Social Psychology Exam 3

What is the nature and power of prejudice?

Prejudice comes in many forms — for our own group
and against some other group.
• Religion.
• Obesity.
• Age.
• Immigrants.
• Politics.
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, racism, and
Sexism are term that over overlaps.

What are the social sources of prejudice?

Prejudice springs from many sources.
• People differing in social status and their desire to justify and
maintain those differences.
• Learned from parents as they socialize us about what
differences matter.
• Social institutions that maintain and support prejudice.

What are the motivational sources of prejudice?

People’s motivations affect prejudice.
• Frustration breeds hostility.
• People prefer to see themselves and their groups as superior
to others.

What are the cognitive sources of prejudice?

How does the way we think about the world influence
our stereotypes?
How do our stereotypes affect our everyday judgments?
In addition to social and motivational impulses, normal
thinking processes can also prompt stereotyped beliefs
and prejudicial attitudes.
• How we simplify our complex worlds.

What are the consequences of prejudice?

Prejudice has consequences as well as causes.
• Self-perpetuating prejudgments.
• Discrimination as self-fulfilling prophecy.
• Stress and other results of stereotype threat.
• Biased interpretation of events.

prejudice

a preconceived negative judgment of a
group and its individual members

these people may dislike those different from
themselves and behave toward them in a
discriminatory manner, believing them ignorant and
dangerous.

stereotype

beliefs about the personal attributes of a
group of people

these are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and
resistant to new information (and sometimes accurate).

discrimination

unjustified negative behavior toward a
group or its members.
• Where prejudice is a negative attitude, this is
negative behavior.
Only a minority of people discriminate.
• Instituting bias training for all students or employees might not
be the best approach.

social dominance orientation

motivation to have
one’s group dominate other social groups.
• Being in a dominant, high-status position tends to promote
this orientation and justification.

authoritarian personality

may be
especially prone to prejudice.
• Personality that is disposed to favor obedience to authority
and intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status.

realistic group conflict theory

the theory that
prejudice arises from competition between groups for
scarce resources.

social identity

the “we” aspect of our self‐concept;
the part of our answer to “Who am I?” that comes from our
group memberships.

in-group

us” — a group of people who share a sense of
belonging, a feeling of common identity

outgroup

“them” — a group that people perceive as
distinctively different from or apart from their ingroup.

in-group bias

he tendency to favor one’s own group.
• Supports a positive self-concept.
• Feeds favoritism

outgroup homogeneity effect

perception of outgroup
members as more similar to one another than are
ingroup members.
• “They are alike; we are diverse.”

own-race bias

the tendency for people to more
accurately recognize faces of their own race.
• Also called the cross-race effect or other-race effect.

group-serving bias

explaining away outgroup
members’ positive behaviors; also attributing negative
behaviors to their dispositions (while excusing such
behavior by one’s own group).

just-world phenomenon

the tendency of people to
believe that the world is just and that people therefore
get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
Such beliefs enable successful people to reassure
themselves that they deserve what they have.
Just-world thinking also leads people to justify their
culture’s familiar social systems.
• Makes it difficult to pass new social policies.

subtyping

accommodating individuals who deviate from
one’s stereotype by thinking of them as “exceptions to the
rule.”

Subgrouping

accommodating individuals who deviate from
one’s stereotype by forming a new stereotype about this
subset of the group.

stereotype threat

a disruptive concern, when facing a
negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based
on a negative stereotype.
• Unlike self‐fulfilling prophecies that hammer one’s reputation
into one’s self‐concept, stereotype threat situations have
immediate effects.
• Example: placed in a situations where others expect you to
perform poorly, your anxiety may also cause you to confirm
the belief.

What is aggression?

Aggression: physical or verbal behavior intended to
cause harm.
• Physical aggression: hurting someone else’s body.
• Social aggression: hurting someone else’s feelings or
threatening their relationships; sometimes called relational
aggression, it includes cyberbullying and some forms of
in‐person bullying.
• Hostile aggression: aggression that springs from anger;
its goal is to injure.
• Instrumental aggression: aggression that aims to injure,
but only as a means to some other end.

What are some theories of aggression?

In analyzing the causes of aggression, social
psychologists have focused on three big ideas:
• Biological influences.
• Frustration.
• Learned behavior.

What are some influences on aggression?

Specific influences on aggression include
• aversive experiences,
• arousal,
• aggression cues,
• media influences, and
• group influences.

How can aggression be reduced?

Contrary to the catharsis hypothesis, expressing
aggression tends to breed further aggression.
We may be able to counteract the factors that influence
aggression.
• Teach nonaggressive conflict-resolution strategies.
• Model and reward sensitivity and cooperation.
• Reduce brutal, dehumanizing portrayals in media and reduce
TV watching and video game playing.
• Teach nonnegotiable rules and moral reasoning.

aggression

physical or verbal behavior intended to
cause harm.

physical aggression

hurting someone else’s body.

social aggression

hurting someone else’s feelings or
threatening their relationships; sometimes called relational
aggression, it includes cyberbullying and some forms of
in‐person bullying.

hostile aggression

aggression that springs from anger;
its goal is to injure.

instrumental aggression

aggression that aims to injure,
but only as a means to some other end.

instinctive behavior

An innate, unlearned behavior pattern
exhibited by all members of a species.
• this type of aggression supposedly builds up until it explodes
or is released.

frustration-aggression theory

he theory that
frustration triggers a readiness to aggress

frustration

the blocking of goal‐directed behavior —
that is, anything that blocks us from attaining a goal.

displacement

the redirection of aggression to a target other
than the source of the frustration.
• Generally, the new target is a safer or more socially acceptable target.

relative deprivation

the perception that one is less well off
than others with whom one compares oneself.

social learning theory

of aggression: that we learn aggression not only
by experiencing its payoffs but also by observing
others

prosocial behavior

positive, constructive, helpful social
behavior) as well as of antisocial behavior.

catharsis

Releasing strong or repressed emotions and feelings

How important is the need to belong?

Need to belong: a motivation to bond with others in
relationships that provide ongoing, positive
interactions.
• We pursue belonging when we don’t have it and seek it less
when our needs are fulfilled.
• When we do belong, we tend to be healthier and happier.
• Our sense of well-being comes from a balance of three needs:
autonomy, competence, and belonging.
When our need to belong is thwarted by ostracism, the
social pain is keenly felt.
• Ostracism: acts of excluding or ignoring.

Ostracized people show deficits in brain mechanisms
that inhibit unwanted behavior.
• Rejection by peers may encourage self-defeating behaviors.
• Rejected children are found to be more likely to have
self‐regulation issues and more likely to act aggressively.
Exclusion hurts longest for anxious people and for
those with FoMo (fear of missing out); for younger
than older adults; and even when it comes from a
group the rest of society spurns.

What leads to friendship and attraction?

What factors nurture liking and loving for you?
• Does absence make the heart grow fonder? Or is someone
who is out of sight also out of mind?
• Do likes attract? Or opposites?
• How much do good looks matter?
• What has fostered your close relationships?

What is love?

Loving is more complex than liking and thus more
difficult to measure.
Influences of liking also influence long-term, close
relationships; nevertheless, long-term loving is not
merely an intensification of initial liking.
Psychologist Robert Sternberg views love as
consisting of three components: passion, intimacy,
and commitment.

What enables close relationships?

• secure attachments,
• equitability, and
• intimate self-disclosure and disclosure reciprocity.

How do relationships end?

Comparing their unsatisfying relationship with the
support and affection they imagine are available
elsewhere, many relationships end.
Each year, the United States records one divorce for
every three marriages.

Extra (not in book): The four horsemen of relationship dissolution

• Criticism

• Defensiveness

• Stonewalling

• Contempt

need to belong

a motivation to bond with others in
relationships that provide ongoing, positive
interactions.

proximity

• powerfully predicts liking.

• geographical nearness; functional distance.
  • Less often breeds hostility.

• Those who interact frequently are far more likely to
  become good friends than enemies.
  Anticipating interaction also boosts liking.

• Anticipatory interaction is adaptive, increasing the chance of
  forming a rewarding relationship.

• leads to liking not only because it enables
  interaction and anticipatory liking but also because
  familiarity breeds fondness (rather than contempt)

mere-exposure effect

The tendency for novel stimuli to be
liked more or rated more positively after the rater has
been repeatedly exposed to them.
• Even stronger when people receive stimuli without awareness.
• Effect violates the commonsense prediction that repeated
exposure leads to boredom.
• With incessant repetition, however, liking eventually drops.

matching phenomenon

: the tendency for men and
women to choose as partners those who are a “good
match” in attractiveness and other traits.
• People invest more in pursuing someone whose attractiveness
roughly matches their own.

physical-attractiveness stereotype

• Research shows that appearance does matter.
  

• predicts dating frequency.
  • Moderately good predictor for women; modestly good for
  men.

• In longer‐term straight relationships, a wife’s physical
  attractiveness predicts the husband’s marital satisfaction
  (better than the husband’s attractiveness predicts the wife’s)

• Gay men and lesbian women display these sex differences as
  well.

• In studies of speed‐dating, a prospect’s attractiveness was
  similarly important to both men and women.
  Once people have gotten to know each other through
  jobs or friendships, they focus more on unique qualities.

• Looks even influence voting.

• Gender matters: men are more likely to vote for physically
  attractive female candidates, and women are more likely to
  vote for approachable-looking male candidates
  

complementarity

the popularly supposed tendency,
in a relationship between two people, for each to
complete what is missing in the other.
Researchers have been unable to confirm that opposites attract.
Some complementarity may evolve as a relationship progresses.
• Yet friends and couples are more likely to be similar than
different in their needs, attitudes, and personalities.

ingratiation

the use of strategies, such as flattery, by which
people seek to gain another’s favor.

reward theory of attraction

• the theory that we like
  those whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we
  associate with rewarding events.

• helps explain some of the influences
  on attraction.
  • Proximity.
  • Attractiveness.
  • Similarities.
  • Mutual liking.

passionate love

• a state of intense longing for union
  with another, being “in love.”

• These types of lovers are absorbed in each other, feel ecstatic at
  attaining their partner’s love, and are disconsolate on losing it.

• This type of love = Lust + Attachment

secure attachment

rooted in trust and marked by intimacy.

avoidant attachment

marked by discomfort over, or
resistant to, being close to others; an insecure attachment
style

anxious attachment

marked by anxiety or ambivalence; an
insecure attachment style.

equity

• a condition in which the outcomes people receive from
  a relationship are proportional to what they contribute to it.

• outcomes needn’t always be equal outcomes.

• long-term relationship
  are unconcerned with short-term.

• Perception is important to relationship
  satisfaction.

self-disclosure

• Deep, companionate relationships enable us to be
  known as we truly are and to feel accepted.

• revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others.

• dating and married couples tend to enjoy
  the most satisfying and enduring relationships.

disclosure reciprocity

the tendency for one person’s intimacy
of self-disclosure to match that of a conversational partner.

the four horsemen: criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling

• Criticism: An ad hominem attack on a partner's character, dismantling their whole being.

• Defensiveness: A defensive reaction to criticism, often involving a lack of acknowledgment of the partner's feelings.

• Stonewalling: A withdrawal from the interaction, often resulting from feeling overwhelmed or emotionally flooded.

• Contempt: A disrespectful and dismissive attitude towards the partner, often involving sarcasm, name-calling, or mocking. These behaviors can lead to a breakdown in communication and ultimately result in the dissolution of a relationship.

Why do we help?

Without asking anything in return, people offer
directions, donate money, give blood, and volunteer
time.

When will we help?

We do tend to help with someone else does so.
• Prosocial models promote altruism.
Time pressures affect whether people help.
• When hurried, preoccupied, and rushing, people often do not
take time to tune in to a person in need.
Because similarity is conducive to liking, and liking is
conducive to helping, we are more empathetic and
helpful toward those who are similar to us.
• Where racial similarity is concerned, reactions may be affected
by the desire to not appear prejudiced.

Who will help?

Internal influences on the decision to help include
guilt and mood.
External influences include social norms, number of
bystanders, time pressures, and similarity.
Who will help is affected by the helpers’ dispositions.
• Personality traits and status.
• Gender.
• Religious faith.

How can we increase helping?

One way to promote altruism is to reverse
those factors that inhibit it.
• Reduce ambiguity, increase responsibility.
• Awaken people’s guilt and concern for their self-image.
• Socialize altruism.

altruism

a motive to increase another’s welfare
without conscious regard for one’s own self-interests.
• Selfishness in reverse.

social-exchange theory

• The theory that human
  interactions are transactions that aim to maximize
  one’s rewards and minimize one’s costs.

• Does not contend that we consciously monitor costs and
  rewards, only that such considerations predict our behavior

• Rewards that motivate helping may be external.

• Rewards may also be internal, often focused on
  increasing positive emotions.
  • Do-good/feel-good effect — helping boosts self-worth.

reciprocity norm

an expectation that people will help,
not hurt, those who have helped them.

social capital

• The mutual support and
  cooperation enabled by a social network—that keeps a
  community healthy.

social-responsibility norm

an expectation that people
will help those needing help.

kin selection

the idea that evolution has selected altruism
toward one’s close relatives to enhance the survival of
mutually shared genes.
Reciprocity, which works best in small, isolated groups.
Group selection, operating at both individual and group levels:
sacrificing to support “us,” sometimes against “them.”
• Groups of mutually supportive altruists outlasts groups of nonaltruists.

empathy

the vicarious experience of another’s feelings —
putting oneself in another’s shoes.
• With their empathy aroused, people may help even when they
believe no one will know about their helping.

bystander effect

The finding that a person is less likely
to provide help when there are other bystanders.

moral exclusion

The perception of certain individuals or
groups as outside the boundary within which one applies
moral values and rules of fairness

moral inclusion

Is regarding others as within one’s circle of
moral concern.
• The first step in socializing altruism is therefore to counter
people’s natural ingroup bias.