Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
99 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
conformity
|
not just acting how other people do; being AFFECTED by how they act (thinking, feeling, etc.)
change in behavior/belief to go along w/ others bad for individualistic culture: mindless herd good for collectivist: tolerance, maturity, etc. |
|
3 types of conformity
|
1. COMPLIANCE: change in act, not belief (ex: wearing suit to work)
2. OBEDIENCE: change in act AS COMMANDED 3. ACCEPTANCE: change in BELIEF (can follow compliance -- dissonance theory) |
|
Sherif's Norm Formation
|
CONFORMITY STUDY
observation of social norm in lab -- dark room, point of light that moves erratically, but not really --> opitcal illusion multiple participants in the room each give estimate of distance the light moved repeated measurement; inconsistent each time b/c participants CONFORM to new group average ratings w/in group eventually converge more in time AMBIGUITY!!!! -- no correct answer? |
|
social contagion
|
chameleon effect
examples: - contagious yawning - automatically copying other people's behavior - copycat suicides |
|
Asch's Group Pressure Study
|
CONFORMITY STUDY
study of perceptual judgments (ex: of lines shown, which is longest?) other participants seem to pick choice that doesn't seen right; people may get uncomfortable, feel crazy 75% conformed at least once; 37% conformed most of the time HOWEVER... no order or command to conform STRAIGHTFORWARD, no ambiguity!! |
|
Milgram Obedience Study
|
OBEDIENCE STUDY
demands of authority clash w/ demands of conscience sample: 40 men, 20-50 yrs. old -- 65% went all the way w/ dangerous electricity, until experimenter had to stop them -- all predicted disobey at 135 volts participants were stressed by the task self concepts altered? |
|
what breeds obedience? 4 factors
|
1. VICTIM'S DISTANCE: greater w/ greater distance -- moral disengagment; distance = easier to depersonalize
2. CLOSENESS AND LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY: less obedience in milgram study when instructions were given over the phone, rather than in person; when experimenter was switched, more people refused to comply 3.INST. AUTHORITY: when milgram was held at Yale, people were more obedient than when it was held at some unknown place 4. SELF-LIBERATION: when you have a reason for action (ex: student get bad grade, excuse to be mean to teacher) |
|
attitudes predict behavior
|
ext. influences override int. convictions
-- power of situation -- foot in door (start small, work your way up) immediate situations are as/more powerful than personality, cognitive ability FAE: explains why our predictions are so bad |
|
what predicts conformity? 4 factors
|
1. GROUP SIZE: large groups more influential; also multiple groups (even small)
2. UNANIMITY 3. STATUS: more conformity towards high status people, but high status people are less likely to conform; low status people more likely to conform 4. PUBLIC RESPONSE: greater conformity when observed |
|
2 reasons to conform
|
1. TO BE ACCEPTED (normative influence) consistent deviations frowned upon; takes too much energy to resist
2. TO BE RIGHT OR OBTAIN USEFUL INFO: in presence of ambiguity, other people's actions serve as guide |
|
BRAIN study
|
RECREATION OF ASCH w/ FMRIs and spatial location tasks
-- when saying "wrong" answer" (b/c the person is conforming) brain region for perception (NOT decision making) is active -- when saying "right" answer (not conforming) brain region for emotion is active not conforming is stressful!! |
|
3 predictors for conformity
|
1. PERSONALITY: not best predictor unless averaged over time; predicts behavior best when situation is weak -- less clues on how one should act
2. CULTURE: varies; collectivist cultures are more likely to conform 3. SOCIAL ROLES: cluster or norms shifting back and forth |
|
being different -- reactance vs. uniqueness
|
REACTANCE: people act to protect their sense of freedom; restriction of freedom leads to ANTI-conformity (boomerang effect); ex: contributor to underage drinking
ASSERTING UNIQUENESS: sameness is comfort for collectivist cultures, but moderate uniqueness is good in ind. cultures; ex: cyclical generation of names, "tell us about yourself..." |
|
paths to persuasion
|
CENTRAL: practical, logical, important; strong, compelling arguments; conscious cognition; more enduring change (attitude, behavior)
PERIPHERAL: superficial, less attn. involved; less thinking, clear statements w/ cues; implicit/automatic cognition; less enduring (less likely to effect behavior; attitude change) |
|
resources and persuasion
|
not always enough for central route (that requires more resources); sometimes peripheral since it requires less work
|
|
4 elements of persuasion
|
1. COMMUNICATOR
2. MESSAGE 3. HOW MESSAGE IS COMMUNICATED 4. AUDIENCE |
|
Occam's razor
|
simplest explanation tends to right
goes out the window when explaining effectiveness of persuasion tactics!! |
|
3 elements of persuasion
|
1. COMMUNICATOR: credibility and attractiveness and liking
2. MESSAGE (content): reason vs. emotion, descrepancy b/t current and proposed, 1-sided vs. 2-sided, primacy vs. recency -- 2a: DELIVERY METHOD: active vs. passive, personal vs. media influence 3. AUDIENCE (who receives it): self esteem, age, what they are thinking |
|
communicator
(persuasion) -- credibility vs. attractiveness and linking |
CREDIBILITY: CENTRAL; perception of expertise and trust
-- expertise: speak confidently; lab coat example; say things audience agrees w/ -- trustworthiness: make eye contact, dont overtly persuade, argue against own self interest (hide bias), talk fast (perceived as smarter) ATTRACTIVENESS and LIKING: PERIPHERAL; physical appeal, esp. if similar to self; using celebrities, athletes, etc. to appeal, DOORWAY TO CENTRAL -- can open us up to other arguments; PERIPHERAL: can later trigger pos. assocs. WHICH IS STRONGER? depends; for preference and personal value, attractiveness and liking; for fact-based, credibility is stronger |
|
sleeper effect
|
assoc. b/t communicator and message
?? delayed impact ?? |
|
message
(persuasion) |
REASON vs. EMOTION: depends on the audience; reason is better for educated people; good feelings -- linked w/ message, negative people tend to be more skeptical (ruminate over decisions); also, EFFECT OF AROUSING FEAR: more terrifying = more effective
DISCREPANCY: communicator shouldn't argue or whine, but can discredit YOU as a credible source when it comes to changing behavior; more discrepancy when communicator is expert; w/ high interest audience, extreme discrepancy is allowed, w/ low interest audiences, less discrepancy is allowed 1 vs. 2 SIDED: provide counterargument if audience is exposed to opposing views; 1 sided is best if audience was initially agreed, 2 sided works best if audience initially opposed PRIMACY vs. RECENCY: order effects; primacy: hard to discredit 1st impression; recency: people remember most recent things best; can be forgotten when enough time separates the 1st message; audience will commit itself to the 2nd message, esp. if the 1st message stimulated their thinking |
|
message's channel of communication
(persuasion) |
ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE:
-- ACTIVE: spoken appeals not always more persausive (due to audience interest and communicator credibility) -- PASSIVE: slogans are not always effective, BUT familiarity and repeitition make info. more believable -- persuasion decreases as the significance and familiarity of the message decreases PERSONAL vs. MEDIA: personal contact is a major source of influence, however w/ media...: -- 2 STEP FLOW: (1) media to opinion leaders, (2) opinion leads to friends >> indirect influence -- the more lifelike the better, written is better for complex info. |
|
audience factors
(persuasion) |
SELF-ESTEEM: easier to influence when moderate
AGE: lifecycle explaination -- views change as we age; attitudes do not change, but stabalize as we age; older people hold onto attidues they adopted at a younger age WHAT THEY ARE THINKING: -- forewarned: knowing someone will try to persuade you preps. you w/ counteraguments -- distraction: disarms counterarguing -- uninvolved audiences use peripheral cues: stimulates thinking w/ rhetorical questions, multi. speakers for one argument, makes audience feel responsible, relaxed postures, repeated message, need undivided attn. |
|
extreme persuasion
|
cults
sun myung moon's unification church, jim jone's people's temple, david koresh's branch davidians, marshall applewhite's heavens gate internal, dispositional attribution |
|
attitudes follow behavior
|
compliance breeds acceptance
foot in the door |
|
resistance to persuasion
|
challenging beliefs -- mildly attack audiences position (commitment to belief strengths)
develop counterarguments: mild attacks build resistance = attitude innoculation (ex: peer pressure to not smoke, influence in advertising) mildly attacking eventually makes the person's own beliefs stronger |
|
group
|
2+ people who interact and influence each other
perceives themselves as "us", instead of them |
|
minimal group situation
|
COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE
minimal amt of interaction among members -- SOCIAL FACILITATION -- SOCIAL LOAFING -- DEINDIVUATION |
|
social faciltation
|
part of collective influence/min. group situation
mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task also occurs in animals DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS |
|
Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation
|
social facilitation
arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant hinders performance in a hard task proficiency in task other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance |
|
group
|
2+ people who interact and influence each other
perceives themselves as "us", instead of them |
|
minimal group situation
|
COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE
minimal amt of interaction among members -- SOCIAL FACILITATION -- SOCIAL LOAFING -- DEINDIVUATION |
|
social faciltation
|
part of collective influence/min. group situation
mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task also occurs in animals DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS |
|
Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation
|
social facilitation
arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant hinders performance in a hard task proficiency in task other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance |
|
group
|
2+ people who interact and influence each other
perceives themselves as "us", instead of them |
|
minimal group situation
|
COLLECTIVE INFLUENCE
minimal amt of interaction among members -- SOCIAL FACILITATION -- SOCIAL LOAFING -- DEINDIVUATION |
|
social faciltation
|
part of collective influence/min. group situation
mere presence of others improves performance and speed of a simple task also occurs in animals DOES NOT CARRY OVER TO COMPLEX TASKS |
|
Zajonc -- Social unfacilitation
|
social facilitation
arousal/anxiety enhances whatever response tendency is dominant hinders performance in a hard task proficiency in task other's presence >> arousal >> strengthens dominant repsonse >> enhance easy task OR impair hard task performance |
|
crowding
|
presence of many others
even a supportive audience may have a harder time w/ difficult tasks; effect of presence of others increases w/ number; extreme pressure effects AUTOMATED, LEARNED behaviors being observed by crown ENHANCES arousal (sweat, faster breathing, tense muscles) positive and negative reactions are intensified |
|
why higher arousal in presence of others?
|
goes along w. crowding
EVALUATION APPREHENSION: blindfolding audience and having performer turn away reduces social facilitation effects -- explains why someone performs better when co-actor is superior, why arousal lessons when high status group is diluted w/ people who do not matter, social facilitation effects are greatest when the others are unfamilar and hard to keep an eye on DISTRACTION: when we stop to see how we are doing or how others think we are; attn. is divided b/t task and self-perception (cognitive overload >> AROUSAL!); can be also be caused by nonhuman source MERE PRESENCE: zajonc; no eval. or distraction necessary; caused merely by presence of others MERE |
|
social loafing
|
collective effort is half the amt. of individual effort
unlike social facilitation, where individual works towards goal when efforts are pooled towards a group goal and people do not feel responsible for indiv. effort (ADDITIVE TASKS) communism example: farm production increased when it concerned the individual, rather than the plots of food grown for the country less frequent in COLLECTIVIST cultures less frequent w/ HARD TASK less frequent in CLOSE group: w/ friends and aquaintences |
|
social loafing evidence
|
clapping study: actor saw participation as equal alone and in group; all agreed loafing occurred but no one wanted to admit it
group situation: less EVAL. APPREHENSION; when people are not accountable and effort can't be evaluated, diffusion of responsibility occurs motivation -- make individual performance identifiable (ex: tape record and evaluate individual performance) |
|
deindividuation -- Festinger
|
losing identity (doing together what you would NOT alone)
AROUSAL + DEINDIVIDUATION causes: - GROUP SIZE: larger group increase deindividuation and decrease self-awareness >> attn. focused on situation, not self (ex: crowds present lead people to choose to jump of bridge) PHYSICAL ANONYMITY AROUSING AND DISTRACTING ACTIVITIES: behavior is less inhibited when preceded by group activities such as singing, clapping, etc. |
|
diminished self-awareness
|
disconnect behavior from attitudes b/c less restrained and self-regulated
OPPOSITE OF SELF-AWARENESS when self-aware, people usually behave better and consistently and act independently ex: asking for people's names increasing accountability |
|
group polarization
|
good or bad? both -- can strengthen members' inclinations
RISKY SHIFT: group based decisions are usually riskier; often greater unanimity or split on opinions -- NOT universal: "Roger Dilemma" (sometimes group decisions are less risky) groups can intensify opinions, which can lead to riskier decisions according to experiments, group members often share opinions; large groups can also become more divided over two opinions once they are in the group in everyday life: people usually primarily assoc. w/ people whose opinions are similar to their own (ex: gender differences increase over time) two groups can become more divided over time b/c each has different opinions that are reinforced to be stronger w/in group polarization and terrorism: people are brought together by shared grievances; moral disengagment - "us vs. them"; massacres brought about by killers egging eachother on; hard to convert, must intervene during recruitment process |
|
group polarization explainations
|
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE: to get info.; arguments made during discussion elicit pooling of ideas in favor of dom. viewpoint; brought about by persausive arguments other members may not have considered; active participation and repeating ideas; MUST STILL CONSIDER COUNTER ARGUMENT
NORMATIVE INFLUENCE: gain social acceptance, by admired by others - social comparison - pluralistic ignorance |
|
2 elements of normative influence
|
gain acceptance and be admired by others
2 elements: 1. SOCIAL COMPARISON (Festinger): evaluate opinions and abilities based on referece group; more likely to express opinions once you are aware of its convergence w/ those around you 2. PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE: people under-estimate riskiness (or lack of it) of others; consistent w/ self-serving bias; false uniqueness -- when we see others in group are really similar to us, we are encouraged to express our own opinions (ex: not raising hand b/c you think everyone else knows, not trying in relationship b.c you think the other person doesnt like you) |
|
groupthink!
|
when group influences hinder good decision making >> fiascos
collective form of dissonance reduction that sufaces as group members try to maintain positive feeling in the face of threats starts w/... - amiable and cohesive group - isolation of group from other views - directive leader who signals decision he/she favors |
|
8 symptoms of group think
|
OVERESTIMATE RIGHT AND MIGHT
1. illusion of invulnerability 2. unquestioned belief in group's morality GROUP MEMBERS BECOME CLOSE-MINDED: 3. rationalization: challenges are discounted by collectively justifying decisions 4. stereotyped view of opponent -- enemies are too weak or too evil to deal w/ PRESSURES TOWARD UNIFORMITY: 5. conformity pressures - doubtful members are rebuffed by other members 6. self-censorship - members w/hold disagreements to avoid probs. w/ group 7. illusion of unanimity - try to not to break up consensus 8. mindgaurds - protection of members from info that contradicts decision |
|
symbols of defective decision making -- planning fallacy
|
incomplete survey of alternatives
incomplete survey of objectives failure to examine risks of choices poor info. search selective bias in processing info. at hand failure to reapprise alteratives failure to work out contingency plans |
|
critique of groupthink
|
all retrospective -- hindsight bias
follow-up experiments: directive leadership assoc. w/ poor decisions; groups prefer supporting info. over challenging info.; disagreeable thoughts suppressed my members to be accepted by groups cohesive groups and groups w/ certain norms allow for more disagreement |
|
preventing groupthink
|
be impartial -- don't support 1 position
encourage critical evaluation subdivide group and reunite to air out differences welcome critiques from outside experts call 2nd chance meeting to air doubts before implementing plan ** longer discussions, but better decisions in the LR |
|
group problem-solving
|
higher accuracy in group than when alone
the harder the problem, the more heads needed avoid cognitive bias, better quality ideas |
|
creativity
|
brainstorming in group produces fewer good ideas than brainstorming alone
more creative when criticism is allowed people feel more productive when generated group ideas -- they can credit themselves w/ group's success -- BUT ITS THE OPPOSITE; LARGE GROUPS LEAST EFFECTIVE (losing ideas when waiting turn to talk) FOR BETTER BRAINSTORMING: - combine group and solitary brainstorming (1st in group, THEN alone) - have group members interact by writing and reading instead of talking and listening - incorporate electronic brainstorming via NW comps. - group brainstorming REPLACES groupthink! |
|
minority (individual)
|
how individuals influence groups
- cultural situations mold us, but we also help choose and create those situations - pressure to conform can overwhelm judgment, but blatant pressure can cause us to assert individuality - resist persuasion by making public commitments and anticipating persuasion |
|
determinants of minority influence
|
1. CONSISTENCY: more influential if minority is consistent/does not waiver -- sticks to position
2. SELF-CONFIDENCE: when minority conveys self-confidence, the majority will be more receptive; more persuasive on OPINION than fact 3. DEFECTIONS FROM MAJORITY: persistent minority defects illusion of unanimity; others members then feel freer to express their doubts and possibly join minority; fueled like group polarity 4. LEADERSHIP MINORITY INFLUENCE: mobilizing and guiding group; transformational leadership -- influence possible bigger if leader is in minority |
|
minority slowness effect
|
people in the minority less likely to express their views than people in the majority
|
|
leadership
-- task vs. social |
process by which someone mobilizes and guides group
TASK: directive, goal oriented, focus (spec. and challenging) better w/ males SOCIAL: dem., delegates authority, welcomes input, prevents groupthink; good for moral; better w/ women -- which is better depends on situation; having both is best effective: consistency; self-confidence; charisma |
|
transformational leadership
|
high moral when leader inspires person to transcend their self-interest for the sake of collective
motivates others to identify w/ and commit themselves to group mission |
|
good and bad of groups
|
BAD: more aroused, stressed, error-prone on complex tasks, loafing, worst impulses can be unleashed by deindividuation, cults, groupthink
GOOD: obtain info., support, security in groups, group interaction can also accentuate pos. tendencies, social faciliatation; self-help |
|
prejudice
|
an ATTITUDE
distinct combo. of feelings, inclinations, and beliefs when person dislikes someone unlike himself and behaves in a discriminatory way patronizing action to keep the target disadvantaged |
|
stereotype
|
BELIEF to support negative eval.
generalization not always negative, or incorrect |
|
discrimination
|
BEHAVIOR
attitude (prejudice) is one source BUT attitudes and behavior are often loosly linked |
|
subtle and overt prejudice
|
DUAL ATTITUDE SYSTEM: explicit and implicit
-- we may retain automatic fear or dislike from childhood for people who we know, accept and admire >> explicit attitudes change w/ education, but implicit ones stay the same STRONG SUPPORT FOR IMPLICIT racial, gender, etc. prejudice |
|
racial prejudice
|
every race is truly a minority -- most people see more prejudice in others than in themselves
DECREASING at a dramatic rate, but still exists in some situations (profiling etc.) from black POV: compare present w/ ideal world, which hasn't been realized from white POV: compare present w/ oppressive past, and great strides have been made |
|
subtle prejudice/racism
|
overt? (not really): we only behave in racial manner when not observed or to hide behind another motive; whites are usually equally helpful, and usually equally gave shocks no matter the race in the milgram study
overt is no longer socially acceptable... so MODERN racism and sexism: pref. for what is familiar, exaggeration of ethnic differences, rejecting people for supposed nonracial reasons whites have easier time negotiating, easier time getting callbacks on resumes; whites graded blacks easier on school work and criticized less |
|
automatic prejudice
|
9/10 of whites took longer to ID pleasant words as good when assoc. w/ black rather than white faces
the higher the IAT score on prejudice, the angrier they perceive black faces in the test social scientists are biased in references/citations |
|
gun study - greenwald
|
press button to shoot or not shoot targets on screen w/ men holding guns or something harmless
-- black men were mistakenly shot more often when primed w/ black faces (instead of white), people more often think "guns" when primed w/ guns, people pay more attn. to black faces |
|
amygdala
|
brain region for implicit attitudes
|
|
gender prejudice
|
NORMS: how men vs. women should behave
|
|
gender stereotpyes
|
BELIEFS on how women and men DO behave (descriptive - what they do)
1. strong gender stereotypes exist 2. members of group accept stereotype stronger than racial stereotypes often consistent w/ reality and transcend time and culture |
|
"women are wonderful" effect
|
form of sexism -- favorable
gut-level negative emotions not usually assoc. w/ women as much as men most people like women more than men women = more understanding, kind, helpful |
|
benevolent vs. hostile sexism
|
BENEVOLENT: "women have superior moral sensibility"; "men are powerful"
HOSTILE: "once a man commits, she puts him on a leash"; "men are immoral" |
|
gender discrimination
|
women often discriminate against women, but no overall tendency to devalue a woman's work
decreasing OVERTLY, but not SUBTLEY |
|
"modern" sexism
|
parents announce birth of boys w/ PRIDE, and girls' w/ HAPPINESS
more overt in countries beyond individualistic societies -- most prefer boys to girls (more abortions of female fetuses >> many more boys born in asian countries) |
|
social sources of prejudice (3)
|
1. SOCIAL INEQUALITIES: unequal status breeds prejudice; social dominance orientation: people are views as hierarchies and like to stick to their own ; perpetuated as it keeps happening
2. SOCIALIZATION: - authoritarian personality: prone to prejudice and stereotyping - religion and prejudice: justifying maintaining inequalities b/c God "says so"; leaders use it to sanctify actions - conformity: path of least resistance; prejudice to be accepted; less likely to form stereotypes if you hang out w/ people who break them 3. INST. SUPPORTS |
|
ethnocentrism
|
part of authoritarianism
prejudice towards people who are different -- intolerance for weakness, punitive attitude, submissive respect for in group authority |
|
source of authoritarianism
|
if harshly disciplined by parents as a child
- repress hostilities and impulses, and project onto outgroups - insecurity leads to excessive concern w/ power and status as inflexible right-wrong way of thinking - submissive to those over them, punitive to those under them "right wing" |
|
double highs
|
high on AUTHORITISM and SOCIAL DOMINANCE
prejudice levels highest rare but more dangerous, prone to be leaders of hate groups different ideological bases: -- authoritism: concern w/ security and control -- social dominance: related to group status |
|
religion and prejudice
|
christians in N. america:
- church members are often more racist than nonchurch members - professing traditional or fund. christian beliefs express more prejudice than those w/ more open beliefs faithful churchgoers are less prejudiced than occassional attendees people who are truly spiritually committed are more welcoming; protestant ministers and catholic priests supported the civil rights movement more than laypeople some people are fakers, use religion to justify |
|
motivational sources of prejudice
|
FRUSTRATION AND AGRESSION: scapegoat theory >> displaced
SOCIAL ID THEORY: feeling superior to others >> self-serving bias about group -- ingroup bias -- need for status, self-regard, belonging motivation to avoid it |
|
frustration and agression
|
pain and frustration (blocking of goal) evokes hostility
-- when cause is intimidating or unknown, we redirect hostility -- more lynchings in yrs. when economy was bad -- defeat in WWI and con. chaos caused Jews to be seen as villains -- fears vented on witches -- comp. for scarce resources |
|
social ID theory
|
self-concept = personality + social ID
we categorize we ID (ingroups) -- self esteem, etc. we compare (outgroups) -- favorable bias towards ingroup |
|
ingroup bias
|
self-serving bias extended to group level, even when in rand. assigned group w/ strangers
for positive self-concept, we ID w/ a group and exhibit ingroup self-serving bias higher ingroup bias = higher outgroup prejudice when group is successful, we ID more strongly w/ it (same w/ friends) when we are part of smaller, lower-status group, you perceive it more; in high-status group, less salient reflects like for ingroup and dislike for the outgroup outgroup stereotypes stronger when w/ ingroup members -- more sensitive to emotions of ingroup members stereotypes bred by multiculturalism are often favorable to the outgroup |
|
Tajfel and Billig (1974)
|
ingroup bias study
provoked favoritism; british teens eval. paintings and told they favored art of klee vs. kandinsky; told to divide money b/t the two groups (never met others); gave more money to own group |
|
motivation for prejudice >> need for STATUS
|
relative -- social comparison
we want to feel superior (secret satisfaction in people's failure b/c your success increases relative to them) people w/ secure status have less of a need to feel superior |
|
moratality salience and terror mgt.
|
mortality salience --> terror mgt.: thinking about own mortality increases ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice
ex: Bush won election by playing off of people's terror due to 9/11 -- voters were more accepting b/c of anti-terror policies |
|
motivation for prejudice >> need for SELF-REGARD
|
can be used to boost self-image
nature of threat is important; when ingroup safety is threatened, higher vigilance for outgroup anger ex: perceive more anger in arab face after watching a scary film |
|
motivation for prejudice >> need for BELONGING
|
despising outgroups = stronger ingroup >> perception of common enemy unites group (ex: stronger school spirit when playing rival)
bias against outgroups decreases w/ sense of belonging |
|
motivation to AVOID prejudice
|
automatic, programmed fear and discomfort
motivated to avoid it but attempting to modify actions and thoughts (aware of gap between how we DO and SHOULD feel) behaviorists say we truly can't change |
|
cognitive sources of prejudice
|
CATEGORIZATION: spontaneous and perceived same/different
DISTINCTIVENESS: distinctive people, vivid cases, distinctive events ATTRIBUTION: group-serving bias, just-world phenomenon |
|
Spontaneous categorization
|
COGNITIVE source of prejudice
automatic easy to rely on stereotypes when: pressed for time, preoccupied, tired, emotionally aroused, too young to appreciate diversity gender and ethnicity are most salient; we remember more about a person's color than their message; less prejudiced people respond more quickly to unknown people when categorizing race, more concerned w/ accurate classification |
|
same/different categorization
|
COGNITIVE source of prejudice
HOMOGENEITY: similarities of outgroup members exaggerated >> "all alike and all different from us" HETEROGENEITY: ingroup bias -- "own face bias" white recognize more spec. white faces than black faces; can see differences w/in group, but not outgroup |
|
distinctive people
|
COGNITIVE source of prejudice
when someone in group is conspicuous, we see them to be causing whatever happens w/in group people define you by your distinctive traits and behaviors people notice those who violate expectations self consciousness: people sometimes perceive discrimination just b/t they feel like they are different stigma conscious: expect others to stereotype them, but can be buffer for low self-esteem |
|
vivid cases
|
part of DISTINCTIVENESS category of COGNITIVE causes of prejudice
spec. people as examples for entire ethnic group dangerous generalizations: inflated predictions the less we know about a group, the more influenced we are by vivid cases |
|
distinctive events
|
when 2 distinctive events occur, seen as rare, means that one event must cause the other
ex: headline - "homosexual murderer" -- not in headline if person was straight |
|
attribution: group serving bias:
|
COGNITIVE SOURCE of prejudice
benefit of the doubt given to ingroup members but worst is assumed w/ outgroups positive behavior by outgroup is dismissed or "spec. case" outgroup success: attributed to situation ingroup success: attributed to person outgroup failure: attributed to person ingroup failure: attributed to situation disadvantaged and groups that stress modesty less are prone to bias |
|
attribution: just world
|
COGNITIVE SOURCE of prejudice
humans need to believe they are a just person in a just world >> good rewarded, evil punished 9/11: rude awakening for these people; dont want to be assoc. w/ losers |
|
consequences of prejudice
|
1. SELF PERPETUATING STs: prejudgments guide interpretations; when group member acts as suspected, belief is confirmed; if behavior is not as expected, its explained away
2. SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: even if we decided to end racism, there'd still be some lingering effects 3. STEREOTYPE THREAT: self-confirming apprehension that one will be evaluated based on a neg. stereotype |