Class Notes (837,698)
Canada (510,399)
Psychology (5,220)
PSYCH 2C03 (188)

Psych 2C03 FULL lecture notes

33 Pages
Unlock Document

Jennifer Ostovich

Intro January-18-13 1:30 PM Lecture1: January09, 11, 14  ABCsofpsychology:affect(emotions0, behaviours andcognitions  “presenceof at least oneother person” – doesnot haveto be physical presence, can also becognitivepresence (real or imaginedsocial presence)  Broadrange of topics o Groupthink – group behaviour;group agrees withsomething the leader wantsthem to but they don’t want to  Doopposites attract?Or Dobirds of afeather flocktogether? o Answer:birds of afeather flocktogether more correctaccordingto research  Researchmethods o Scientificmethod o Doscientists “prove”stuff?They disprovecertaintheories; never 100% sure to provesomething  Waysoftesting hypotheses: datacollectiondecisions: controlvs. generalizability o Internalvalidity:Wetalk about causality whenall other factorshavebeen controlled for o Externalvalidity:Wanttoalso address generalizability i.e. broader applicability  Thereal worldis messy; canlower number ofcontrolledfactors o Fieldstudy –littlecontrol; fieldexperiment – go out in thereal worldwith real peoplewho haveno idea youare doingresearch (not modifyingbehaviour because theydo not knowanyoneis watching);lab research  Correlational studies o Aretwoor morevariables related?  E.g.,is higher sex drive(personality) associated withmore frequent sexual activity(behaviour)?  Infactsupported by research o Longcorrelational studies =longitudinalresearch □ Allowcausationto beunderstood whensome things consistently happen beforeanother □ Time-laggedcorrelational studies help withthis □ Statistical analysisextract effectsof confoundingvariables  Correlationdoesnot equal causation  Experiments o Coverstories o “Zimbarto’sprison experiment” – search onGoogle/YouTube o Confederates  Actorswhosebehaviour isscripted, giveninstruction onhowto behave based onwhat thesubject maybedoing at any given time o Independent variable (IV)and dependent variable(DV)  IVand DVare carefullydefined  Operationalization:understanding vague conceptby making it measurable through empirical observations-->translating variables intheory to hypothesis o Betweensubjects (Ss) experiments: a subject isexposed to only oneof theconditions o Within-Ss:a subject isexposed to both conditions(e.g., both a loud blast and quiet blast) but with varyingorder (somepeople arerandomly assigned to Condition 1 first and then Condition 2, and othersto the opposite: counter-balancing)  Exampleof anexperiment o Diehl& Stroebe, 1987: isgroup brainstorming useful? o Workingina group, a lotof interruptions, can’t just sit and think through something; interruptions broke people’sfocus o Brainstormedanswers to aparticular question (e.g., number ofuses of abutter knife) o Theblue bar (alone) issignificantly different fromtheother twogroups (red bars)  Quasiand Field experiments o Quasi– “kind of”experiment, at least one independent variable ofinterest that cannot berandomly assigned e.g., gender, age, race, smoking, mental illness, sexuality, personality, socioeconomicstatus  Comparingacross agegroups means that age isanother variableto takeinto account;unsure whetherit’s theIV that wecouldn’t randomly assign affectsthe results  Lowersinternal validitybecause it lowerscontrol  Donein thelab o Fieldexperiments  Gotsome “noise”e.g., groupof really busy people whenassessing whether or not people stopto help someonewithcrutches  Canalso havequasi-field experiments  Exampleof afieldexperiment o Middlemist et al., 1976 o Bashfulbladder o Oneconfederatewouldbepeeing or seeming to bepeeing whensomeone came into thebathroom(subject); the otherconfederateis sitting ina stall with astopwatch to takenotes onsubjects’ peeing progress o Confederatewouldstand onone end oftheurinals (all subjects went to theother end) or inthe middle (less privacyforthesubject) –the positionwasrandomly assigned by flippinga coin o “characteristicsofmicturition(peeing)”– start and stop, and duration o Causal relationship, not a correlation  Exampleof afieldstudy o WhenProphecyFails o Doomsdaytheory– humans haveangered God and God willsend a floodand kill offall humans, except for the Goodones(i.e. theones inthe Doomsdaygroup) whoare goingto be saved by aliens; thiswill happen ona specificdayat aspecifictime –elaborate story o Leader ofthe culthad adifficulttask –to figure out whyit did not happen o Wentinher bedroomand read anote onher pad of paper fromGod– thegroup bought that they saved the world;instead offeelingstupid they had apress conference;theleader couldhaveknownshe waslyingor truly feltthat God in factwroteher anote o Exampleof peoplejustifyingtheir stupidity to make themfeel okay–“dissonance rejection” o Cognitivedissonance theory born □ Broughtinto lab to test  Design-relatedconfounds=may co-varyw/IV Self-selectionbias o Self-selectionbias  Peoplesee whatthe experiment is about and either select themselves into theexpt as participants or outof theexpt  Groupof peopleyou arestudying are particularly interested inthe topic andcouldend upwith differentresults  Non-normativesample  Advertiseinavague wayor deceivepeopleon thetopic ofstudy to get agoodunbiased sample o Self-presentationbias (socialdesirability)  Participantswant to lookgood/socially desirable  Anonymityandconfidentialitymake participants comfortableenough to answer questions they wouldotherwisebeuncomfortableanswering (e.g., masturbation and orgasms in sex surveys)  Boguspipeline: takesomething that wouldmake theparticipant to tell thetruth; e.g., lie detectors  E.g.ofstudy: number of sexual partners among men andwomen; after using bogus pipeline, thenumber of partners among men decreased significantlyand the number ofpartners among womenincreased significantly o Confirmationbias  Controleverythingpossible except for thevariable youare manipulating e.g., research assistants mayemphasize certainwordswhilegiving instructionsleading to results that cannot bereplicated elsewhere  Thedesign of theexpt may leadto confirmationbias  Blindexperimenters  Difficultinuniversities becauseweare meant to teachresearch assistants but optimally we wouldhaveblindexperimenters (e.g., actors) but wewouldn’t teachundergrads anything  Socialpsychologistscan’t use double blindbecause wecan’t havestudents not know whatwe aredoing; but this is possible inclinical research o Doubleblind isoptimal but not practical  Natural human tendencyto confirmour hypotheses o Experimental demand  Subjectswill feel asense ofdoing what youwant them to do; they willtry to do what they think you wantthemto do; may sometimes interpret correctlyor misinterpret  Thesubjects may pickup onsubtle things theexperimenters are doing  Haveto findawayto distract subjectsfromwhat you’reinterested in  Blindsubjects– coverstories- tell subjectstesting diffthing  Vokey&Read 1985 o E.g.,childreninterpreted hiddenbackwardsmessage inrecordalbums in the1990s o Ifyouwant to hear something, haveabias, then youwill hear it; ifyou don’t havethat bias youwon’t hear it o Ifyou’reprimed to hear Satanic phrases, then youdo! o Ifyourealizeyou havethisbias and haveto think hard about how to ask the question; what you ask creates “experimental demand” and subjects fulfilit  We’vecollectedour data: nowwhat? o Dataanalysis to determine whether findings are statistically different o Meandifferencetests (t-test) o Correlationtests o Statistical vs.“real-world”significance  E.g.,drug fordepression onlymakes asmall differencesi.e., bothgroups arestill verydepressed; doesnot makedifferenceinreal life  Ethics o Socialpsychologydepends ona lot ofdeception o Stringent ethical criteria e.g., informed consent o Zimbardo’sprison experiment: the roleofthe experimenter in theexpt (superintendent) playeda roleinthe findingsconfirmationbias Conformity January-22-13 5:24 AM January14, 16 Conformity1: Whenandwhydo weconform?  Conformity:identification;fit in  E.g.,emperor’s new clothes o Someone whoviolatesconformity:lone descender  3types ofconformity o Beingliked  Normativepressure: followsomenorm set bysome person or referencegroup; not followingthat norm,something badcanhappen to you(e.g., rejected, punished, isolated) that couldhurt self - esteemor self  Compliance:someone has givensome sort of order (directlyor implied) and youchange your behaviourin response to that order; do not necessarily carewhat’s right but youjust don’t want to get introuble; but in certainsituations it’sright to comply(overlapswith“beingright”)  E.g.,obedience  Identification:someoneyourespect or admire in some wayandyouwant to belikethem so that you arealso liked; e.g., LikeMike; canbefickle  Unambiguoussituations  Lowdurabilityin compliance  Durablefor as longas the person you identifywith o Beingright  Informationalpressure: intrinsic desire to be ascorrectas wecan; liketo knowwhat therules are andbeable to conformto thoserules  Internalization(acceptance):lookaroundand want to knowwhat thecorrect response is, findout thecorrect response by lookingto others  E.g.,jaywalkingin Philadelphiavs. in Hamilton  Ambiguoussituations  Canlast a lifetime; highly durable  Beingliked vs. being right o Pressure, howyou are feeling at that time, and howlong it lasts  Whattype ofconformity? o Conformityand littering  Strongnormativepressure to conform, humans are lazyand want to litter but wouldn’t want to litterin front ofpeople  Messyvs. cleanparking lot  Inthe cleanparking lot,littering was almost unheard of  Inthe messy parking lot there was a huge amount oflittering  Aclean cityset up anorm forgoodbehaviour (evencrimerates went down)  Canalso informational pressure, especially if you’reunfamiliar withthe place: at this parking lot we litter  Experiment 2: confederate’sbehaviour; if confedpicksup litter the participants arereminded ofthe normthat litter is not good  Farfewer peoplelittered whenthe confedpicked up litter o Conformityand jaywalking  Whenthe confederatedidn’t jaywalk,the %jaywalkingwent downsignificantly (from25%to about 15%)  Whenthe confederatejaywalked, it gavepeople thegreen light to jaywalkandit increased significantly(to45%)  Typeofconformity:bothnormativepressure and informational pressure; but more normativethan informational  Some peopleare confused and not sure what to do (e.g., new tothe cityso do not knowwhat thenorm is); whileothersmay just not like the normand are breaking it  Lonedescanter whobreaks the norm; release people fromthe norm  Ash’sfindings o 33%went along with the group on a majority of the trials (at least 7 out of12 trials) o Compliance Asch'sfindings-why conform? • Embarassment-->normativepressures ○ Crazyconfederatevariation-->laughedoutofroom ○ Privateanswersvariation  Recordsotherpplsanswers+subject'sown  Conformitygoesto0bcdon't haveto publiclyconform  Ntinformationalpressure-->noambiguity-->subjectalreadyknowsrightanswer ○ Interviewfinding:  Pplansweredsayingthattheyfeltliketheyhadtosaywronganswer • fMRIstudy ○ Conformingwronganswer=brainregionrelatedtoperception,ntconscious-decisionmaking=active Standingupagainstconformity=emotionactive ○ Standingupagainstconformity=emotionactive Sherif-ambiguoussituations: • Subjectstodostrangetask: ○ Sitinpitchblackroom ○ Sitinchair,lookat dot -->laserlight ○ Toldthatdot willmove ○ Tellushowfardot move ○ Butdot actuallynevermoved:  Autokineticeffect-pplusevisualcuestokeepworldsteadyaroundus  Movementactuallyduetobodysway 1. Firstdoitindividually • Sayownanswers 2. Thendoitin group • Answersconvergeovertime • Inflationisresilientevenwhenconfederategone • Testinformationalornormative? ○ Iftoldthatno rightanswer,actuallyduetobodysway: ○ Subjectsdon'tconvergeb/cnotseekinginformation-->ntseekingrightanswer ○ 1yearfollowup-->pplwhoconvergedstillconverged-->durability Howto reduceconformity? • Uselonedissenter ○ Typicallyusedinnormativepressure ○ Ininformationalpressuresituation,pplneedtohavelogicalreasonaboutagreeingw/dissenters  Otherfactorslikecredibilityplaypart ○ a.k.a.Devil'sadvocate  e.g.InCatholicchurch,groupsdiscussifpplshouldbesaintedornot  Onepersonassignedtobelonedissenter  Thismightencourageotherpplingrouptodissent ○ Aschvariations  Whenpresentedw/lonedissenteringroup,subjectdoesn'tconform ○ After5-7conformed,moredoesn'tmatter-->socialimpact theory  Packagingofgroupalsomatters=many groupsof pplas opposedtoonelargegroupinducesconformity Shouldwestop conformity? • Groupthink ○ Senseofleaderwantingcertainthing ○ Pplmightntlikesubjectiftheydissent ○ Endup justifyingwhyleader'sopinionisgood ○ Tostop:  Leaderisimpartial  Makesubgroups-->mightcomeup w/competingdecisions-->havetohavediscussiononpros/cons  Assigndevil'sadvocate • Unhealthypractices ○ e.g.Cigarettesmoking,bingedrinking • Interveninginemergencies BystanderIntervention January-23-13 11:30AM Conformity 2: Bystander Intervention The Bad Apple? • Why did no one help? o Cruelty? o Apathy? o Conformity? • Latane and Darley’s (1970) Bystander Intervention Model • Ambiguity • Pluralistic ignorance • Diffusion of responsibility • Kitty Genovese- New York City o took a very long time for the person to murder her • emergencies are unforeseen and rare and they require this urgent help and quick decision-making- a lot of people get trapped on deciding whether the situation is actually an emergency • ifthere is anyone else near you, what you’re going to do is look to see what they’re doing- you don’t know what to do yourself- what you don’t realize is everyone else is doing the exact same thing • you have a collective misinterpretation of the thoughts of everyone’s behaviors- everyone looks totally calm because they are looking to what other’s are doing • it’s a collective misinterpretation- one of the places that you see a lot of pluralistic ignorance is in the classroom- looking calm waiting until anyone else would ask the question because do not want to be the only one asking the question (fear of embarrassment or shyness) part of the reason why this happens because there is pluralistic ignorance going on- everyone thinks they know the answer and gather information on those who ask the questions • what if you realize there is an emergency after all? Like most people, you would want to do nothing, and wait until someone else picks up the slack/responsibility • the more witnesses there are, the more people are responsible to take action • “is there a doctor in the house” London theatre- giving responsibility for the person who is a doctor in a medical emergency Pluralistic Ignorance • Princeton Drinking Study (Prentice & Miller) • How comfortable are you with drinking on campus? • 1 is not at all comfortable, 11 is very comfortable (Likert Scale) • How comfortable is the average Princeton student with drinking on campus? • Peer pressure? • Normative and Informational pressures to conform • Possibly everyone’s drinking to conform, a collective action • Based on charts, the students are normatively NOT comfortable with binge drinking but they think everyone else loves it so they binge drink • They got these students in, there were 2 conditions, in one condition they were given psychoanalytical information sessions, the other half of the participants were only given this information (told about why people conform, and how etc.) then they had t hese people in these programs to record their practice. Those who were taught pluralistic ignorance binge drink less. More Pluralistic Ignorance: “Is it really an emergency?” • “Woman in distress” expt (Latane & Rodin) • Method • IV: witness makeup o S alone o S + stranger o S + impassive confed o S + friend • DV: % of trials on which Judy is offered help (w/in 2 mins) • This experiment, the researcher assistant played a recorder suggesting her falling into a bookshelf, the bookshelf falling on top of her or her fall off the ladder and the bookshelf falling on her and she yells/screams Woman in Distress Results • 70% S – most people help individually, when subject is alone with confederate • 40% of those who don’t know each other, help reduces • 10% decrease in likelihood in helping if subject and confederate are together • 70% subject + friend more likelihood to help because they would have a little conversation whether to help or not • Emergenciesrelativelyinfrequent • Collectivemisinterpretationofemergency • Takesoneotherpersonlookingcalmtoinducepluralisticignorance • Canovercomepluralisticignoranceb/cyouhaveinfotodoso Diffusionofresponsibility: • AmI theonewhohas to help? • Rootedinhumanselfishness • Tryingtoseeifsomeoneelsebetterwillhelp • Falseconsensuseffect:feelthatthere'saconsensusbtwnppl ○ Every1knowsthatthisisemergency • After5- 7 witnesses,plateauindecreaseinhelpinginemergency • Happenswhenyou'vedefeatedpluralisticignorance • Epilepsyexpt ○ Onesubjectbroughtintolab ○ Subjectwitnessesepilepticseizure ○ Experimentersaysntlisteningtoconvo=nt leader ○ Ifgreenlightoninyourbooth,youcan speak=yrspeakerison ○ 1stpersonspeaking=confederate=says they'reepileptic  Revealsallinfotoensuresubjecthaveinfotoknowitsemergency ○ 1stpersonhas seizure ○ Noabilitytocommunicateb/conlymicon= personseizuring  Nofacialexpressions  Artificallycreatespluralisticignorance=misperceptionofcommunicationsignals ○ IV:#ofpplsubjectthingsarein experiment  Morepeople=lesshelping Morepeople=moretimetakento help  Morepeople=moretimetakento help  **presumingnoexpertiseinemergency **pplusuallyhelppplsimilar • Inter-racehelpingmorelikelythancross-race • Mentendto helpmenwhenmenareneedede.g.Changetire • Mentendto helpwomenmore WHATIS THE WOMEN INDISTRESS EXPT • Womentendnottohelpintypically"manarea"e.g.Changetire • Age ○ Children/elderlymorelikelytobehelpedfaster Pluralisticignorancevs.Diffusionof responsibility: • Ambiguity • Abilitytocommunicate • Amtofwitnesses Howto increaselikelihoodofhelping: • Reduceambiguity ○ Yellout ○ Makeeyecontact-->increasesperson'spersonalresponsibilitytohelpyou ○ Ifwitness-->"Areyouokay?" • Takesocialpsychology--Beamanexpt ○ Bystanderinterventionlecturedeliveryincreasedkidsgivinghelp Milgram'sObedience January-25-13 1:35PM Obedience to Authority Reasons for the Experiments 1: Making Asch Meaningful Reasons for the Experiments 2: Understanding “Evil” In Milgram’s Words Stanley Milgram (1963) In the Journal of Abnormal and Social psychology, 67, 371-378 Learner’s Schedule of Protests 1 • 75: “ugh” (Learners first pain-response; same at 90 & 150) • 120: “ugh! Hey, this really hurts.” • 150: “ugh!! Experimenter! That’s it. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” Basic Findings • Operationalization of “obedience” • Predictions o Experts thought only 1-3% would be obedient • Results • 65% obeyed • No gender difference • No cross cultural differences • 100% obeyed up to 105 v. • 150 v. “point of no return” o 80% who don’t stop here are fully obedient. • Obedience means all the way to 450 until the experimenter says stop Outline: Why did they obey? • Slippery slope (theory, not tested) • Reasons with statistical support: o Proximity to the victim o Proximity to the experimenter o Authority o Group Effects • Reasons without statistical support: • Legitimacy ofthe experiment • Fairness of the experiment • Aggression • Slippery slope (like the $2 each book example she told in class) more likely to move on if the number is lower (such as the increments in the shock experiments were small, so more likely to move forward because the increase is so small) • Proximity to the victim- the closer you are to your victim, the harder it is to hurt them, the more it is going to violate your moral system. • It’s physical distance that really matters here • No voice cues, voice cues, same room and touch were significant changes to the person’s decisions • Proximity to the experimenter- the pressure increases to obey are more likely when you are facing them or in the presence of them. More likely to disobey over email than in real life. • Authority- who’s order gets obeyed, in one cause he actually had the learner demand to be shocked- they wanted to test out if the experimenter himself has to be obeyed or anyone else can be obeyed • No one continued, when the experimenter said stop Groupeffects: • Whenmilgram'sexperimentdoneingroups • Peersleave: ○ Exertnormative&informationalpressure • Obediencegoesdownalot What'sslipperyslope? • Deniedpeersrebellinghavingeffectonsubjects • Pplequallylikelytoleaveat150V w/lonedissenter&allpplleavingat210 V ○ Showsgroupeffectasopposedtooutnumberingexperimenter • Diffusionofresponsibilitydecreases=wantstoleave • Pluralisticignorancedecreasesassubjectsleave • Experimenterlosesauthorityb/cotherpeersoutsideofpowerofexperimenter Abdicatingresponsibility: ○ Whensubjectcomesinw/learner&peerwhoisactuallyconfederate ○ Subjectreadswords,peerdeliversshock ○ Mostobedienceobservedinthisexperiment ○ Pluralisticignorance/diffusionofresponsibilityacts Legitimacyexp: • Ranexpinlabthat didn'tlooklegit • Obediencedecreases=ntsignficantdiff • Possiblethatqualityoflabdoesn'taffect ○ Thefactthat it's aresearchlabcausesobedience Fairnessofexperiment: • Subjectthinkstheycouldhavebeenpickedaslearner • Thinksituationisfair=moreobedience • Variation: ○ Experimenter&learnercometoagreementthatifsubjectsaysheartisbotheringhim,experiment willbestopped ○ Experimenterdoesn'tkeepagreement ○ Nosignificantdecreaseinobedience Aggression: • Ppljustbadpeople? • Variation ○ Subjectcanchooseownshocklevel ○ Nosubjectshithighestshockvoltage ○ Usuallyjuststuckwithlowestshock=shockthat theyexperiences Persuasion February-01-13 1:31PM • Induce: ○ Behaviouralchange ○ Cognitivechange Persuasivetactics: • Consistency ○ Culturelikespplwhostickwithposition=rejectiftheydon't ○ Normativepressuretoappearconsistent ○ Exploitthistogetcommitmentfrmpeople,thengetthemtofollowthrough • Reciprocation ○ Feelobligationofsocialpressuretopaybackfavours ○ Evolutionarypressurestoreciprocatefavours Consistency-basedtactics: 1. Low-balling • Securedeal • Changetermsofdealaftercommitmenttomakemoreexpensive • Researchproof ○ Control:Askedsubjectstocomeinfrexperimentat7AM ○ Experiment:Askedsubjectstocometoexp,thentoldthemitwas7AM • Low-ballingforgood? ○ Wantto getresidentstoconsumelessEduringwinter ○ Control:Phonecallw/Econservationtips+requesttoconserveE= agreedtoconserveE ○ Exp:ifyou can conserveE,getname inlocalnewspaper  ExpgroupconservesE  Namesactuallynotinpaper ○ Pplwanttostillappearconsistent  Startto viewthemselvesasE-savingppl  ContinuetoconserveEevenmore 2. Foot-in-door • e.g.Salesmanshowssample,personfeelsobligatedtobuysmallthing ○ Thenincrementallyincreasedemands=feeltheyhavetobuybiggerthings • Fieldexperimentproof 1. Approachedresidentstoputlittlecardw/"drivesafely"onwindshield=littlefavour 2. Approachedresidentsagaintoputbigsignonlawn= bigfavour ○ Pplwhoputsmallcard compliedwaymore • Relatestoconsistencytheory=feelobligatedtosayyestoallrelatedfavours • #offeetindoorpredictstrengthofresponse ○ Incrementallyincreasefavours ○ Proof  Pplaskedtodofavours  Moresmallenvironmentally-consciousfavours=>morelikelytorecyclelateron  Effectlastedfrlongtime Reciprocation-basedtactics: 1. Reciprocationrule • Subjectcomesintofilloutsurveysonart evaluationstudy • Confederate'subject'comesbackduringbreakw/cokefrsubjectornot(10-centfavour) • Confederateaskssubjecttobuyraffles(25-centtickets) ○ Pplwhogotcokereciprocatefavourbybuyingtwo raffletickets ○ Cokecondn:HowmuchsubjectslikedJoeirrelevanttohowmanyticketstheybought ○ Nocokecondn:howmuch subjectslikedJoecorrelatestoticketsbought ○ **reciprocationfavouroverridesifyoulikeornot 2. Doorin theface 2. Doorin theface • Presentlargerequest,thenscaledown • Sogratefulthatpersonscalesdownrequest=sayyes • Juveniledelinquentsstudy ○ 'Reciprocalconcession'demonstrated ○ Askedsubjectstodolargefavour  2yearsas bigbrotherto delinquent  Turndown ○ Askedsubjectstodosmallfavour  Takedelinquentstozoo • Controlgroup: ○ Nodoorinface ○ Don'ttakejuviestozoo • IV: ○ Willtakejuviestozooafterturningdown2yearmentorship ○ 50% tookto zoo ○ Stilldoesn'tworkoneveryone Cognitive-basedtactics: "Theabilitytokillorcaptureamanis arelativelysimpletaskincomparisontochanginghismind." • Fourpartsof persuasion ○ Source ○ Medium ○ Message ○ target Altruism& ProsocialBehaviour February-13-13 11:35 AM Prosocialbehaviour:helpingothers,mightbegettinganythingback Isoneaformof theother? Altruism:seflesslyhelpingppl Evolutionaryaccount: • Helpothersbchelpsowngenes • Types ○ Kinselection ○ Reciprocationofprosocialbehaviours Kinselection: • Inclusivefitness ○ Pplwhohaveyourgenes=vessel(offspring,relatives) ○ Helpppltosavecopiesofourgenes  Yourgenesaremakingyoudo this ○ Amtofgenesyoucan savebygettinginvolvedinanemergencycorrelateswithlikelihoodofgettinginvolved ○ Don'tsaveparentsas oftenaschildreneventhoughtheyaresameasyou geneticallytothesameextent  Reason:parentsdonereproductively  Reason:babieswillgoonetomakemorebabies,potentialtomakemoregenes ○ Malevsfemalechildren  Malewouldbesavedmorethanfemalebcithas morepotentialtomakebabies  BUTinourculture:women&childrenfirst,nomatterthesexofchildren ○ Fatherslesslikelytosavechildren  Bccan makemorechildren  Can'teverbesurethatit'stheirbaby ○ Paternalgrandparentslesslikelytosavebabiesthanmaternalbcnotsurethatit's theirbaby ○ Researchsupportingthis:  CarnegieFoundationgivesawardsfraltruisticacts:ntfrpeoplewhohelpfamily □ Thisisnotspecial-it's expected EffectsofKinshiponhelping: • Scenariostudy:readpassage ○ Imagineasvividlyasposisble ○ Quicklyanswerquestions-sothattheyansweronimpulse • Scenario: ○ Everydaysituation ○ Life/death • Scenarioinvolves3pplrelatedtothemtovariousextents ○ Rankfrmhelpingmosttoleast • Everyday: ○ Morelikelihoodofhelpingkins • Life/death: ○ Evenhigherpreferenceforkins • Saveyoungerpplmorethanolderbcmorelikelytoreproduce • Savingduringfamine: • Whowouldyougiveextrafoodtoina famine? ○ 10-18 yroldsgetmorefood  Almostatreproductiveage  Canmakebabiessoon ○ 1yroldgivenlessfood  Willprobablysufferdevelopmentalproblems  Willtheyevenreachreproductiveage?  Mightbesterile ○ Oldpeoplegivenleastfood Reciprocation: • Reciprocalaltruismperspective ○ Ifcosthigherthangain,you shouldbeassuredthatyou'llgethelpbacklater ○ Ifppldon'treciprocate,noonewouldsharewiththemagain ○ Theywoulddie,familywoulddie • Wearedescendentsofpplwhoreciprocatefavour • "cheating" ○ Cansurviveifnooneknowsthey'recheating ○ e.g.Squirrelwarnstroopofsquirrelsaroundit ○ Riskslife,hopingsomeoneelsewill givewarningcalllater • Helpinginbigcities Preferencebtwnreciprocationor ○ Lesshelpingbctheydon'tthinkit'llberecognized&reciprocated kinship? ○ Lostletters,surveys=pplinsmallcitieshelpmore ○ Wrongnumbersatpayphones=pplin smallciteshelpmore ○ Unlessinspecialcommunityofpplinabigcity= i.e.Upennstudents&employees February25 2013 - Empathyaltruismmodel o Purealtruismexists o Resultsfromempathy o Empathyincreasesqualityandthoughtfulnessofhelp,anddecresescostbenefit o Empathyinducedhelpingisgeneralizable - Negativestaterelasemodel - Negativestaterelasemodel o Nopurealtruism o Prediction1:wehelptoreliveanegativestate o Prediction2: o Butweonlydothisif thereisnootherwayto reliveit  Prediction1:peoplemadetofeelguiltyhelpmorethandopeoplenotmadetofeelguilty NegativeStateRelifModelResearch Prediction2:helpisnootherwayto improvemood - Cialdinietal - Coverstory–girlinaccident,brokelegs,missesschool,needshelptocatchupinschool - Ss: o Theyhearthenewsstory o Filloutasurvey  Opportunitytohelp(DV) o Theneither:  Hearanothernewssegment  Hearacomedyprogram(NSR)  Movealightbox(NSR-easyhelp) o News:offering3-5hoursofhelp(negativemoodisprolonged) o Subjectswhothoughttheirnegativestatewasgoingtoberelivedhelpedsignificantlyless –sothepeoplewho watchedcomedyandwhodideasyhelp o Sotheywillhelp,butnotifthereisaneasierwayto feelbetter WhoWinstheDebate? - Ifempathyisanegativestate,thenempathycouldinduce(ratherandaltruistic)helping o Inorderto testtheEAM vs.NSRM, mustsouseempathytoexistintheabsenceofanegativestate - Therefore,manipulatemoodstate o IfhighE+good mood=highesthelping,thensupportsEAM o IfhighE+ badmood= highesthelping,thensupportsNSRM Cialdinietal.–Experiment1 - Method o Learning/shockparadigmwithriggeddrawing(allSsarefemale) o Theythinktheywillbeanobserver o TwoIV’s:  Empathy(hivs.lo)  Mood(praisevs.nopraiseinhiE condition) o Whiletheyfilloutsurvey,theinkabouthowthepersonisfeeling o Otherpeoplearetoldtothinkaboutthefactsas theyfilloutthesurvey(thisdistractsthemfromempathy) o Elainisgettingshockedmoreandmore –theyneedtotakeabreak o Sotheyexperimentertellsthepersonduringthebreakiftheyhaveagoodpersonalityornot(praisevs.nopraise) o TwoDV’s  Mood  HelpingElaine(changeplacesfor0-8trials)–experimentergivesthepersonachancetohelpElaineby dosomeofthetrailsforher,0-8 o Results:  Peoplewhowerenotpraised,wereinamorenegativestae  Highempathysubjectswereactuallysad  PeopleinapositivemoodwithhighEdonothelpanymore Cialdinietal–Emperiment2 - Coverstory o Radioprogramming-listeningperspective o Druginvestigation-haseffectonmood - Subjectarrive,takethedrug(itisaplacebo–buttheythinkiteffectstheirmood),listentoradioprogram,4minuteclip calledbulitnboar(inducesaneutralstate),eantpeopletostartoutatthe sameplace,filloutsurveysaboutit,thenthey listentoanotherprogram,usingthelisteningprogram,thentheyeitherinduceempathyornot,thentheyhearthatnews fromthepersonalside9girlwithbrokenlegs,needstocatchupon school…etc) o Subjectsaretoldaftertheyhearthenews,theatthedrugtakeseffect–thatthe peoplewhoareonthedrugwill havethesamemoodthattheyare currentlyinnow,othersubjectsarenottoldanythingaboutthedrug (theystill thinktheirmoodcanchange) o DV:  Offercarolhelp(private)–takesawayself-presentationbias o Inlowempathy,thereisnodiffenceinhelpoffered o Inhighempathy,thepeoplewithfixedmoodhelplessbecausetheydon’tthinkhelpingCarolwillchangetheirmood o ItsonlythehighempathypeoplewhothinktheycanchangetheirmoodthatactuallyhelpCarol DebateSummary - Researchsuggeststhat o Empathycausesanegativestate o Empathyinnotassociatedwithincreasedhelpingifthenegativestatecausedbyempathyisrelived o Therefore,empathyappearstoleadtoegoistic,notaltruistic,helping - BUT:empathymayraisethequalityandthoughtfulnessofthehelpofferedtothoseinneed –eventhoughempathy inducesnegativestate,youbecomemorethoughtfulandyouthinkthingsthrough(thehelphastoactuallyhelp) WhatAboutPositiveStates? - “payitforward”– basedon positivestatesinducehelping - Doyouhaveto be inanegativestatetohelp?–NO - Twoquestions: o Doesapositivemoodincreaselikihoodofhelping? o Howlongdoestheeffectlast? - Isenetalfelidexperiment: o IV:moodinduction(positive(poplearegivenfreepaper)vs.neutralmood(quicksurvey,notgettingfreestuff) contactcontrol(noonecomesto door)) Timedelay–from0-20 mins,thenanotherpersoncallsthesepeoplewiththe“wrongnumber”technique–what o Timedelay–from0-20 mins,thenanotherpersoncallsthesepeoplewiththe“wrongnumber”technique–what percentofthesepeopleactuallyhelp? o DV:%relayingphonemessage o Neutralmood–10% hardlynoonehelped o Positivemood–ataround7 minsafterpaper,90% ofpeoplehelped  astimegoeson,theyare lesslikelytohelp Mechanism? - Goodmood- leadstopositivethoughts–nowyouwillbeengagedinpositivebehaviours –whichleadsbacktobeingina goodmood - Butthereisatimescale,youhaveto bewithinthistimescaleinorderforthisto work Summary - Manymodelspredictweathersomeonewillhelp - Somefocusonselfighdesires o Selfishgenes o Cost-benefitanalysis o Reliefofanegativestate - Somefocusonotherorientedemotionalresponses - Empathy-altruismmodel SituationalFactors: • Beingin theknow - Ifyou'refamiliarwithperson/typeofsituation=feelresponsibleforhelping - e.g.Helpinginsubwayvs.Airport: o Pplinhurryatairports,speciallyifthey'venotflownmuch o Confedoncrutchespassedoutatsubway/airport o Socialclasshadnothingtodo withwhetherpplstoppedtohelp o Twiceasmanypplhelpinsubwayvs.Airport o Reason:pplmorefamiliarwsubwayratherthanairport o Pplmorefamiliarwplace=knowconsequencesofhelping=morelikelytohelp o Feelresponsiblefrhelpingon'ownturf' - Similaritybias o Morelikelytohelpownrace o Whenppldresseddissimilarlytosubject=didn'tgethelpasoften • Havingtimetohelp - Inahurry =lesslikelytonoticepplneedhelp - Seminarystudentstudy: o Pplinhurryto go across campusto deliverlecturehelpless o Evenifthey'rethinkingofjobsvs.goodsamaritan o Ppldon'tnoticeordiffusionofresponsibilityhappens • HavingEtohelp - Populationntprimaryfactorinhelping(althoughvaguelyaffectshelping) - Populationdensityaffectshelpingmore - Highpopdensity=energysapping - Havinglotsofpeoplearoundyou=makesyou aroused o Feelrushed/tiredalltime=wanttogetawayfrom this - Sensoryoverload o Can'tseeanythingmorethanyouhaveto o Diffusionofresponsibilityparticularlyaffected o Nopossibilityofreciprocation Aggression February-27-13 12:06 PM Theoriesofaggression: • Aggression: - Physical/emotionalharmintended • Hardto measureemotionalaggression=hasn'tbeenoperationalized • Oftenmeasureaggressionviashock=physical Genderdifferences: • Largegenderdiffinphysicalaggression - Homiciderates=malesmorelikelytokillsame-sexunrelatedmales - Whenfemaleskillotherfemales=usuallywithinsamefamily(usuallymomkillingdaughter) - Femalesbetteratrelational/reputationalaggression  Lotsofgossip • Evolutionaryperspective: - Females=highinitialparentalinvestment - Makesbabiesprecious - Wantbabiestobeperfect - Ledstofemalechoosiness=lookingfrperfectspermtomakeperfectbaby'  Aggressive,competitive,athleticmale  Willsurviveacrosstime  Healthiestwbestgenes  Canprotecther& heroffspringfrmothermales&predators  Shownin malemalecompetitionfr mates □ Whoeverwinsgetstohavesexwithfemale - Malesthatcan wincompetitions&beaggressive=ourancestors  Sexualdimorphicmales  Lotsoftestosterone - Femalescompetingforbestmate  Turnoffmalesbyspreadingrumoursaboutpromiscuousfemales=malesdon'tlikepromiscuity Feminist Perspective on Physical Aggression • Maccoby & Jacklin (1974) review article • Small but significant differences • Hyde (1984) meta-analysis • Gender diffs very small • Observer bias • Condry & Ross (1985) o They got two kids on videocamera wearing snowsuits having a snow fight – snow suits obscure the gender of the kids playing roughly in the snow. Adults subjects were shown the video but they had the belief either that the video depicted a boy being rough with another boy, a boy being rough with the girl, a girl being rough with a girl OR a girl being rough with a boy. o BAR GRAPH ON AVENUE o The boys aggression is being minimized but the girls aggression is being exaggerated. Observers seemed to have some kind of bias that causes them to accept male aggression and prevent female aggression. o Girls are preferentially punished for aggression – the feminist argument is that that’s why girls are less aggressive than boys o You could have this bias that you begin with due to evolutionary past, and the situational context causes you to pick one thing over the other Overlapping Distributions • DIAGRAM ON AVENUE • Red being females- males are purple lines. Both genders are capable of vast amount of aggression and not being aggressive. However males are somewhat more aggressive than females Summary • Gender differences in aggression are likely due to gender differences in adaptive utility of aggression • Physical aggression adaptive for males • Relational/reputational aggression adaptive for females • For females, what is adaptive is being a bit of a bitch (damaging someone’s reputation all in terms to seek a perfect mate) • BUT: Gender expectations may contribute to the gender difference • Permissiveness with boys, restrictiveness with girls • In other cultures that are less wealthy, the bigger and stronger guy has/gets the best mate and genes • Next up: why do people aggress? • Is aggression an automatic, unconscious, and hence uncontrollable response to frusturation? • Or can we use rational thought to prevent aggressive responding? To What Extent is Aggression a Rational Response? The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Miller and Dollard, Yale Group) • Original Version • Frustration  Aggression • If you had aggressed, it is because you are frustrated. And if you’re frustrated you will aggress. There is no way to control this relationship. • It is an incredibly strong hypothesis, both variables effect
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 2C03

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.