance to that argument (e.g. McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; McGuire, 1964). - Classic study: participants asked about their opinions on truisms (what is considered true in society) - Participants’ support for truism assessed - Randomly assigned to: (1) persuasive attack on truism; (2) inoculated against attack with arguments against and counterarguments that refute attacks; or (3) provided support for truism prior to attack. - Support for truism assessed. - the only one who survived the attack on truism was the one who was innoculated before the attack - Being predisposed to the persuasion worked

Answer 119

- Previous commitment: When people make public commitments to their attitudes, they are more resistant to subsequent counterattitudinal messages (e.g. Kiesler, 1971; Tesser & Conlee, 1975; Pallak et al., 1972; Judd et al., 1991). - Reactance: People react to threats to their freedom or by asserting themselves and perceiving the freedom as even more attractive (e.g. Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Heller et al., 1971; Worchel & Brehm, 1970). - We may shut down when we sense that someone is trying to influence us or we may counter-argue the message. - E.g., Ps who were told they had no choice but to believe that communist party should be treated the same as any other party less persuaded than the low key message. → than the group that were told it is good to treat the communist party as any other party - Eg. when sb is trying to influence you and you feel that → I’m not going to counter-argue

Answer 120

- School of Athens - Two in centre: Plato on left, Aristotle on the right - Encompassed in the image is the same debate → where can the truth be found and who is going to lead the social group? - The social group itself? Or those who can do it? - Plato: the truth is behind this reality and we need the people looking up above. - Aristotle: No, its here, it’s in things. We should not look beyond the metaphysical reality.

Answer 121

- Plato’s philosopher king is the lover of wisdom (philos - sophia) - Ship of state and allegory of the cave (Coming soon) - Most people are in the Matrix - You need a navigator (star-gazer) to steer the ship - Or a Neo/Keanu Reeves - Karl Popper blamed this idea for 20th century totalitarian leaders (Hitler, Stalin)

Answer 122

- Individuals are biased, limited, corporeal, etc. - Truth is shaded for the individual - Averaged together, these individual biases cancel out - Group collectively ascertains truth - Idea first associated with Aristotle - Democracy (the crowd should be able to do this), Wikipedia, the rational market and laissez-faire economics etc. etc.

Answer 123

- Group in social psychology defined as three or more people who interact and influence one and another (e.g. Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Lewin, 1948; Levine & Moreland, 1998). - E.g., PM or President with cabinet of ministers, community members meeting to solve a problem, campus clubs, etc. - Groups vary in size, tightness, longevity, etc.

Answer 124

- Defining a group difficult because sometimes same aggregate can fit the bill, while at other times it may not. - Groups provide various benefits to the individual (e.g. Baumeister & Leary, 1995; DeWall, 1996; Gardner et al., 2000; Hogg et al., 2008). - May fulfill fundamental need to belong. - Advantages for protection, food acquisition, mating, child rearing, etc. - Groups also provide individual with sense of self and identity.

Answer 125

- Social Norms (e.g. Hogg, 2010; Marques et al., 2005; McAuliffe et al., 2003): - Social Roles (e.g. Hare, 2003; Zimbardo, 2007; Tubre & Collins, 2000; Lu et al., 2008): - Group Cohesiveness (e.g. Dion, 2000; Holtz, 2004; Gully et al., 1995; Levine & Moreland, 1998; Mullen & Copper, 1994):

Answer 126

- Groups possess norms about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. - Implicit or explicit pressure to conform to group norms. - Strong penalties for deviance through ostracism, animosity, and threats.

Answer 127

- Groups also have specific expectations about how particular people are supposed to behave. - Roles can be helpful because people know what to expect from each other (role ambiguity negatively related to job performance). - However, dangerous when people lose sense of individuality. - Deindividuation - become the role or become the identity → deindividuation → associated with antisocial kinds of outcomes

Answer 128

- Qualities of a group that bind members together. - If group formed for social reasons, then group cohesiveness desirable. - will help the group persist and cooperate - However, if group formed to work together, then more complex relationship: - Group cohesiveness leads to better performance if close cooperation required, but backfires when people focused on maintaining close relations than finding best answer. - eg. forming a study group where everyone brings their own bit that everyone studies and people teach to each other → if group cohesiveness is high → might end up just talking more than working - Stronger evidence that performance influences group cohesiveness more than cohesiveness influences performance. - group does well → more cohesiveness

Answer 129

- How does the presence of others influence our performance - Presence of others could mean: - Performing a task with others doing the same. - Performing a task in front of an audience. - Norman Triplett first interested in question and found evidence for presence of others enhancing performance (e.g. Triplett, 1898; Travis, 1925; Chen, 1937): - Observed bicyclists rode faster in competition than alone. - Experimentally showed that children reeled fishing lines faster when working alongside others than alone. - Evidence that even presence of audience enhanced performance. - Also evidence from other species further supported facilitation effect. - presence of other animals → will show difference in terms of performance - Other work began to show that presence of others inhibited performance (e.g. Allport, 1920; Dashiell, 1930; Pessin, 1933; Allee & Masure, 1936). - Quality of arguments stronger when working alone than in presence of others. * Performance of math problems, memory tasks, and maze learning worse in presence of others than alone. - How do we reconcile these discrepant findings? Eg. Deal or No Deal.

Answer 130

- Zajonc offered a solution: - Presence of others from own species creates arousal. - Increased arousal increases tendency for dominant response. - arousal → typically doing things that either allow you to survive or get sth good quickly - for an easy or well-learned task a dominant response it good - For easy or well-learned tasks, the dominant response is the correct response; for difficult or novel tasks, the dominant response is an incorrect response.

Answer 131

- Social facilitation: The process by which the presence of others enhances performance on easy tasks, but impairs performance on difficult tasks - Zajonc and colleagues (1969) first tested theory: - Built simple or complex maze for cockroaches. - Cockroaches ran either alone, with another cockroach, or with an audience of cockroaches behind transparent wall. - Zajonc and colleagues (1969) found: - Cockroaches took less time to run simple mazes when in the presence of others, but more time to run complex mazes with others present (when they had an audience)

Answer 132

- Social facilitation later shown in humans in many contexts (e.g. Ben-Zeev et al., 2005; Blascovich et al., 1999; Cottrell et al., 1968; Bond & Titus, 1983). - E.g., Ps did better on rapid response task in the presence of others than alone when allowed to get practice on task, but showed opposite pattern when task was new. - Skilled pool players did better in presence of others than alone, but opposite for unskilled players. - Meta-analysis provides support for social facilitation theory across range of domains. - Recent work suggests that even the picture of a favourite TV character or a virtual person sufficient for social facilitation effects. - even a fictional character!

Answer 133

- Some have challenged the notion that the *mere presence* of others increases arousal in social facilitation effects. - Evaluation apprehension theory: The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects because we are concerned how we appear in the eyes of others (e.g. Cottrell et al., 1968; Seta & Seta, 1992; Henchy & Glass, 1968). - E.g., Ps did not show social facilitation effects in front of a blind folded audience, but did with an evaluative audience.→ its not just the fact that they’re there → can’t be seen/evaluated → social faciliation effects goes away - Distraction-conflict theory: The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when those others distract from the task and create attentional conflict (e.g. Sanders & Baron, 1975; 1978; Baron, 1986). - E.g., Ps showed social facilitation effects when asked to perform two tasks simultaneously. - both together but doing different tasks - However, mere presence found to be sufficient in other work (e.g. Markus, 1978; Rajecki et al., 1977; Platania & Moran, 2001). - For example, mere presence of someone facing backwards lead to similar social facilitation effects as target closely observing - These theories may all be accurate, but in different contexts.

Answer 134

- Evaluation apprehension theory: The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects because we are concerned how we appear in the eyes of others (e.g. Cottrell et al., 1968; Seta & Seta, 1992; Henchy & Glass, 1968). - E.g., Ps did not show social facilitation effects in front of a blind folded audience, but did with an evaluative audience.→ its not just the fact that they’re there → can’t be seen/evaluated → social facilitation effects goes away

Answer 135

- Distraction-conflict theory: The presence of others will produce social facilitation effects only when those others distract from the task and create attentional conflict (e.g. Sanders & Baron, 1975; 1978; Baron, 1986). - E.g., Ps showed social facilitation effects when asked to perform two tasks simultaneously. - both together but doing different tasks - However, mere presence found to be sufficient in other work (e.g. Markus, 1978; Rajecki et al., 1977; Platania & Moran, 2001). - For example, mere presence of someone facing backwards lead to similar social facilitation effects as target closely observing - These theories may all be accurate, but in different contexts.

Answer 136

- What happens to people’s performance when their individual efforts cannot be evaluated? - In 1880s, RINGELMANN interested in individual performance in presence of others, only he found that PEOPLE PRODUCED LESS EFFORT IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS. - Eg. in Tug of War → ppl will pull less than they normally could in Tug of War bc others can’t tell if they’re doing it or not - Social loafing: The tendency for people to relax in the presence of others when their individual performance cannot be evaluated

Answer 137

- For example, in a classic study: - Participants blindfolded and asked to wear headphones. - Researchers led participants to believe on some trials they were cheering alone or with 1 or 5 others. - Individual cheers were then recorded and assessed. - cheered louder when they thought they were cheering alone; cheered less the more people they were grouped with - Several other studies have now shown social loafing in many other contexts including sports, team projects, cognitive tasks, etc (e.g. Karau & Williams, 2001; 1993; Liden et al., 2004; Miles & Greenberg, 1993; Ingham et al., 1974). - Sometimes intentional and other times unintentional.

Answer 138

- Tendency for social loafing influenced by (e.g. Williams et al., 1981; Brickner et al., 1986; Hardy & Latane, 1988; Karau & Williams, 1993): - Size of the group: larger the group, the less effort individuals exert on joint tasks. - Perceived anonymity: if people believe that their own performance can be identified, social loafing disappears. - Importance of group: people are less likely to loaf when the group is important to them. - Value of individual effort: social loafing less likely when people believe their own efforts are necessary for the group’s success. - Negative consequences to group: social loafing is less likely when people expect the group to have negative consequences for poor performance.

Answer 139

- Feeling anonymous in large groups can lead to deindividuation. - Deindividuation: The loss of a person’s sense of individuality and the loosening of constraints on behaviour when people can’t be identified (e.g. Zimbardo, 1969; 1970; Festinger et al., 1952; Diener et al., 1976; Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1989). - French scholars, Le Bon and Tarde first to propose that in groups, individual mind gives way to less reflective ‘group’ mind. - ppl will switch for an individual mind “me” to less reflective group mind “we”

Answer 140

- Used 1000+ children celebrating Halloween in costume. - Children either alone or in groups. - Randomly assigned to be anonymous or identifiable by experimenter. - Asked to take only one piece of candy from a bowl (with coins nearby) while covertly watched. - found: when children came up to the door alone and they were anonymous, they took more from the bowl than one and/or took nearby coins - largest effect was when they were in groups → anonymous in a group → really kickstarted the transgressing → poured bowl in their bag and took all the coins. - In later work, researchers found that children made identifiable by experimenter were less likely to steal when mirror placed near bowl. - Particularly when there was a mirror placed by the bowl → self-awareness → out of the “group mind” into their individual mind “me” → I have these morals, I probably shouldn’t do this

Answer 141

- Deindividuation may lead to anti-social acts because they feel less accountable for their actions (e.g. Diener et al., 1976; 1980; Postmes & Spears, 1998; Zimbardo, 1970). - E.g., using identifying information about the individual reduces the likelihood of anti-social behaviour. - Deindividuation may also lead to anti-social tendencies because it shifts attentional cues from the self to the situation thereby decreasing cognitive control (e.g. Diener, 1979; Postmes & Spears, 1998; Spivey & Prentice-Dunn, 1990). - E.g, Ps engaged in more aggressive and uninhibited behaviour in a highly stimulating environment. - eg. Vegas → more flashy lights, more stuff going on, the more you’re going to act impulsively → the more you’re going to lose, to bet on things, to engage in risky behaviour - Deindividuation may lead to greater reliance on social norms which could lead to prosocial or antisocial behavior (e.g. Johnson & Downing, 1979; Mullen, 1986; Gergen et al., 1973; Postmes & Spears, 1998). - Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE): Whether deindividuation affects people for better or worse reflects the norms and characteristics of the group immediately surrounding the individual. - E.g., a political rally can turn into a riot if a norm of aggression against authority develops and members feel deindividuated. - However, deindividuation in a rally promoting positive deeds can facilitate prosocial tendencies.

Answer 142

Whether deindividuation affects people for better or worse reflects the norms and characteristics of the group immediately surrounding the individual. - Women asked to wear either robes of Ku Klux Klan (anti-social) or nurse’s uniform (prosocial). - They were either highly identifiable by a name tag or not. - All given opportunity to influence intensity of shock to be given to a learner in verbal task - (DV: Shock levels) - when ppl were individuated there was not much difference between antisocial and prosocial role (had a name tag) - group conforming behaviour if they were deindividuated and giving out shocks → decreased in shock level when in nurse uniform and deindividuated → increase shock level when deindivudated and in KKK robes

Answer 143

The degree to which a collection of people feels like a cohesive group. - groups feeling like real, solid entities.

Answer 144

- Presence of a common bond (the degree to which group members interact with and depend on each other to meet their needs and attain their goals) -> sometimes based on communal sharing: "what's mine is yours" -> some interactions based on market pricing: "I will wash your back if you wash mine." -> both creates a sense of entitativity (cohesion) - Common identity -> "we-ness" or shared attachment, to groups they belong to. -> sharing the same gender, race, or even appearance can create a sense of common identity; so, too, can sharing a symbol like a flag or mascot. -> can also stem from supporting the same cause or working goal. - A common identity is especially likely to arise when individuals face a shared threat or challenge. Eg. people on a United Airlines flight that was hijacked -> began thinking in terms of "we" instead of "I". -> coordinated assault against the hijackers successfully diverted the plane from its intended target.

Answer 145

- Brutality of wars may be related to deindividuation (e.g. Watson, 1973; Mullen, 1986). - Across 23 cultures, deindividuation strongly correlated with aggressiveness in war. - 80% of those wearing war paint and masks were found particularly aggressive compared to only 13% of those that did not. - the reason behind being “private” “general” → you’re not you, you’re the role you’re assigned to do. - While there are many positive benefits to online media, the internet has become ripe context for deindividuation (e.g. Hsueh et al., 2015; Postmes et al., 2001; Spears et al., 2002; Lee, 2004). - People may express bigoted and harsh sentiments toward specific individuals or entire groups that they wouldn’t otherwise. - Mob mentality → it’s not me anymore, it’s “us”

Answer 146

- Group decisions are made in several aspects of everyday life. - How do the decisions and performance of groups compare with that of individuals within the group? - Assumption that decisions made by groups are typically better than those of individuals and groups outperform individuals. - However, groups can sometimes make very poor decisions and perform in less than ideal ways.

Answer 147

YES, it can. - Additive tasks: Activities in which the group output reflects the total of all individual members’ contributions (where group outperforms the individual). - E.g., assembly tasks, manual tasks, or idea generation. - Groups tend to be more productive than single individuals, but less efficient than additive effect of all individuals. - Conjunctive tasks: Activities in which the performance of the group depends on the least talented member. - E.g., challenging physical tasks, teaching/learning, or study groups. - Groups usually perform worse than individuals on such tasks. - Disjunctive tasks: Activities in which the performance of the group depends on the most talented member. - E.g., tasks that involve single correct answers or certain decisions. Eg. general trivia → one person keeps saying all the right answers but its due to one person. - Groups usually perform better than individuals on such tasks.

Answer 148

- Although groups ought to have access to more information and multiple perspectives, groups do not always make good decisions because of faulty group dynamics. - Explore two such problems in group dynamics: - Group think - Group polarization

Answer 149

- Group think: A group decision-making style characterized by excessive pressure among group members for consensus leading to inadequate appraisal of options and poor decisions. - Suspected to play a role in several real world events. - Bay of Pigs - Pearl Harbor - Swissair collapse - Umpires in MLB - labour dispute → umpires demanded raises and benefits → MLB just fired them and replaced them easily - Others?

Answer 150

- Downsides of groupthink. - CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba - April 1961 - Plan formulated by Eisenhower and initiated by Kennedy - During the Cold War, Cuba switched to communism and forged ties with USSR - Based on very dim view of Castro (leader) and Cuban people - Based on the fact that they can’t fight back, the forces are paltry, and people are ready to revolt - Plan: Overthrow government with exiled Cuban nationals and CIA help - Outcome: Invading force surrendered in 3 days (did not work) - As the world learned of US involvement, Kennedy pulled out the necessary air support - Aftermath: (not only was Castro not ousted) Made Castro a hero, strengthened his leadership, increased US Cuba animosity, strengthened Cuba-USSR ties (complete opposite of what CIA wanted → complete disaster)

Answer 151

- The C.I.A. exceeded its capabilities - Failure to realistically assess risks - Insufficient involvement of leaders of the exiles. - Failure to competently collect and analyze intelligence about Cuban forces. - Poor internal management of communications and staff - Insufficient employment of high quality staff. - Insufficient Spanish-speakers, training facilities and material resources to give. The Bay of Pigs Invasion - Irving Janus coined the term Groupthink and used this event as a case study - Kennedy had allowed the CIA total control, objections were immediately refuted and never revisited - Concurrence was the general assumption during planning - Cuban Missile Crisis one year later, the same people learned from their mistakes and took steps to avoid groupthink.

Answer 152

- Groupthink occurs when groups: - are cohesive and desirable – want to be liked by others in group and keep group together - are relatively isolated from dissenting viewpoints - have a directive leader who signals a favoured decision - try to reach consensus - high stress environments

Answer 153

- Illusion of invulnerability - Rationale for groups behaviour - Unquestioned belief in group’s morality - Stereotyped view of opponent - Conformity pressure → strong pressure to conform within the group - Self-censorship (leads to unions of unanimity) - Illusion of unanimity - Mindguards - members who protect the group from information that calls into question the quality or morality of their decision.

Answer 154

- Groupthink results in defective decision-making procedures - A poor information search - An incomplete survey of alternatives perspectives (don’t want to hear it) - A failure to examine risks of the favoured alternative - bc they view themselves as invulnerable and morally correct - A failure to develop contingency plans - bc they view themselves as invulnerable and morally correct → plan A will work what do we need plan B for?

Answer 155

- Leader should be non-directive (not tipping their hat towards what is correct to them → should wait to state their own opinion and give all info first) - Leader should not state own opinion until after others have expressed own views - A norm of openness should be established. - The leader and others should establish that open discussion is desirable and people should be rewarded for doing so. - One member could be designated to be devil’s advocate each time to reduce group think. - People from outside of the group should be included in the decision-making process. - Inclusion of a few outside experts. (extremely helpful) - did not include enough Cuban exiles in the decision-making process - Seek anonymous opinions from group members. - can bypass some of the self-censorship → ppl can say what they actually think.

Answer 156

- Crowds are wise unless they form a group that strongly coheres and communicates - Is this always true? Can a group be wise? - Centola et al., 2017 - Online study, 1,300 people - Random assignment to Egalitarian (decentralized) vs. Centralized (had a leader) networks - …vs. a control - Networks had 40 people - DV: Estimation tasks (e.g., plate of food, how many calories?) - Results: - Egalitarian groups (shared the groups guesses) significantly improved individual guesses → aristotle → ppl does better when they average their guesses out - Centralized groups (shared the leader’s guesses) tended to do worse - Type of group can not only prevent groupthink, produce the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ effect - Everyone has to have the same goal too - Egalitarian group seemed to be a way to prevent groupthink but also that benefited aspect of crowd effect of better answers

Answer 157

- Group produced enhancement of groups’ preexisting tendencies - Risky Shift: Group decisions are riskier than individual decisions (Stoner, 1961) - Cautious Shift: Group decisions are more cautious than individual decisions - Strengthening of the members’ average tendency. SEE SLIDES ON BOB Group Polarization - Eg you have 3 ppl A, B and C - A says level of risk is 1, B is around 3, C is around 5 - If you averaged it out, it would be a 3 - Once the group comes together and discusses, they become riskier than everyone originally thought - Jane and blind in one eye, or possibly fixed but possible complete blindness - D says 5, person E says 7, person C says 9 that surgery would succeed - As they discuss it, the group becomes more cautious → 7 is the average

Answer 158

- Persuasive arguments - Groups generate more arguments that support the position endorsed by the majority of the group. The group persuades itself. - Active participation (repetition of argument) leads to rehearsal and validation (keep hearing the argument, it seems more reasonable) - Social comparisons - Individuals spontaneously compare themselves to others and if they find a difference they move toward the group’s view. Discover the group norm and then take a view that exceeds this norm - Trying to be a better group member -- to be different from the norm but in the right direction and to the right degree. - I agree with you even more than you → I’m a good group member → everyone shifts in that direction

Answer 159

- Isaac Newton - “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people” - On risk-taking fueling the South Sea Market Crash (1720) and losing today’s £3 million (5 mill CAD) - one of first market crashes in 1720s - Newton lost about 5 million dollars (value now) - Alan Greenspan - Ex-Chairmen of US Fed. Reserve - go to expert in terms of macroeconomic questions/problems - “…irrational exuberance…” - Talking about Risk-taking drives an overvalued market - lead to big response → market was supossed to be rational - in saying that sometimes the markets don’t make sense - caused ~3% dip in markets world-wide

Answer 160

- Conflicts can emerge at the: - Individual level (e.g. between partners, friends, strangers). - Group level (e.g. between political parties, states, nations). - Me vs. We - Social dilemmas: Situations in which a self-interested choice by most people will lead to harmful effects for everyone.

Answer 161

- Popular social dilemma - Competitive move (confess) appears to be in one’s self interest (less time in jail), but if both parties make competitive move, both suffer more than if they both cooperated. eg. if they both agree to remain silent -> each only get about 1 year in jail. - This is evident in arms race, divorce, and other types of conflicts.

Answer 162

- Another social dilemma is illustrated by the commons dilemma. - If people take as much as they want of a limited resource, nothing will be left for anyone. - This is evident in concerns about deforestation, pollution, over consumption of resources by richer nations, etc - Eg. Fishing game → each fish you catch will increase the money you leave with → playing the game with other ppl - If you fish it to extinction → can’t fish bc there’s no fish → no money → cooperation best choice - Related social dilemma seen with the *public good dilemma*. - Individuals expected to contribute to common pool (e.g. taxes, donating blood, etc) but if no one gives, services cannot be provided.

Answer 163

- If people get more anxious, they should intuitively get more cautious - However, there are instances in research (deal and no deal) where ppl go through an anxious event and seemingly get riskier - Eg. Day traders → if they experience losses in the morning, they will get riskier in the afternoon - Soldiers wounded in conflict → when interviewed display a sense of invulnerability → will report being invulnerable and will be ready and excited to go back. - Dice game → before throwing the dice and making a bet → higher arousal → higher arousal/higher anxiety led to the higher the bet - Deal or no deal - If you put them into a real context with real money, the rationality is going to slip away - Ppl making decisions for hundreds of thousands of dollars - researchers found ppl do poorly → found that when ppl started doing poorly, they made riskier more irrational/impulsive choices → running from the feeling of being a loser

Answer 164

World Values Survey (Mata et al., 2016) - Found linear relationship between hardship and the value of risk taking - The harder life is (more conflict, poverty, danger), the more they valued risk. - Nash looked at the data and saw same relationship: as hardship goes up, preference for risk goes up. - Particularly strong for people who have more worries

Answer 165

- Approach ‘Tunnel Vision’ - Sensitive to positive outcomes/stimuli - Less sensitive to negative outcomes/stimuli - Promotes unconflicted action/relieves anxious state - Become the hunter instead of the prey

Answer 166

- Risk-Taking: - Often reward focused - insensitive to negative outcomes - Related to approach phenomena * (Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Maner & Geren, 2007; Platt and Huettel, 2008) - Risk-taking reflects approach-related anxiety regulation?

Answer 167

- Assign to an anxiety condition and to non-anxiety condition - get psychology student to read a psychology paper and then tell them (researchers) what it was about - Causes ppl to stress - And delete stuff in the essay so that it doesn’t make sense even to ppl that might actually know it - Control condition: “easy stats” - “describe the usefulness of statistics” After instructions, see following: - Dealer: Jack, ten, card face down - You: Jack, 6 of hearts face up - RESULT: People in the anxiety condition were more likely to make the risky hit in Blackjack

Answer 168

- 4 items - Have a sum of money - Stocks vs. bonds - High risk-high reward vs. low risk-low reward - Risky Investing - People in anxious security condition were more risky → increased risk seeking in investment as compared to the person in pain condition STUDY 2 Results: Felt Anxiety - Anxiety caused more felt anxiety → felt anxiety lead to increased risk in investing - Anxiety is somehow causing increased risk taking

Answer 169

- Groups can get riskier based on - Polarization - individual shifts towards risk in decision-making during wide-scale, anxiety inducing events - Economic hardship (2008???) - What about moral decision-making? - Falk & Szech, 2013, SCIENCE - Random assignment to individual vs market decision-making contexts - Bilateral and Multilateral markets - conditions: making choice as individual, making choice in bilateral market, making choice in multilateral markets - Real moral decision-making - Basic, worldwide consensus: - Harming others in unjustified and intentional way is immoral

Answer 170

- used “Surplus Mice” - Subjects for research but can’t be used - Surplus mice are killed, usually - Participants found out in debriefing - if they kept the mouse and paid for it they saved the mouse the researchers would put the mouse in mousey heaven → stimulating environment - if they decided to sell the mouse → they would get money but the mouse would die - So, experiment was actually saving mice that would have been killed - Bilateral Market: 1 seller - 1 buyer - Multilateral Market: 9 sellers - 7 buyers. Morals and Markets: Results - Individual group sold mouse very little - In group setting → bilaterial and multilateral market they were far more likely to take the money than saved the life of the mouse - Found there was some decay in the market for the value of the mouse overtime - Moral reasons - Mouse over reiterations started getting cheaper → mouse life depreciated in the market → less worth it to sell the mouse

Answer 171

- Systematic tendency to perceive one’s own group (the ingroup) more favourably than a group to which one does not belong to (the outgroup). - Groups can be defined in many ways (e.g. ethnic, national, religious, gender, university, sexual orientation, etc). - Cultural context influences which group membership people choose to focus on (e.g. nationality, ethnicity, gender, religious identity, political orientation, etc) - Intergroup bias pervasive in different parts of the world. - For example: Racial groups in Canada, castes in India, sects of Christianity in Ireland, ethnic groups in Rwanda, religious groups in the Middle East, immigrants in Canada, NZ, Australia, and Europe. - Bias can manifest itself in terms of attitude (prejudice), behaviour (discrimination), or cognition (stereotyping). - these 3 things map on to the ABCS → prejudice (attitudes), discrimination (behaviour), and stereotyping (cognition)

Answer 172

- Stereotypes: Generalized belief that links a whole group of people with certain traits or characteristics (e.g., friendliness, intelligence, athleticism, etc.). - Prejudice: Negative attitudes or feelings toward a certain group and its individual members. - Discrimination: action or behaviour in favour or against an individual based on their group membership. - E.g., willingness to vote, hire, or help member of group x vs. y. - typically in favour of ingroup members and discrimination against out-group members

Answer 173

Generalized belief that links a whole group of people with certain traits or characteristics (e.g., friendliness, intelligence, athleticism, etc.).

Answer 174

Negative attitudes or feelings toward a certain group and its individual members.

Answer 175

- action or behaviour in favour or against an individual based on their group membership. - E.g., willingness to vote, hire, or help member of group x vs. y. - typically in favour of ingroup members and discrimination against out-group members

Answer 176

- Shaded areas → areas where if you applied the stereotype, how many times would you be wrong. - The normal distribution of Chinese and American males’ heights, based on the group means, might look something like this. The shaded areas represent cases in which we would be wrong if we simply assumed that American males are taller than the average Chinese male or that Chinese males are shorter than the average American male. - Stereotypes do not tell the truth or actual reality.

Answer 177

- Intergroup bias may emerge in blatant or subtle forms. - Blatant forms of bias may emerge in racist epithets or derogatory sexist comments. - Social norms have lead to a decline in such expressions as they are seen as morally wrong. - in West, decline in blatant forms of bias → no longer big social norm - However, bias hurtful when people treat cultural differences as problematic, mock another for being different, or exclude others based on their identity. - Bias maybe more subtle in the form of aversive racism or implicit stereotyping or prejudice.

Answer 178

Modern racism scale: -Originally used to measure racist attitudes in more subtle ways - Over the past few years the government and the media have shown more respect to Blacks than they deserve. - It is easy to understand the anger of Black people in Canada. (Reverse scored item) - Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights. - Discrimination against Blacks is no longer a problem in Canada. → people who scored highly thought to have more explicit bias against Black people in Canada.

Answer 179

- A form of racism that surfaces in subtle ways when it is safe, socially acceptable, and easy to rationalise (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; 2000; 1986; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977). - Studies have shown the discrepancy in self-reported attitudes and behaviour - perhaps too explicit today

Answer 180

- For example, White participants were assessed for racial attitudes in 1989 and 1999. - Later asked to evaluate Black or White candidate (for a job) with either strong, ambiguous, or weak qualifications. - Found 1989-1999 the levels of explicit bias went down over time - Results: Levels of explicit bias decreased over time…HOWEVER: - SEE DATA - 1989 → found strongly qualified candidates and weakly qualified candidates were not rated differently - when they were ambiguously qualified → bias against Black candidates, thought White candidates better. → aversive racism → safe to share explicit opinion - Overtime explicit attitudes went down, but in terms of behaviour, nothing changed.

Answer 181

- Implicit Bias: Stereotypes or prejudice considered unconscious or implicit when people express them without awareness and without being able to control their responses (e.g. Dasgupta, 2009; 2004; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nosek et al., 2002). - Implicit prejudice and stereotypes broadly represent mental association between a group and feelings or beliefs and the evaluations of that group.

Answer 182

- How can we measure bias without people’s awareness or control - Several tools used to measure implicit bias including the IAT (Implicit Association Task), evaluative priming, GNAT (Go/NoGo Association Task), etc. - People may be implicitly biased even when their explicit responses are unbiased. >Race Implicit Association Test (Race IAT) - using pictures of faces - categorized as a black face or white face and words that are pleasant or unpleasant - have to pair the words with the faces - pleasant and black share a response key - unpleasant and white share a response key - test easiness with which those things could go together → will be quick to response - if slow to respond → more bias towards either white or black categories

Answer 183

- If measured with Modern Racism Scale (Explicit measure) - NO - If measured with IAT (implicit measure) - YES - Preference for Whites ~70% (- 80%) - Little or no preference 17% - Preference for Blacks 12% → in this instance, the IAT is saying sth that is different than what the implicit measure is saying.

Answer 184

- Over a hundred studies have shown that implicit attitudes and stereotypes predict a variety of behaviours (e.g. Dovidio et al., 2002; Amodio & Devine, 2006; Rudman & Ashmore, 2007; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010; Sabin & Greenwald, 2012; Galdi et al., 2008). - Implicit attitudes predicts greater seating distance and more negative nonverbal behaviours. - seating distance: get the person to wait outside → tells them to sit where they want → researcher/confederate says “I see ______ just left” and theres a coat left on that person’s chair, Brad or Jamal → how close or far away you sit from this individual → implicit bias is indicative of where you sit. - Implicit biases predict medical doctor’s recommendations, evaluations of a lawyer’s performance, and ratings of one’s work. - Implicit attitudes predict job discrimination toward women and ethnic minorities in real world contexts. - Research may need to be considered vis a vis the replication crisis

Answer 185

- Debate on the extent to which these represent one’s true attitudes or cultural beliefs (e.g. Uhlmann et al., 2011; Olson & Fazio, 2004). - Nevertheless, they do predict behaviour often even better than self report measures (e.g. Greenwald et al., 2009; 2015; also see Oswald et al., 2013). - Also a debate here - in general IAT predicts 5% in variance of predicted behaviour. - Other measures such as shooter bias, weapon/tool identification tasks, etc also used to capture implicit biases (e.g. Correll et al., 2002; 2008; 2011; Payne, 2001).

Answer 186

- weapon/tool identification task → shoot or don’t the individual who is holding a gun or something harmless (phone, coke can) - white or black - Results: your decisions and your reaction times in this task are dependent on the race of the individual in the picture - comparing black and white individuals holding a gun or tool → ppl faster to shoot Black individuals who are armed and are also faster to not shoot White individuals who aren’t armed. - Errors: more likely to not shoot the white individual when they are armed and more likely to shoot the Black individual when they are unarmed.

Answer 187

- Neuroscientific measures such as ERP and fMRI also used to study implicit biases (e.g. Bartholow et al., 2006; Correll et al., 2006; Amodio et al., 2006; Harris & Fiske, 2006; Olsson et al., 2005; Richeson et al., 2008). - ERP and fMRI studies have shown that people perceive greater threat from outgroup than ingroup members. - increased amygdala activated when outgroup members versus ingroup members - Studies using fMRI show that people dehumanize certain outgroups.

Answer 188

- Stereotype content model (Fiskeet al., 2002) - The stereotypes we have of different groups can range along two dimensions of competence and warmth. - based on this you have 4 different kind of categories to individuals - stereotype others high in warmth and confidence → pride → Student, American - stereotype high in warmth and low in competence: pity: how we stereotype the elderly, the disabled. - stereotype low in warmth and low in competence: disgust: how we stereotype homeless, drug addict - envy: high in competence, low in warmth: eg the rich and professionals - As a result, we have different emotional reactions to different types of groups. (Data from Fiske et al. 2002) Harris and Fiske 2006 - Picture viewing of people embodying each quadrant activated the mPFC, part of the social brain and mentalizing network, except the disgust pictures. These pics activated the amygdala and insula, indicative of a negative, visceral response.

Answer 189

Harris and Fiske 2006 - Picture viewing of people embodying each quadrant activated the mPFC, part of the social brain and mentalizing network, except the disgust pictures. -> These pics activated the amygdala and insula, indicative of a negative, visceral response.

Answer 190

- Gender stereotypes are distinct: - They are not only *descriptive*, but also *prescriptive* (i.e. they tell people what they should do or be and how they should act). - Both men and women across many cultures believe that men are competent and independent, while women are warm and expressive (communal vs. agentic; Williams & Best, 1982; Eagly, 1987; Deaux, 1985). - Professional and relational consequences…

Answer 191

- Stereotypes come from roles and behaviours that societal pressures may impose on a particular group. - Stereotypes attached to groups are often a function of historical and culturally embedded social constraints. - She had participants come in, and got information from them on male or female and type of jobs → jobs were business setting or homemaking setting - Then participants rated these individuals as more agentic or communal - based on no information at first → ranked females as more communal and males as more agentic - When the individual was described as an employee → rated as more agentic - When described as a homemaker, rated less aganetic and more communal - Then the gender difference disappears → was based on role

Answer 192

- Small gender differences are magnified in perception by the contrasting social roles occupied by men and women. - Gender differences tend to get exaggerated and generalized. - Perceived group differences on various traits were significantly greater than actual difference between sexes (e.g. Martin, 1987; Diekman et al. 2002). - Influence occurs in three steps (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2004): - Combination of biological and social factors influence division of labour in the first place.→ different jobs and different roles - People then behave in ways that fit the roles they play. - These behavioural differences provide a continual basis for social perception that men are dominant and women are domestic ‘by nature’ - reinforce the prescriptive nature of these stereotypes

Answer 193

- Violation of gender stereotypes can result in social and economic backlash (e.g. Rudman & Glick, 2001; 1999; Heilman et al., 2004). - Studies find that agentic female candidates less liked and less hired for managerial jobs that require interpersonal skills relative to identically agentic men. - When qualifications are ambiguous, women seen as less competent than men but equally liked as men; however, when sufficiently qualified for a job, women are less liked than men.

Answer 194

- Attitudes toward homosexuals quite varied across history and geography (e.g. Gosselin & Wilson, 1980; Batson et al., 1993; Herek & Glunt, 1988; Tilcsik et al., 2011). - Homosexuality removed from list of mental disorders only in 1973. - Fundamentalist Christian attitudes correlated with prejudice toward homosexuals. - Persons 40% less likely to be interviewed after indicating volunteer work for gay organization.

Answer 195

- Bias against the physically and mentally handicapped long standing problem. - Afflicted people labeled witches and killed; exterminated under the final solution; label used to justify executions in other places. - Some attempts to improve the conditions of these groups, but still much variability in bias around the world.

Answer 196

- Attitudes toward obese individuals also tend to be negative (especially for overweight women; e.g. Crandall, 1994; Harris et al., 1982; Hebl & Heatherton, 1997; Crandal et al., 2009). - Held as personally responsible, therefore often internalized. - attributions of responsibility - Bias against obese individuals in various contexts (e.g. Hebl & Mannix, 2003; Crandall et al., 2009; Hebl et al., 2009): - For example, obese perceived to be lazy and offered less support for university education. - Person sitting beside an overweight woman judged more negatively than person sitting beside average weight woman, even when they were strangers and didn’t know each other.

Answer 197

- The Big Short → 2008 market crash → some ppl knew it → betted against the economy - Main character is learning about what happened → how easily these factors start explaining ingroup and outgroup bias - guy just leaves the White House → they knew the taxpayers would pay them out → their crooks - ppl will blame immigrants and poor ppl when the economy tanks → blame the “other” → banks took the money that ppl gave them and then blamed immigrants and ppl who were poor

Answer 198

- Economic - Realistic Conflict - Motivation - Identity - System Justification - Uncertainty Reduction - Cognition - Social Categorization - Biased processing - Individual Differences - Culture

Answer 199

- Competition for material resources can lead to intergroup bias. - *Scape-goating* when dominant groups become frustrated and displace aggression onto relatively powerless, visible, and disliked outgroups. - Poor economic conditions appear to be related to increased hatred toward outgroups (e.g. Hovland & Sears, 1940; Hepworth & West, 1988; Green et al., 1998; Butz & Yogeeswaran, 2011). - For example, economic conditions in the US between 1882-1930 correlated with lynchings of Blacks. - Experiments reveal that economic threat does NOT lead to increased prejudice against all outgroups, BUT SPECIFICALLY THOSE PERCEIVED AS A THREAT TO ECONOMIC RESOURCES. - RECALL: Economic hardship and risk-taking - Underlying process anyone?!? - economic hardship increased prejudice and discrimination

Answer 200

- Competition for scarce resources between groups breeds prejudice, stereotypes, and hostility (e.g. LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif & Sherif, 1963; Sherif et al., 1961; Zarate et al., 2004). - Classic Robbers Cave study using 22 well adjusted, middle class, White fifth graders -- divided into two groups (Eagles & Rattlers). - Each independently engaged in activities that built ingroup unity. - Then, groups introduced for tournament comprising various activities. - Eagles vs. Raptors → lead to ingroup bias - Name calling, fights, theft, and other anti-social acts against other team; self-glorifying comments about own team members. - stole from each other - thought their group was better than the other group (lying to themselves) - Simple non-competitive activities not sufficient to reduce tension. - However, SUPERORDINATE GOALS reduced prejudice, name calling, and fostered friendships between the two teams. - goals that were sth that both groups had to work towards - >required both groups worked towards it

Answer 201

- Main Conclusions: (e.g. Sherif et al., 1961; Brewer & Mills, 1988; Bettencourt et al., 1992; Stephan & Stephan, 1996) - Competition between two groups sufficient for intergroup hostility and not necessarily differences in background, histories, etc. - SUPERORDINATE GOALS THAT REQUIRE GROUPS TO WORK TOGETHER (not just putting them together) helps reduce hostility between them - Resource conflict doesn’t have to be real; it may be *perceived* or *subjective*. → Realistic conflict may underlie various conflicts

Answer 202

- Humans live, work, play, and fight in groups. - A fundamental motive is need to belong and affiliate. - Serves basic motive of self-protection. - Also can generate readiness for “us vs. them” mentality. - once you belong to one group, you do not belong to another group. This is us, that is them. - Enough to generate inner group bias. - Minimal Groups Paradigm: Paradigm in which researchers create groups based on arbitrary criteria and then examine how members of these ‘minimal groups’ behave toward each other (e.g. Tajfel et al., 1971; Brewer & Brown, 1998; Ellemers et al., 2004). - bottle the essence of putting ppl in a group, but for no reason. - Will the group setting be enough to create this ingroup bias? - Based on an arbitrary dot estimation task, people allocate more resources toward their ‘ingroup’.

Answer 203

- Minimal Groups Paradigm: Paradigm in which researchers create groups based on arbitrary criteria and then examine how members of these ‘minimal groups’ behave toward each other (e.g. Tajfel et al., 1971; Brewer & Brown, 1998; Ellemers et al., 2004). - bottle the essence of putting ppl in a group, but for no reason. - Will the group setting be enough to create this ingroup bias? - Based on an arbitrary dot estimation task, people allocate more resources toward their ‘ingroup’. >Dot Estimation Task - participants come in, told to look quickly at screen and estimate how many dots are on the screen. - Randomly signed to 2 positions: - group overestimater → overestimates amount of dot on screen - group underestimater → group that underestimates how many dots on screen - Was enough → Merely having a group was enough to make you prefer than group.

Answer 204

- Our self concept and self esteem are not only derived from our personal identity and accomplishments, but also from the status and accomplishments of groups to which we belong. - ‘ingroup’ gives us more confidence - SIT: People favour ingroups over outgroups in order to ENHANCE their SELF-ESTEEM. (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; 1986; Turner et al., 1987; Oakes et al., 1989; Ellemers et al., 2004; Brown, 2000).

Answer 205

- People still show bias (discrimination/prejudice) even if: - a) they are explicitly told that they are classified in an arbitrary way (e.g., coin toss - b) they are never at a personal advantage regardless of how they divide the point - c) they never meet members of any of the group members

Answer 206

- Studies have shown that by giving preference to ingroup members, people boost the group’s standing and elevate self-esteem (Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Hirt et al., 1992; Oakes & Turner, 1980; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; McCoy & Major, 2003). - People allowed to engage in ingroup favouritism showed higher self-esteem than those not allowed to engage in ingroup favouritism. - Watching one’s team win a game led to increased self-esteem and more optimistic predictions about the future. - Some studies have also shown derogating outgroup members can boost self-esteem (e.g. Fein & Spencer, 1997; Sinclair & Kunda, 1999; Abrams et al., 1988). - “outgroup hate” - For example, participants received positive or negative feedback on their abilities and were then asked to evaluate a Jewish or non-Jewish job candidate using her resume, photo, and a video of the interview - Results: if they got positive feedback about their abilities, no difference in how they rated the Jewish or non-Jewish candidate - If they got negative feedback, they were more negative towards the Jewish candidate - Being more negative to the Jewish candidate (outgroup member) lead to increased self esteem → threat to self-esteem led to increased prejudice

Answer 207

- In contrast to motive for ingroup favouritism, system justification theory argues for IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVE to justify the STATUS QUO even if it negatively impacts one’s own group. - justification will sometimes supersede one’s ingroup favouritism - What’s the Matter with Kansas → voting for conservatives even tho they wanted things like social programs and healthcare. - Evidence in different domains (e.g. Jost & Hunyady, 2002; Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Banaji, 1994). - For example, women paid themselves on average 18% less than men did for the exact same quality work. - People may vote for policies that go against their best interests. - bc those policies support the system they current live in/have

Answer 208

- We are motivated to know who we are and how we relate to others – we like to feel relatively certain about things in life. - Social identification is one way to reduce uncertainty by offering prototypes and defining our place with respect to others. - Findings on uncertainty and intergroup bias (Grieve & Hogg, 1999; Hogg et al., 2007): - People identify with groups that they already belong to more strongly under times of uncertainty. - Identification especially likely with groups that are normative, homogenous, intolerant of dissent, and governed by a more ideologically orthodox system (you just believe things the way they are and you don’t change it) - A lot of these things are the same → anxiety invoking events → low self esteem → same kinds of outcomes but more group based - >trying to boost the group and system you currently belong to bc they are safe havens → places you can always go back to and feel good about.

Answer 209

- Intergroup biases result from the ways in which we process information about people. - Social categorization: The classification of people into groups on the basis of various attributes (e.g. Fiske, 2004; Taylor & Fiske, 1991; Ito & Urland, 2003). - For example, categorization of race and gender occurs at 100 and 150 milliseconds respectively [after we see the stimulus]. - before we even stop to think about it

Answer 210

- Social categorization adaptive and helpful in processing complex world. - However, categorization problematic because it can lead to overestimation of between group differences and underestimation of within group differences (e.g. Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963; Allen & Wilder, 1979). - Biologists and anthropologists find more genetic variation within race than between, yet race assumed to be biologically distinct. - When placed in ‘minimal groups’ participants assume their beliefs are more similar to those of another ingroup member and more different from outgroup members. - despite going through a very minimal manipulation to make these group categories. - Stereotypes especially likely when we are tired, cognitively loaded, or low on mental energy (e.g. Macrae et al., 1994; Pratto & Bargh, 1991; Wigboldus et al., 2004; Bodenhausen, 1990). - For example, people more likely to make stereotypical judgments when they were at a low point of their circadian rhythm (i.e. ‘morning people’ made more stereotypical judgments at night and ‘night people’ in the morning).

Answer 211

- Social categorization can lead to outgroup homogeneity effect (e.g. Quattrone & Jones, 1980; Linville et al., 1989; Park & Judd, 1990). - Outgroup homogeneity effect: Tendency to assume that there is greater similarity among members of outgroups than among members of ingroups. - Outgroup homogeneity effects occurs because: - Often have more contact with ingroup members to notice divergent opinions. - We do not treat ingroup members as representative of the whole; we think of it as idiosyncrasies of the individual. - more likely to individuate a member in the ingroup than the outgroup

Answer 212

- Stereotypes also influence how we communicate, process information and interpret events (e.g. Duncan, 1976; Sagar & Schofield, 1980; Stone et al., 1997; Allport & Postman, 1947; Lyons & Kashima, 2001). - Participants rated drawings of ambiguous behaviour as more aggressive and less playful when performed by a Black child than White child. - Although Ps told story of an Australian football player that included both stereotype consistent and inconsistent information, only included stereotypic information by the time it was told to the 4th person. - anything outside the stereotype did not make it to the end of that story

Answer 213

- Sometimes our stereotypes create a self-fulfilling prophecy by leading us to act toward outgroup members in ways that encourage the very behaviour we expect (e.g. Shelton & Richeson, 2005; Word et al., 1974; Hebl et al., 2002). - For example, participants interviewing Black candidates tended to sit farther away, paused, and ended the session earlier than when the candidate was White. - White applicants who were treated the same as the White or Black candidates from before behaved in similar ways to that observed in the previous study. - Results: when white candidates were treated the same they started to exhibit more negative behaviours → elicited behaviour that was being expected.

Answer 214

- What happens when people encounter individuals who do not fit the stereotype of their group - RECALL: Assimilation - Subtyping: Explaining away exceptions to a stereotype by creating a subcategory that differs from the group as a whole (e.g. Richards & Hewstone, 2001; Weber & Crocker, 1983; Crocker et al., 1983; Taylor & Jaggi, 1974). - Tend to be more critical of exceptions to the rule than those congruent with the stereotype. - we start to look for things that don’t fit the stereotype → we would rather fit that person into the stereotype

Answer 215

- Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): Extent to which one sees hierarchy of groups and desires their ingroup to dominate over others (e.g. Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Pratto et al., 1994). - SDO related to beliefs in social ideologies and policies that support group based hierarchy (e.g. civil rights, war, social programs, etc). Individual Differences: - Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA): Extent to which one values conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and submission (e.g. Altemeyer, 1981; Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). - High RWAs show especially strong prejudice toward deviant groups (e.g. drug dealers), but not necessarily subordinate groups (e.g. housewives or physically disabled). - Motivation to Control Prejudice: Expressions of intergroup biases may be influenced by the extent to which one is motivated to control prejudice (e.g. Plant & Devine, 1998; 2001; Maddux et al., 2005; Monteith et al., 1998). - People may be externally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to appear prejudiced in front of others (OR) - People may be internally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to be prejudiced because they personally think it is wrong to do so.

Answer 216

- Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): Extent to which one sees hierarchy of groups and desires their ingroup to dominate over others (e.g. Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Pratto et al., 1994). - SDO related to beliefs in social ideologies and policies that support group based hierarchy (e.g. civil rights, war, social programs, etc).

Answer 217

- Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA): Extent to which one values conventionalism, authoritarian aggression and submission (e.g. Altemeyer, 1981; Duckitt, 2006; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). - High RWAs show especially strong prejudice toward deviant groups (e.g. drug dealers), but not necessarily subordinate groups (e.g. housewives or physically disabled). - Motivation to Control Prejudice: Expressions of intergroup biases may be influenced by the extent to which one is motivated to control prejudice (e.g. Plant & Devine, 1998; 2001; Maddux et al., 2005; Monteith et al., 1998). - People may be externally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to appear prejudiced in front of others (OR) - People may be internally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to be prejudiced because they personally think it is wrong to do so.

Answer 218

- People strongly differ in biased behaviour (differ in how biased they are) - Not well understood - IAT and personality measures have offered mixed results (e.g., Hewstone, 2002) - Neuroanatomy? - Theory of

Answer 219

- Motivation to Control Prejudice: Expressions of intergroup biases may be influenced by the extent to which one is motivated to control prejudice (e.g. Plant & Devine, 1998; 2001; Maddux et al., 2005; Monteith et al., 1998). - People may be externally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to appear prejudiced in front of others (OR) - People may be internally motivated to control prejudice by not wanting to be prejudiced because they personally think it is wrong to do so.

Answer 220

- ‘Social brain’ (blue) - DMPFC - Temporal Parietal Junction - Right - Precuneus/Posterior cingulate - Anterior temporal pole - Inferior frontal gyrus - Posterior Superior Temporal Sulcus - Self-referential (red) - MPFC - PCC Neuroanatomy Measures - Objective, stable differences in brain structure or function - EEG: Resting state frequencies - MRI: Voxel-based morphometry - Can explain stable individual differences in personality and behaviour - take care with functional inferences - Supplement with data related to the psychological process

Answer 221

- Objective, stable differences in brain structure or function - EEG: Resting state frequencies - MRI: Voxel-based morphometry - Can explain stable individual differences in personality and behaviour - take care with functional inferences - Supplement with data related to the psychological process

Answer 222

- Intergroup discrimination associated with increased grey matter in: - Temporal Parietal Junction (TPJ) - Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex (DMPFC) - This correlation was mediated by degree of **mentalizing** - E.g., perspective-taking to understand another’s actions (how much did you take their POV into perspective when making the decision on how to treat them) - **Empathy** - TPJ and DMPFC - share rich, reciprocal connections - functional connectivity in decision-making - Part of a mentalizing network - Better mentalizing/ToM = more egalitarian behaviour? - was there a better network that was associated with more fair behaviour? / less discrimination - Re-analysed this study: White matter

Answer 223

E.g., perspective-taking to understand another’s actions (how much did you take their POV into perspective when making the decision on how to treat them)

Answer 224

- SEE IMAGE - - Each participant is player C - they watch a few instances of player A interacting with player B - see conditions - In some rounds, player A screws over player B (transgression) - Then give player C the opportunity to punish player A → do you want to spend your own money to punish player A → spend their own money (2 dollars) → becomes 10 dollars and player A loses 10 dollars - They could get revenge over sometimes ingroup and sometimes outgroup members - How much were they paying to punish ingroup or/and outgroup? - Was based on group membership. RESULTS: - Increased white matter integrity near the TPJ was associated with being less discriminatory. → matches the grey matter study as well - Was also mediated by the same psychological processes - More white matter integrity → more able to emphasize with outgroup members → predicted fairness in terms of behaviour Results — White Matter Connectivity - more connections in social brain → reduced discrimination → more fair mentalizing with ingroup and outgroup → more fair treatment in terms of behaviour

Answer 225

- White matter integrity at TPJ and connectivity between TPJ and DMPFC predict reduced intergroup bias - Non-biased mentalizing mediated both links - Individual differences in intergroup bias are explained by neuroanatomical differences in an interconnected mentalizing system

Answer 226

- Socialization refers to process by which people learn the norms, rules, and information of a culture or group. - Intergroup bias is influenced by media and socialization (e.g. Gilovich et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2002; Rudman & Borgida, 1995; Paluck, 2009; Geis et al., 1984). - For example, the manifesto ‘Hutu ten commandments’ (Rwandan Genocide) published in a popular paper warned of the dangers of Tutsis, instigating the genocide. - However, after the genocide, media seen as having more positive influence → radio programming that promoted intergroup cooperation and communication helped reduce bias. - Media messages can also influence self-conceptions. - For example, women exposed to gender stereotypic TV commercials indicated less interest in being leaders and fewer career aspirations in a follow up task.

Answer 227

- Members of stigmatised groups may suffer setbacks in health, wealth, employment prospects, and more. - Members of such groups are often aware of the biases others may hold against their group. - Biases have negative consequences through: - Negative health outcomes - Attributional ambiguity - Stereotype threat

Answer 228

- Research from many parts of the world find that stigmatised groups tend to experience worse health outcomes than advantaged groups or the majority (Major et al., 2013; Sue et al., 2007; Fuller-Rowell et al., 2012; Williams et al., 1997; Berry & Kim, 1988; Cheryan & Monin, 2005; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). - Perceived discrimination negatively impacts mental and physical health. - Subtle biases also quite detrimental for health and well-being. - Exclusion and marginalisation in society leads to negative mental and physical health outcomes. - Similar effects found among ethnic minorities, immigrants, sexual minorities, and the poor

Answer 229

- Stigmatised group members often face dilemma of how to attribute experiences they have (e.g. Crocker et al., 1998; Herek, 1998; Jones et al., 1984; Shelton et al., 2005). - This may impact their experience of both positive and negative feedback. - Black students receiving negative or positive evaluations by a White student experienced change in self-esteem when they were told the White evaluator could not see them, but not when told they could see them. - White students showed same change in self-esteem after positive and negative feedback irrespective of whether the other person could see them or not. → didn’t have to account for the potential of stigmatization/bias

Answer 230

- Attributing negative feedback to bias may protect self-esteem, but backfire for two reasons (e.g. Crocker et al., 1991; 1998; Cohen et al., 1999; Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2002): - Stigmatised group members may miss opportunities to improve themselves. - Stigmatised group members may feel less sense of control over their lives which may have consequences on health. - sense of control is vital to resilience to stress - However, these individuals may receive such feedback better if it is clear that they are held to (the same) high standards (that everyone is given) and they have the ability to meet those standards.

Answer 231

- Stereotype threat is the fear of being evaluated by or confirming negative stereotypes about one’s group. - Stereotype threat can: - Negatively impact performance in a domain of importance; and - In the long run, lead members of stigmatized groups to dis-identify with the domain. - you continually see the stereotype/receive the stereotype → you underperform → dis-identify with the domain - Classic studies by Steele and Aronson (1995). - Black and White Stanford undergraduates administered difficult questions from the GRE. - Half told test was diagnostic of intellectual ability and other half that it was simply research task -> when presence of stereotype threat black students did not do as well; while white students did better; no stereotype threat lead black students to do much better and white students to do a little worse. - SEE RESULTS

Answer 232

Stereotype threat shown to impact performance across a number of target groups and domains(e.g. Steele & Aronson, 1995; Ben-Zeev et al., 2005; Aronson et al., 1999; Stone et al., 1999). * Women performed worse than men on a test they were told tends to reveal gender differences, but just as well as men when told the test reveals no gender differences. * White students performed worse on a math test when reminded of Asians’ proficiency in math. - Stereotype threat effects emerge across multiple domains and target groups (e.g. Shih et al., 1999; Stone et al., 1999; Steele, 1997; Aronson et al., 1998; Yeung & von Hippel, 2008). - Whites performed worse than Blacks at golf when the game framed as diagnostic of ‘natural athletic ability’, but Whites did better than Blacks when framed as ‘sports intelligence’. - Women drove worse on a driving simulator after being reminded of stereotypes about female drivers. - Asian women performed better than controls on a math test when their race was made salient, but worse than controls when their gender was made salient.→ what stereotype was salient controlled how the test went - Stereotype threat effects do not require that the target believes the stereotypes – simple awareness can impact individuals.

Answer 233

- Stereotype threat may negatively impact performance in many ways (e.g. Schmader & Bielock, 2012; Bosson et al., 2004; Croizeet et al., 2004; Inzlicht & Schmader, 2012): - By triggering physiological arousal. - By getting the individual to suppress thoughts about stereotype, which can drain cognitive resources, and possibly backfire. - Impairs working memory. - takes up space - Can facilitate negative thoughts and avoidance of failure as opposed to achieving success.

Answer 234

- Research has identified several possible ways to alleviating stereotype threat (e.g. Cohen et al., 2006; 2009; Miyake et al., 2010; Ouwerkerk et al., 2000; Ben-Zeev et al., 2005; Marx & Roman, 2002; Rydell et al., 2009): - For example, engaging in self affirmation shown to reduce both race and gender gap (in academic performance) - By informing targets that the stereotype of their group does not apply in the particular context, negative effects are erased. - Exposing target individuals to positive role models from their ingroup can help reduce negative effects of stereotype threat. - role model that is counter to the stereotype can help reduce the negative effects - Being reminded of other categories to which one belongs that are considered favourable in same domain can help reduce stereotype threat effects.

Answer 235

- Looked at Racial gap in GPA - Stanford U - First year White and Black students - Randomly assigned these students to a belonging-intervention condition (belongingness) or a control condition in first class, second term - Tracked them for 3 years - “Intervention framed social adversity in school as shared and short-lived…encouraged students to attribute adversity to common and transient aspects of college adjustment…Participants wrote an essay describing how their own experiences in college. These materials, participants were told these essays, would be shown to future students to help ease their transition. Beyond facilitating internalization, this procedure averted the potential stigma of receiving an intervention (not stigmatized → this was for sb else). - intervention was saying “you belong here” - the adversity everyone is facing is shared - RESULTS: - Within that one hour time slot they were able to eliminate the race gap for the three years - Black students in treatment group showed an increase in GPA that consisted for 3 years - Were able to shift Black students from bottom of class to top of class by 1 hour manipulation, one time. → belonging.

Answer 236

- **Reducing prejudice entails changing the values and beliefs by which people live.** - Challenges to this change - Values and beliefs are integral to psychological security. - it is challenging when we have to break apart the schema and bring in new things - Prejudice often serves specific psychological functions for people. - eg. social identity theory → prejudice serves the self-esteem function → when you get rid of prejudice, you get rid of that tool - Established prejudiced views and stereotypes constitute self-perpetuating schemas. - Some people are unaware of their prejudices and their influences. - and what that might mean in terms of how they act

Answer 237

- Dual-process view of prejudice - **Process 1 (Experiential)**: Stereotypes and biased attitudes are brought to mind quickly and automatically through a reflexive or experiential process. - **Process 2 (Rational)**: People employ reflective or cognitive processes to regulate or control the degree to which those thoughts and attitudes affect their behaviour and judgment. - allows us to control the degree to which we are acting or thinking in discriminatory or prejudice-y ways

Answer 238

- **People face limitations when they attempt to control their biases**. - Cognitive control is impaired when judgments of others are made when a person is aroused or upset. - Regulation of automatically activated thoughts can be difficult when people are pressed for time or distracted. - **Controlling biases can have negative effects.** - Exerting control in one context makes it more difficult to do so in another. - like time 1 and time 2 in timed tasks

Answer 239

- **Ingredients for positive intergroup contact** (Allport, 1954): - Equal status between groups in situation - Intimate and varied contact that allows people to get acquainted - between ingroup and outgroup members - Intergroup cooperation toward a superordinate goal - Institutional support - **Research**

Answer 240

- **Key mechanisms by which optimal contact creates positive change** - Reducing stereotyping (decategorizing) → by being less likely to define the individual by the group - individuation - Reducing anxiety - Fostering empathy - initiated by decategorizing, treating individual as individual → then perspective taking (putting yourself in their shoes)

Answer 241

The influence of two clashing sets of values on White American's racial attitudes: a belief in individualism and egalitarianism. - is that many White Americans embrace both on belief that leads to negativity toward Black people and another that leads to more favourable views of them. - Eg. the belief that people will be successful if they just work hard enough leads to a negative view of Black people. And the belief that all people should have equal opportunities to succeed leads to a more sympathetic, positive view of Black people.

Answer 242

The idea that people endorse and freely express stereotypes in part to justify their own negative affective reactions to outgroup members. -Eg. if a person stereotypes all Hispanics as aggressive, then he can justify why he feel frightened around Hispanics.

Answer 243

The pairing of hostile beliefs about women with benevolent but patronizing beliefs about them.

Answer 244

The tendency to believe that bad actions by outgroup members occur because of their internal dispositions and good actions by them occur because of the situation, while believing the reverse for ingroup members.

Answer 245

The perception that a person will be seen only in terms of a stigmatizing attribute rather than as the total self.

Answer 246

The tendency for people to estimate that they personally experience less discrimination than is faced by the average member of their group.

Answer 247

A phenomenon whereby members of stigmatized groups often can be uncertain whether negative experiences are based on their own actions and abilities or are the result of prejudice.

Answer 248

people are motivated (to varying degrees depending upon situational and dispositional factors) to defend, bolster, and justify prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements (i.e., the status quo).

Midterm II Flashcards

(272 cards)