social psych 4

Prosocial Behavior

doing the good thing for someone else or society, more likely to do when we are being watched

Satow (1975)

participants were told they were either being watched or not watched, did random irrelevant study, then was told they can make a donation if they would like, donations were 7x higher in the condition of being watched

Approval motivation

we don’t like people who won’t do things to help others, so we risk rejection when we don’t engage in prosocial behavior

Reciprocity

you did something for me so I feel like I should do something for you

Obligation

I feel like I have a debt to you and I need to refill that debt through this prosocial action

Kunz & Woolcott (1976)

sent Christmas card to 578 strangers, wanted to see how many people would send one back, found that of 578, 117 sent a Christmas card back

Seeking help

we are less likely to ask for help if we don’t think we will be able to repay it

Fairness

there is a general belief that we should give to other people we are in a relationship with

Underbenefitted

we are given less than we feel we deserve, in turn there is a decrease in prosocial behavior, gives anxiety

Overbenefitted

we feel we are getting more than we deserve, leads to prosocial behavior, still gives anxiety

Outperforming

we are performing better than those around us, makes us uncomfortable

Morality

rules to encourage the best for others beyond yourself

Morning morality effect

people are more moral early in the morning as oppose to later in the day

Intuition

we usually go with our gut feeling on what is the right/moral action

Trolley problem

run over 1 or 5 people trolley problem, matters if its a stranger or someone you care about, matters if you are involved in why the trolley is there

5 pillars of morality

Disapproval of harm, Fairness, Respect for authority, Loyalty, Purity

Disapproval of harm (5 pillars)

don’t approve of actions that cause harm to people

Fairness (5 pillars)

we prefer this rather than over or under benefiting

Respect for authority (5 pillars)

respect for authority figures that have a reason to be authority figure

Loyalty to in group (5 pillars)

loyal to groups you belong to

Purity (5 pillars)

quality of being virtuous

Political party on 5 pillars

Liberals only care about disapproval of harm, and fairness. Conservatives care about all 5

Darley & Batson (1973)

went to a seminary which is a school where students are trained to become priests, participants are students, told participants they were to be giving a speech in another building on campus, for half the participants the speech was about pro social parable (helping someone else), other half were told they were to give a speech about being a seminary student, they were either told if the leave now they were on time for their speech or already late, on their way to their speech they come across someone who has dropped their belongings, DV: how many stopped to help. Topic of the speech did not matter, people who were on time 44% stopped, when they are early 66% stopped to help, 20% of the late group stopped.

Cooperation

working towards common goals

Prisoner’s Dilemma

2 prisoners, if neither prisoner turns on each other they both get 1 year, if 1 turns on the other the one who turns goes free and the other gets 3 years, if they both turn each will get 2 years for a total of 4 years.

Altruistic punishment

you will agree to take a cost in order to punish someone who isn’t cooperating

Gossip

use to task info onto others

Gender difference (cooperation)

same sex interactions: women are less cooperative, men are more cooperative
mixed sex interactions: women are more cooperative, men are less cooperative

Trust

belief in the reliability and validity of a thing

Bell curve

best level of trust is in the middle

Group Membership

if we share this, it will be easier for me to trust you

Ease

the more we trust someone, the easier it is to engage in prosocial behavior

Evolution, why help?

we can’t survive and thrive alone

Kin selection

we are more likely to help those we are biologically related to

(r x b) > c

relatedness in how much genetics you share multiplied by how many benefits you receive from helping and then the costs for you to help

Egoistic

prosocial behavior, makes us feel good about ourselves

Learning

if your parents are prosocial people you will be more pro social

Altruistic

you are helping just bc of your care for the other person, ur not benefiting from anything

Empathy (altruistic behavior)

the amount you’re able to put yourself into others shoes will increase in the likelihood of this behavior

Does altruistic behavior exist?

generally when you do a good action you still feel better about yourself, so is it really selfless?

Personality differences

specific personalities are more or less likely to engage in prosocial behavior (agreeableness, conscientiousness)

Similarity

the more similar we are to the person who would benefit from the prosocial behavior, the more likely we are to help

Dovidio et al. (1997)

Fans were significantly more likely to help a person wearing their own team's shirt than a person in a rival or neutral shirt. This demonstrated ingroup favoritism

Gender differences

men are more helpful in public towards strangers and in a crisis
women are more helpful to family or people they have a close relationship with and for long periods of time

Beautiful Victims

we believe if we help them, maybe we have a better chance at having a relationship with them

halo effect

Believe in a Just World

idea that the world is just, good things happen to good ppl and vise versa

Victims Deserve It

if we think that the victim is someone who deserves support we are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior

Schmidt and Weiner (1988)

had someone go up and ask someone for notes from a class, they either told the individual that they needed them because they skipped class to go to the beach, or that they couldn’t see the board because of an eye condition. The people with the eye condition had better results in getting those notes

Emotions

generally positive emotions make us more likely to engage in prosocial behavior except for guilt

Kitty Genovese

lived in NYC, when she was walking home from her job at a bar one night, she was sent upon an individual who stabbed her, screamed for help and got away, then the murderer found her and killed her. was written up as the murder of 1000 witnesses.

Inspired lots of research that has important ratifications and valid backing behind it

This is a myth, many people did help. someone opened their window to scream and ask what was going on which distracted her attacker, many people called the police

Latane & Darley (1968a)

had people go into cubicles in a lab, were led to believe they were speaking with only one other, three other, or five other individuals. only one person could communicate at a time, just so happens that whoever’s mic was live at that moment is having a seizure, the person tells the cubicle person they think they were having a seizure. IV: size of group, DV: how many people would seek to get them help. if it was just them who could help 85% got them help, 4 people: 62%, 6 people: 31%

Bystander effect

as the number of people around you increases, the likelihood of any one person intervening decreases. you are more likely to get help with fewer people around

Diffusion of Responsibility

standford prison: participants are like its not my fault its the experimenters fault

Environment (why don’t we help)

more likely to help in a smaller setting, not bc of the apathy that people claim exist.
1. in a smaller setting you’ll know more people (reciprocation)
2. urban overload hypothesis → you aren’t aware someone needs help

Urban Overload Hypothesis

in an urban city there is lot of stimuli around you. people get overloaded with the amount of stimuli and the way they deal with that is by either getting into their own mind, or wearing headphones wherever they go blocking out sounds. if you are limiting amount of sensory you have then you aren’t gonna hear someone who needs help

Pluralistic Ignorance (Latane & Darley 1968b)

the more people there are the less likely they are to “notice” the issue
the smoke coming in the room alone vs. with other people in the room

Notice something that is happen

urban overload hypothesis stops this. if you never notice someone who needs help you aren’t going to be able to help them

Interpret a meaning

you have to interpret the stimuli as a situation where helping is required.

Take Responsibility

…for helping

Know how to help

Ex. knowing how to do CPR when someone has no pulse, someone needs help with physics and you’ve never taken physics

Provide help

actually giving the person help

Aggression

behavior that is intended to harm someone who does not want to be harmed

Displaced

the target of ur aggression isn’t the person u actually would rather be targeting

Direct aggression

victim of ur aggression is physically present during your aggressive action

Indirect aggression

victim of ur aggression is not physically present during your aggressive action
Ex. slashing someones tires

Gender differences (Aggression)

women are less likely to be aggressive indirectly, men are more likely to be aggressive directly

Hostile

hot aggression, spontaneous, you are pissed off, no goal in mind beyond harm

Instrumental

using aggression in order to achieve some sort of task or goal
Ex. football tackle

Relational Aggression

trying to cause harm to someones relationships
Ex. gossiping negatively about someone to their friends

Bullying (Craig & Harley (2004); Katzer et al. (2009)

in a survey of children, more than 1 out of 10 reported being bullied throughout school
second study involved cyber bullying, 75% reported being bullied

Violence

decreasing over time

Domestic violence

non married women are 3x more likely to be victims than married women
children & elderly have a higher likelihood of being a victim than people in their 20-60s
if someone is an abusive spouse / partner, it is likely they will become an abusive parent

Instinct theory

we are instinctually designed to be aggressive

Thanatos

freud talked a lot about this, the ID and being buried in our conscious (full of crap) not relevant

Lorenz (1966)

instinctual urges can build up in us, if we don’t find a way to release those urges it can lead to aggression, again not really supported

Learning components

we may see these cycles of abuse because they see the relationship their parents have, and learn that is the way people relate to each other. sometimes rewarded (better at tackling on foot ball field)

Bobo Doll Experiment (Bandura, Ross, & Ross 1962)

• Children were divided into groups to watch an adult model interact with a five-foot inflatable "Bobo doll":

  • Aggressive Condition: The adult physically attacked the doll (punching, kicking, hitting) and used hostile language

  • Non-Aggressive Condition: The adult played quietly with other toys and ignored the doll.

  • Control Group: Children were not exposed to any adult model.

• Frustration Arousal: To ensure the children were primed for action, they were briefly allowed to play with attractive toys before being told those toys were reserved for others.

• Test for Delayed Imitation: The children were then placed in a room containing both aggressive (mallet, Bobo doll) and non-aggressive toys. Their behavior was observed through a one-way mirror for 20 minutes.

Supported the idea that behavior is learned through environmental observation rather than solely through direct reinforcement. They learned the aggressive actions and language and then repeated it.

Coyne et al. (2008; 2012)

2008: had participants watch a physically aggressive, a relationally aggressive, or a non aggressive but thrilling film. then gave participants opportunity to blast confederates headphones with loud unpleasant sounds. those who watched either aggressive films gave more annoying sounds to confederate for a longer period of time. were also more likely to give negative ratings to confederate.
2012: instead of watching the films they read a synapses of the films. same results

Anderson study

meta analysis across many studies to understand relationships between violent video games and violence. which there is. associated with both violent behaviors and violent thoughts. can’t necessarily say these games CAUSE these things. it’s highly possible those people are just drawn to more violent video games

Religious ( Prejudice )

discrimination based on this
Bushman & Bonacci (2004): after 9/11, islamic prejudice, participants were sent an email to either an Arab sounding name, or European, second IV: whether email said they either won a scholarship or did not. DV: how many people responded to email letting them know they contacted the wrong person, found that when they were winning a scholarship they were more likely to respond to an email when it was a European sounding name, and when they were losing the scholarship they were more likely to respond to Arab sounding name

Size ( Prejudice )

weight discrimination, effects both genders, but moreso women

Sexual Orientation ( Prejudice )

lowkey lack of data but. support for same sex marriage is 20% in 1996, and 64% in 2017
Bell et al. (2002): in Texas, research assistant Wass either wearing a hat Texan and proud or a hat that said gay and proud. RA were unaware of what hat they were wearing, can’t change their behavior in a way that is consistent with what hat they were wearing, had a secret recording device on, went to a variety source in the mall and asked about something. researchers found 4 RA who were wearing gay and proud hat were talked to for shorter periods of time and the employees that they spoke to were rated as less helpful and less interested

Correlations ( Prejudice )

if someone is likely to show one type, they are likely to show multiple types

Outgroup

drives prejudice stereotypes and discrimination

Outgroup homogenetiy bias

we believe outgroup members are more similar to each other than in group members are

ORE (other race effect)

we are better at discriminating between members of our own race in comparison to members of another race

Ingroup

the group WE belong to

Ingroup favoritism

we give preferential treatment to other ingroup members, even when the group identity is random / meaningless

Minimal group effect

creating groups based on any type of meaningless data

Robber’s Cave

Sherif 1954- brought 22 white 11 y/o boys to a summer camp, divided them into equal groups, Stage 1 (bonding group time, no contact between groups only within) one group named themselves Ratlers, other Eagles, Stage 2 (groups competed with each other in different contests and competitions and began eating together in a joint cafeteria), found that they started with a lot of verbal aggression towards other group, then turned into physical aggression including burning the other groups flag Stage 3 (tried to deescalate hostility) told them positive tings about other group, didn’t work, then tried to have them interact in a non competitive environment, then had to work together as a team, could not be completed as just Ratlers and just Eagles, only way to accomplish tasks was to work together which was most successful

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif) 1966

when there is comp. over a limited number of resources, this leads to hostility and conflict, this hostility and conflict leads to worsening stereotypes, discrimination, and prejudice

Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954)

regular interaction with other groups, decreases stereotypes and discrimination, as long as that interaction is not negative

1. you start to limit outgroup homogeneity bias

2. you start to have more evidence of pos. components without increasing negative interactions

does not have to be physical or direct, can be simulated

Law of Least Effort (Allport, 1954)

idea that humans are cognitive misers, and using stereotypes when being introduced to someone takes the least amount of effort

Scapegoat Theory

we want to blame our problems on outgroups

Issue of control

if we feel as though we had no agency in a bad thing happening, we don’t feel as bad ab it

Social Dominance Theory

we want our group to be dominant socially and with resources

Social rejection

if we are in group that shows stereotypes and discrimination to a specific group and we don’t, we risk rejection

System justification theory

people are motivated to maintain the current system they are in, going to act in ways that are supporting their current system

Social identity theory

we find in group membership is comforting so we use prejudice to understand who we are, how we should behave, and who we are against

Stereotype Content Model

stereotypes are going to vary on two different dimensions, Warmth: how much comp. you are in against the outgroup, low amt. of com. = high warmth and VV. Competence: if the outgroup has a high status you view them with high competence, and VV