Class Notes (835,165)
Canada (508,984)
Psychology (2,075)
PSYCH 253 (142)

Psych 253 last third of the class notes

22 Pages
Unlock Document

Hilary B Bergsieker

Test 3: 12 – Helping When do we help others in need? • Why (basic) do we help others o Social exchange – always in it for ourselves o Vs. empathy altruism • When (bystander) • Whom do we help (indifference) • Pro-social • Altruism: truly do something to help another person while getting no personal benefits Social exchange theory – motives for helping people • i.e. feel less distressed (emotional) • or getting paid • Very focused on cost/benefit • “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” • Are the rewards better than the costs=help, vise versa=don’t help • What’s good for me Empathy altruism hypothesis – genuinely concerned for others’ well-being • Claims there’s diff routes to helping o To help us or b/c we truly care for the person in need of help • Their suffering becomes their suffering, care about ending their suffering, all about helping them regardless of how it affects you • 2 different paths: (blue/yellow chart) o 1-Because we take their perspective, really is about them, truly altruistically motivated, minimize their distress o 2-feeling our own personal distress at this bad situation, motivated by our own egoistic motive, reducing one’s own distress “I feel so bad I couldn’t live with myself if I don’t do something”  personal in a sense • *Study* o Students told that carol was in a bad car accident o Half were told to take her perspective (high empathy) o Half were told me to be objective (low empathy)  If never see her again, cost of not helping=low – she won’t know  High cost of not helping, we help...when low cost of not helping, we don’t help  Even when cost of not helping is low, high empathy (still feel her pain/perspective) will still help  Blue bars-low if it’s easy not to help (no penalty, you’ll never see carol again)  Blue-In both conditions its easy not to help, those who told to think about carols perspective (inducing empathy) leads people to help more • Social exchange theory • TOPHAT Q* Based on your textbook etc....helping behaviour is typically triggered through two routes: an egoistic motive and a: distress/empathy or reward/responsibility When do people help? (bystander) • Intervening in an emergency: o Notice: Realize there’s an opportunity to help o Interpreting: deciding the situation is a crisis, someone has to do something o Assume: someone has to decide to help o How: CPR, etc o Implementing help • Situational ambiguity o i.e. fire alarm – don’t just assume there’s a fire, look around at how people are reacting – drill? o Costs of being wrong about a situation can be life threatening o Pluralistic ignorance – assume they’re not thinking/feeling it’s an emergency because they’re not acting as it is an emergency o i.e. smoke video  Tested by self or in presence of 2 confederates or 3 random people  Alone: ¾ or 75% reported smoke within 6 mins  Not alone: took action more slowly (4/10 or 38% in 6 mins)  P with 2 confederates: 1in 10 or 10% • Genovese example • Seizure study • Bystander non-intervention: lessons o Point, request help from other individuals around (i.e. not everyone phone 911) • “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference” – Elie Wiesel • Real world: helping one or many – compassion toward one (Yohanna? Boy at the bus stop) vs. indifference toward many i.e. genocide (Armenia, Rwanda, Congo, etc.) • Indifference: Limits of Compassion (*TEST*) o The more lives we save, the more we are going to care/value saving lives as important o Avoiding large losses=mean larger (i.e. a large group of starving people) lots of lives at steak  Don’t map on to reality • Statistical vs. identifiable victims o Rokia, statistic, Rokia with statistic  Rokia-identifiable-more likely to donate vs. giving someone statistical info.  Largest donation was to save that one person(Rokia)  Bring in fact that there are other millions starving - ppl less likely to do something (know you can’t save everyone) o Other study:  Rokia, Mossa, Rokia and Moussa  Highest donation when shown Rokia OR Moussa alone  Habituation – care a bit less for each incremental person  Care a lot about saving first person Wed. March 5 Aggression: Intentionally causing harm to another person against their will (different than pain at the dentists, different than S&M) Hostile aggression vs. instrumental • Hostile: o harming a person is an end in itself, a hot form of aggression, not calculated, in the moment, rising out of anger and fury • Instrumental: o A means to an end, shoving someone out of the way so you can buy that item on black Friday. o Not harming them just to harm them, harming them to get something for yourself • Terrorism: instrumental – terrorists trying to achieve political power, freedom, money, land, etc. (a means to an end) • Relational aggression: o Using words, other kinds of behave to damage a person’s social standing o Intended to cause psychological harm • Study: o Girls vs. boys using physical vs. indirect aggression o Boys use more physical o Girls use more indirect o Both use verbal • Murder rates* Why are people so aggressive? Social learning theory • We learn from others in our social environ to demonstrate aggressive behaviour (how to do it, whether its normal or not) • “Bobo Doll” o Control: didn’t interact with doll o Nonaggressive model: i.e. played with doll o Aggressive model • Children closely copied what the adults did to the doll Frustration aggression theory • Predicts when we will aggress • Frustration puts you in an aggressive state (one does not always lead to other) o Important goal = blocked – sets someone up to aggress o How close you were to the goal – really close=much more frustrated=more likely to aggress o Really looking forward to the goal/really important – having that goal blocked – makes you more aggressive o i.e. driving in a hurry to an interview being blocked at a light vs. just out doing errands • frustration leads to aggression: under certain circumstances” o i.e. kids shown toys but not allowed to play with them, when given them they play with them more aggressively than do the kids that were given the toys right away • closeness to achieving goal: th o when someone cuts in front of the second person in line vs. the 12 person, more aggression occurs in the 2 person in line • cues in the environment: o weapons effect: increased aggression o when frustrated, get angry, anger leads to aggression o presence of weapon would facilitate aggression in P’s who were angered o angry P’s with gun in the room gave more shocks to another person than angry P with racket or no object (the presence of the gun makes people more aggressive) o this behaviour extends to swords, clubs, etc. Alcohol myopia and aggression • over half of domestic abuse occurs under the form of alcohol • myopic vision – can’t see far away • alcohol myopia – drunk people aren’t seeing/thinking far into their future/consequences/stuck in the present • aggression is increased if P’s are distracted and not directly asked if they would do something aggressive right now • aggression is increased if the confederate can retaliate Role of media violence: • shooters opinion on video games • study: o children watched violent/nonviolent show then played with other children o boys were more likely to increase their (physical) aggressive acts after watching violent show • effects of violent video games: • meta-analysis: hurting goes up, helping goes down (trust) • short-term effects: someone who gets really angry over losing a video game, needing “alone time” • long-term effects: gives people scripts for how to aggress in real life, desensitizes people to violence • study: people who played a lot of violent video games vs. who don’t o change in brain response o i.e. someone holding gun to someone’s head-people who play video games have weaker brain response...same response to see other disgusting images like poop, etc. **book review: **summarizing** most people lose points here Want analytic responses of the books content, not just retelling what the book already says Talk about one study from book Mon. March 10 – prejudice • Prejudice (Affect/emotion) – feeling o negative feelings, disliking/hating a group and its individual members • Stereotyping (Cognition) – thinking o having mental beliefs about a group, negative or positive vs. over generalizing i.e. clothes maker making all big clothes for men (tall) and all small clothes for women can have harmful effects • Discrimination (Behaviour) – practice o how you treat others Explicit vs. implicit • explicit – attitudes that you report outwardly, just asking someone how they feel about issues i.e. how much do you like lesbians, etc., would you be comfortable having this person of a certain race as a partner/boss • implicit – measured without conscious awareness • chart: o unfavourable=higher prejudice o dyad=two people together • explicit attitudes effect verbal behaviour • implicit attitudes affect things like nonverbal behaviour, tone of voice, body lang, etc. • study: o how quickly people respond to positive and negative words after seeing flashes of black and white faces –hard for people to consciously control o explicit prejudice was associated with people’s verbal behaviour/the content of what they said o implicit prejudice showed a correlation with nonverbal behaviour Stereotype content Racism and Sexism Explaining stereotype persistence • Cognitive factors vs. motivation factors Illusory correlations: • Tendency to receive false associations • Distinctiveness leads to over-representation: o i.e. don’t remember brushing teeth every morning but remember one time car almost ran you over o i.e. seeing someone in Santa suit attracts attention more and will have stronger recall o i.e. seeing someone in Santa suit almost running someone over o we remember atypical events more o Overestimate the extent to which rare things happen together • Study: o Over remembering bad behaviours by group B (smaller) o Under remembering good behaviours by group B o So many good group A (bigger) behaviours that the bad ones fade Ultimate attribution error Social identity theory: • Our groups matter to us, care about seeing our group well • Social identity is based on group membership • Try hard to have positive social identities • Minimal group paradigm o Group based on minimal info. o Favours ingroup • Motivated stereotype activation o White Ps asked about their interpersonal skill, told being observed by manager in other room evaluating their skillfulness, IV is whether they thought they were being observed by white vs. black manager and whether the feedback was positive or negative o Racial word completions: o Ratings of managers skill: o Ratings of negative feelings: less bothered by criticism from black manager - “they just said that because they’re black” • Realistic group conflict: o Ingroup positivity vs. outgroup name calling o Resolved by cooperation by overlapping goal i.e. both groups fixed something together – showed lower levels of prejudice toward each other • Causes of Bias: o Things can still be done Wed. March 12 – Stigma Stereotype threat: o Afraid of being judged negatively in the context of the stereotype of your group o Afraid your behaviour will develop a stereotype of your group o Every time you make a mistake it’s going to confirm the inferiority of your group • Stereotype threat and academics o High stereotype threat (where take diagnostic test or indicate race before you take test) – seeing the classic achievement rates where whites do much better than black o Low stereotype threat – no significant difference • Stereotype threat and conversations o Whites sat further away from black conversation partners when discussing racial profiling  Learning goals reduce this distancing • Stereotype threat: mediators and features • “” Multiple identities • “” Intervention o Learning about stereotype can help you be less vulnerable to it Attributions to Prejudice: • Group salience study: o Black P paired with white person for friendship study o No interpersonal contact, just think they are being paired with white P o 1-Told window between rooms and white person can see them o 2-Same room, told partner cannot see you (blinds are down)  Manipulation of salience o Second: feedback you get o Half receive + feedback that this person is interested in being friends with you o Half receive – feedback that they’re not interested in being friends with you o Prejudice attributions:  Not visible (white person doesn’t know they’re black), behaviour probably isn’t prejudice (yellow)  When they can see you, more likely to be prejudice (blue) o Self esteem change:  White person rejects you when knows your black – whatever, they’re racist (blue, negative feedback)  In positive feedback (interested being friend with you), can’t trust that feedback, “are you being nice to me because you don’t want to seem racist” (blue, positive feedback) • Other’s attitudes: o Women taking creativity test, whoever gets highest score – gets money, privileges (motivated scenario), being evaluated by a man, hear different things about that man Responses to Prejudice: • Video: Real world: confronting homophobia • Responding to Prej
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 253

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.