Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

YEAR 2 Semester 2👩🏼‍🎓 > Social🗣 > Flashcards

Social🗣 Flashcards

(77 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Prosocial behaviour

A

Acts positively viewed by society, positive consequences and contributions to physical/psychological wellbeing of another
Voluntary, intended to benefit others, helpful and altruistic
Defined by society’s norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Helping behaviour

A

Acts intentionally benefit someone else/group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Altruism

A

Act benefitting another rather than self without expecting own gain
May be private rewards (feeling good)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Kitty Genovese murder

A

Woman attacked, 38 people saw and failed to act

1 called police anonymously

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Egoistic human behaviour

A

Everything done to benefit self

Psychologists and philosophers assume this about humans

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Evolutionary social psychology

Case study against

A

Extensions of evolutionary psychology
Behaviour adaptive, help individuals and species evolve

-Irish setter helped child in burning car despite risk of own survival, not to help own species

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Two explanations of cooperative behaviour in humans and animals

A

Mutualism- cooperative behaviour benefits cooperator and others, defector does worse than cooperator e.g. cleaner fish in mouth of fish will not get eaten

Kin selection-those who cooperate are biased towards blood relatives to help own genes, lack of direct benefit to cooperator indicates altruism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Who is most likely to be helped depending on resources

A

More likely assist young and old
Help 10, 18 year olds when less food (infants less likely to survive on their own but older children more hardy)
Favour helping the sick in everyday situations but the healthy favoured in life or death situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fitness altruism

A

Why does natural selection favour those who sacrifice reproductive behaviour for another’s benefit
E.g. adopt a child who is not kin

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Negative evaluation against fitness altruism

A

Failure to help Kitty cannot explain altruism, evolutionary theory lacks evidence for it
Little attention to how social learning theory may explain
May be communicative gene, maintaining bonds is prosocial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Empathy

A

Arousal followed by empathy is common precursor to altruism
Emotional response to someone’s distress
Often fail to act prosocially as they are actively engaged in avoiding empathy to reduce own discomfort
Perspective taking= cognition based (I see your pain) vs
empathy= affect based (I feel your pain)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bystander calculus model two processes

A

PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESS- aroused by another’s distress, greater chance of help

COGNITIVE PROCESS-label arousal as emotion
Cognitions determine nature of emotions, if empathetic concern is triggered (bystanders believe they are similar to the victim)more likely to help

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bystander calculus model: evaluate whether to help

A

Evaluate consequences of helping= reduce personal distress at lowest cost e.g. time and effort
Intervene when unpleasantly aroused so seek relief, suggests motivated by self interest (egoism)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bystander calculus model

What happens when don’t help and when more likely to help

A

NOT helping can cause empathy costs (distress of not helping when have empathy)personal costs (blame)
Greater physiological arousal when more similar to victim, a friend or if victim may die=empathy=prosocial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Truly altruistic

A

Help even when no longer troubled by observing the suffering of another person
-maybe bystanders didn’t identify with kitty Genoese: disturbed but not enough to act, could hide easily

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Perspective taking

A

Must experience world from another’s perspective
How how to help after going through it
Different kinds of empathy=
Actively imagine how another feels (empathy and altruism)
Actively imagine how you would feel (empathy and self oriented distress)
Mix egoism and altruism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Gender differences in empathy

A

General women more empathy
Participants read same-sex adolescent description of stressful life event
Women higher empathy when had same experience when young
Value other-orientation more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Learning to be helpful

A

Telling children how to be helpful in critical period 1-2 years:

GIVING INSTRUCTIONS- e.g. what is appropriate, expectations, need to be consistent. May not be most effective
REINFORCEMENT-e.g. more likely to offer help again
EXPOSURE TO MODELS-Most powerful, TV and video games can help especially with moral message

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Social learning theory study

A

Will help if model has positive outcome (vicarious learning)
Observe model returning wallet: either pleased to help, displeased or neutral
Participant came across wallet themselves, those observing pleasant condition helped the most, negative helped the least

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bystander effect

A

Less likely to help in emergency with others present

Greater effect if bystanders are strangers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Latané and Darley’s cognitive model

A

Attend to what is happening + event as an ‘emergency’ + assume responsibility + decide what can be done = HELP

Have to notice threat, feel competent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Bystander apathy reasons

A

Diffusion of responsibility-assume others will take responsibility, help more if alone
Fear of social blunders-feel self-conscious, do not want to appear foolish by overreacting
Social influence-others as models, if others not worried then won’t worry

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Mood states and helping

A

Warm glow of success, more likely help if in good mood
Less preoccupied and sensitive to needs of others, better mood in good weather

Anger can be prosocial- combat injustice, promote moral principles and cooperation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Helping and demographics

A

No correlation sibling amount or parents occupation
Securely attached= can forgive, more prosocial
More likely help if small town, less urban overload and environmental stress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Feeling competent and helping
More likely to help if competent | People more willing to help others move electric objects if told had high tolerance for electricity
26
Feeling of responsibility, helping prevent crime Experiment
Prior commitment can cause prosocial act Sat next to person with radio on beach, asked for match or asked to watch stuff, all agreed confederate took belongings and 20% match condition helped but 95% asked to help tried to stop confederate
27
Shoplifting
Posters and media not effective reducing shoplifting Influence attitudes and reporting but not behaviour itself -emphasise how and why to report crime and why bystanders do not take action is most effective to increase prosocial interventions
28
Exam cheating
Cheaters higher sociopathic tendencies, less guilt Arousal from exciting risk Luegar- arousal distracting, less able to regulate our behaviour Much more likely to cheat on test after watching an arousing film beforehand
29
Receiving help factors Study
People can resist/react negatively when feel being helped confirms negative stereotypes Female students made aware that women may be stereotyped as more dependent were less willing to seek help to avoid confirming stereotype Those who did seek help felt worse
30
Norms of help
Something tells us we should help | Group and societal norms develop and sustain prosocial behaviour- learnt
31
2 general norms
Reciprocity norm- help those who help us, if egoistic are more likely to act prosocially when believe reputation is at stake Social responsibility norm- should help those in need without regard to future exchanges Norms distinctive to humans
32
4 motives and goals of prosocial behaviour
Egoism- benefit self Altruism- contribute to welfare of others Collectivism- contribute to group welfare, may hinder outgroup Principtism- follow moral principle, weak link to prosocial behaviour
33
Self sacrifice
Cost can be small or larger e.g. life Volunteering- maintain social and community, small cost to volunteers Martyrs- ingroup serving or self serving rusher than altruism
34
Victim blaming
Just world belief the world is fair and people get what they deserve
35
Attributions and helping
People make causal attributions for helping, internalise being helpful Self attribution powerful for learning behaviour
36
Prejudice
Attitudes towards people Single component definition-negative evaluation of asocial group or individual based on individual’s group membership Three component definition-cognitive (beliefs) affective (negative beliefs)container (intentions to behave certain way)
37
Discrimination
Inappropriate, unfair treatment of individuals due to group membership. Negative or less positive behaviour towards an outgroup relative to ingroup
38
Individual, institutional and structural discrimination
Individual- actions intended to have harmful impact on specific group of people Institutional-policies intended to have harmful impact on specific groups of people Structural- policies not intended to have harmful impact but do e.g. heights restrictions restrict races, gender
39
Intergroup bias
Evaluate one’s membership group (in group) or members more favourably than non members (outgroup)
40
Context of making approaches to prejudice
Explain Hitler’s fascist regime Psychologists noticed people prejudiced to one minority group were more likely prejudiced to another Approaches framed in terms of personality and individual differences
41
Frustration aggression hypothesis
Fixed amount of psychic energy to enact goals Achieving goals keeps us psychologically balanced If goals frustrated, unspent energy= imbalance and rebalance through aggression to scapegoats
42
Frustration aggression hypothesis Evaluate
Not necessary or inevitable for aggression Only explains some aggression Ignores social context, cannot account for differences in prejudice towards minorities
43
Authoritarian personality
Parenting style results in child developing specific set of beliefs e.g. ethnocentrism Style increases aggression, projected to minority groups Measured F scale
44
Authoritarian personality Evaluation
Response bias in F scale (no items reversed so tendency to respond ‘yes’ would increase correlations) Relies on psychoanalytic theory (hard to falsify) Ignores situational effects on prejudice
45
Group conflict theory
Conflict and competition for limited resources= prejudice and discrimination Case study of boys at summer camp: competition between groups increased aggression and negative characterisation of other group with positive for own. Reduced prejudice when worked together
46
Group conflict theory Evaluation
Conflict and competition may not be necessary for prejudice and discrimination Ethical issues, negative experiences retrospectively
47
Social identity theory
Society consists of different social groups with specific power Self concept= personal identity + social identity (membership and identification) Favourable comparisons that benefit the ingroup relative to outgroup maintains positive surf concept
48
Social identity theory research
Participants assigned to groups based on meaningless preference for a painting (minimal group paradigm) Favoured own group and maximised ingroup profit (gave more points)and difference between groups. Maximise losses for outgroup -social categorisation
49
Traditional forms of bias
Social context where prejudice more acceptable Ethnophaulisms (ethnic slurs) Overt discrimination (segregation) Persecution (violence and genocide) Modern forms are more covert and subtle
50
Modern prejudice
Obscured by egalitarian values e.g. resentment of positive discrimination Defence of traditional values Exaggerated cultural differences, antagonisms about perceived group demands
51
Denial of continuing discrimination and positive emotions
Denial of continuing discrimination Denial of positive emotions-more positive word used to describe male lecturers
52
Measuring prejudice | An attitude
Explicit measures- semantic differentials, Likert scales Implicit measures- behavioural, IAT
53
Microaggressions
Brief and common daily verbal, behavioural or emotional indignities (intentional or unintentional) Communicate hostile, derogative or negative insults Perpetrators often unaware when engage in this
54
3 types microaggresions
Micro invalidation-invalidate experiences thoughts or feelings of people of colour Micro insults- demeaning or insensitive (anecdotal increase with coronavirus) Micro assaults-racially motivated actions (often conscious) meant to cause hurt
55
Tokenism
Make small concessions to minority to deflect accusations of prejudice and discrimination
56
The glass cliff
Women more likely to be places in precarious leadership role with higher risk of failure 100 companies appointing females more likely to fail 5 months later relative to males
57
Stigma
Attributed that mediate negative social evaluation of people in the group Group take on a low status
58
5 explanations of prejudice and discrimination
``` Mere exposure effect-fear of unknown Learnt prejudice-modelling Frustration aggression Authoritarian personality Social dominance theory ```
59
When different groups become salient
Accessible to us (in a situation) | Similarities and differences (account for behaviour)
60
Habits
Strong associations in memory between contexts and responses, developed through repetition Frequently paired response and context, how we respond to particular cues. Automatic with lack of awareness
61
Evidence that habits are represented by strong associations between contexts and responses
Asked to identify habitual responses and what they would eat if unavailable (alternative) Primed lexical decision task measure association between snack and contextual cue =strong association between snack and home, respond quicker to main snack word
62
Habits and instrumental learning
Habits develop through instrumental learning- which associations work for us Reinforcement, gradually becomes a habit The process of the habit is also habitual
63
Daily life and habits (watch prompt) study
Participants record what they are doing by watch prompt =frequently do things in stable context About 43% actions were performed at least daily and usually in the same context Strengthened association between situation and response
64
Automaticity
Do not require deliberation (efficient) Outside conscious awareness Insensitive to changes in value of response (not dependent on goals) Difficult to control
65
Do strong habits remove the need for deliberation? Study
Measure strength of cycling habit for 82 students Asked to decide how would travel for trips differing in weather, luggage departure time, distance Favourability of bike (1-10)Number of attributes used to make decision =use less attributions to make a decision if has a string habit, rely on default
66
Do habits occur automatically study
Ask participants what they were doing and thinking when watch chimed, if thoughts correspond with behaviour Wether considered behaviour to be a habit =thoughts correspond less with habit, they don’t drive behavior (contextual cues do) and can think about other things during habit
67
Are habits insensitive to changes in value of response
Habitual popcorn eaters sat in cinema (habitual cues) Given stale or fresh popcorn Weigh amount eaten =habitual eaters still eat most of the bag regardless of its value (stale or fresh) in cinema but no one ate it in meeting room SO dependent on context cues
68
Habitual thoughts
Not just behavioural | Habit index of negative thinking
69
Are habits part of who we are? Study
Self report habit index How frequently you do an activity and how much it reflects you as a person Median correlation r=0.46 Considered less formative than non habits even though influence role of self
70
Bad habits | and motivation to break them study
Habits are functional, only small portion are unwanted Meta analysis 47 studies changed intentions Changes in intentions led to changes in behaviours that are performed on occasions (0.74) not for habits as much (0.22) Smaller effects if performed in similar situations
71
Habits and changing circumstances study
Asked 4 weeks before moving uni: Participants reported how often they did things Rated stability of context, whether same location with same people, whether same people performed the behaviour AFTER THE MOVE: =Strong habits (frequently in similar contexts) more likely to be disrupted by changes in cues and other people, location as are driven by cues Behaviour also changed
72
Planning to change habits | alternative snack study
``` Implementation intention (alternative snack) New association with critical cue, pitted against original cue ``` Respond slower to original habit now and choose alternative Replace habit with alternative behaviour
73
Planning to change habits | Telecom company
Installed paper recycling boxes but amount binned did not change One group planned, when, where to recycle vs control Planning helps break the habit
74
Effectiveness of planning depending on strength of habit
Regular smokers who wanted to quit One half asked to form implementation intention vs control = strength of habit moderates effectiveness of implementation Strong habits not affected by forming implementation
75
Habits and procedural memory
Habits learned through repetition turns cognitive processes to procedural memory
76
Habit direct context cueing
Direct context cueing-repeated coactivation forges direct link I’m memory between context and response representations formed via associative learning
77
Habit implicit goal model
Habit develops when repeatedly pursue a goal although this is flexible while habits are rigid

YEAR 2 Semester 2👩🏼‍🎓 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions