Psy 220 Final

Question 1

Interpersonal relationships

Answer 1

social and emotional connections we form with people. Extended attachments between two or
more individuals due to bonds of
friendship, family, love, respect, or
hierarchy

Question 2

Studying relationsips

Answer 2

difficult to study due to self-selection. cannot experimentally assign to bonds.

Question 3

relationships- animal research monkey

Answer 3

Harlow Monkey experiment- Moneky is seperated from their parents and were either give a cloth or a piece of wire to act as their mother. Both figures give them food but the cloth mom was also comforting. Moneky showed a stronger preferance to cloth mom. This experiment shows how animals also need emotional connection early on which was given by the warmth of the cloth mom

Question 4

relationships- animal research elephant

Answer 4

Elaphan babies were raised in isolation, they were grown to be socially dysfunctional and displayed severe psychological issues. Shows the need for interaction

Question 5

Importance of relationship

Answer 5

• stress reduction. stressful situations motivates us to affiliate with those who are in a similar situation. We want to reach out and be with others who understand the situation to help and reasure us. Stressful situations that trigger fear making us not want to feel alone and feel like we belong by being around those who faced similar threats

Question 6

Importance of Relationships

Answer 6

• Cognetive Clarity. When faced with uncertain or challenging circumstances we seek support from others. Getting different perspectives from others helping us come to an answer- thinking of starting a new job reaching out to someone who has been through this so they can help guide you and provide insight on their experience. Helps us uncover our thoughts, talking about them helos us clarify and understand out feelings. friends and family can help us come to a deeper understanding by challenging our thoughts. Bring in new perspectives

Question 7

Importance of relationships

Answer 7

Shyness- People who are painfully shy are at risk for loneliness, a feeling of isolation, and social deprivation. Sometimes people crave social interaction but anxiety and fear may be holding them back , this can lead to an unrewarding social environment. Shyness can make someone hesitant to engage and when they do engage it may not be rewarding leading them to not want to engage in the future. This can be emotionally taxing and social deprivation impacts mental and physical health. Relationships are not just a luxary but a fundamental biological need to feel belonging

Question 8

Need to belong

Answer 8

social belonging is a biological need.
5 criteria of a need:
1. evolutionary basis- social belonging is linked to survival and reproduction.
2. universal- all cultures have similar types of social relationships and dynamics- need to belong sseks out relationships that contribute to identity
3. Guides social cognition- social relationships guide how we see ourselves, others and our surrondings. e.g. feel accepted and values in a group we will feel good about ourselves. Exclusion can lead to negative views of our selves.
4. Satiable- Relationship are something we desire when we
don’t have them, but like hunger, the need for relationships can be satisfied by finding new relationships
5. Profound consequences without relationships- Being cut off from others is bad for mental and physical health. without close connections we seek them out, once they are established we do not feel a constant urge to form new social connections. If the need is not met and we do not find a strong set of connections there can be negative consequences- if we are cut off or feel lonely we can have mental and physical health consequences- increased rates of anxiety and depression and weaker immune system. Being cut off completely has the same impacts as smoking

Question 9

Costs of social rejection

Answer 9

people who feel more socially
isolated report higher levels of chronic pain, ailments, and pain during childbirth
Feeling socially rejected causes feelings of shame and distress.
Impair our ability to regulate our behaviour- harder time with impulse control, concentration and more aggressive to others

Question 10

Ways of relating to others

Answer 10

1. Social Exchange Theory
   - when evaluating relationships were doing it on social costs and benefits of the relationship, what we are putting in versus what we are getting. if the benefits are less than costs we consider leaving or we do leave
   comparison level- comparing our standard of what we think we deserve to what we have
   comparison level for alternatives- Do we think we have other better alternatives? constantly assessing the standards of what we believe we deserves, id they fall short we might feel disappointed or not fulfilled if we think nothing better is available we stay in the relationship
2. Equity theory
   fairness in relationship, happiest when there is a sense of balance between what we and our partner is giving. Not just about the total benefits or costs but if each of the persons contribution is equal. If one thinks that they are getting to little it can lead to tension and dissatisfaction.

Question 11

How to maintain relationships?

Answer 11

Equity/ equity theory- Short term relationships often look at a fair distribution of rewards and costs. you make sure that what you are getting ang giving is equal, believe benifits should be reciprocates. In long term relationships, which are maintained you give and recieve based on the needs of the other in the relationship and you do not keep score. Less concerened with the immediate return.

Question 12

Attachment theory

Answer 12

looks at how our early bonds and attachments with caregivers shape our future and form our relationships over time. Evolution plays a role in shaping humans to develope strong parent- offsprings bonds. Infants are born with traits that make parents want to connect with them, e.g. having big eyes. parents also have traits that make their infant attatched to them

Question 13

Test of infant attachment

Answer 13

An infants reaction is observed after the mother leaves the child in a room with a stranger and then returns to the room. child and mother play and the child settles down, a stranger enters and sits in a chair reading a magazine, after a couple of minutes the stranger interacts with child, soon after the mom leaves the room, stranger tries to comfort child, the mother enters the room again, Second part- stranger leaves, soon after mom leaves too and the baby is on its own and then the stranger comes back in, the mom comes back in. Lisa showed secure attachment.The child was comforted by the parent showing secure attachment.
60-70% demonstrated secure attachment- showed distress when left but comfort when she came
10-15% anxious- highly distressed when the mother left, but ambivalent when the mother returned, resisting comfort
15-20% avoidant - ignored or avoided the mother when she returned show little emotional response to her absence or presence

Question 14

Attachment Styles

Answer 14

1. Secure-feel secure in the relationship, comfortable with intimacy (letting others depend on you and being dependant on others), desire to be close to others during times of stress (seek closeness, understand support is a vital part of maintaining a relationship, easy in building trust). In future it will be easier for the to handle ups and downs in their relationships. Most stable attachment style with the most positive consequences.
2. Anxious-Insecure- insecure in relationships which can lead to emotional roller coaster. Compulsively seeking to feel close to someone and seeking connections but always worried about the relationship. feeling that the partner will leave. when stress hits instead of leaning on other they will double down the efforts, they will seek reassurance and validation that is more overbearing, cling to relationship rather than connect. creates strain on the partner, might feel overwhelmed of having to constantly reassure their partner. Feels insecure in relationships, compulsively seek closeness but constantly worry about the relationship.
3. Avoidant-insecure- feels insecure in a relationship and feels the need to be self reliant. Distances themselves from others in stressful situations. rather than seeking closeness and reassurance, they lean into self reliance, rely only on themselves to feel better, believe that depending on others will resolve in disappointments or rejection, find it deeply uncomfortable to relay on others. When closeness is often expected they may pull away and feel uninterested.
4. Disorganized- less common, contradictory desires, wanting closeness but feel uncomfortable, mix associated with early experiences of trauma, abuse and neglects, approach avoidance- as soon as intimacy become available they push it away even if they wanted it. Trust is shakey. difficult time in regulating their emotions, extremes- very close to the person or very fare, switching between the two. Often linked to trauma or neglect in early life.

Question 15

Attachment in Adulthood

Answer 15

-Securely attached least likely to have a breakup (25.6 percent), then anxious (43.6 percent), then avoidant (52.2 percent), across a 4-year study
secure attachment will likely have better more effective communication leading to fewer marital problems.
Anxious attachment involves more fear and sadness during temporary separations
Avoidant attachment involves seeking less physical contact from partners
Anxious/avoidant pairs do especially poorly
People with anxious attachment styles are more likely to have problems with drug abuse,
alcoholism, and eating disorder- this correlation can be linked to intense insecurities they feel in relationships - maladapting in coping mechanisms

Question 16

Rules of Attraction

Answer 16

Physical proximity- geographical nearness and functional distance predics liking. house for american military members- asked people in the house to name 3 people who they socialised most with- distance influenced the connection with people

Question 17

Proximity effects

Answer 17

1. Availability and proximity- more often we see someone, more opportunities to interact with them- easier to form a bond, making it more likely to have a relationship with them
2. Anticipation of interaction
   we know we will meet someone, the expectation that we are going to meet and interact with them gives an assumption that they will be nice- encouraging us to approach them more positively
3. Mere exposure- Greater exposure to a stimulus leads to greater liking of that stimulus, including other people

Question 18

Mere exposure and liking (experiment)

Answer 18

The idea that repeated exposure to a stimulus such as an object or a person leads to greater liking of that stimuli. Rats were either raised on Schoenberg or Mozart. They listened to the music of one of the artists. Rats who listened to Mozart prefered Mozart and vice versua. This could mean they associated this stimuli with safety as they knew it thus making it good and increased liking. Them picking the artist they were exposed to shows how mere exposure can cause liking.
fluency- Easier to process information about familiar stimuli
Pleasant feelings associated with more fluent processing

Question 19

Similarity

Answer 19

Friends and romantic partners tend to be similar in beliefs and other characteristics (attractiveness, intelligence, socioeconomic status, and so on) A study of romantic couples found that couples were more similar on 66 of 88 different traits than people paired at random.

Question 20

Similarity and attraction

Answer 20

1. Social Validation- We like people who agree with us, and generally feel uncomfortable around people who challenge our beliefs. our own perspectives and beliefs conformed making us more connected creates a sense of harmony, being around those who challenge us can make us uncomfortable
2. More fluent interactions- Interacting with people who are more similar to us is often easier. There is less conflict over which activities are desirable, and greater ability to understand other person’s choices and perspective. interaction will be easier, smoother, less frictions, more agreement (activities, beliefs…) more easily relate to the others persons perspective, no explanation necessary from us.

Question 21

Dissimilarity

Answer 21

Dissimilarity can increase disliking. 1. False consensus bias- most people see the world the way we do, if someone challenges our view of the world makes us like them less
2. Attitude alignment- individuals adjust their attitudes to align with others, makes interactions smoother, but if this does not happen it drives people further and further apart creating disliking

different beliefs or values can create a sense of frictions

Question 22

Opposites

Answer 22

Can opposites attract?- (complimentary)- the tendency to seek out others with characteristics that compliment their own.
1. status exchange hypothesis- social status- high social status seeking someone more nurturing and lower social status gets to admire- offers something to partners they both can desire

Question 23

Competence

Answer 23

Being close to competent people is
rewarding. if they are more competent than we are in areas that matter to us and therefore make us feel incompetent and
inadequate by comparison, their
attractiveness will be diminished.

Question 24

Competence, pratfall experiment

Answer 24

experiment- …

Question 25

Reciprocal liking

Answer 25

we like those who like us back - if we feel they are being insensere we will think their liking is shallow or manipulative decreasing our liking towards them

Question 26

over or underestimate attraction

Answer 26

1. Effects of a blow to our self esteem - e.g rebound relationships- after a break up- self worth low- attraction of someone new feels particularity comforting, our need of validation mistaken the attention for something more meaningful than it actually is 2. effects of low self esteem - e.g. focus on literal meaning vs abstract significance- understimate how much your partner values you-no way they like me as much, being polite, low self worth we assume everyone perceives us how we perceive us- interpreting our partners words as literal rather than abstract, not considering broader emotional support, downplaying certain cues

Question 27

Physical attractiveness

Answer 27

plays an important role on interpersonal attraction. 1. benifits- more popular as friend, better liked as a potential romantic partner 2. women- large eyes, small nose, full lips... men- masculinized jaw, broad shoulders...

Question 28

Why does attractivness matter?

Answer 28

1. Immediacy- the first thing we notice is the appearance, form an impression on someone based on how they look- snap judgement based on their features. Affects our immediate/ gut instincts 2. Prestige- Physical attractiveness is socially valued. impacts how people are perceived, attractive people enjoy the advantages in social situations, this appeal can extend to their partners as well

Question 29

Halo effect

Answer 29

when someone is good looking they will have other great qualities, their attractiveness casts a halo on their personality If we see someone attractive we think they are more successful and happy, our brains fill in our blanks. People who are more physically attractive are often assumed to have other positive traits. e.g. Assumed to be more successful, likable, intelligent, happier etc

Question 30

Matching phenomenon

Answer 30

The tendency for men and women to choose as partners those who are a “good match” in attractiveness and other traits. Potential Partner’s Desirability = partner’s physical attractiveness X partner’s probability of accepting you

Question 31

Evalutionary functions of beauty

Answer 31

Faces that are more average (less abnormals) are seen as more attractive.

Question 31

effects of praise and favors

Answer 31

Perceptions of the reason for praise or doing us favours influences how we will respond to the person, when we get praise based on how we interpret it is gonna change how we view our relationship. If we feel like it is genuine we will like the person and feel closer, if we feel it is fake we will not trust, feel uncomfortable and not like the person so much like people ho do favours- makes us feel appreciated- shows good will and generosity- do not like favour if there are strings attached, if we feel there is an ulterior motive we will not feel grateful, we will feel suspicious

Question 31

Paradox of choice

Answer 31

An abundance of choice leads people to be less happy with the choices they make. if there is a lot of options it is harder to feel satisfied in your romantic relationship. decisions paralysis- commit to a partner feel disappointment, wondering if there is someone else who is better- dissatisfaction in relationship compare our relationships to our friends- are we as happy as they are, are we more successful- lead into feeling that something is lacking even if it is not the case

Question 32

Gain loss theory of attraction

Answer 32

Increases in positive behaviour has more of an impact on us than constantly rewarding behaviour from that person. we will dislike someone whose esteem for us decreases over time more than people who have always disliked us. more affected by the changes of how someone views us rather than how they view us consistently. Stronger impact if they went from cold to nice rather than consistently cold or happy. Sense of reward in gaining that, makes us feel like we are a good person and we are worth being liked dislike people more if their feelings for us decrease- feels more hurtful if they disliked us all along. Feels like we are loosing something valuable like their approval or affection. We will like someone most in a gain situation We will like the person least in a loss situation Has to feel like an authentic gradual shift

Question 33

Reward theory of attraction

Answer 33

The idea that we are attracted to others who reward us, who we find rewarding, and who we associate with reward. the rewards will make us feel good and more attracted- naturally gravitate to relationships that makes us feel good- emotional reward- dopamine if a relationship becomes un-rewarding- negativity, criticism- drift from the relationship

Question 34

Misattribution of arousal

Answer 34

The process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do. attractive young woman on bridge- stops man and asks him to fill out the questioner, almost all did, asked to write a dramatic story on the photo, after wards she thanks and gives out her name and number stopped 40 men (20 on each bridge) Men on the scary bridge were more likely to phoned her, men on the scary bridge wrote more romantic stories about the picture feelings we get on the bridge like heart racing misattributes the feelings

Question 35

Love

Answer 35

A combination of emotions, cognitions, and behaviours that often plays a critical role in intimate relationships

Question 36

Romantic relationships (variations of love)

Answer 36

1. Companionate love- friends, family, people who have similar interest as us. Shared values, built on trust, respect and companionship 2. Compassionate love- parents, spouses that monitor and respond to ones need. nurturing relationship, much deeper awareness of each others needs and support of each other based of the needs 3. Romantic love- partners we feel intense emotional and sexual desire towards

Question 37

Liking vs Loving

Answer 37

- The feeling you have for a platonic friend- shared interest, mutual respect, companionship - The feeling you have for a romantic partner- passion, attachment, physical attraction (deeper emotion) Intense and consuming making you feel a deeper connection, emotional intensity sets apart loving vs liking someone - The distinction changes as the relationship grows- ideally you will both like and love your partner In more committed relationships, liking and loving are intertwined- long term relationship- passionate love may cool down but companion love will grow

Question 38

Sternbergs triangular model of love

Answer 38

1. intimacy- Emotional Component -liking and feelings of closeness. contentedness, emotionally bonding with another person- comfortable with sharing your feelings, thought and experiences with your partner. Builds trust 2. Passion- Motivational componenet- drives for attraction, romance, sexual desire. Strongest in the beginning 3. Commitment- cognetive componenet- decision to long term commitment- dictates the decision to stay with someone, stability, enduring difficult periods of time.

Question 39

Sternbergs triangular model of love, sub components

Answer 39

1. liking- deep friendship, intimacy without passion or commitment. 2. Infatuation- strong physical attraction, short term crush, not long lasting. Passion as the only element 3. Empty love- long term relationships that lost spark but remation together for practical reasons. Commitment witout intimacy or passion 4. Romantic love- deep emotional connection and physical attraction but without commitment to mantain the relationship over time. Intimacy and passion 5. Compassionate love- long term friendships or marriages- commitment to stay together. Intimacy and commitment 6. Fatuous love- relationship moves quickly into commitment, but the deeper emotional connection has not been developed yet. Passion and commitment without intimacy 7. Consummate love- ideal, all three forms are present, goal of a long term romantic relationship. Intimacy, passion and commitment

Question 40

Social Penetration theory

Answer 40

how relationships develop into a deeper attraction- relationships grow as you share feelings- the more we do that the closer we become with the person- happens gradually, many layers to it, the more layers you peel the deeper your relationship gets, first you start of with safe topics that do not even involve your feelings, building trust so you can share more intimate things about yourself level 1- superficial, small talk. (beginning of relationship). Level 2- developing relationship. share more things that are more personal e.g. i did not do as well on the exam as I hopes. growth in trust that you fell towards the partner. level 3- close relationship- self disclosure reaches a very intimate level- wide range of topics- high sense of trust- can be vulnerable and tell intimate things. Intimate level. Number of topics and intimacy very large (breadth and depth)

Question 41

The porcupines dilemma

Answer 41

The desire to achieve deep intimacy while remaining invulnerable to hurt. wanna let people in but scary because it can make us feel very vulnerable. if porcupine stay too far they may freeze but if they are too close together they will poke and hurt each other- relates to us the closer we get the more vulnerable we can get hurt. balancing desires of closeness and not to get hurt. Makes it tricky to reveal our deepest, meanest, flaws and mistakes

Question 42

Authenticity

Answer 42

safe enough to be ourselves, share information- build a stronger connection, being honest about what is good and bad (final level of the onion) If you share both vulnerabilities deeper sense of trust and more successful relationships. freedom to share your true feelings and beliefs, negative or positive with your partner People who support each other in times of need and stress are more likely to have a healthy relationship than people who don’t

Question 43

Gender and love

Answer 43

Men fall inlove more quickly. Men are more likely to endorse romantice beliefs. more impulsive approaches to relationships, quicker declarations to love Evidence that both men and women rate several kinds of companionate love as being more important than romantic passionate kinds of love

Question 44

Gender differences in mates

Answer 44

- investment in offspring. - Large asymmetry in the minimal parental investment of males and females. For males, the minimal parental investment required to produce offspring is sperm. For females, the minimal parental investment is exponentially greater. endure pregnancy, produce placenta and lactation, experience infertility. Large asymmetry. Women invest more and have more emotionally and physically taxing- they are more choosy when picking men so they can be provided with the resources when having the child. - Females invest more so should be more selective. select mates in part based on their ability to provide resources to potential offspring. In humans, females view characteristics like social status, wealth, intelligence, ability, and ambition as attractive. Males select mates based on fertility

Question 45

Critique of evolutionary perspectives

Answer 45

Evidence that men and women have different preferences for potential mates may reflect human evolutionary history, but may also be due to social factors. value kindness and loyalty- evolutionary raising kids logical choice- supportive partner. Some cultural universals may be due to rational choice and not to evolutionary drives. men placed in role of being breadwinner- financial success emphasised women care giver- attractiveness. in gender inclusive roles- mate preferences become more alike, value in a partner can change based on the culture that you are in, societal expectation change

Question 46

Why do we love?

Answer 46

1. Evolutionary explanation - need to belong passionate and romantic love increased reproductive fitness 2. Cultural explantion- three factor theory of pasionate love- 1. first learn about love 2. culturally-appropriate love object is present. 3. misattribution of physiological arousal as love 3. Attachment theory- behaviour demonstrated from an early age, striving for that consistently. suggests that our behaviour in adult relationships is based on our experiences as infants with our parents or caregivers 4. Attachment styles- the expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationship they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants

Question 47

How to maintain relationship- intimacy

Answer 47

developing an intimate relationship 1. Knowledge- extensive personal knowledge of each other by sharing information about desires, dreams, history... importance of self disclosure 2. caring- builds intimacy, creats strogner bonds- care about eachother by sharing affection and support 3. Mutuality- shifting from individuality to partnership increases intimacy. Think of themselves as an us instead of a me and you. Recognize the over lap between lives. 4. Trust- Expect that their partner will treat them fairly and honorably. Expect that their partner will be responsive to their needs and be concerned for their welfare. 5. Interdependency- formation of us- receiving support that influence each others day to day life. The extent to which intimate partners need and influence each other 6. Commitment

Question 48

Relationship dissatisfaction

Answer 48

In unsatisfying relationships people interpert actions and behaviour as negative. Blame negative attributions for partners behaviour. Partners in unsatisfying relationships are more likely to make attributions that cast partner in a negative light.

Question 49

Behavioral predictors of divorce in couples

Answer 49

the four horsemen.- 4 different behaviours that lead to break ups/ divorce. Interaction dynamics studies focusing on how couples interact found that divorce could be predicted with 93 percent accuracy on the basis of four behaviors 1. Criticism- being overly critical towards you partner- creates resentment 2. Defensivness- refusing to accept responsibility for conflicts 3- stonewalling- withdrawls from partner, refusal to emotionally interact- refusing to communicate effectively, like hitting a wall, no matter what is said met with silence or indifference 4. contempt- looking down on ones partner, especially predictive of the relationship ending when contempt from women is directed at men.

Question 50

contempt study

Answer 50

Conversation about an ongoing conflict at Time 1, then followed for 14 years- Frequency of contempt expressions shown in a 15 min conversation- couples with more contempt were more likely to be divorced... (add)

Question 51

Top predictors of divorce

Answer 51

Partnering with a neurotic personality, partnering with someone highly sensitive to rejection, marrying at a young age, undergoing financial stress

Question 52

How do relationships end (Baxter 1982)

Answer 52

four stages for dissolution of a relationship: 1. Withdrawls/ avoidance- reduce contact, avoid interaction 2. Positive tone- softening the blow, ending things gently, leaving on a positive note 3. Manipulative strategies - creating situations to force your partner to end it instead of having you to end it 4. Open confrontation- most healthy way, having a direct conversation- leads to a clear break up

Question 53

How do relationships end (Rusbult et al 1986,87)- 4 ways of coping with a relationship that is in trouble:

Answer 53

Identified 4 ways of coping with a relationship that is in trouble: 1. Loyalty- partner chose to be loyal to the partner, staying patient beliving the relationship will heal 2. Neglect- avoiding the problem reducing effort 3. Voice- confront problems head on expressing concern 4. Exit- just leaving the relationship

Question 54

Adaptive communication

Answer 54

Forms of communication that enhance relationships: 1. Straight talk- A person’s clear statement of his or her feelings and concerns without accusing, blaming, judging, or ridiculing the other person straigh talk and benefit of the doubt- Dispositional attributions: attributing the cause of that person’s behaviour to a flaw in their personalities Situational attributions: attributing the cause of that person’s behaviour to a situation that is affecting them 2. Immediate feedback- For communication to be effective in a close relationship, we are able to give and receive immediate feedback on how our words and behaviours are interpreted. Frequently, in providing feedback, people discover something about themselves. The direct expression of a feeling also helps prevent its escalation, which is harder to resolve.- double checking with the person. stops excalation, no rumour, direct real time questioning about what they meant 3. Feelings vs judgment- The key to effective communication rests on our willingness to express feelings rather than judgments. People are often unaware of how to provide constructive feedback, instead doing it in a way that angers or upsets the recipient, thereby causing more problems than they solve. Be open but express yourself in a manner that causes a minimum of pain and maximizes the recipient’s ability to understand your complaint The key is to express in feelings

Question 55

How else to combat relationship dissatisfaction?

Answer 55

1. Capitalize on the good- celebrating achievments- increases bond 2. Being playful- experince greater satisfaction 3. Finding the good in partners

Question 56

Intergroup bias

Answer 56

favour our in group to others whether we are aware of it or not

Question 57

Intergroup attitudes

Answer 57

Components of attitudes: 1. Affective- the general attitude structure, but more specifically the emotional component.- emotional aspect of stereotyping, an emotional feeling, dislike, fear, anger towards a group of people 2. Behavioural- discrimination is differential treatment due to group membership- based on race, gender, religion... follows prejudice feeling- exclusion, harassment, unequal treatment 3. Cognetive- thoughts and beliefs about different groups- Stereotype is a generalization about a group that is seen as descriptive of all members of that group. Outgroup homogeneity: the tendency to see all outgroup members as alike (“they’re all the same”)

Question 58

Contemporary prejudice

Answer 58

Blatant old fashioned racism- subtle, indirect, or modern forms of bias and discrimination that exist in contrast to more overt and explicit prejudices of the past. This type of prejudice is often less visible and more socially acceptable, as it tends to manifest in ways that can be rationalized or justified, rather than through openly hostile or discriminatory behaviors. Involves beliefs about minorities that are clearly bigoted and readily admitted. Has become less socially acceptable

Question 59

Benevolent stereotypes

Answer 59

Not all stereotypes are negative- Some stereotypes include favorable assessments of abilities. Benevolent stereotypes is a mix of positive and negative stereotypes. Some groups may be stereotyped as smarter, nicer, or more athletic than others. Race and gender stereotypes often contain a mix of both positive and negative sentiments. Trouble with positive stereotype- 1. Can be used to justify holding other negative stereotypes 2. May disparage members that don’t fit the positive stereotype e.g. believe that women are more kind and nurturing positive- reinforces the idea that they are not fit for a cutthroat work environment reinforcing negative stereotypes do not fit their mold, women go against their positive stereotype and they are punished limits individuality and reinforces narrow ideas.

Question 60

Implicit attitudes

Answer 60

People are often motivates to control expressions of prejudice What you see vs was is underneath. Development of more subtle self-report measures Implicit attitudes are a measure of someone’s automatic negative or positive evaluation of a social group or category. Implicit attitudes can be measured by ease of associating different social categories with positive or negative words People may report non-prejudice attitudes explicitly but show biases on an implicit measure.

Question 61

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Answer 61

- timed sorting task -Categorize group A with good group B with bad. Then reverse catogorizes group A with bad and group B with good. - Difference between reaction times in the two blocks- implict preference

Question 62

Implicit attitudes experiment

Answer 62

Black and White americans associate black or white faces with positive or negative words- White americans show consisten pro white preference on average. Black americans show no prefernce on average

Question 63

Implicit attitudes predict

Answer 63

1. social closenss (seating distance)- sit closer to those they view more positively, farther to those who look more negative 2. Economic decisions- how we allocate resources, financial choices 3. Voting- political choices, unconscious biases 4. Amygdala activation- region associated with emotion- how we react to certain social groups

Question 64

Priming and implicit prejudice

Answer 64

Priming procedures to measure implicit prejudice- influencing how people will think by presenting them with a stimuli. participant exposed to certain words, images or concepts before responding to certain tasks, priming can show implicit attitudes Affect misattribution procedure- image or word associated with a social group, neutral image, and then asked to rate how pleasant or unpleasant the neutral stimuli is, their bias from the first stimuli should impact their choice showing their implicit bias

Question 65

Origins of prejudice and discrimination

Answer 65

1. Economic perspective- Prejudice results from different social groups competing over scarce resources. different groups fight for limited resources- conflicts can arise- feel negative attitudes towards the out groups because they want the resources 2. Motivational perspective- Prejudice results from motivations to view one’s ingroup more favorably than outgroups- motivated to boost their self esteem by enhancing their own group and its status at the expense of another 3. Cognitive perspective- Prejudice results from biases in social cognition due to schemas about differences between ingroup and outgroup members- schemas can lead to stereotypes and oversimplifications, reinforce false or negative beliefs

Question 66

Economic perspective

Answer 66

Realistice group conflict theory - Competition for scarce resources will increase conflict among groups, resulting in prejudice and discrimination.- conflict between groups intensify when there is competition for scarce resources Resources may be physical, economic, or conceptual- e.g. competition over territory, jobs, religious identity... Hostile conflict increases ethnocentrism - Tendency to glorify ones own group and derogate outgroups ethnocentrism- looking down on other groups, viewing yours as superior theory also predicts that strongest feelings of prejudice will come from the group that feels they have the most to lose.

Question 67

Robbers Cave experiment

Answer 67

Sherif et al (1961) Method: - 11 year old boys at camp in robbers cave national park. - Split into 2 groups- eagles or rattlers stage 1- only do activites with own group to increase in group identity.- I am in this group, we are us and that group is the other group, they are they stage 2- engage in competitve sports with prizes for winning teams- competing for scarce resources- created an environment with a competition over a limited prize At the end of stage 2 they were asked to ... competition creates outgroup prejudice- boys name called boys in others group- sneaky described own group as brave and friendly- in group favourism. Viewed own group in positive light other group in negative light stage 3- reduce intergroup conflict- introduced a super ordinate goals so both groups had to work together to solve a problem. E.g. got a bus stuck in the mud. by working together it breads cooperation, needed every hand on deck to succeed, fostered positive interaction where they cooperated to reach the same goal. Afterwards they were given another questioner about making friends with people in the other group, started to view them better, decreased intergroup tension due to shared goal, viewed them better. Hostility between groups declined, formation of new friendships with outgroup members. But ingroup identity was hard to eliminate entirely

Question 68

Jigsaw classroom

Answer 68

Innovative approach to learning where students work together in small, diverse “cooperative learning teams” Idea built on mutual interdependence outcomes- Decreased prejudice and stereotyping Improved performanc- if you can teach it you know it well Higher selfesteem- positive feedback- increased self esteem More cross group friendships- encouraged students to form friendships and relationships with students from different backgrounds

Question 69

Evaluating economic perspective

Answer 69

1. The economic perspective on prejudice and discrimination fits many familiar and historic examples of conflict between groups. Conflicts over racial and ethnic intergration anti-immigrant prejudice. Conflict over scarce resources 2. Economic perspectives suggest that prejudice can be reduced when groups see themselves as needing to work together to achieve a collective goal Prejudice will be reduced when working cooperatively can benifit both groups explains why racial integration has been more successful in the military than in other domains offers a solution to prejudice as well as an explanation real life example- racial integration in military- soldiers relaying on one on other, different groups, breeds cooperation between different groups

Question 70

Motivational perspectives

Answer 70

Motivational perspectives highlight that prejudice may result from motivations to feel good about oneself - us vs them view our own grop favorably and other groups unfavorable

Question 71

Effects of social identity

Answer 71

1. Intergroup bias- seeing our own group more positively. Because self-esteem is based in part on our group memberships, we’re motivated to boost the status of the ingroup. Desire to give advantages to the in groups over the outgroup. People strongly indentified with their ingroup may react to criticism of the grouop as personal criticism 2. Derogating outgroups to boost self-esteem Self-esteem can be bolstered by negative evaluation of outgroups. lowering status of others, lifting our selves up, finding a short term boost in self esteem. After receiving negative feedback about self, participants are more likely to endorse negative stereotypes; derogation of outgroup predicts boosts in self-esteem

Question 72

Job candidates experiment

Answer 72

...

Question 73

Evaluating motivational perspectives

Answer 73

1. Hostile or aggressive motivations may be directed at social groups seen as lower in power Expressing advantage and dominance over a lower power group can boost feelings of selfesteem 2. Both motivational and economic perspectives can explain why people are more willing to help members of their own group but to be hostile to outsiders. motivational- willingness to help to maintain a positive self image- elevate status of group, elevate their own economic- protect their interest 3. They make different predictions about how to reduce prejudice and discrimination (see last third of lecture)

Question 74

Cognitive perspective

Answer 74

- stereotypes as mental shortcuts- stereotypes are schemas.- influence attetion, perception and memory Stereotypes help us process social information efficiently- less effort is required when you know what to expect. People naturally categorise. Oversimplify and bias views of others. More likely to use stereotypes when we are mentally drained. Study found that people used more stereotypes during times of day when they were low in energy due to circadian rhythms a shortcut to reduce the cognitive load we may feel morning people were more likely to stereotype at night the opposite was true, because that is when they have less energy and use more shortcuts

Question 75

Biased construals

Answer 75

1. Stereotypes can be efficient but inaccurate 2. Accentuation of ingroup similarities and outgroup differences Assume members of ingroup to be more similar to us and members of outgroups to be more dissimilar to us than they may actually be 3. Outgroup homogeneity effect Members of outgroup viewed as more similar to each other Impaired ability to view outgroup members as distinct individuals. 4. Biased information processing Stereotypes guide attention, perception and memory. We may pay attention to and remember things that are consistent with our stereotypes and fail to notice or remeber things that are inconsistent. stereotypes- long term impact on how we interpret information, guiding the way our brain is moving. when we meet someone we focus on the information that aligned with their group. more likely to remember an interaction with a member who showed those qualities, presenting it as more accurate.

Question 76

Automatic stereotyping

Answer 76

Dones without our conscious awarness. More likely to see things that are distinc, encounter a minority group member acting negatively 1. Illusory correlations- False beliefs about groups may be maintained because we more easily remember the pairing of two distinct events. Encountering minority group members and observing negative behavior are both less frequent events than observing majority group members and positive behaviors, so it may be easier to remember examples of minorities doing negative things (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976) 2. Shooter bias Correll et al 2002.- You will see images of black and white people who are armed with a gun or not. Shoot the armed target by cliking A do not shoot the unarmed target by clikcing D. More likely to shoot an unarmed black target vs a white. more mistales in not shooting an armed white target if they were armed 3. Object recognition Payne 2001 White participants were quicker to recognize guns after seeing a black face and more likely to mistake a tool as a gun after seeing a black face- seeing the faces primed stereotypes about black males and made it easier to recognize items linked to the stereotype.

Question 77

Good news in automatic stereotyping

Answer 77

Automatic stereotyping applies to positive stereotypes as well-dual nature- biased and harmful, and influence responses to positive people also were quicker to identify sports equipment after exposure to black male faces due to stereotypical associations with sports

Question 78

Evaluating cognitive perspective

Answer 78

1. Cognitive perspectives highlight how stereotypes can alter perception of and behavior toward different social groups Stereotypes may conserve mental energy but can lead to unintentionally biased judgments. stereotypes can help us conserve mental energy it can also lead to unintentional biased judgements 2. Activation of a stereotype is automatic and involuntary Stereotypes may influence behaviors and judgments in ways that are outside conscious awareness 3. Influence of automatically activated stereotypes can be corrected for if people are motivated and aware of potential biases. sometimes become triggered without us being fully aware of it

Question 79

Social Dominance theory

Answer 79

explains how and why social hierarchies and systems of group-based dominance are established and maintained 1. Hierarachier that systematically advantage or disadvantage certain groups. societies maintain certain hierarchies that will advantage some groups and disadvantage others. treat someone differently based on group membership and reinforce the hierarchy 2. How are hierarchies kept in place? Individual and institutional dscrimintation 3. Social dominance orientation- often interested in maintain group hierarchy, in favour of reinforcing the structure disadvantage minority groups

Question 80

Maintaining Hierarchies

Answer 80

1. Meritocracy- Fails to acknowledge the role of luck. success is solely based on talent and effort, reinforces social inequalities because it does not acknowledge luck, over looks other factors that may impact how we succeed 2. Just world hypothesis- People get what they deserve- reassures individuals that as long as they do what they're doing and everything they do is right they will be rewarded Reassures individuals that bad thing won't happen to them- everything is just- they must not be behaving in a proper way 3. Dehumanization, denying the humanity of individuals and/ or groups.- denying the humanity of certain individuals, seeing certain groups as animals or objects or denying emotional complexities. dehumanisation justifies inequalities, see them as less human allows a sense of moral dis-engagement because you do not fully recognise the humanity in the group. Allows for moral disengagment. Can be explicit or subtle 4. Historical and modern examples Slavery and colonialism- savages Genocide and ethnic cleansing- before acts of mass violence the targeted groups are seen as venom or disease... taking humanity away from them to feel okay with their lower treatment in society

Question 81

Stereotype content model

Answer 81

2 dimensions- 1. warmth- friend or foe. see someone is warm, perceive them as friendly and approachable (evolutionary basis) 2. competence- can they act on it influence over our groups, outcomes, goals or are they incapable of doing so allows us to organize groups of individuals - Admiration- allies in group -Pity- paternalistic prejudice- older adults, warm but incompetent - contempt- welfare recipients - envy- rich people negative and positive traits associated with the groups- leads to hierarchies that are maintained in society. shape our perceptions and emotions we feel

Question 82

Stereotype and mistreatment

Answer 82

Bias in law enforcment evidence in real world statistics as well as experimental studies Bias in omission- intersectional invisibility. taking away things from member from a certain groups- absence of resources. people with multiple marginalised identities, women of colour, cause the me be neglected, given inadequate resources... can lead to disproportionate outcomes

Question 83

Institutional discrimination

Answer 83

1. Systemic inequalites Impact of living in lower ses neighborhoods legal system inequalities systemic disadvantages- self perpetuating cycle 2. Underrepresentation and inattention in society. Hollywood, boardrooms, academic faculties, political advocacy, invisible in historical narratives 3. In some circumstances can be beneficial. Not being prototypical → less resistance to their acting in ways that depart from the stereotypes of their groups. when someone is thinking about a women they often think of a white woman, when they think of someone black they think of a man, a black woman is not seen as prototypical

Question 84

Knowledge and meta-knowledge of stereotypes

Answer 84

Stereotype threat: anxiety that individuals will confirm the negative stereotypes about their social group increases arousal source of distraction participants were given a test 1 conditions- there are gendered difference 2- gender does not impact scores. In the stereotype threat condition women performance declined compared to meant due to the anxiety to confirm to the stereotype. Creates a feeling of arousal that creates a distraction worried about conforming to the threat distracted and increased in anxiety

Question 85

Reducing prejudice and discrimination

Answer 85

1. Economic perspective- Mutual interdependence, Jigsaw classroom, promote positive interactions 2. Cognetive perspective- Intergroup contact

Question 86

Optimal conditions for contact

Answer 86

Allports 4 conditions. Make intergroup interactions more positive 1. equal status 2. common goals 3. No competition or intergroup cooperation 4. sanctioned by authority/ social norms Pettigrews 1998 addition 5. friendships are necessary

Question 87

Does contact work?

Answer 87

Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 515 studies, 713 independent samples - Is contact associated with less prejudice? - What conditions are truly necessary? - Generalization beyond known outgroup member? - which groups? Average effect: r=-0.21- as contact increases prejudice decreases at a rate of 21%. 94% of samples- contact-> less prejudice

Question 88

Does contact work? Do we need Allports 4 conditions, who does it apply to?

Answer 88

No but it helps when they are there Non-optimal contact: r = -.20 Only when all together: r = -.29 None are independently predictive we need them if we want a large effect but we will still get an effect if one is used It is generalizable. Unknown members of same group: Average effect: r = -.21 Unknown members of different groups: Average effect: r = -.19 positive contact with one group member they will have a positive view on the group, but the effect of the others wil go down a bit. Decreases prejudice feelings towards the out-group as a whole by 19% It applies to all groups but in varying degrees: Gay/Lesbian: r = -.27- strongest effect Physically Disabled: r = -.24 Race and Mentally Disabled: r = -.21 Mentally Ill and Elderly: r = -.18- weakest effect Contact quality- friendship is the strongest predictor: r=-0.25 Particularly among high-conflict groups. friendship has a powerful impact in reducing negative out looks, friendships fosters ideas of empathy and understanding, lowering prejudice to those in their friends group

Question 89

Causal effects of cross group friendships

Answer 89

Page gould, mendoza denton and tropp 2008 Pretesting- IAT Random assignment- same group or cross group friendships were given friendship building activities to foster trust. participants had diaries to record their feelings, level of comfort or any notable experiences during the activities. fast friends looked at participants cortisol level both before and after interaction to analyse stress levels 10 daily diaries IAT given again afterwards same race- cortisol levels remained the sa,e cross race- cortisoal levels went down daily diaries- hypotheses, cross group friendships- initiation of corss ethnic interactions especially gor those in high implicit prejudice intergroup approach particular notable with those with high IAT scores, decrease in anxiety and prejudice for out group members

Question 90

Extended contact effect study

Answer 90

Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp (1997) Knowledge of an ingroup member’s crossgroup friends is sufficient to improve intergroup attitudes Bring 178 undergrads into the lab in groups of 3 to 6. randomly assigned to team A or B creating in group and out group, reinforce the idea by engaging them in tasks, feeling closer to your in group. Phase 1- Establish minimal groups through team assignment and competitions Phase 2- Observe ingroup team member interact with outgroup team member The ingroup and outgroup members who interact are actually confederates When they greet each other (in front of their teams of participants), they behave either like they are unaquainted, hostile, or friendly (between-subjects manipulation) Dependent Variables: Ratings of each group after they watched their own team member and the other teams member to interact (they were confederates) the behaved in either 1. like stranger acting neutral, 2. hostile- having negative body language. 3. friendly- smiley, carried out conversations... Participants were asked to rate the in group and out group member friendly- in group and out group member showed more positive affection scale to others, if they viewed other feel positive they themselves felt positive

Question 91

What are groups?

Answer 91

A collection of two or more people who interact with each other and are interdependent, in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to rely on each other Usually have between 2 and 6 members Members tend to be alike Group cohesiveness Have clear social norms & well-defined social roles agreed upon behaviour and expectations, roles that each person plays that helps the group function properly

Question 92

Why are groups beneficial

Answer 92

Provide care for offspring- higher chance of survival, safety in numbers Protection from predators- better equipped to fight off predators, more people can strategies to keep everyone safe Increased efficiency- individual assigned roles making productivity better, more efficient at getting things done

Question 93

social facilitation

Answer 93

Performance and the benefits of being in a group- boost individual performance, when cycling against each other going faster, push themselves, more motivated because of the presence of others. being in a group motivates us to work harder (social facilitation) Bikers competing with one another Ants digging more earth when in groups Fruit flies doing more preening when in groups Work more efficiently together than alone

Question 94

Mere presence theory

Answer 94

Presence of others-> increases arousal -suggests that a simple fact of having others around is enough to change our own behaviour. This happens because the arousal increases which motivates us to work quicker Arousal-> strengthens dominant response: Simple tasks: correct response- bike quicker Complex tasks: incorrect response- heightened arousal reduces performance- trying to solve a tricky maths problem with a group watching you, the pressure makes you feel worse- solve incorrectly

Question 95

Why does the presence of others increase arousal?

Answer 95

1. Mere presence of others arouses us because we become more alert- Become more prepared to respond 2. Evaluation apprehension- concerned about how others might be judging us, makes us more self aware- want to make a good impression get more on edge arousal increases 3. Distraction (distraction- conflict theory)- Distracted by thoughts of how co-actors are doing or how the audience is reacting Overloads the cognitive system causing arousal when people are around us we are stuck in a cognitive conflict of being stuck with the task at hand and the distraction of others overloading the cognitive system letting us feel a higher arousal

Question 96

testing distraction- conflict theory

Answer 96

2 mazes- 1- easy maze- straight route, shined a light in the box and the cockroaches had to run to the dark 2- complex- had to navigate their way instead of just run across cockroaches either ran alone or other cockroaches were watching them findings- cockroaches ran a lot quicker if they were in a simple faze especially if others were watching. went slower in the complex maze especially when other were watching- the dominant response was not the correct one

Question 97

Testing for evaluation apprehension

Answer 97

how people pronounce nonsense words under different conditions participants pronounce non English words, no correct dominant response participants either said these words alone or in front of an attentive audience in front of a blindfolded audience (could not see the participants performance)- presence but no evaluation - creates a sense of anonymity for participants performed best in front of an attentive audience no significant difference between the other 2. mere presence is not enough, it is the idea that they are being judged. Evaluation apprehension mattered more. Test if mere presence or evaluation apprehension affects performance Task of pronouncing nonsense words: Alone In front of attentive audience In front of blindfolded audience

Question 98

Testing for mere presence

Answer 98

how the mere presence of other affects performance on tasks that are familiar or not participants had a relatively simple task, dressing and un-dressing in a familiar condition- their own clothes unfamiliar- not their own clothes, something they are not familiar with like large shoes someone else in the room presence of an attentive observer dressed and undressed faster whether the researcher was attentive or not with familiar clothing took longer to dress and un-dress, mere presence of others creates a sense of arousal that makes new tasks harder to do in a unfamiliar task

Question 99

Social loafing

Answer 99

The tendency to exert less effort in a group setting than when working alone. individuals might put in less effort when they are working in a group, may believe their individual contributions are not being noticed Key factors: 1. group size- Larger groups often lead to more social loafing. higher chance they might feel anonymous in a larger group 2. Task importance- Perceived lack of importance can decrease individual effort. perceive the task as less important or impact they will contribute less 3. Expectations- Reduced effort if others are perceived to be disengaged.

Question 100

How to reduce social loafing

Answer 100

1. Making the task challenging, appealing, or involving. make sure people want to be involved- feel more invested in a task less likely to slack off as we want to be part of the experience and have a sense of accomplishment 2. Making people believe that high effort will bring rewards. feel like their effort will impact a lot, if their individual effort will be noted 3. Forming bonds between group members (increase group cohesion). feel a bond with their teammates- more likely to put in effort- building trust less likely wanting to let their co workers down- strengthen bonds between group members

Question 101

Group think

Answer 101

A kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important that considering the facts in a realistic manner keeping harmony, avoiding conflict- less likely to descend, make the idea that everyone is on the same page more important than making the best decisions. might ignore potential flaws and brush off potential risks to make sure their is agreement, group can become overally confident at the expense or reality. descending opinions often get silenced, people who disagree might question their judgement, thinking the whole group thinks a certain way. group often overlooks essential information, looking at only one side- risky

Question 102

Group think Antecedent conditions

Answer 102

1. Isolation. being cut from outside opinions, following only the groups opinions and ideas, only they seem true, no outside opinions where you receive information from 2. Directive leadership. a leader of a group who clearly states his opinions people are more likely to follow him 3. Homogeneity. members who share certain values... 4. stress. external time pressure, group think mentality because there is the pressure to do it quickly

Question 103

Preventing group think

Answer 103

Groups leaders should refrain from making their opinions known- saying their opinions unintentional biases others, Encourages a range of ideas and a comfortable environment for everyone to share their thoughts Make sure the group isn’t cut off from outside input- cut off- easier for narrow thinking. Seek out info against group think to bring new ideas- critical thought process when making new decisions Designate a devil’s advocate- make someone to have a descending voice, to questions, bring evidence against, provide alternative view points

Question 104

Group Polarization

Answer 104

Group decisions as more extreme than those made by individuals. Group decisions can amplify an initial attitude Why does this happen? - Persuasive arguments account- when engaging in a group discussion hear new arguments about your view strengthening that opinion and your initial attitude - Social comparison interpretation- compare your own ideas, if most people are leaning to one side you will lean to to align with them

Question 105

Bystander effect

Answer 105

When we’re influenced by what people are doing around us Bystander effect (apathy) - the more people present, the less likely any one person will attempt to help. more people around we are less likely to act on something- when we see others not reacting to a situation we will see it is not emergent, will look at others on how to behave which can lead to in action, can happen when someone needs help Diffusion of responsibility- we are less likely to assist in a large group because responsibility to help is being shared

Question 106

Bystander study

Answer 106

smoke started to fill the room alone in room surrounded by people the people alone were much quicker to response in the first 3 minutes 75% responded withing 6 minutes everyone has notified the experiments or questioned. Felt a personal responsibility to tell the experimenter in a group they were much slower and in general less likely to react- in a group less pressure to take action because we assume others will

Question 107

Bystander effect intervention

Answer 107

when people feel a personal connection or moral responsibility To intervene we must notice the event- being aware something unusual is happening, sometimes hard to see in a busy environment . Interpret the event as an emergency- cognitive process- something that needs helps, sometimes relying on others for these social cues. Feel personal responsibility for acting- might feel like the responsibility fall on someone else, to intervene we must accept personal responsibility even if others are around. Consider what form of assistance is needed- best way we can help the person, professional, direct assistance... Implement action- putting it into action - what makes the difference

Question 108

Power

Answer 108

The ability to control your own outcomes and the outcomes of others. have influence over our own and others outcomes Relational in nature: The relative influence you have compared to somebody else Social hierarchy not just on your own. power is based on how much more we have than someone else fits into social hierarchy- establishes different levels of power- try to examine how much power they have to act appropriately in various settings

Question 109

Gaining power

Answer 109

1. Virtues- Positive qualities, ethical manners - courage- taking risks, being strong and confident in your opinions even when facing challenges- inspires trust - Humanity- showing empathy, kindnesses and concern for others- build relationship and respect - more support and loyalty - Justice- acting fairly and impartially- values fairness and justice you are more likely to be trusted and followed - Temperance- being balanced and maintain stability and credibility making you a reliable leader 2. Vices- less ethical, manipulative and harmful behaviours - Machiavellianism- use depict and manipulation to gain power, prioritise their own gain rather than others - Narcissism- sense of entitlement and a need for admiration, use power to boost ego which can damage relationship and lead to unstable leader relationships - Psychopathy- lack of empathy and remorse- aggression and manipulation to get ahead bu lack of respect for others may be damaging

Question 110

Power shaping thought and action

Answer 110

when we feel like we have more power we are more likely to peruse opportunities disinhibition- when you feel you do not have a lot of power- avoid risks, feel like you cannot overcome- avoid challenges... higher power- leads to less empathy- makes them less understanding people are either in a power condition or not- instructed to write the letter E in a mirror- higher power more likely to draw it in a way so only they can read it- demonstrates lack of awareness for others people with power may act more impulsively like making bold decisions- people who had more expensive vehicle (more powerful) were more likely to ignore pedestrian at a cross walk than those with a lower vehicle status

Question 111

How does cult indoctrination occur?

Answer 111

1. Behavioural rituals, public recruitment, fund-raising- chanting, prayer sessions- engaging in repetitive behaviours makes them more connected with the group and a part of something bigger Strengthen new initiates identities as members increases personal commitment- actively promoting- cognitive dissonance between actual feeling and your advocated Increases the need to justify personal beliefs and attitues Cognetive dissonance theory- is not sufficient external motivation so they have to convince themselves they want to do this, creates a psychological need to believe that your involvement is worth while, have to rationalise why you do this. justification can lead to post decision dissonance- rationalisation techniques that it was a right decision 2. Foot-in-Door technique. e.g. jim jones- First 10% of income, then 25%, then finally, everything that members owned. Increasing workloads. maller request- build up to a larger request, already committed to the cause initially joined- were asked to donate a small proportion of their income to the cult, over time they rose the request to 25% and rose it again to everything. Also increased people workload in the cult, adding more hours overtime. at the beginning members feel part of the group and see themselves as loyal followers and over time they already identify with a group and it feels like a natural progression 3. Persuasive elements: the source Charismatice leader- easier to get followers, easy to draw members in. View their leader as a source of truth and wisdom. Attracts and directs members recruited by friends and family members- if they recruit a follower they are more likely to join because they look up to these people and feel like they can trust them 4. Persuasive elements- the message Vivid messages- capturing, stick in mind and makes it stronger Personal testimonies- real stories- relate more on a personal level, feel empathy to person Emotional messages- evokes a strong emotions- completes to act along with those emotions distractions- singing, chanting, clapping- creates a lively environment 5. Persuasive elements- Audience Young people under 25- more likely to be open to new ideas and experiences. Those at turning points in life- graduating, new job... more receptive to change, more likely to engage with persuasive messages Times of social or economic upheaval- looking for solutions or guidance- more open to new ideas that promise improvements 6. Group influence- Isolation and separation from social supports. Loss of access to counter arguments. Groups offers identity and defines reality. Reinforment of aberrant thinking (psychological tactics) cut off external relationship- emotional dependency of the cult members, more likely to embrace them as your group. Loose access to counter arguments, only getting cults teaching. Can create a sense of identity, become a huge part of who someone is. Painting a picture of someone who is loyal to the cult Foile a deux- members share and validate each other delusions, harder to get away from those believes

Question 112

Deindividuation

Answer 112

Loose a sense of self awareness Emergent group properties when put in a group they act these way but aside from the group they act differently. More than the sum of its parts. Diminished sense of responsibility for our actions. in a group they feel less accountable of their actions, lack of personal responsibility pushes them to do something they normally would not. bullying in a group- would not aside from the groups- anonymity pushes them to do so

Question 113

Zimardo deindividuation Model

Answer 113

certain conditions that lead to a loss of sense awareness: 1. Antecedent conditions- -Anonymiti -Difusion of responsibility - Energizing effect of others - Stimulus overload 2. Internal state: - Lessened self observation and self evaluation - Lessened concern with the evaluation of others - weakening of internal conditions 3. Behavioural effects - Impulsivity - Irrationality - Emotionality - Antisocial activity

Question 114

Zimbardo prison experiment

Answer 114

Students randomly assigned to guards or prisoners. Guards had attire for a sense of anonymity- the guards adopted abusive behaviours, exercised cruel power

Question 115

Deindividuation and Transgression. Trick or Treating study

Answer 115

How likely children were to break rules based on anonymity Conditions: 1. Individuation vs. anonymity 2. Alone vs. in groups 3. The temptation When children where in groups and anonymus they took more extra candy

Question 116

Deindividuation and Self-Awareness

Answer 116

Self-awareness → accountability More likely to act in line with their personal standards and societal norms. 1. flowers 2. pair of eyes - picture of eyes creates an idea of someone watching you- more likely to pay for milk- made them feel more self aware-sense of being monitored

Question 117

Self Consciousness and the Spotlight Effect

Answer 117

Self-awareness → accountability More likely to act in line with their personal standards and societal norms The spotlight effect refers to the cognitive bias where individuals overestimate how much others notice or pay attention to their appearance, actions, or mistakes. In essence, people feel as though they are "in the spotlight" when, in reality, others are far less focused on them.

Question 118

Aggression

Answer 118

any behavior aimed at causing either physical or psychological pain

Question 119

Hostile aggression

Answer 119

Often driven by emotions like anger and furstration, agression in which the goal is to cause harm or pain. e.g. is someone gets into a fight just because they are angry

Question 120

Instrumental aggression

Answer 120

the pain or harm caused is used to achieve a goal. The goal is not to hurt someone but to get something. E.g. robbing a bank

Question 121

Factors influencing aggression

Answer 121

1. Situational- Temporary, can change based on the enviornment - heat - media 2. Dispositional- stable and relate to personal traits - culture - gender

Question 122

Agression due to heat

Answer 122

- more violent crimes occur in summer months, higher temperatures lead to increased aggression. More violence occur in cities that have higher avergae tmeperatures. Heat hypothesis- uncomfortable heat can cause stress, frustration and irritability which can increase the likelihood of aggression

Question 123

Heat study (Larrick et al 2011)

Answer 123

Pitchers in baseball are more likely to retaliate by throwing at batters as the temperatures rises. When it is hotter pitchers are more likely to respond aggressively espoecially in situations where a batter might have been hit. Heat does not just increase aggression in general but it can also influence how people behave in specific contexts where temperature seems to affect emotional reactions

Question 124

Agression and media

Answer 124

Childhood media consumption plays a significant role in shaping behaviour later in life. A longitudinal study found that boys with a high preference for violent TV shows at age 8 were more likely to engage in criminal behaviour by the time they reached 30. Suggesting that exposure to violent medai can have long lasting effects. Watching violent behaviour normalizes aggressing and makes it appear acceptable for problem solving.

Question 125

Video games and aggression

Answer 125

violent video games can increase aggression but the effects are usually temporary. People tend to be more aggressive immediately after playing violent games. More of a short term effect often linked to the emotions stirred up during the fame e.g. excitment or frustration

Question 126

Copycat violence

Answer 126

The act of violence that is imitated from media portrayals, whetherthey are fictional or real. Mimic the behaviours in media e.g. news, shows, movies. This imitation can occur because the media provides models for how to act in certain situations, and individuals may be influenced to act out these behaviors in real life. For example, there have been cases where people have replicated violent crimes seen in movies or news reports, thinking it’s an acceptable or effective way to deal with a problem.

Question 127

Copy cat experiment

Answer 127

Bobo doll. Kids in the control group were shown a non violent video, kids in the experimental group were shown a video of a person aggressivly playing, punching the bobo doll. kids who watched that tended to imitate the violent acts on the doll. Seeing others aggression made the kids act aggressive too. Exposure to aggressive modeling increased attraction to guns even though the guns were not used. This was seen more in kids who were exposed to violent video vs non violent video. IN control group the children never exhibited novel aggressive behaviour, children in violent condition have – Copy Cat effect

Question 128

Werther effect

Answer 128

simillar to copy cat effect. Werther Effect, suggests that media portrayals of suicide can sometimes lead to imitative behavior, especially among vulnerable individuals. When people see or hear about suicides in the news, they may be more likely to consider or attempt suicide themselves, especially if they feel a sense of connection or identification with the person involved.

Question 129

Culture and aggression

Answer 129

1. income inequality- in societies with greater income inequality, there tends to be more aggression. When there’s a large gap between the rich and the poor, it can lead to feelings of frustration, resentment, and social tension, which can increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior. People may feel threatened, marginalized, or deprived, and this can contribute to higher levels of violence and conflict within those communities. 2. Culture of honor- in certain regions, like the American South. In these cultures, there’s a strong emphasis on defending personal reputation and responding aggressively to insults or challenges. People in these cultures may feel the need to defend their honor at all costs, often leading to violent confrontations when their honor is threatened.

Question 130

Culture of honor

Answer 130

people place a high value on their reputation and the reputation of others in their group. This means that individuals are especially sensitive to slights or insults—even minor offenses can be seen as a challenge to their honor. In these cultures, there’s a strong willingness to use violence as a way to avenge perceived wrongs or insults. For example, if someone insults or disrespects another person, the person whose honor is challenged might feel compelled to respond aggressively in order to defend their reputation and restore their sense of self-worth. This is often seen in cultures with historical or social norms that emphasize personal or family honor, and it’s more common in certain regions or groups, such as in the American South, where the culture of honor is especially prominent. In these settings, aggression can be seen not just as a response to a threat, but as a necessary way to maintain respect and social standing.

Question 131

Culture of honor in the American south

Answer 131

In places where maintaining reputation is critical, such as parts of the American South, responding to an insult with aggression can be seen as necessary to uphold personal and family honor. Research also shows that white males from the South display more pronounced reactions after being insulted compared to their Northern counterparts. They exhibit more facial expressions of anger, have elevated testosterone levels, and show greater hostility in response to slights. This physiological and emotional reaction underscores how the culture of honor not only influences behavior but also triggers stronger biological responses to perceived threats to status. relationship between the culture of honor and homicide rates in the United States. The data highlights that the South and Southwest have significantly higher rates of homicides related to arguments and personal conflicts compared to other regions. This pattern reflects the strong emphasis on reputation and sensitivity to slights that defines the culture of honor in these areas. People in the South and Southwest are more likely to react aggressively to insults or perceived challenges to their status, leading to a higher incidence of violent confrontations that escalate to homicide. The data in this figure, adapted from research by Nisbett & Cohen (1996) and based on statistics from Fox & Pierce (1987), supports the idea that cultural norms surrounding honor and respect can strongly influence levels of violence. In contrast, regions without these cultural expectations, such as the North, have lower homicide rates related to personal disputes. The culture of honor in the American South has deep roots that go back to its history of cattle ranching. Unlike crops, cattle herds were mobile and could be stolen easily, so herders needed to build a reputation for being tough and quick to defend their property. If they were seen as weak, they risked losing their livelihood. This history of needing to show aggression to protect what’s theirs shaped social norms that still exist today. It’s why Southerners may react more strongly to insults and why defending honor through aggression is more culturally accepted there. This connection between past economic practices and modern behavior shows how historical contexts can shape the way people respond to conflict and protect their reputation.

Question 132

Gender and Aggression

Answer 132

Aggression is tied to gender roles and the need for men to prove strength and dominance. The link between masculinity and aggression reinforces the idea that protecting ones reputation is essential and violence is often viewed as a valid response to any perceived disrespect Men are much more likely to commit violent acts and also more likely to be victims of violence. This ties back to social norms around masculinity, which often emphasize toughness and dominance, contributing to higher rates of aggressive behavior. Women dispkay relational aggression. This means they might engage in more covert and socially directed behaviors, like spreading rumors, making insults, or talking behind someone’s back. These types of aggression are less direct but can be just as impactful. So, while men may be more involved in overt, physical acts of aggression, women’s aggression often targets social connections and reputation. E.g. mean girls, fight club

Question 133

Prosocial behaviour

Answer 133

Refers to any act preformed with the goal of benefiting another person. This can be every day acts like helping a sibling with homework. It can be motivated by both selfish and selfless reasons. E.g. help someone because it makes you feel good or gain social approval

Question 134

Alturism

Answer 134

A type of prosocial behaviour where the motive is purely to increase anothers welfare without thinking about personal gain

Question 135

Alturism in real life

Answer 135

Wesley Autrey jumping onto the trak of the new york subway to hold down a seuizing man so he would not be killed by the train, his behaviour was purely to help the man on the subway

Question 136

Causes of alturism

Answer 136

Empathy- the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and feel what they feel. Empathy can create two main responses: - Empathic concern- feeling sympathy and compassion which motivates you to help - Empathic distress- feeling anxiety or sadness which can push you to act so you feel better

Question 137

Empathic concern (Baston)

Answer 137

concept of empathic concern—the ability to identify with another person and share their emotions, paired with a genuine intention to help. When we truly understand and feel what someone else is going through, we’re more likely to act out of concern for their well-being rather than for any personal benefit. empathy-altruism paradigm, participants are asked to help someone in need under different conditions of empathic concern (high or low) and the ease of escape (easy or difficult). Predictions: When empathic concern is high, people help regardless of whether escape is easy or difficult. When empathic concern is low, people help only when it is difficult to escape the situation. If escape is easy and empathic concern is low, helping behavior is less likely. These predictions show that while true altruism can be driven by high empathy, helping motivated by personal discomfort or social pressure is more conditional. Participants are asked to help someone in need- when empathic concern is high people help regardless, when empathic concern is low Altursim can be driven by high empathy

Question 138

Empathy induced alturism study Baston

Answer 138

Participants watched a woman named Elaine recieve electric shocks. There were 2 key factors 1. similarity- participants were told Elaine was either similar or disimilar to them 2. Number of trials- they either watch 2 (easy escape) or 10 (difficult escape) trials of eliane being shocked Afterwards participants were given a choice to switch places with elaine and to take on her suffering. participants were more likely to help when they perceived it as easy to escape, especially when the victim (Elaine) was similar to them. In the "easy escape, similar victim" condition, participants were significantly more likely to offer help, choosing to take on Elaine's suffering. However, when the escape was difficult, even if the victim was similar, the percentage of participants who helped dropped. This suggests that empathy for a similar person increases the likelihood of helping, but the difficulty of escaping the situation also plays a critical role in whether individuals choose to act altruistically." More likely to help is elaine was similar and easy to escape- significantly more likely to help Empathy for a similar person increases the likelihood of helping but difficulty also plays a role

Question 139

Self interested Motives for Helping

Answer 139

1. Social rewards- Often help because we get benifits like praise, positive attention, tangiable rewards. Feeling appreciated or honored can be motivation 2. Personal distress- Might help someone in distress to ease our own discomfort. Seeing someone in pain can make us anxious so we act to relieve that feeling in ourselves

Question 140

Negative state relief model

Answer 140

Suggests that people help to reduce their own discomfort when witnessing suffering. In this view helping is not entirely selfless, it is also a way to alleviate unpleasent feeling we experince. This “selfish” explanation implies that helping serves as a means to make ourselves feel better.

Question 141

Bystander effect

Answer 141

Presence of other can reduce the likelihood that any one person will help. factors like diffusion of responsibility and social influence can prevent intervention, even when people are empathetic and recognize the need for help.

Question 142

Bystander effect in real life

Answer 142

when Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her apartment building in New York City. As Kitty was being attacked, she screamed for help, and several of her neighbors witnessed the crime. Despite the obvious danger and her desperate cries, no one intervened to help her or even called the police. The narrative that circulated after the incident suggested that several dozen neighbors witnessed the attack and did nothing. However, this version of events is false. In reality, only 12 people witnessed parts of the attack, and no one saw the entire incident. While onlookers did call 911, their descriptions were unclear and didn’t lead to immediate action, as the call wasn’t given high priority. Additionally, the second part of the attack took place at the back of the building, out of view of the people who had witnessed the initial assault.

Question 143

Latane and Darley 5 steps to intervention

Answer 143

five key steps in the decision-making process that influence whether a person will intervene during an emergency. These steps outline the cognitive and situational factors that either promote or inhibit helping behavior. We talked a little bit about this last week but let’s take a closer look. 1. Notice that something is happening 2. interpert event as an emergency 3. Take responsibility for providing help. 4. decide how to help 5. provide help

Question 144

Step 2 interpreting

Answer 144

interpret the event as an emergency —they need to recognize that something is wrong and requires intervention. However, the more people around, the less likely people are to interpret the situation as an emergency. This happens due to several reasons: 1. Informational social influence- people present, individuals look to the behavior of others to help them figure out how to react. If no one else is responding or appears concerned, bystanders may think the situation isn’t as serious as it seems. 2. Illusion of transparency- people tend to overestimate how clearly others can read their emotions or internal states. We think others will know that we’re aware of the emergency or that we understand it's serious, but they may not. 3. Pluralistic ignorance- everyone assumes that nothing is wrong, because no one else looks concerned.

Question 145

Smoky room- pluralistic ignorance

Answer 145

Two Confederates Condition: In this condition, participants were placed in the room with two confederates who were instructed to act calmly and ignore the smoke. Here, participants were much less likely to report the smoke, even though it was clearly visible. This reflects informational social influence, where participants looked to the confederates to figure out whether the smoke was a real threat, and because the confederates didn’t react, they assumed nothing was wrong. In the third condition, participants were with two other real subjects, who similarly showed less concern and didn’t act. Again, the presence of others led participants to fail to interpret the situation as an emergency. The group’s nonreaction caused everyone to assume the situation wasn’t serious, a classic example of pluralistic ignorance.

Question 146

Step 3- assume responsibility

Answer 146

Once an individual interprets an event as an emergency, the next step is to assume responsibility to act. - When multiple bystanders are present this can become problomatice due to diffusion of responsibility which suggests that as the numbers of people witnessing an emergency increases each bystanders sense of personal responsibility to help decreases. When there are others around, each person feels less accountable for taking action, thinking that someone else will step in and take charge. The problem with this is that if everyone feels this way, then no one ends up helping. This is a key reason why, in some situations, when there are many witnesses, no one will intervene. Everyone assumes that someone else will help, and as a result, help never comes.

Question 147

Step 3- experiment- seizure study

Answer 147

In this experiment, participants were engaged in a discussion over an intercom system with either 1, 2, or 5 other people. During the discussion, one of the participants suddenly had a seizure and started pleading for help. Here’s how the results broke down across different group sizes: When there were 2 people (the participant and one other person): The participant was much more likely to take action and call for help, with about 85% of participants intervening to help the person having the seizure. With 3 people (the participant and two others): The likelihood of helping decreased, with around 62% of participants responding to help. With 6 people (the participant and five others): The likelihood of helping dropped significantly—only about 31% of participants took action to help the person in distress. These results clearly show the impact of diffusion of responsibility. As the number of bystanders increased, each individual felt less responsible for helping, which led to fewer people intervening in the emergency.

Question 148

Step 4- Know appropriate form of assistance

Answer 148

Must determine what kind of help is needed and how to offer it effectively. There are often costs associated with hekping which can discourage from intervening: 1. Embarrassment- a bystander might worry: What if I’m wrong? What if this isn’t actually an emergency? Imagine you see someone who looks disoriented or in distress—how can you be sure they actually need help? If you act and it turns out to be a misunderstanding, you risk feeling embarrassed or even self-conscious in front of others. 2. Fear of doing more harm- if someone is injured, a bystander might hesitate to intervene because they’re afraid they’ll make the situation worse—perhaps by providing the wrong type of help or causing more harm in the process. This fear can be paralyzing, especially in situations where medical expertise or specific knowledge is required.

Question 149

Other factors influencing helping behaviour

Answer 149

1. Similarity to the person who needs help- people are more likely to help others who share characteristics with them—whether it’s in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, or even values. When we see someone who is similar to us in some way, we feel a stronger sense of connection and empathy, which increases the likelihood of helping. This is known as the similarity effect 2. Another bystander helps (modeling helping behaviour)- Seeing someone else help can trigger a sense of social pressure or a norm of helping—and this can encourage other bystanders to intervene. For example, if you’re in a crowd and you see someone step forward to offer assistance, you’re more likely to follow suit. This is why the presence of even one helpful bystander can increase the chances of others stepping in. 3. Severity of the emergency (person screaming, bleeding)- When someone is visibly in distress—such as bleeding or screaming for help—people are more likely to intervene. Extreme cases of visible pain or danger can elicit strong emotional reactions like fear, compassion, or urgency, prompting bystanders to take immediate action. On the other hand, if the emergency is less obvious, it may be easier to ignore or misinterpret the situation, which can decrease the likelihood of helping. 4. Ambiguity about whther it is an emergency- Ambiguity reduces help. If the situation is unclear—if the emergency is not immediately obvious or the person doesn’t appear to be in serious distress—people are less likely to help. The more ambiguous the situation, the more likely bystanders are to rely on others’ reactions or assume that no help is needed. For instance, if someone trips but gets up quickly and seems fine, bystanders might assume they don’t need assistance. 5. Gender- men are more likely to help in situations that involve physical danger or require physical intervention (like helping someone move a heavy object or physically intervening in a fight). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to offer help in situations that require emotional support or caregiving (such as comforting someone who’s upset). However, these gender differences can vary depending on the context and the type of emergency. 6. Personality- People who score higher in empathy, agreeableness, and altruism tend to be more inclined to help others in need. In contrast, people who are more self-centered or introverted may be less likely to intervene in emergencies. Additionally, some individuals may be motivated to help because they see helping as a moral obligation or a chance to demonstrate their social values.

Question 150

Evolution and helping

Answer 150

From an evolutionary standpoint, helping is often considered a costly behavior. It requires time, energy, and resources that could be used for other purposes, like self-preservation or increasing one’s own reproductive success. So, if non-helping were to be advantageous over time, it would likely become more prevalent across generations.

Question 151

Evolution and Altursim

Answer 151

1. Kin selection- refers to the tendency for natural selection to favor behaviors that enhance the survival and reproduction of genetic relatives, even at a personal cost. selection operates at the level of genes, not individuals, we are evolutionarily inclined to help those who share more of our genetic material—our family members—because by helping them, we increase the chances that our own genes are passed down to future generations. For example, when you help a sibling or child, you're not just helping an individual—you are helping ensure that the genes you share with them have a better chance of being passed on. This is why people often have a stronger drive to help those they are genetically closer to. However, it’s important to note that people don’t consciously calculate the exact genetic relatedness of others when deciding to help. Instead, we tend to use cues to determine who is likely to be genetically related to us. These cues might include physical characteristics (such as similar facial features or the same eye color) or proximity, such as being raised in the same household or sharing the same family environment. 2. Reciprocity based helping. individuals will engage in helping behaviors because they anticipate that the other individual will help them in return at a later time. For example, in a study of rats, researchers found that rats with a history of helping other rats were more likely to receive help themselves when they were in need. The idea is that when one organism helps another, it creates a sort of social contract where each individual helps out with the expectation that, when the time comes, they will be helped in return. This form of cooperation increases the chances of survival for both individuals involved, as long as both parties continue to reciprocate help when needed. Reciprocal altruism works best in small, isolated groups where individuals are more likely to encounter each other multiple times. Why? Because when you help someone in a small group, the chance of that person helping you back in the future is much higher—you’re more likely to interact with them again. In these small groups, individuals also have the ability to remember who has helped them and who has not. Helping histories are public knowledge, and those who repeatedly fail to help may be excluded from future cooperation. Essentially, reciprocity-based helping depends on individuals having the ability to track who has helped them and who has not, which ensures that cooperative behaviors continue and that non-cooperators are discouraged from taking advantage of others. 3. Group selection- This theory suggests that helping behaviors may not only benefit the individual or the gene but can also benefit the group. According to group selection, behaviors that promote the survival and well-being of the group as a whole—such as helping others within the group—can increase the group’s chances of survival. This idea is especially relevant in social species, where cooperation within the group is essential for survival. For example, in species like humans, elephants, and bees, individuals often help others within their group because these helping behaviors increase the overall strength and cohesion of the group. A group that works together is more likely to survive challenges like predators, harsh environments, or the need for resources. In this framework, individuals may sometimes act in ways that sacrifice personal gain for the good of the group, because by helping others in the group, they increase the group's chances of survival, which, in turn, increases the likelihood that their own genes—through their kin—will be preserved. One key element of group selection is that it works best in tightly-knit communities where the individuals’ survival is closely tied to the group’s survival. For example, in social species, such as wolves or dolphins, the health and survival of the group often depend on the cooperative efforts of all members, so individuals are motivated to help one another.

Question 152

Social norms and Alturism

Answer 152

1. Adaptive for individuals to learn social norms from members of society, e.g. what food is poisonus. - knowledge vital for surivial 2. helping others is a social norm that has become deeply ingrained in many societies. This kind of helping behavior isn’t just about self-interest—it’s about following cultural rules that promote the well-being of the group as a whole. - the tendency to help others has become so deeply embedded in human societies that it’s not just a learned behavior—it’s become part of our genetic makeup. The idea that we should help others, especially in times of need, is a norm that shapes our social interactions, and in many cases, it is reinforced from a very young age. e.g. children are taught to share 3. the norm of reciprocity- dictates that when someone helps us, we feel a moral obligation to return the favor—not with harm, but with help. The idea is simple: if someone does something for us, we should feel compelled to do something for them in return. The norm of reciprocity is a powerful force in shaping human behavior, as it promotes cooperation and mutual support. It creates a system of give-and-take within communities, where individuals help one another not just out of pure selflessness but because they expect that their kindness will be reciprocated. This norm helps to define what we refer to as social capital within social networks. Social capital refers to the value of social connections—the networks of relationships that individuals have with others in their community. When we act in accordance with the norm of reciprocity, we build supportive connections, share information, and develop trust within our social groups. These actions lead to more cooperative behaviors and help to strengthen the ties between individuals.

Question 153

Social norms and ALturism study

Answer 153

While social norms like the norm of reciprocity are fundamental in shaping our helping behaviors, it's important to recognize that people respond more strongly to help when they can reciprocate in a way that is socially acknowledged. This is especially true when the help is done in a public context, which is more likely to encourage a sense of obligation to return the favor. In a study by Whatley et al. (1999), participants were more likely to reciprocate a favor when they believed it had been done publicly, as opposed to privately. This shows how the visibility of help can increase the motivation to return it, reinforcing the idea that public acts of altruism build stronger social bonds and expectations of mutual support. However, unsolicited help—help that is given without a request and without an expectation of reciprocity—can sometimes backfire. This type of help can threaten an individual’s self-esteem, particularly if the recipient feels unable to reciprocate or if the help is perceived as demeaning. For example, help can feel patronizing or undermining if it’s given in a context where the recipient doesn’t feel capable of returning the favor or where it feels imposed. One example of this dynamic is found in debates around affirmative action. While such policies aim to assist historically disadvantaged groups, they may be seen as unsolicited help if recipients feel that the aid is not based on merit or if they cannot reciprocate the favor. This can create a sense of helplessness or resentment, as the recipient may view the assistance as diminishing their autonomy or self-worth. In these situations, the absence of a clear, reciprocal exchange can make the help seem more like a burden than a benefit.

Question 154

disadvantegs to social norms and alturism theories

Answer 154

While evolutionary theories like kin selection and reciprocal altruism help explain why we often help family members or those we expect to see again, they struggle to account for situations where neither genetic relatedness nor future reciprocity is clear. For example, donating a kidney anonymously to a complete stranger seems like an act of altruism that doesn’t directly benefit the helper. The recipient won’t be able to return the favor, and the helper has no guarantee of ever interacting with them again.

Question 155

Norm of social responsiblity

Answer 155

When someone is in need—like a person on a kidney transplant list—they are often in a situation where they have no control over their condition, and their survival depends on receiving help. This taps into the deeply ingrained societal belief that we should help others who are unable to help themselves, especially in life-threatening situations. Despite the lack of direct reciprocity or personal connection, people may still feel a moral or social responsibility to step in, based on the understanding that helping the vulnerable is a societal expectation. It aligns with the social norm that we should contribute to the well-being of others, especially when their circumstances are out of their control—like needing a kidney to survive. Moreover, this sense of social responsibility may be compounded by empathy. Seeing someone’s suffering or knowing that their life is at risk might trigger an emotional response that compels a person to act, even in the absence of genetic ties or the expectation of a direct return.

Question 156

Social exchange and alturism

Answer 156

Social Exchange Theory suggests that helping behavior is often motivated by a cost-benefit analysis, even in situations where the help is directed toward a complete stranger. In the case of kidney donation, the costs are undeniably high. There’s surgery involved, recovery time, and potential health risks. But the rewards are not always monetary or tangible—they could include the emotional satisfaction of knowing you’ve saved a life, the social approval you might receive from others, or the positive feelings that come with having done something impactful. Moreover, while the person donating the kidney doesn't expect a direct return from the recipient, there could be a psychological reward—such as a sense of moral fulfillment or the understanding that they've made the world a better place. The self-interest involved here isn't necessarily about receiving something immediately in return, but about the long-term emotional rewards that come from engaging in such a meaningful act of altruism. The idea of social exchange can be understood through the lens of egoism, which claims that all behavior, including helping, is driven by self-interest. However, simply labeling helping behavior as egoistic (i.e., driven by self-interest) can feel like "explaining-by-naming." It's an oversimplification without really digging into why or how this self-interest operates. Social Exchange Theory provides a more substantive explanation: it explains the mechanics behind self-interested helping by outlining how individuals weigh costs and rewards when deciding whether to help. So, instead of just saying people help because they are self-interested (the "explaining-by-naming" approach), Social Exchange Theory reveals that helping behavior is more likely when rewards (such as emotional satisfaction or social approval) outweigh the costs (like physical danger, pain, or embarrassment). The Costs of Helping: Physically Dangerous: Helping may expose individuals to harm, such as intervening in a violent situation where there's a risk of injury. Painful: Helping can involve significant physical pain, such as when donating a kidney or helping someone with a serious medical issue. Embarrassing: Helping may carry social risks, such as being embarrassed if your intervention is seen as unnecessary or inappropriate. But, there are also tangible rewards for those who offer assistance. These rewards can be categorized as external and internal, both of which contribute to the motivation to help. External Rewards: Investment in the Future: Helping others can create social bonds and networks that may be beneficial later. For example, helping a colleague could lead to future opportunities or support in return. Gain Social Approval: Helping behaviors often lead to social recognition. People appreciate helpers, and society tends to reward helpfulness, which reinforces prosocial behavior. Internal Rewards: Relieves Distress: Helping others in distress can alleviate personal discomfort or guilt, particularly if you feel you have the ability to assist. Increase in Self-Worth and Self-Esteem: Helping makes people feel good about themselves, boosting self-esteem and sense of personal value. Happiness: Research shows that helping others is correlated with increased feelings of happiness and life satisfaction. It fosters a sense of purpose and fulfillment. Feel Good After Helping: Engaging in prosocial acts has been shown to activate the brain’s reward centers, creating a "helper’s high" or a positive emotional response that can last long after the act itself.

Question 157

Scoial exchange and alturism study

Answer 157

In a study by Dunn and colleagues (2008), participants who spent money on others or engaged in prosocial behavior reported greater happiness than those who spent money on themselves. This suggests that the internal rewards of helping—feeling good about one's actions—are significant motivators.

Question 158

Mood and altursim

Answer 158

1. People often help others when they are in a bad mood, such as feeling guilty, sad, or distressed. This is known as the “feel bad, do good” effect. Helping can improve their mood by: Reducing guilt or restoring a positive self-image. Improving public image by demonstrating helpfulness. Negative-State Relief Hypothesis This effect is explained by the Negative-State Relief Hypothesis, which suggests that people help to alleviate their own negative emotions. It's a form of emotional self-regulation, rooted in the social exchange theory, where helping provides emotional benefits. Example: McMillen & Austin (1971) In their study, participants who felt guilty were more likely to help, demonstrating how helping reduces emotional distress. 2. While people generally help when in a bad mood, there are exceptions: Anger, depression, and grief can reduce helping behavior. Why? In these emotional states, the focus tends to be on self rather than others. When people are angry, depressed, or grieving, they may be less likely to engage in prosocial behavior because their attention is directed inward, and they may not have the emotional resources to help others. This is still consistent with the social exchange approach, where people are motivated to maximize their emotional well-being, but in these cases, their emotional needs are so focused on themselves that helping others doesn’t provide the desired emotional relief. 3. People are also more ikely to help others when they are in a good mood (e.g., feeling happy or relieved). Why? Helping others helps prolong our good mood or can soften a bad one. A positive mood makes it easier to think positively and increases self-esteem. Helping others creates positive associations with prosocial behavior, reinforcing the act of helping. In their 1998 study, Dolinski & Nawrat explored how being in a good mood influences people’s likelihood to help others. They wanted to see if people in a positive emotional state would be more inclined to engage in prosocial behavior compared to those in neutral or negative moods. Key Findings: Participants who were in a good mood (induced by positive experiences like receiving a compliment or having a pleasant interaction) were more likely to help others in need. Those who were in neutral or bad moods were less likely to offer help.

Question 159

Empathy and alturism

Answer 159

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, when empathy is present, helping is no longer just about maximizing rewards and minimizing costs. Instead, the helping behavior becomes altruistic—we help because we genuinely care about alleviating the other person’s distress, regardless of what we stand to gain or lose. In contrast, without empathy, helping aligns with social exchange theory: we help when the rewards outweigh the costs (such as boosting self-esteem or avoiding discomfort, as seen in the "feel good, do good" effect). In the Batson et al. (1981) study, researchers explored how emotion influences helping behavior through two distinct emotional responses: empathy and personal distress. These emotions lead to different motives for helping, which then result in different helping behaviors. Empathy: When we feel empathy for someone, we experience an emotional connection with that person’s suffering. This connection motivates us to help in order to alleviate their distress, regardless of what we stand to gain. According to the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, helping driven by empathy is genuinely altruistic—we help because we care about the other person's well-being. Personal Distress: On the other hand, when we feel personal distress, we may be motivated to help not because we care about the other person, but because we want to reduce our own discomfort. In this case, helping is motivated by self-interest—we help to escape from the unpleasant emotions we are experiencing, which aligns more with social exchange theory.

Question 160

When do people help others?

Answer 160

1. enviornmental context- Individuals are in urban or rular areas- people in rural areas tend to help others more frequently compared to those in urban areas. The urban-overload hypothesis, proposed by sociologist John Calhoun, suggests that people in urban areas are often exposed to an overwhelming amount of stimuli, which can lead to sensory overload. As a result, they may become numb or desensitized to others’ needs. In such environments, individuals are more likely to ignore or fail to notice situations where helping is needed because they are overloaded by constant stimulation and the demands of the urban environment. This constant bombardment can create a sense of emotional detachment from others, leading to less helping behavior. - Compassion Fatigue- In urban settings, people may experience a diminished capacity for empathy or compassion due to the sheer number of distressing situations they encounter. As a result, they may withdraw emotionally from others’ problems or needs, leading to a reduced likelihood of helping. 2. Time presure- The Good Samaritan Study by Batson et al. (1978), as we discussed a few classes ago, is an important example that ties into the impact of time pressure on helping behavior. The study found that those who were in a hurry (thinking they were late for their talk) were significantly less likely to help the distressed person than those who were not in a rush.

Question 161

How to increase helping

Answer 161

1. reduce ambiguity- People may hesitate to help if they’re unsure whether a situation is urgent. Clear signals like shouting, “Help! I need assistance now!” reduce confusion and prompt quicker responses. 2. increase responsiblity- The bystander effect makes people feel less responsible when others are present. Direct appeals like eye contact or pointing while saying, “You in the blue jacket, call an ambulance!” make individuals feel accountable and more likely to help. Smaller groups also increase personal responsibility. 3. Personal appeals- Personalized requests, such as using someone’s name or making direct eye contact, create a sense of connection and reduce bystander apathy, encouraging people to step in. 4. Increase self-Awareness- Group settings can lead to inaction due to anonymity. Simple actions like using mirrors or name tags boost self-awareness, making people more conscious and more likely to help. 5. Induce Guilt- Guilt can drive people to act to restore their self-image. Highlighting someone’s unique ability to help, such as saying, “You’re the only one who can assist right now,” can create a moral incentive to act.

Question 162

How can we increase helping- Socialise prosocial behaviour

Answer 162

To encourage prosocial behavior, try these strategies: Learn by Doing: Engage people in activities that involve helping and cooperating. Practice leads to habit. Use Positive Reinforcement: Praise acts of kindness with smiles, compliments, or hugs to boost future helping behavior. Attribute to Altruism: Highlight that helping stems from genuine care to build an internal sense of altruism. Model Helping: Demonstrate prosocial actions—people, especially kids, learn by watching and copying others. Teach Moral Inclusion: Expand empathy by encouraging people to see everyone as part of their circle of care. Educate on Prosocial Benefits: Share the importance and positive impact of helping others to increase awareness and inspire action.

Question 163

Cooperation

Answer 163

cooperation plays a vital role in how we function as a society. While cooperation is essential for group success and cohesion, individuals also face the challenge of weighing the benefits of working together against the potential risks of being taken advantage of by others.

Question 164

Prisoners dilemma

Answer 164

Two people are arrested and accused of a crime. They’re kept apart and each has to decide independently whether to cooperate by staying silent or betray their partner to get a lighter sentence. The twist? Neither knows what the other will choose. If both stay silent, they each get a minor sentence. If one betrays while the other stays silent, the betrayer walks free, and the silent partner gets a heavy penalty. But if both betray, they each receive a moderate sentence. This dilemma shows how tricky it can be to balance self-interest with mutual benefit when trust and communication are missing.

Question 165

cooperate and defect trade off

Answer 165

Both cooperate- 5 dollars each Cooperate but partner defects you get 0 and partner gets8, they maximize on your defnese You defect and partner coopartes- yoy get 8 dollars and they 0 exploit them to maximize your benigit Both defect both have 0 worse than mutual but better than sole.

Question 166

Tit for Tat strategy

Answer 166

Start by cooparting and then copy what your partner did in other rounds. Works because it strikes the perfect balance. Back and forth creates trust. ONly applies if the game is repeated.

Question 167

Situational determinant of cooperation

Answer 167

Expectation about individuals they are interacting with If they anticipate selfish behaviour they may act more defensively, choose not to cooperate- shaped by past experiences, group norms or even subtle shifts in the environment. Trust is key, when people believe others share their goals cooperation becomes a more attractive option. The way a situation is framed can significantly influence how people will behave. For instance, in studies where the prisoner dilemma was described as the walstreet game participants were more likely to act competitively. In contrast when the same game was called the community game the participants showed greater signs of cooperation

Question 168

Cultural and educational differnces in cooperation

Answer 168

Cultural and education backgrounds- people fields of studies can influence cooperation. E.g. economic majors tend to defect more frequently than non economic majors in cooperative games

Question 169

Ultimatum Game

Answer 169

One person, the proposer is given a sum of money or a resource that they have to decide how to split with the receiver. Can be generous or keep to themselves. The receiver has the power to veto the offer, if they reject it neither participant receives anything. Helps researchers understand how people value fairness and cooperation as responders often reject the offers the reciev as un fair even if they walk away with nothing. This behaviour challenges the assumption that individuals are purely self interested.

Question 170

Ultimatum game in econ

Answer 170

The robot would offer a small amount, the robot undertsnads that as long as the sum is bigger than zero both have something. The robot being rational will receive a low or unfair offer as It is better than nothing.

Question 171

Ultimatum game in humans

Answer 171

Differ from the predictions made by econs. Humans are influenced by social norms and fairness controls. Most humans reject offers less than 20-30%. Tens to reject low offers as they are predicted unfair- driven by disgust and anger as it is unfair If the proposal is seen as making a stingy or dipsrepctful offer it is often rejected- bad manners. Basic pattern of human behaviour remains consistent. Offers and rejections follow the same trend- not dependent on the size of the reward

Question 172

Culture and cooperation

Answer 172

Advanced market societies- Us and Europe- reslts tend to be similar- in these societies social norms about fairness are often stable In hunter gatherer cultures, cooperation and fairness can differ significantly, some groups showing generous offers. Diverese ways. New zeleand- highly un-fair offers views as disprectful even if it towards the person

Question 173

enforcing cooperation

Answer 173

More likely to cooperate if they can punish those who do not cooperate