Week 11 - Dissent Flashcards

Question

Who are 'trojan horses' (impostors)? (x1)

Answer 1

Those who pass as member of an outgroup in order to cause damage.

Answer 2

Asian man posing as woman, | Started relationship with French diplomat to get secrets to sell

Answer 3

Those who pass as member of outgroup in order to avoid stigma/persecution.

Answer 4

Those who misrepresent past in order to position themselves in community defined by history. Around major military conflicts (e.g., people passing as Vietnam veterans, or Sept 11 survivors).

Answer 5

Those who FEEL like one | ie high profile women

Answer 6

Not well liked High identifiers are most harsh on impostors Impostors are judged not so much for behaviour - rather gulf between actions and claims for behaviour

Answer 7

Exposed Ps to portrait of someone who made public/private claims to be vegetarian. Assessed how evaluations changed when Ps found out that person ate meat “when they got a craving”. Non-Vegas didn't change from low dislikability Vegos did, but way more among high identifiers than low

Answer 8

Compared gay/straight with claimed gay/straight Damage to group considered highest by straight men pretending to be gay Distinctiveness threat

Answer 9

People who may attract accusations of impostorism, But don't conform to strict definition Accusations not objectively verifiable, But represent a value judgement, suspicion, political weapon, hunch.

Answer 10

Depending on tightness of circle of group membership, Those on the margins can be respected members of the “broad church” Or fraudulent impostors who have no legitimate claim People straddle two group memberships (e.g., bisexuals; children of mixed descent).

Answer 11

People who publicly represent as members, but endorse attitudes/behaviours hostile to group’s genuine values/goals. Superficial claims for group identity might be incontestable, But deeper values are seen as so anti-group that it justifies word “impostor”, often synonymous with “traitor”.

Answer 12

Superficial group characteristics, but little in common at deeper level Claim may be hard to dispute, values maybe not seen as hostile to group interests Suspicion that cultural values align with outgroups (coconuts, bananas)

Answer 13

Express attitudes/behaviours one might expect of a group, | But the perceiver suspects they have selfish/individualistic motives

Answer 14

Not well liked | Face a lot of pressure to conform.

Answer 15

Confederate told to either: Agree with group Disagree at first, then agree (a “slider”) Disagree the whole time (a “deviate”) Person who agreed received little attention Slider received social pressure until conformed Deviate gained more and more negative attention over time. With likability sliding downward...

Answer 16

``` Group locomotion (unanimity helps achieve goals) Social reality (reference groups give certainty and sense of what our world is like … dissent shatters this). ```

Answer 17

Poor decision making Less creative thinking Poorer outcomes

Answer 18

Bay of Pigs - no one spoke up, crushing military defeat Pearl Harbour - admiral didn't take loss of contact with Japanese carriers seriously Escalation of Vietnam War - cabinet members all harmonious, even in disagreement Challenger disaster - new dangers due to weather change, majority stayed silent, dissent overruled WMDs - knew they weren't there...

Answer 19

Someone who protects group harmony by limiting available info

Answer 20

``` Excessive cohesiveness Insulation of group from outside Lack of impartial leadership Ideological homogeneity High stress from external threat ```

Answer 21

``` Feelings of invulnerability, Unanimity Belief that group must be right Info contrary to group’s position ignored/discredited Dissidents pressured into conforming ```

Answer 22

Poor decisions

Answer 23

Teams encouraged dissent in private meetings. Collapse of Enron attributed to lack of dissent in face of crazy decision making. “Organizational silence” … people lower in hierarchy often don’t point out problems to people above them

Answer 24

It must be crushed (e.g. Michael Moore) | It's patriotic - stand up for your beliefs

Answer 25

Low identifiers: * Low normative conflict = indifference * High (feeling that norms unhealthy/suboptimal) = disengagement High IDs: * Low = loyal conformity * High = collectively oriented dissent

Answer 26

Acts as catalyst for growth/change Brings unrecognized problems to light Inherently threatening *Can promote defensiveness, mistrust, hurt, denial

Answer 27

If it's positive, we don't care who said it | If critical, ingroup member much better thought of than outgroup (who the hell are they?)

Answer 28

Negative response - doesn't initiate critical thinking | Little agreement with the point

Answer 29

Strong defensiveness in face of outgroup criticisms | And surprisingly high levels of tolerance toward ingroup criticisms

Answer 30

``` Australians Maths-science students Uni students Qld-ers Allied health professionals Schools Muslims ```

Answer 31

Credentialing - outsider experience with target group Social support - saying others agree with you too Spotlighting - only apply criticism to subset of group Argument quality - evidence base

Answer 32

Sweetening - with preceding praise Likeability: helps a lot Agreement: helps a little Negativity: doesn’t help at all

Answer 33

Missing the basis of defensiveness - Attributional bias: outsiders attributed relatively destructive motives for their comments, Insiders attributed relatively constructive motives.

Answer 34

Not enough to be knowledgeable, experienced, right | Must defuse expectation that they have destructive motive

Answer 35

Outgroup member uses inclusive language that locates them as member of shared superordinate ingroup And/or acknowledges failings of own group at same time as criticising

Answer 36

If committed, should see relative tolerance of views | If not, should see similar resistance as to outgroup critics

Answer 37

Ps exposed to criticism of Australia from strongly/weakly identified, or non- Australian Agreement mediated by density attachment - Higher agreement with hi ID critic, Low and same for low ID/outgroup

Answer 38

Criticism of allied health professional ostensibly offered by AHP with 3 wks/18 yrs experience, or nurse (outgroup) High agreement with old-timer Low/same for newcomer/outgroup

Answer 39

Critic's motives must be appraised as constructively motivate And message as well-justified

Answer 40

Ps told responses were private, Or shared with high/low status social science students Agreement with ingroup critic, highest-lowest: low status audience, private, high status Outgroup critic: private, low, high

Answer 41

Leaders will probably over-estimate support for status quo, ingroup critics will probably under-estimate it These dynamics might drive “organizational silence”. In leaders’ interests to promote normative climate -pass on negative feedback without fear of consequence.