Psyc 360
4/24/07Of the 60 questions on the final, 10 are from Unit 1, 10 from Unit 2, and 40 from
Unit 3. Go over the two answer keys posted in the glass case on the east side of
the third-floor hallway in the Psyc building.
Book release party on Sept. 14 at 5:30pm at the UA Bookstore.
CH.13: Conflict and Peacemaking
Conflict--Non-zero-sum games
Prisoner's dilemma--Two players, who are prisoners. The DA has only evidence
to convict each of a lessor crime than both prisoners probably committed. There
are four scenarios:
Prisoner A confesses but Prisoner B does not-- A is set free; B gets 10yr
Prisoner B confesses but A does not- B is set free; A gets 10 yr
Both confess--Both get 5 yr
Neither confesses- Both get 1 yr
The best strategy for the two players combined is for neither to confess. The
best strategy for an individual is to confess and have the other not confess.
Cooperation vs. competition--Mutual trust produces the rest results for the two
players
Tragedy of the Commons-- The "tragedy" is the inability of individuals to
cooperate effectively in using a shared resource. The tendency is for some to
consume more than their share, with the cost of doing so shared among
everyone.
"externalization"--In the corporate world, this means getting someone else to foot
the bill for something: resources, cleanup
The Prisoner's Dilemma and and the Tragedy of the Commons have some
shared features:
1. They tempt people to explain their own behavior in terms of situational factors
and those of others in terms of dispositional ones.
2. They lead to changes in motives as time goes on: At first, your motive might
be to win, and then later your motive might be to survive.
3. Both are non-zero-sum-game-- Games in which the outcomes don't
necessarily add to zero. In other words, all players can lose, or all players can
win. The determining factor is trust and cooperation.
Both games illustrate social dilemmas, cooperation versus competition. There
are factors that facilitate the resolution of these dilemmas:
1. Regulation-- "social engineering," laws are imposed to protect either the
resources or the safety of the population.
2. Small groups-- In smaller groups, people are more accountable to one
another.
3. Communication-- If individuals can communicate, then they come up with a
common strategy.
4. Changing the payoff schedule-- If the rewards for cooperation are increased
and the rewards for competition decreased, then cooperation is more likely.
5. Appeals to altruistic norms-- If the situation is framed in such a way that the
goal appears to be cooperation, then it's more likely to elicit cooperative
behavior.
If instructions emphasize "community building" or if they're given by an authority
that is liked and respected, then cooperation is more likely to develop.
Intergroup Conflict
"Robber's Cave" experiment that Sherif did with boys at a sleepover camp. They
were divided into two groups based on the bunkhouse to which they were
assigned: "Rattlers" and "Eagles." The two groups were made to compete with
each other on a number of tasks. Within days, the conflict developed to the point
of outright warfare: pranks, food fights, name-calling.
The only way that the researchers could resolve the conflict was by creating a
common adversary: The kids in a neighboring camp.
The ways to resolve conflict involve:
1. Increasing contact among groups, as long as the contact is equal-status.
2. Cooperation-- Get conflcting groups to work towards a "superordinate goal,"
a shared goal that is greater in their minds than the goal of outcompeting the
other group.
How do we explain inter-group conflict?
Equity theory-- When people feel that they aren't getting their "fair share" relative
to another group, inter-group tension arises. This tension is compounded by a
number of factors:
1. Self-serving and group-serving bias-- Taking more credit for positive
outcomes and less responsibility for negative ones.
2. Self-justification-- Denying selfish or inappropriate actions
3. Fundamental attribution error-- Being more likely to attribute our own
behavior to situational variables and the behavior of others to dispositional ones.
4. Preconceptions-- There may be unjustified expectations of the other group;
confirmation bias-- when people act in a way that supports our negative
expectations of them.
5. group polarization-- Being in a group that shares our position makes us more
extreme in that position.
6. Groupthink-- Seeing our own group as more competent, moral and virtuous
than we may actually be.
Resolving conflict-Bargaining-- Direct negotiation between individuals
Bracketing-- Example: Suppose you're buying a used stereo system. You want
to pay $400 and the seller is asking $500. Your counteroffer should be $300.
That brackets your target price of $400 between the upper value and the lower,
at exactly the halfway point.
Mediation-- Attempt by a neutral third-party to facilitate communications among
the parties that are in conflict.
Example: Mediating divorce attorneys
Arbitration-- Third-party imposes a settlement
Example: Divorce court; sports salaries are being determined by arbitrators
GRIT-- Developed during the "cold war" between the U.S. and Soviet Union,
which led to escalation in the development nuclear arms by both parties.
"Graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension-reduction." The way it works is
that each of the conflicting parties is asked at first to make a small concession
that will be reciprocated by the other party. The goal is to reverse the pattern of
escalation and move the negotiation in the opposite direction.
Detente-- A series of negotiations during the height of the Cold War in which both
parties negotiated from a position of strength.
REVIEW SESSION
III-5b Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)-- When white participants interviewed
black applicants as part of a mock job interview, the interviewers sat further away
from the "applicants," ended the interviews sooner, and showed more signs of
nervousness, including more speech errors. In part two of the study, the
researchers trained interviewers the way that the white interviewers had acted in
phase one. The applicants, regardless of race, who were treated in this way,
showed more nervousness, less friendliness and self-efficacy.
Stereotype threat-- A self-confirming fear that you are going to live up to or down
to others' expecations of you.
Practice Test III-C 6. The fact that a bystander is LESS likely to interpret an
incident as an emergency when other unresponsive bystanders are present is an
example of:
Informational influence--One of the functions of a group is to give us information.
We look at others' behavior in a possible emergency to try to determine if their
response is consistent with a true emergency.
III-5a) Explain how inconsistent information is incorporated into stereotypes.
Suppose you come across an instance of someone who does not fit your
stereotype. Instead of disgarding the stereotype, the individual may come up
with a subgrouping (may include a number of individuals) or a subtype (one
specific individual).
4/17/07Keys are posted in the glass case on the east side of the 3rd floor hallway in the
Psychology building.
CH.12: Helping
Altruism- behavior that is purely selfless
social-exchange theory-- human interactions are "transactions" that aim to
maximize our rewards and minimize our costs; we exchange "social goods" such
as love, services, information, status. "social economics"
Evidence for social-exchange theory: Research findings consistently show that
people who give social support or do community service experience positive
rewards in terms of boosts to self-esteem and to mood.
Flaw in reasoning: Reward happens after the fact. That doesn't necessarily
show that the primary motivation for acting in this manner was the reward.
When do people help others?
1. Feel bad-do good scenario-- Someone feels guilty and acts to alleviate their
guilt.
In research studies in which subjects are led to lie to the experimenter, the
subjects are also more likely to agree to volunteer additional time at the end of
the experiment to fill out a questionnaire.
Exceptions to this scenario: Negative emotions such as anger and grief don't
work in this context. When people are angry, they generally don't show any
interest in acting benevolently. When people feel grief, they can become so selfabsorbed that they're not particularly concerned about helping someone else.
Feel good-do good scenario: People who are happy, satisfied, feeling good
about themselves are more likely to help someone else.
One study involved subjects who had parked in an illegal parking spot. The
experimenter placed a piece of paper on their windshield. When the subject
finds the piece of paper, s/he discovers that it just contains an ad and NOT a
parking ticket. These subjects were more likely to agree to pariticipate in the
experimenter's survey research than subjects who either had no piece of paper
on their windshield or paper placed in other parts of their car.
Why do people help?
Perhaps there are certain social norms that encourage helping behavior:
1. Reciprocity norm-- "I'll help you now and you can return the favor in the
future." There is an expectation that others will not hurt someone who has
helped them, and that they actually may help them in the future.
Example: American Cancer Society sends out mailing labels
2. Social-responsibility norm-- Basic social expectation that people will help
those who need it.
Example: There is an expectation that people will donate money and time to
charitable causes.
Social norm for compassion and generosity.
Evolutionary explanations:
1. Kin selection-- the idea that we are more likely to act in an altruistic manner
on behalf of those who are more similar to ourselves, especially our own
relatives, because that may enhance the survival of mutually shared genes.
2. Reciprocity-- we invest resources into helping others because there may be
evolutionary advantages to sticking together and to acting in a communal
manner.
Emotional explanations:
We may feel EMPATHY, the vicarious experience of someone else's feelings,
and especially their suffering.
In some studies, subjects who witness another individual receiving electric
shocks may actually volunteer to take that person's place to stop this painful
process.
Compassion-- "shared suffering"
Cynical view of empathy is that we seek to relieve the other's suffering because
in doing so, we relieve our own suffering/discomfort.
Bystander effect-- In 1964, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in NYC while
40 or more of her neighbors heard her scream for help without doing anything to
respond to her please.
Why the bystander effect happen?
1. Being in a group may be distracting and may keep us from noticing what is
happening.
People are more likely to help someone in distress when they are by themselves
than when they are in a group.
2. Being in a group and observing other group members staying calm may
reassure us that the situation is not serious. "Illusion of transparency."
3. People are less likely to assume responsibility in a group, thinking that
someone else is going to take action.
How can the bystander effect be avoided?
Helping behavior can be modeled-- Seeing others help a stranded motorist,
donate money to charity, or giving blood makes us more likely to do the same.
People are more likely to help someone who is similar to them, in terms of either
appearance or attitudes/beliefs.
People who are time pressured are less likely to stop and help somone.
What about personality? What traits are associated with helping behavior?
Positive affectivity-- people who are more likely to be in a positive mood
Empathy-- people who identify more with the suffering of others
High in self-efficacy-- people who believe that they can do something about it
Religious involvement-- People who are regular church/synagogue/temple goers
are much more likely to volunteer their time and donate money.
Religiously committed people volunteer more often (50%) than non-committed
people (28%) and donate to charity at 2.5 times the rate.
About 1/4 of Americans make half of all charitable contributions
How can we increase helping behavior?
1. Modeling-- Act as a role model for others
2. Learning by doing-- Children donate money to charity by actually setting aside
part of their allowance.
3. Teach moral inclusion-- If people are only likely to help those in their "circle",
then expand their circle.
4. Helping should be its own reward-- Don't reward people too much for doing
the right thing (overjustification effect)
4/10/07CH.11: Attraction and Intimacy
Final Exam-- There are 60 questions, divided as follows:
40-Unit 3
20-Units 1 and 2
There will be no new objectives or key terms from Units 1 or 2 on the final. The
answer keys to both midterms will be posted in the third floor hallway of the Psyc
building.
What factors contribute to attraction?
Proximity--Attraction depends on frequency of interaction
1. interaction--how often do we interact; available
2. anticipation of interaction-- "anticipatory liking," if we know that we're going to
meet someone, we're more likely to like them or find them attractive
3. mere exposure-- repeated exposure to any kind of visual stimuli (faces,
characters or words in other languages, nonsense syllables) makes them more
likeable.
subliminal mere exposure--even when a face is flashed on a computer screen so
briefly that you have no conscious recollection of having seen it, you still show a
preference for it
Physical attractiveness--This factor influences our social decisions:
1. Mate selection-- Matching phenomenon: People tend to be attracted and
choose partners who are a good match in terms of physical attractiveness
(partners tend to be in each other's "league")
What we lack in physical attractiveness we can make up for with other attractive
attributes such as intelligence, status, wealth, humor.
2. Physical attractiveness stereotype (halo effect)-- "What is beautiful is good,"
the idea that good-looking people have other virtues such as intelligence,
integrity, etc.
What do we find physically attractive:
1. Average facial features-- Features that are symmetrical and of average
proportions are seen as most attractive.
2. Evolutionary explanation-- We are attracted to physical features that suggest
health, youth, and fertility.
3. Social comparison-- What we consider attractive is based on our standard of
comparison.
4. The more we like or love someone, the more attractive we find them.
Likeness/Similarity-- "likeness begets liking", people living in dorms or boarding
houses develop the closest friendships with the other residents who score
closest to them on questionnaires measurings values, attitudes, and preferences.
You can increase someone's liking of you by mimicking them.
What about the idea that "opposites attract"? There is virtually no research
evidence to support the idea that people are more attracted to those who are
complementary as opposed to those who are similar to themselves.
AuthenticityAre we more likely to like someone who likes us initially or who dislikes us
initially?
We prefer authenticity and we assume that people are more genuine if they start
out disliking us.
Passionate vs. Companionate Love-Passionate love--burns hot and eventually simmers down, "falling head over
heels," likened to an altered state (dopamine release associated with mindaltering drugs), pleasure or reward pathway in the brain.
Schachter & Singer (two-factor theory)-- Emotion is based on two factors: 1)
generalized arousal of the body; and 2) interpretation of that arousal.
Arousal from any source is capable of intensifying feelings of passion.
Capilano suspension bridge study-- A female researcher with a clipboard waits
on one end of the suspension bridge. She surveys male subjects either just
before or just after they cross the bridge, and then offers her phone number in
case they want to discuss the survey further. Over 50% of the men who had just
crossed the bridge called the researcher afterwards, as opposed to less than
20% of the men who had not yet crossed the bridge.
These findings have been replicated using horror movies, roller-coaster rides
,and even physical exertion.
Companionate love-- Steady, deep, lasting bond of affection that usually
develops in couples over time
"The World of Apu"
What factors contribute to passionate love?
1. Culture-- The romantic ideal of two people falling in love didn't exist in
European culture prior to the Middle Ages. Now, most cultures have an
understanding of passionate or romantic love (part of the reason may be cultural
diffusion).
2. Gender--Men fall in love more readily than women and are less likely to break
up a romance, and fall out of love less readily.
Attachment and Attachment StylesThe term "attachment" has two meanings: 1) the bond of affection between two
people; 2) dependence
Mary Ainsworth --Studies of attachment style with toddlers. Toddlers are placed
in a room with their parent, and then after a few minutes, the parent leaves the
room. After a few more minutes, the parent returns. Typically, toddlers show
one of three types of responses:
1. Secure attachment-- The child moves around the room and explores freely
while keeping tabs on the parents and touching base at times. When the parent
leaves the room, the child may become distressed, but that distress resolves
pretty quickly after the parent returns.
Insecure attachments:
2. Preoccupied attachment-- The child clings to the parent and doesn't explore
much while the parent is in the room. When the parent leaves, the child
becomes extremely distressed and the distress does not resolve easily when the
parent returns.
3. Avoidant attchment-- The child may seem relatively indifferent to the
presence of the parent and doesn't react very strongly to the parents' absence,
but may show anger or resentment when the parent returns.
a) Dismissive-- The person has mistrust of others and doesn't let them close.
b) Fearful-- The person doesn't let people close for fear of rejection.
"Good enough" parent responds to the child's needs most, but not all, of the time.
A parent who responds to every need immediately can produce a clingy child,
and one who does not respond to most needs can produce an avoidant child.
Social exchange theory-- Claims that people seek equity in relationships;
relationships work to the extent that all parties feel that they're receiving as much
as they're giving.
4/3/07Grades posted by Wed at noon (MST)
Aggression- Behavior (physical or verbal) intended to cause harm
Two types: 1) hostile aggression--behavior that's driven by anger, and it's an end
in itself; 2) instrumental aggression--the aggression is a means to an end.
Theories of aggressionFreud-- Aggression is a self-destructive impulse that gets redirected to others.
The sexual and aggressive tendencies are a "life instinct" and a "death instinct,"
respectively.
Lorenz-- Aggression is adaptive, instrumental; it gives the aggressor an
advantage of some type.
Biological influences on aggression:
1. Neural--Prefrontal cortex (impulse control) is less active and sometimes
smaller in violent people.
2. Genetic--Animals can be bred for aggressiveness. When it comes to violent
behavior and criminal activity, monozygotic twins resemble each other much
more than dizygotic twins. Evidence that prenatal conditions can influence
violent behavior: Mothers' smoking beahvior during pregnancy is linked to sons'
criminal behavior in adulthood.
3. Biochemical
*Testosterone--Higher-than-average testosterone levels are more common in
men imprisoned for violent crimes versus those imprisoned for non-violent
crimes. Women who are injected with testosterone show greater emotional
reactivity to angry faces.
*Alcohol-- Disinhibiting people and affecting impulse control. Alcohol has been
implicated in 65% of homicides (either the perpetrator or the victim had high
blood alcohol levels).
*Serotonin--Moderates aggression. In the most aggressive animals within a
species, the serotonin levels are lowest. This is also true in people; violent
criminals tend to show the lowest serotonin levels. Serotonin levels vary
seasonally. During the times of year when serotonin tends to be lowest, suicide
rates go up.
More modern social psychological theories of aggression-Frustration-aggression theory-- If a person is blocked from attaining a goal, that
frustration leads to aggression. The aggressive energy doesn't have to be
directed to its source; it can displaced (redirected).
Under what circumstances does frustration lead to aggression?
If the frustration is understandable or justifiable, then it doesn't lead to aggressive
behavior.
When the frustration is preventable and seems unjustified, it MAY stimulate
anger, which in turn can be expressed as aggressive behavior.
IN NO WAY is this a stimulus --> response reaction.
What about individual differences?
Social learning theory-- We learn all social behavior, including aggressive
behavior, by observing and imitating (and being rewarded for imitation).
Albert Bandura-- Bobo doll experiment: 4-6 year-olds observed an adult model
hitting a Bobo doll. Then the children are denied something they want
(permission to play with desirable toys) and then are placed in a room with a
Bobo doll. Most of the children who observed the adult model started beating on
the Bobo doll, whereas a very small percentage of the children who did NOT
observe the violent model did not engage in that behavior.
Watching the model on TV is virtually the same as observing a live model.
There is a modest but consistent relationship between watching TV and movie
violence and engaging in violent behavior. By the time an American child
reaches the age of 18, s/he has observed over 20,000 homicides, and over
250,000 acts of violence through the media.
3/27/07Prejudice, Discrimination and Stereotypes (CH.9)
Prejudice--attitudes
Discrimination--behavior
Stereotypes--cognition
Subtle forms of discrimination-Studies in which people negotiate for a new car, and the findings show that white
males get the lowest prices, followed by white males, white females, black males,
black females
Studies in which a fake identity and biographical information is created for a
subject, including a resume that is sent out to potential employers; mock
applicants with "white names" are more likely to get called back by employers
than "black" names.
Automatic prejudice-- Work of Tony Greenwald and John Bargh; these
researchers developed an instrument that's called the Implicit Associations Test
(IAT). In this test, Subjects have to do various types of sorting and matching
tasks involving words and faces.
Greenwald has found that 9 in 10 white subjects took longer to identify pleasant
words ("peace" or paradise") as good when those words were associated with a
black rather than a white face.
White subjects are PRIMED for words or images of a gun when they are first
shown a black face.
PRIMING is when exposure to a stimulus alters your subsequent performance on
a task
Semantic priming-- Seeing "doctor" makes you respond faster and more
accurately to the word "nurse" and vice versa.
Repetition-- Seeing a word like "house" causes you to respond faster and more
accurately to it the next time you see it.
Mere exposure effect--Simply seeing a picture of a face makes us more likely to
respond favorably to that face the next time we see it.
"Bowling for Columbine"
Sexism-- Benevolent sexism ("women are so responsible"), hostile sexism (men
are "whipped")
Philip Goldberg (1968)-- Women engage in sexist behavior. The study asked
college-aged women to rate articles/essays that they believed to be written by
either a male or female author. The subjects in this study rated the articles
higher if they thought it was written by a man.
Recent attempts to replicate these findings have shown that, more often than not,
the gender bias observed by Goldberg doesn't seem to occur.
What are the social sources of prejudice?
1. Social inequalities-- Unequal status breeds prejudice. One possible for this:
We justify the unequal status and treatment of others by demeaning them.
2. Socialization-- Attitutudes have to be learned, and there is extensive
evidence that people who have prejudicial attitudes are more likely to have been
raised by authoritarian parents.
Three types of parenting styles:
authoritative- setting firm yet reasonable limits
permissive- sets virtually no limits
authoritarian- sets limits in an aggressive, forceful, and almost "bullying" manner
authoritarian parents tend to have an "authoritarian personality", which means
that they favor obedience to authority in general, show intolerance to "outgroups"
and to those who are lower in status
3. Religion-- Church members tend to express more racial prejudice on average
than non-members; those who prefer traditional or fundamentalist Christian
beliefs show the most prejudicial attitudes of all church members
Important distinction between church MEMBERS and church GOERS. Those
who go to church because it fulfills their spiritual/religious needs as opposed to
those who go for social reasons (networking, status) show less prejudice.
Those who score high on measures of SPIRITUAL COMMITMENT, which look at
people's affinity for spiritual values (e.g., compassion, service, unconditional love,
humility, forgiveness) are more open to people of all races.
Humane Borders-- Mostly church clergy and other religious groups/individuals.
Among other things, they provide humanitarian aid to migrants, especially those
crossing in the deserts of Southern Arizona.
Christian clergy were highly involved in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
4. Social institutions, such as the government, schools, media. The media
reinforce the status quo. Photos of men in the media are more likely to depict
closeups of their face, whereas photos of women are more likely to depict their
entire body.
Ethnic minorities, until pretty recently, were depicted on television primarily as
criminals.
Two social theories that explain how social prejudices emerge:
1. Social identity theory-- When we define ourselves by our group, we tend to
put people into two categories: the "ingroup" (those who belong to our group)
and the "outgroup" (everyone else). We tend to show ingroup bias.
2. Scapegoat theory--Groups compete for reources, and when resources are
scarce, they may blame each other for the scarcity.
What factors contribute to ingroup bias?
1. When we feel threatened, either experiencing fear or a threat to our selfesteem.
When fear is elicited in some studies of ingroup bias, the subjects are more likely
to show such bias. Researchers use the term "terror management" to coping
strategies that people use to minimize their fear in situations that are fearproducing. One of those strategies involving seeking social support from one's
social group.
2. When our group is small and considered lower in status than the outgroup
3. When our group is successful ("we won", "they lost")
Cognitive aspects of prejudice
Categorization--Whenever we put people, objects, animal, events, or anything
else into categories, we tend to exaggerate the similarities within our categories
and the differences between them.
Perceptual processesDistinctiveness--A person in a social situat ion whom we perceive as
distinctiveness becomes more of a focal point of our attention, and so we give
them more credit or blame for what happens than they actually deserve. We also
notice both their "good" and "bad qualities more.
Vividness-- Some exemplars of a certain category just stand out more. The
availability heuristic can play a part in stereotyping people. "Are Japanese
people good ballplayers?" When considering a question like this, we tend to
focus on vivid examples, i.e., individuals who stand out for some reason. So, we
think of Ichiro and Dice-K, and we go "heck yeah." Limited exposure to a social
group causes us to generalize from a few vivid examples. As a result, we form a
stereotype based on minimal data.
Fundamental attribution error-- The tendency to attribute other peoples' actions
more to dispositional factors (internal characteristics, personality traits) as
opposed to situational factors.
Group-serving bias--We are more likely to attribute the behavior of outgroup
members to their disposition and the behavior of ingroup members to the
situation.
Just-world phenomenon--We assume that people deserve what they get: Just by
observing a person being victimized, we tend to think that the person did
something to earn or deserve that treatment.
Psyc 360: 3/20/07
http://www.actonwisdom.com
Four online courses:
Psyc 364: Human Sexuality (Summer Session)
Psyc 358: Consciousness
Psyc 375: Industrial-Organizational
Psyc 383: Health Psyc
(offered through Distance Learning; e-mail Colleen Reed,
colleen@email.arizona.edu)
The Distance courses go from 5/14-6/8
Extended pre-session
CH.15: Social Psychology in the Courtroom
Law psychology: Bruce Sales
Eyewitness Testimony--social-cognitive psychology
Why is eyewitness testimony sometimes inaccurate?
1. Sensory apparatus are limited--Difference between sensation and perception.
Sensation is what our five senses receive, but perception is the cognitive
interpretation of that information.
2. Memory reconstruction- Memory is not like pulling up information from a data
bank. Brainerd & Reyna: Fuzzy trace theory, which claims that human beings
remember mostly the gist of what happened in the past, and then they
reconstruct the details.
Frederick Bartlett--Read Native American myths about ancestral spirits to British
schoolboys and then asked them to recall the details of the stories that they
heard. The schoolboys turned all of the characters who were ancestral spirits
into living people. The notion of an ancestral spirit didn't fit with the schoolboys'
SCHEMAS (framework for understanding and interpreting the world).
3. Strong emotions and stress impact memory
Study by Loftus (?) in which a person runs into the lecture hall and "shoots" the
professor. When the students were asked afterwards to describe the shooter,
most of them couldn't do it, or if they could, they misrecalled the details of what
that person looked what, what they were wearing, etc.
4. Memory is susceptible to suggestibility
Loftus - Misinformation effect.
Participants viewed a slide show depicting an accident between a red Datsun
(1970s) and a pedestrian.
"Did another car pass the red Datsun while it was stopped at the STOP sign?"
For half of participants, the scene they viewed involved a STOP sign, and so the
question was consistent with what they saw.
For the other half, the scene they viewed involved a YIELD sign, and so the
question was MISLEADING.
Then, participants are asked to remember the details of the scene. Those in the
consistent condition were 75% accurate in identifying a YIELD sign. Those in the
misleading condition were only 41% accurate.
Mere exposure effect--We remember and our performance is influenced by faces
that we've seen before, even if we have only seen them unconsciously.
How do we increase the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, or at least of jurors'
ability to gauge the accuracy of that testimony?
Overconfidence--a common tendency when people are asked to rate the
probability of their judgment being accurate.
1. Train police interviewers to let witnesses tell their story without interrupting
them or asking them potentially misleading questions?
2. Train police detectives on how to construct lineups in a way that is consistent
with current cognitive and social psychological principles.
3. Train jurors about the limitations of eyewitness testimony.
Teach them a little bit about statistics.
In your city, 20% of the cabs are blue and 80% are gray. An eyewitness
observes a cab striking a pedestrian at night. If the eyewitness says s/he is 90%
sure that they saw a blue cab, what is the actual probability that the cab that
struck the pedestrian was actually blue?
Significantly less than 90%
What influences jurors' decision-making?
Two characteristics of defendents influence jurors:
1. Physical attractiveness- "Halo effect" or "physical attractiveness stereotype"
(good-looking people are good people)
2. Similarity-- "likeness begets liking", we tend to favor those who are similar to
us in attitudes, gender, religion, and race.
From a jurors' perspective, there is no way to "erase" inadmissible evidence
In studies with mock juries, participants are asked to reach a verdict in one of two
conditions:
1. The case against the defendent is weak.
2. The weak case is supplemented with an incriminating phone call that the
mock jurors are then told is inadmissible.
In condition 1, virtually no jurors chose to convict. In condition 2, 1/3 voted for
conviction.
Why is it hard for jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence?
1. Judges' instructions to disregard evidence may produce REACTANCE
(tendency to try and restore or protect one's autonomy)
2. The instructions just draw more attention to that information.
Big issue in law psyc involves improving jurors' understanding of information
being presented to them. How do we do that?
1. By studying the most common ways that jurors misinterpret information and
statistical information.
2. By giving jurors written transcripts of court testimony so that they don't have to
rely on their memory alone.
3. By finding more effective language for communicating with jurors (as opposed
to "legalese").
Jury selection-- "Runaway Jury", Current trends involve using "scientific jury
selection" to weed out those potential jurors who may be unsympathetic to the
lawyers' case. These techniques introduce large amounts of bias into the
selection process.
"Death-qualified jurors"-- If you ask a potential juror whether or not they oppose
the death penalty, those who are most in favor of the death pentalty are more
likely to have certain characteristics: They are more likely to favor the
prosecution, favor crime control over due process and over the protection of
constitutional rights.
What factors affect a jury's decision-making?
1. Group polarization-- People's initial leanings become more extreme when
they discuss them in a group setting, especially when the other members of the
group have the same leanings.
Why does group polarization occur?
a) Information influence-- The discussion with others who share our position
brings out elements of our case that we hadn't considered. That information is
going to strengthen our position, because we are unlikely to hear much from the
other side if the group members share our position.
b) Normative influence-- We want to be liked and accepted by the other
members of the group, and so we may express stronger opinions after
discovering that other group members share our views.
2. Leniency-- In most juries, the acquittal verdict usually prevails, as long as the
evidence is not HIGHLY incriminating. Burden of proof is on the side of the
prosecution ("beyond a reasonable doubt") .
3. Minority influence- A vocal minority can persist in swaying the majority, if the
minority is consistent in its views, persistent in making its position known, and
self-confident. "Twelve Angry Men". All it takes is one or two defections from the
majority for the entire jury's position to begin to shift.
REVIEW
II-3c Offer two possible reasons why gender differences shrink with age?
1. Hormonal changes-- Physiological changes in men and women blur the
boundaries between the sexes. It has been said that we become more
"androgynous" as we get older: We start showing more of the secondary
characteristics (especially psychological) of the opposite sex.
2. Role demands change-- Especially when adults are raising a family, they
tend to assume "traditional" sex roles. But once the burdens of child-raising are
lifted, adults are not as bound to these roles.
II-4 d
Person-situation interactions:
1. Social situations affect different people differently (some of us love to talk in
front of a group, and some of us hate it with a passion).
2. Based on personality, people choose their social situations.
3. People often create their situations in a variety of ways, including by their
expectations (e.g., behavioral confirmation).
II-5a)
conformity--changes in behavior or attitudes caused by real or imagined group
pressure.
Types of conformity:
1. Compliance- conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with a request
or with group expectatins while privately disagreeing (insincere conformity).
2. acceptance-- conformity that involves both acting and believing in accordance
with social pressure (sincere conformity)
3. obedience--act in accord with a direct order or command from an established
authority (sincere or insincere)
II-15a
a) Symptoms of groupthink -- The term "groupthink" came out of studies of the
decision-making process of JFK and his advisors on the Bay of Pigs.
1. illusion of invulnerability
2. unquestioned belief in the group's position and in its moral authority
3. rationalization--justify their actions based on this moral authority
4. stereotyped view of the opponent--underestimating the other side
5. conformity pressure-- the group members are expected to conform with the
leader's position
6. self-censorship (there tends to be a directive, charismatic leader)
7. illusion of unanimity (the leader believes that the group members all agree
with him/her)
8. group members called "mindguards" who make sure that the other members
"toe the line." In the Bay of Pigs, it was RFK who discouraged advisors from
voicing their opposition. Enforce the status quo.
II-15b)
Janis- The researcher who coined the term "groupthink" proposed the following
strategies for preventing it:
1. Maintain impartiality
2. Encourage critical evaluation--Ask a group member to play "devil's advocate"
3. Welcome critiques from outside experts.
4. Occasionally subdivide the group into "task forces" that discuss
ideas/strategies and then make their recommendations to the bigger group.
5. Call a "last chance" meeting to air any lingering doubts before implementing
the plan.
c) How to encourage brainstorming in groups (sometimes groups are less
creative together than individually):
1. Use a combination of group and individual brainstorming.
2. Have group members interact in writing (to minimize judgment of new ideas)
3. Incorporate electronic brainstorming
d) What makes a minority in a group persuasive?
1. minority position is consistent
2. minority conveys self-confidence
3. minority triggers defections from the majority
e) Different kinds of group leadership
1. Task leadership--leadership that focuses on goals, on organizing work and
setting standards and timelines
2. Social leadership--leadership that builds teamwork, encourages input,
mediates confliect and offers support
3. Transformational leadership-- leadership that enables other people to share
the leader's vision and inspiration
"Tucker: A Man and His Dreams"
When is central route or peripheral route persuasion more effective?
Central route persuasion--Focuses on the logical arguments of a case. It's more
effective with people who are analytical, well-educated, and who like to explore
ideas intellectually
Peripheral route persuasion--Focuses on superficial characteristics of a case,
such as the physical appearance of political candidates. It works best with
people who are not expending much in the way of cognitive resources in making
their decisions.
II-13 c) Circumstances that are least conducive to social loafing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
When the task is challenging/appealing
When they know and like the other members of the group
When they see other group members as being unreliable
When there are group incentives
When there is individual accountability
Psyc 360: 3/6/07
CH.7: Persuasion
Central and peripheral routes of persuasion
Central route occurs when people focus on the arguments, whereas peripheral
route occurs when people focus on incidental cues (e.g., a candidate's face)
Persuasiveness of a presenter is based on two factors:
1. Credibility--Is the person believable? Is that person an expert? Is the person
trustworthy?
To increase your credibility as a presenter, you can look people straight in the
eye. You can also talk fast.
2. Attractiveness--Is the person appealing? Likeable? SIMILAR TO
OURSELVES?
Which is more persuasive: a credible presenter or an attractive one?
The answer depends on the message: For matters having to do with personal
taste and values, an attractive speaker (specifically, one that is most similar to
us) is more credible. For matters having to do with straight information (i.e.,
facts), a credible presenter is more persuasive.
What about the audience? What characteristics of the audience determine the
persuasiveness of a message?
Well-educated, analytical people are more responsive to reason than emotion.
Good feelings can make a message more persuasive (if the audience is in a
good mood, laughing, cheerful).
Fear, on the other hand, can be persuasive, too. If the objective is to keep
someone from engaging in a behavior that may lead to an undesirable outcome,
then fear can be very effective. Fear-based messsages can also elicit
defensiveness. The ideal is to use fear-based messages in combination with
practical strategies/solutions.
What kinds of messages are most persuasive?
Ones that are not too discrepant from the audience's position. In other words,
don't make people shift their attitudes too dramatically. The more discrepant the
message, the more credible the presenter has to be.
A one-sided appeal (only present one side of the argument) only works well in
convincing audiences that already agree with you. If the audience is going to be
exposed to opposing arguments anyway, it's more effective to present the other
sides' position to them yourself.
"Straw Man" argument--When you present a weakened version of the other
side's position
The order of presentation of messages matters also. Primacy effect and recency
effect. People attend to and remember better the first message they receive
(primacy) and the last (recency), and they tend to like better what they remember
better.
Job candidates, take note: If you have a choice, take the first or last interview
slot.
In theory, primacy is stronger than recency, but in reality, people often forget the
earlier messages if enough time goes by.
The timing of a message matters. The "sleeper effect" is when a message that
was initially rejected becomes more persuasive over time, as people forget the
reasons they rejected it in the first place.
What kind of communication channel works best?
1. Active experience vs. passive reception-- Passive reception would be a
message like "Anthony Stuart ASUA President" on a poster. It doesn't require
you to do anything other than be exposed to the message. It's much more
effective to get someone to agree to an action, even a small one such as wearing
a lapel pin.
Passive messages are more persuasive if the issues are less familiar or
significant to us. "Mere exposure effect" is when our liking of something or
someone increases simply by being exposed to it repeately (mere repetition).
Name and face recognition count.
2. Personal vs media influence-- The most effective channel for persuasion is
face-to-face ("high touch").
With the media, the more lifelike, the better: video>audio>print. Part of the way
that media messages influence audiences is through a "two-step flow of
communication": the message influences opinion leaders who influence
everyone else.
In "The Corporation," social psychologists who develop advertising geared
towards children are interviewed.
Print works best for messages that are hard to comprehend (voter pamphlets).
Other audience factors that affect persuasiveness include:
1. age--It's easier to change attitudes in people in their teens and 20's as
opposed to those in their 50's and 60's.
Note: People in their 50's and 60's have more liberal sexual and racial attitudes.
Not a function of age as much as it is a function of generation.
2. what's on the person's mind-- If you know that someone is trying to persuade
you, you tend to be much more resistant. Distraction can keep someone from
generating counterarguments. The level of involvement of the audience
determines which types of messages are more persuasive: For uninvolved
audiences (those who have a low need to analyze and think about arguments),
peripheral route persuasion is more effective, whereas the central route is more
effective for involved audiences.
Cults: What kinds of persuasive techniques to they use?
a) Behavioral committment-- Get people to be active members of the team, by
involving them in ritual, recruitment, and fund-raising. This uses the foot-in-thedoor principle: At first, you're asked to do small tasks, and then the commitment
gets bigger incrementally.
b) Peruasive techniques discussed in this chapter-- Charismatic leader who is
credible and authoritative. Emotion-charged messages, which work best when it
comes to matters of personal values. You keep the messages simple, and there
are often slogans that members repeat. There are members of the group that
monitor new members' language and thought processes. Target people who are
at a turning point in their lives, often facing personal crises, or possibly living
away from home.
c) Group isolation--Cut off people from friends, family, and others who might
present a different viewpoint.
Attitude inoculation--Preventing people from giving in to persuasion by exposing
them to weakened version of the arguments they are likely to encounter.
Has worked well in:
1. Smoking prevention programs. Present children with mock versions of social
situations in which they may be invited to try smoking.
2. Inoculating children against the influence of advertising. Children are shown
the actual toys being advertived on TV. Children watch ads and then discuss
them.
No ads in schools, no ads targeting children under the age of 8. Social
engineering is when you set controls on the environment to keep certain
behaviors from occurring.
CH.8: Group Influence
Social facilitation--Originally, researchers thought that people do better on tasks
in the presence of others, but data showed that performance depends on the
kind of task. This term is now defined as the tendency of others' presence to
strengthen one's dominant response. What is a dominant response? On a
simple task, it's to carry out the task flawlessly and quickly. On a hard task, it's
failure.
Pool players:
Good pool players improve their performance (from 70 to 80%) in the presence
of others. The performance of bad pool players drops from 35 to 25 % in ther
presence of others.
The presence of others produces autonomic arousal, which increase heart rate,
b.p. etc. Isn't that a bad thing?
Performance is a function of arousal that is shaped like an inverted U.
Self-perception theory--Sometimes we view ourselves like an outsider looking in.
If we are experiencing arousal, we look for cues in our environment to tell us why
we are aroused. If those cues are fear-based, we interpret our arousal as fear. If
they are happiness-based, we interpret our arousal as happiness. We can
interpret our arousal as anything we want.
Why is there arousal in the presence of others?
1. Evaluation apprehension--We're worried about how other people perceive us
and judge us.
2. Other people's presence is distracting--It's sensory overload. People are part
of the sensory experience in our environment.
3. Mere presence--There is an innate biological tendency on the part of all
animals to respond with arousal in the presence of others. Maybe (instructor's
pure speculation) the presence of others indicates that something's about to
happen (fighting, lovemaking) and so our arousal is just our readiness to
respond.
Crowding just enhances that response even more.
Social loafing--The tendency of people to do less work when their efforts are
pooled towards a common goal.
Why does social loafing occur? The main theory is that there is less evaluation
apprehension; people know that they are not being evaluated individually and so
they slacken. The bigger the group, the less effort the members exert, up to
about 15-16 people.
Evidence of social loafing-1. Productivity of workers in an assembly-line increases when their individual
output is assessed.
2. In the former Soviet Union, private plots of land occupied 1% of agricultural
land and produced 27% of the nation's food.
3. A small percentage of public television viewers contribute a large proportion of
funds during pledge drives.
When is social loafing most likely to occur?
1. When the taks is not challenging or appealing.
2. When the members of the team are strangers.
3. When there is someone in the group who is likely to pick up the slack.
4. When there are no group incentives.
5. When there is NO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Deindividuation--Loss of self-awareness and loss of accountability that occurs in
group situations and that can lead to a number of problem behaviors such as
mob violence, looting. The individual members of the group respond almost
automatically in ways that are consistent with that group's norms.
When subjects are instructed to put on a uniform or costume, they are more likely
to act in a manner that is consistent with that outfit. People in "Klan" outfits are
more likely to administer shocks and people in nurse's outfits are less likely.
What factors contribute to deindividuation?
1. Group size--Larger groups provide more anonymity.
2. Physical anonymity--People behave in certain ways over the Internet that they
might not face-to-face ("flaming"); people in closed cars honk more and drive
more aggressively than people in convertibles.
3. The kinds of activities in which people are engaged--What is the group doing?
Impulsive behavior is more arousing and leads to more deindividuation (e.g.,
chanting "We will rock you" at a sporting event)
When people are made more self-aware, they are less likely to exhibit
deindividuation. Self-awareness can be increased by having people say their
names, give their addresses, or even look at themselves in a mirror. When we
remember who we are, we are less likely to lose our identity in a crowd.
Group Decision-Making
One phenomenon that is observed in a group is the "risky shift." Sometimes,
groups make riskier decision together than any of the members would make
individually.
Part of a bigger overall pattern that is called Group Polarization. Whatever the
tendency of the individuals may be, that tendency is exacerbated (increased)
when the group members discuss the issues with one another, assuming that the
members lean in the same direction.
If the members of the group tend to lean towards caution, then the group
decision will be more cautious as a result of discussion, and not less.
Group polarization just means that the discussion makes the individual
tendencies more extreme.
Examples: People's likes and dislikes intensify in discussion with others who
share similar likes and dislikes.
In schools, communities and even Internet chat rooms, we become more
polarized in our positions as a result of our interactions with others who share our
attitudes and interests.
Why does group polarization occur?
1. Informational influence--When we pool our ideas together, we are exposed to
the viewpoints of others. And because we gravitate to those whose viewpoints
are similar to our own, the result is that we adopt ideas that confirm our original
attitudes.
2. Normative influence--We want people to like and accept us, and so we may
express stronger opinions after discovering that they share our viewpoint.