Social Psych Final

Rutgers Kilianski Social Psych Final Exam

Stereotypes

Beliefs about social groups used to make inferences, predictions, and attributions about individuals

Discrimination

Differential treatment based on perceived group membership

Types of Discrimination

• Negative behavior toward out-group

• Preferential treatment toward in-group

Stereotype Myths

Always inaccurate, negative, harmful, Always considered over individual info

Unequal Status

(Prej. Source Theory)

predjudice being used a justification for a stratified / hierarchichal society

Institutional Support

(Prej. Source Theory)

segregation

redlining

education (the idea of “race”)

slurs

lack of representation

Conformity to Social Norms

(Prej. Source Theory)

there are places in the world where you will be ostracized if you DON’T participate in prejudice

Social Identity Theory

(Prej. Source Theory)

[SE w/ in-group]

need to think of our in-group as better and the out-group as worse or irrelevant (RU vs. Princeton)

Social Identity Theory

(Prej. Social Source Theory)

[Minimal group identity]

trivial / arbitrary & previously unnoticed differences can cause people to start to categorizing and making schemas of themselves and similar others, vs. dissimilar others (Tajfel dot estimation experiment)

Frustration-Aggression Theory

(Prej. Affective Source Theory)

if you can’t act aggressively against who/what you perceive to be the source of your frustration, you will find an “acceptable” or convenient outlet/scapegoat to act upon to relieve your tension

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

(Prej. Affective Source Theory)

goods (wealth, power, status, influence, respect, etc.) in society are limited, and groups are in constant competition for these scarce goods, which creates prejudice

Evolutionary / Adaptive Xenophobia Theory

(Prej. Affective Source Theory)

when groups of our human ancestors came into contact with strangers in history, they did not survive, so only the inclination to stay away from strangers was genetically passed on

Personality Factors Theory

(Prej. Affective Source Theory)

authoritarians (those with desire for group social dominance) = higher prejudice

Authoritarianism

See difference and people who are different as a threat / dangerous, have high desire for “strong leaders”

Categorization & Stereotyping

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

ability to categorize is ESSENTIAL to intelligent human life, and once something/someone is categorized all our knowledge of that group is activated

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

facial recognition is much better for everyone with their own race than for other races (thinking those in other groups look/are all the same)…a need to understate differences between individuals in out-group

Accentuation Theory

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

exaggerating the differences between groups

Illusory Correlation & Confirmation

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

we have so much more experience with the in-group than the out-group, so it only takes one singular negative example of a member of the out-group to paint the entire group that way (like rep. heuristic)

Similarity-attraction & Group Polarization Theory

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

someone who is high in prejudice will only associate with other highly prejudiced people, which will only reinforce their prejudiced beliefs

Ultimate Attribution Error

(Prej. Cognitive Source Theory)

external attribution for successes/accomplishents of outgroup, internal attributions for those of the in-group, reverse is true with respect to negative stuff

Social Exchange Theory

(Why we do/don’t help…)

cost benefit analysis of helping

Reciprocity Norm

(Why we do/don’t help…)

If someone has helped us, we are obligated to help them later (universal; every single society)

Social Responsibility Norm

(Why we do/don’t help…)

We are obligated to help others if we are able (universal; every single society)

Kin Selection/Preference

(Why we do/don’t help…)

We are far more likely to help our family—those who are more closely genetically related to us

Reciprocity

(Why we do/don’t help…)

Whatever actions or traits were beneficial to our ancestors for survival will be carried forward in our own genetics

Decision tree / situational influence model (N.I.A)

N.I.A-

1. Noticing situation

2. Interpreting situation as problem

3. Assuming (responsibility for giving help)

Pluralistic Ignorance

(Psych Processes for the Bystander Effect)

“If other people are doing nothing, that tells us that nothing is the right thing to do”

Diffusion of Responsibility

(Psych Processes for Bystander Effect)

• The more people who are witnesses, the less pressure each witness feels to respond

• Less weight of responsibility = takes more time to for someone to act

Factors reducing the likelihood of a given individual helping are…

Ambiguity, Bystanders are strangers, Other’s reactions are difficult to interpret (we don’t know why they’re not helping), # of bystanders increases, time pressure

Factor Influencing Helping

Affect — guilt, sadness, lack of SE, happiness

Contextually-dependent

Factors Influencing Helping

Religiosity, gender

Which gender is more likely to help?

Men (bc of physicality, decreased vulnerability and danger, etc.)

In what situations are religious people more likely to help?

Public situations

Chivalric vs. Committed

Helping

(Gender Difference)

Random one-off acts of kindness vs careers in caretaking/nurturing (men vs women)

Most important thing when it comes to helping behavior?

Empathy

Help Receiver Variables

gender

similarity to potential helper

Observational Learning

(Why Does Watching Pro-social Behavior Increase Helping?)

Bc we learn that helping is possible, and we learn how to do it

Priming pro-social schemas

(Why Does Watching Pro-social Behavior Increase Helping?)

by witnessing helping behavior, we are primed to engage in helping ourselves

Moral elevation of mood

(Why Does Watching Pro-social Behavior Increase Helping?)

good mood = more help

Activation of mirror neurons

(Why Does Watching Pro-social Behavior Increase Helping?)

Watching others doing an activity activates the same neurons in observer

Increase in Oxytocin

(Why Does Watching Pro-social Behavior Increase Helping?)

Watching people help others increases the tend-and-befriend hormone, which makes you want to help others too

Prejudice

Negative attitude toward socially defined group and any person perceived to be member of that group

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

having certain predetermined ideas about groups of people will cause us to treat people in those groups in ways that will bring about the exact qualities that we think they have

Internalization of Negative Stereotypes

even young black children start to show a preference for white dolls over black ones

Stereotype Threat

when someone’s in a situation where a stereotype could apply, their anxiety/stress due to it can impair performance; confirming the exact stereotype they’re afraid of

Eye color experiment

Blue eyes > Brown eyes, said blue eyes are better and then brown eyes, created minimal groups, then Blue eyes < Brown eyes, teacher basically used a metaphorical situation to help her students understand the experience of racism

Craigslist iPod Study

Racism shows very clearly; in vivo research, subjects had NO IDEA they were even part of a study, white vs. black hand

Lines of Defense Against Socially Desirable Answers

Anonymity, measurability of how socially desirable answers are

Bonafide Pipeline Study

“facial recognition memory test,” supralimnally primed with white or black faces, word categorization

white people: primed with white faces, recognize good words better

black people: primed with white faces, recognize bad words better

Implicit Attitudes Predict…

Quality of Interactions

Automatic vs. Controlled Processes

subliminally primed with white or black faces, word categorization

jury decision task (black defendant)

interview with black experimenter

Automatic vs. Controlled Processes Results

priming effected word categorization

no relation between self-reported prejudice and priming effects

self-reports related to …..?????

Implicit Association Test

timed test of word association and priming of faces / name stimuli, tests implicit attitudes towards certain groups

When we use schemas

lack of time, cognitive overloaded, ambiguous situation

Conditions under which stereotyping & prejudice are most likely

• high ambiguity

• high cognitive demands

• situational “excuses” present (we have a rationalization for our prejudiced behavior)

• SE threatened / decreased

• emotional arousal

• group interactions

• unfamiliar vs. familiar targets

How do we eliminate prejudice?

“Contact hypothesis,” but only with limiting conditions; common goals, mutual interdependence, equal status, goal attainment

Aronson’s Jigsaw Classroom Experiment

a normal classroom is a highly competitive environment, where everyone is vying for the teacher’s respect and for the opportunity to display their intelligence, and oftentimes minority groups get subpar education so they are already naturally behind

a few kids raise their hand and one person answers correctly, to the admiration of the teacher and the groans of the other kids in other groups

Aronson changed the classroom environment to be less competitive…split class into ethnically diverse 6-person groups, and then each kid has to read and explain their specific paragraph of a 6 paragraph essay to the other 5 in their group…the only way for each kid in the class to succeed was to pay attention to each of the other kids in their group of 5

Eyewitness Testimony: how accurate?

Not at ALL — the most frequent cause of false convictions

Misinformation Effect

post-event questions can result in “false memories”

Congruent question

Aligned with what witnesses saw

Misleading question

Goes against what witnesses saw

Loftus’ Misleading Effect

car stopping at stop sign and then collision, subjects asked a misleading question, and this changes their memory of what they saw

What are False Memories

recalling events that in fact never occurred

Eyewitness Testimony Fact 1

relationship between witness accuracy and witness certainty is low (false confidence)

Eyewitness Testimony Fact 2

neither witnesses themselves nor “experts” can distinguish false memories from accurate ones

Eyewitness Testimony Fact 3

jurors are not good at detecting witness lying

Reality Monitoring Error

(Source Monitoring Error)

Writing about a scenario creates the illusion that a false memory really did occur

What do jurors rely on more than anything else?

Eyewitness testimony

Foils

Pictures of people who are not the actual suspect, but who resemble the suspect

sequential or simultaneous lineup presentation

Sequential, to avoid “best guess” problem

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in lineups

“leading” the eyewitness — if the law enforcement official is aware of the suspect, they can unconsciously do something that makes the witness pick out the suspect

If witness assumes suspect is present in lineup…

False ID rate goes up

If suspect is not actually in lineup…

False ID rate goes up

How to do a good lineup…

Run versions where suspect is and isn’t in lineup,

tell witnesses that suspect may or may not be in lineup

Defendant characteristics

Attractiveness

similarity to jurors

Matching principle

Matching principle

allowing how closely the defendant matches the kind of person you think of when you think of the crime to skew your conviction decision

When do defendant characteristics affect decision

high ambiguity & high complexity situations

Paradoxical rebound

instructing jurors to ignore something actually draws their attention to that very thing

Legal definitions often…

Fail to match juror “prototypes” of crimes

Subjective determination of reasonable doubt

???

Subjective determination of preponderance of evidence

???

Schematization (opening argument)

creating a plausible story for the jury

Authoritarianism in juror decisions

Higher conviction rate and greater sentence severity

Best predictor of juror verdicts

Quality/Strength of evidence

Weak evidence

Acquittal

Strong evidence

Conviction

Group-related phenomena in juries

minority influence

group norm formation

conformity

polarization

persuasion variable

Jurors entrusted with…

a unanimous decision

Why juries?

Group recall > individual recall

Forced deliberation requires in-depth thinking - use of central route (systematic) processing is increased

Representativeness (diversity) of perspectives

Attention focused on all evidence instead of selective pieces

Restrains use of inadmissible evidence

When evidence is clear & compelling, most juries render verdicts consistent with the evidence