Class Notes (809,631)
Canada (493,758)
Psychology (7,623)
PSYB10H3 (543)

Complete Stand-Alone readings for Chapters 8, 9 and 11 PSYB10-8,9,11.docx

100 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Elizabeth Page- Gould

Chapters 8, 9, 11, and 12 (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY FINAL) Group Processes What is a Group? GROUP = collection of three or more individulals who interact with one another and are interdependent, such that their needs and goals cause them to rely on one another ⁃ two people = dyad ⁃ assembled together for a common purpose ⁃ ex. citizens meeting to solve a community problem ⁃ one member interacts with other group members and are interdependent on each other, such that they influence each other WHY PEOPLE JOIN GROUPS ⁃ forming relationships with other people fulfils basic human needs ⁃ may be an innate need to belong to social groups Baumeister et al ⁃ in our evolutionary past, there was a substantial survival advantage to establish bonds with other people ⁃ bonded people wree better able to ⁃ hunt and grow food ⁃ find mates ⁃ care for children => therefore, need to belong has become innate & is present in all societies Gardner et al ⁃ people in all cultures are motivated to ⁃ form relationships with other people ⁃ resist dissolution of these relationsips Dion et al ⁃ groups are an important part of our identity in that they help us to define who we are Cameron et al ⁃ groups belong we belong to play an important role in defining who we expect to be in the future setup ⁃ university students were asked how much they agreed with statements like “iN group of unviersity students, I really feel that I belong” finding ⁃ association between ⁃ feeling that you are a part of the university ⁃ positive self-esteem and well-being ⁃ students who had sense of belonging believed that being a university student would help them become the self they aspired to be in the future Patrik et al ⁃ p: ⁃ group membership plays an important role in motivating people to become involved in social change setup ⁃ examined collective action amonga variety of gorups ⁃ - ex. Peace activists in Vancouver finding ⁃ those who most strongly identifieid with their group were most likely to engage in social action THE COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF GROUPS Desportes et al ⁃ most social groups range in size from 3-6 members ⁃ ebcause if group is too large, then cannot interact with all of its members ⁃ ex. University ⁃ is not a social group because one is unlikely to meet and interact with every student there George et al ⁃ group members tend to be alike in age, sex, beliefs and opinions ⁃ 2 reasons for homogenity of groups ⁃ 1. many groups attract people who are already similar prior to joining ⁃ 2. groups operate in ways that encourage similarity in members Social Norms RECALL: SOCIAL NORMS = implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviours and values, and beliefs of its members ⁃ powerful determinant of one's behaviour ⁃ depicted by what happens when you violate them too frequently: ⁃ individual is shunned by other group members ⁃ in extreme cases, is pressured to leave the group ⁃ norms that are present in one group that you belong are not necessarily present in another group that you belong ⁃ ex. political party vs. Mosque Social Roles SOCIAL ROLES = shared expectations by group members about how particular people in the group are supposed to behave ⁃ well-defined in most groups ⁃ contrast SOCIAL NORMS: specify how all group members should behave ⁃ specifiy how people who take on specific positions in group should behave ⁃ ex. boss and employee ⁃ helpful in that people know what to expect from each other Barley et al ⁃ people tend be satisfied and perform well when members of their gorup follow a set of clearly defined rules Costs to social roles? ⁃ can be so immersed in the social role such that your personal identity and personality are lost Zimbardo et al – Stanford Prison experiment ⁃ h: ⁃ - social roles can be so powerful that they can take over one's personal identities, and we become the role we are playing setup ⁃ converted rooms in the basement of psychology department into a mock prison ⁃ students were paid to play role of either (randomly assigned) ⁃ prisoner ⁃ guard finding: ⁃ students quickly assumed their assigned roles ⁃ to the extent that experiment lasted only 6 days ⁃ despite every subject knowing that this is an experiment, they embraced roles to such a degree that their personal identities and sense of deceny somehow disappeared p239 Zimbardo et al ⁃ believes that the same psychological processes that operate in the prison experiment were also present in Abu Gharaib ⁃ ie. the role of prison guard, the anonymoity, the dehumanization of prisoners all contributed to loss of decency among American guards in charge of prison ⁃ recall: Iraqi prisoners being guarded by American soldiers in this prison Exceptions to immersion in social role ⁃ ex. Zimbardo et al ⁃ not everybody was so immersed in the social roles such that they were unable to resist ⁃ ex. some guards treated their prisoners well ⁃ analogous to how the abuse in Abu Gharaib prison was exposed by one of the guards reporting what was going on ⁃ but majority would be unable to resist social influences in such powerful situations, and perhaps would perform acts we thought were incapable of doing Gender Roles [1] ⁃ roles can be problematic when they are arbitrary or unfair ⁃ ex. societal expectations based on gender ⁃ all soceities have expectations as to how people who take on roels of women and men should behave ⁃ for many cultures, the women are to ⁃ to play role of wife and mother, and have limited oppurtunities to pursue other careers ⁃ options of women limited by gender-role stereotyping ex. Lupashuck et al setup ⁃ children subjects in grades 4-12 were asked to tell what life would be like if they woke up next day being the opposite gender finding: ⁃ occupational aspirations of the children were influenced by traditional gender role expectations ⁃ ex. male subject said that if he was a girl, he would expect that people want him to be a secretoryk, or do cleaning work conclusion: ⁃ women ⁃ are still limited by epectations that they will pursue traditional occupations ⁃ have child care and housework remain as their responsiiblity Alksnis et al ⁃ women are still expected to pursue gender stereotypic occupations [2] 1976 ⁃ 39% of women with children under age 16 were part of the paid workforce 2004 ⁃ now 73% ⁃ 2/3's of employed women were working in traditional femal-dominated jobs ⁃ ex. teaching, nursing, service, clerical Stickney et al ⁃ 26/28 countries surveyed, among which Canada was included, women significantly earn less than men ⁃ Canada: women comprise of ⁃ 70% of part-time workers ⁃ 60% of minimum-wage earners Statistics Canada ⁃ average full-time working women makes 71.4 cents for every $ earned by a man who works similar hours Brislin et al ⁃ despite having to work, women still expected to do traditional roles ⁃ ex. child-rearer, household manager Staistics Canada ⁃ women who work full-time and have children at-home report feelings of time- stressed p240 [2] ⁃ women's growth in the workforce has necessitated change in men's roles Staistics Canada 1986 ⁃ 54% of men reported carrying out household duties 2006 ⁃ now 69% ⁃ compare to women: ~90% ⁃ women spend avg. 2 hours more than men per day on household work Sanders et al ⁃ #hours per day that men spend on household tasks increased from 1.8 to 2.2 hours Harris et al ⁃ the more husbands engage in household chores, the ⁃ better the wives' emotional health ⁃ the better the couple's s life Group Cohesiveness = qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking among them ⁃ how tightly knit the group is ⁃ the more cohesive the group, the more its members are likely to ⁃ remain in the group ⁃ take part in group activities ⁃ try to recruit like-minded members ⁃ problem: group members' concern with maintaining good relations can get in the way of finding good solutions to problems HOW GROUPS INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOUR OF INDIVIDUALS ⁃ being in the presence of other people can have variety of effects on one's behaviour Social Facilitation – When the Presence of others Energizes Us [1] ⁃ presnece of other people implies either ⁃ a) performing a task with others who are doing the same thing ⁃ b) performing a task in front of an audience that is not doing anyhthing except observing the performer [2] Zajonc et al ⁃ built a contraption to see how cockroaches' behaviour was influenced by presence of their peers ⁃ bright light (disliked by roaches) was placed at the end of the runaway and ⁃ they were timed as how to long it took the roach to escape the light by running to the other end (darkened box there) ⁃ question: did roaches perform the task faster when they were by themselves, or when there were other roaches present as well? Finding: ⁃ individual rocahces performed the task faster when there were other roaches around compared to when they were alone ⁃ these other roaches were spectators [3] ⁃ given that the task is relatively simple and well learned, the mere prsence of others improves performance Triplett et al ⁃ children were asked to wind up fishing line on a reel, either ⁃ a) by themselves ⁃ or b) in the presence of other children finding: ⁃ did faster for b) Simple vs. Difficult Tasks ⁃ prsence of others enhances performance on simple well-learned tasks Zajonc et al ⁃ question: what happens when task is more difficult, and is done in presence of others? Setup ⁃ cockroaches had to solve a maze out of which one pathway led to the darkened box finding: ⁃ took longer to solve the maze when other roaches were around compared to when they were alone => individuals do worse in the presence of others when the task is difficult Arousal and Dominant Response [1] [D] SOCIAL FACILITATION = tendency for people to do better on simple tasks, but worse on complex tasks when ⁃ they are in the presence of others & ⁃ individual performance can be evaluated Zajonc's argument ⁃ 1. prsence of others incerases physiological arousal ⁃ 2. when this arousal exists, it is easier to do dominant response (=simpler task) but harder to ⁃ do something complex (ex. Hard math problem) or ⁃ learn somethign new (ex. A new language) => arousal in the presence of others makes it easier to perform well-learned behaviours ex. Riding a bicycle [2] Michaels et al ⁃ whether or not shooting pool is a simple or complex task for you will determine whether you will perform better or worse when people are watching you play it finding: ⁃ in the presence of others, the ⁃ novice players made significantly fewer shots ⁃ arousal caused by presence of others should hurt your performance ⁃ expert players made significantly more shots ⁃ arousal caused by presence of others should improve performance Why the Presence of others causes Arousal [1] 3 Theories developed to explain the role of arousal in social facilitation 1.other people cause us to become particularly alert and vigilant ⁃ ex. Have to be alert to possibility that the person will do something that requires our attention ⁃ because people are more/less predictable, were in a state of greater alertnness when they are present vs. When they are not ⁃ this alterness/vigilance causes mild arousal ⁃ have tendency to be alert when in the presence of another member of the species 1.other people make us apprehensive as to how we are being evaluated ⁃ people are frequently concerned about how other people are evaluating them ⁃ evaluation apprehension ⁃ concern about being judged by others ⁃ can cause mild arousal ⁃ feel embarrassed if you do poorly, but pleased if you do well ⁃ it is not the mere presence of others, but the presence of others who are evaluating us that ⁃ causes arousal ⁃ subsequent social facilitation 1.other people distract us from the task that we are doing ⁃ any source of distraction puts us into a sate of conflict, because it becomes difficult to concentrate on what we are doing ⁃ trying to pay attention to two things at once produces arousal - evidence that is consistent with this explanation: - Baron et al ⁃ non-social sources of distraction (ex. Flashing light) causes same form of social facilitation effect as does the presence of other people p244 Figure 8.2 ⁃ shows that there is more than one reason that presence of other people is arousing ⁃ consequences of arousal are the same ⁃ when an individual is in the presence of other people and ⁃ the task is simple and well-learned, then does better ⁃ the task is complex, or requires something to be learned, then does worse p245 [2] Gardner et al's study ⁃ university students performed either simple of complex task while picture of TV character was displayed on computer screen finding: ⁃ if character was thier favourite, then effect was as if there was a real person in the room ⁃ people did better on simple task, but worse on complex task ⁃ when character not their favourite, then performance unaffected ' SOCIAL LOAFING: WHEN THE PRSENCE OF OTHERS RELAXES US [1] Situation of social facilitation ⁃ person is working on something, either alone or in the presence of others ⁃ individual efforts are easily observed and evaluated ⁃ presence of others makes you aroused Situation of social loafing ⁃ individual efforts cannot be distinguished from the people around you ⁃ ex. How loudly you clap at a concert where everybody is clapping in unison ⁃ tend to become more relaxed ⁃ whether or not this relaxation leads to better or worse performance depends on whether task is ⁃ simple ⁃ complex [2] [D] SOCIAL LAOFING = tendency for people to do worse on simple tasks, but better on complex tasks, when they are in the prsence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated Simple task and social loafing -> Ringelmann et al, 1913 ⁃ when group of men pulled on rope, each individual exerted less effort than when each person was do it alone ⁃ examples of tasks where social loafing is involved ⁃ clapping ⁃ cheering loudly [3] Social loafing and complex tasks ⁃ recall: when performance in group cannot be identified, the group member beocomes more relaxed ⁃ becoming relaxed impairs performance on simple tasks, but improves performance on complex tasks ⁃ when people are not worried about being evaluated, they should be less likely to become tensed on a difficult task ⁃ therefore, do better p246 Cooper et al, social loafing and anonymity hypo: ⁃ computers allow for interation between people where each participant can remain anonymous ⁃ reduces evaluation apprehension ⁃ this, are importanat for improving quality of group's ideas finding: ⁃ participants in anonymous electronic groups ⁃ found it easier to generate ideas ⁃ reported lower evaluation apprehension than those in non-anonymous discussion groups ⁃ generated the greatest number of controversial ideas ⁃ more/less highly offensive ⁃ ex. question: brainstorm how to reduce spread of AIDS ⁃ one reply: burn AIDS carriers at the stake like witches ⁃ if one group member generates an inappropriate idea, then it could intiiate cycle of group members attempting to outdo each other when it comes to coming up with inappropriate ideas ⁃ members that became offended by responses stopped contributing ideas conclusion: ⁃ use of computers ⁃ can have benefits, for example: ⁃ allowing for interaction while preserving anonymity ⁃ lowers evalutation apprehension ⁃ problem: can have generation of controversial ideas become out of control Gender and cultural differences in social loafing: who slacks off the most? [1] Karau et al ⁃ men have greater tendency to loaf than women explanation: ⁃ women tend to be higher than men in relational interdependence ⁃ ie. tendency to focus on and care about personal relationships with others ⁃ b/c of this focus, women become less likely to engage in social loafing when in groups [2] Karau et al ⁃ tendency to loaf is stronger in Western than Asian cultures explanation: ⁃ may be due to different definitions prevalant of the self in these cultures ⁃ asians are morel likely to have interdependent view of the self ⁃ ie. way of defining onself in relation to other people ⁃ may reduce tendency towards social loafing when in groups [3] Social facilitation vs Social loafing; Summary ⁃ To know whether the presence of others will help or reduce your perofrmance, need to know 2 things: ⁃ 1. whether your individual efforts can be evaluted ⁃ 2. is task simple or complex ⁃ if performacne can be evaluted, then presence of others will make you alert and aroused ⁃ will lead to social facilitation ⁃ people do better on simple tasks, but worse on complex tasks ⁃ if performance cannot be evaluted, then are likely to become relaxed ⁃ will lead to social loafing ⁃ people do worse on simple tasks but better on complex tasks Deindividuation – Getting Lost in the Crowd [1] [D] DEINDIVIDUATION = the loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people are in a group, resulting in an increase in acts that are ⁃ impulsive ⁃ deviant ⁃ getting lost in a crowd can result in releasing behaviours that one would never dream of doing if they were alone [2] Examples Mullen 1986 ⁃ analyzed newspaper accounts of 60 lyncihings committed in US between 1899 and 1946 finding: ⁃ the more people there were in the mob, the greater the savagery and viciousness with which they killed their victims ⁃ people who did lynchings were cloaked, hiding behind white robes and hooded masks (anonymity) Watson 1973 - warriers who hid their identity prior to going into battle were significantly more likely to (compared to unmasked warriors) to ⁃ kill, torture or mutilate captive prisoners [3] Simmier, 1999 ⁃ disguises tend to make those wearing them capable of far more terrible acts of violence than would normally occur ⁃ ex. Baranovski incident ⁃ his murderers were a group of teens wearing masks or other gear to disguish themselves p248 Why does Deindividuauation lead to Impulsive Acts? [1] 3 factors: 1.presence of others OR the wearing of uniforms and disguises makes people feel LESS accountable for their actions because it decreases the probabiltiy that any one indvidual is singled out and blamed 1.2prsence of others lowers self-awareness, and thus shifting people's attention away from their moral standards 2.3- if were focusing on environment, then self-awareness will be low and will be more likely to forget our moral standards and act impulsively 3.4deindividuation increases the degree to which people obey the group's norms 1. - when group members together and deindividuated, ore likely to act according to group norms than other, more morally sound norms (ex. It is wrong to hurt another human being) 2. - so whether or not deindividuation leads to aggressive/antisocial behaviour or some other form of behaviour depends on what the norm of the group is 3. - it is the specific norm of the group that determines whether deindividuation will lead to positive or negative behaviours 1. - ex. You are in party where everyone dancing widlely at listening to ery loud music 1. - you are more likely to join crowd and start dancing wildly if feel deindividuated 2. - ex. If group is angry and norm is to act violently, then deindividuation makes people in group act aggressively CONNECTIONS – SPORTS AND AGGRESSION: DOES WHAT YOU WEAR CHANGE WHO YOU ARE? [1] Rehm et al ⁃ q: does wearing a uniform (ex. For being on sports team) increase aggressiveness? Setup ⁃ randomly assigned 5th graders in German schools to various 5-person teams ⁃ then watched the teams play handball against each other ⁃ one team had all of its members wearing orange shirts, while all members of other team wore normal street clothes finding ⁃ children who wore orange shirts, and so were harder to tell apart, played game significantly more aggressively than did the children wearing street clothing, presumed to be easier to identify [2] Frank et al q: does the colour of the uniform affect aggressiveness? ⁃ in almost all cultures, black is associated with evil and death setup ⁃ examined penalty records ⁃ recorded colour of uniforms worn by teams in NHL, NFL from 1970-1986 finding ⁃ teams that wore black uniforms ranked near top in terms of penalties ⁃ if a team switched to a non-black uniform, then there was immediate decrease in number of penalities setup (2) ⁃ subjects are to play a game where they are randomly assigned to either ⁃ team 1: black uniform ⁃ team 2: white uniform finding ⁃ those who wore black uniforms showed greater aggressiveness than white uniformed [3] ⁃ superficial things (Ex. What colour of uniform were wearing, or whether were wearing a uniform at all) can affect level of aggressiveness Group Decisions: Are Two (or More) Heads better than one? [1] ⁃ one major function of group ⁃ = to make decisions [2] De Dreu et al, 2008 ⁃ in general, groups will do better than individuals if people are motivated to search for the answer that is best for entire group, and not just for themselves Davis et al ⁃ ... and if they rely on person in group with most expertise Laughlin et al, 2006 ⁃ highest-performing individuals do better if working in a group setup ⁃ students working in groups that were either 3 or 5 people were given math problems to solve finding ⁃ the best perofmring individuals solved the problem in 6.0 equations when working in group, compared to 6.5 equatons when working alone Malcolmson et al, 2007 setup ⁃ subjects are to search for visual symbols on computer screen either ⁃ working in pairs ⁃ or working alone finding ⁃ those who worked in pairs performed better than those who did task alone ⁃ reason: pairs tended to divide up screen ⁃ each person had to search only half of his/her screen Process Loss: When Group Interactions inhibit Good Problem Solving [1] [D] PROCESS LOSS = any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem-solving Henry et al ⁃ group will only do well if most talented member can convince others that he/she is correct What are some causes of Process loss? ⁃ groups are not trying hard enough to find out who most competent member is ⁃ insetad, rely on somebody who does not know what they are doing or talking about ⁃ most competent member might find it hard to disagree with everyone else in group ⁃ because of normative conformity pressures ⁃ communication problems within the group ⁃ people are not listening to one another ⁃ or one person is allowed to dominate the discussion while others remain silent [2] Failure to Share Unique Information – Example of Process Loss ⁃ ie. Tendency for groups to focus on what its memebrs arleady know is common, but fail to discuss information that some members have but others don't - ex. ⁃ Group of doctors trying to treat person with digestive problems ⁃ doctor A – knows that this patient has abnormal WBC count ⁃ doctor B – knows that patient had aten mussles last night ⁃ => to make the most informed decision, all the doctors in the group need to disclose this infromation to decide what is best course of treatment [3] Tendency of groups ⁃ focus on inforation that they all know about, but ignore unique information known only to one/few members of the group Stasser et al, 1985 setup: ⁃ subjects met in groups of 4 to discuss which cnadidate for student body presiednt was most qualified 2 conditions ⁃ shared informatio ncondition: ⁃ each participant given the same set of information to read: ⁃ indicated that candidate A was best choice by the fact that: ⁃ had 8 + qualities, but only 4 – qualities ⁃ unshared information condition: ⁃ - each participant received a different set of infomration with respect to the 2 + qualities they got about A: ⁃ told that candidate A had ⁃ 2 + qualities, 4 – qualities finding: ⁃ shared information condition ⁃ when this group met to discuss the candidates, almost all the members chose 'A' ⁃ unshared information condition ⁃ most members never realized that 'A' had more good than bad qualities, because they focused on information they shared instead of information they did not ⁃ result: few of these forms of groups chose 'A' p251 [2] What are some ways to get groups to concentrate more on unshared information? 1.make sure that group discussions last sufficeintly long to get beyond what everybody already knows 2.- because unshared information more likely to be brought up later in the discussion 1.assign different group members to specific areas of expertise ⁃ so that they know that they alone are responsible for certain types of information ⁃ ex. if one doctor in group knows that he alone is responsible for monitering blood tests, then he/she is more likely to bring up this information and other members are more likely to pay attention to it [3] TRANSACTIVE MEMORY = the combined memory of 2 people that is more efficient than the memory of either individual ⁃ ex. In a couple, one might remember social engagements, while other may be responsible for remembering when to pay the bills ⁃ result: do better at remembering important info. ⁃ Same applies for group of strangers, given that they develop a system whereby different epople are remembering different parts of a task ⁃ tendency for groups to fail to share important information known to only some of the members can be overcome if people ⁃ learn who is responsible for what kinds of information and ⁃ take the time to discuss the unshared data Groupthink: many heads, one mind [1] [D] GROUPTHINK = kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner ⁃ groups do not do better in decision making when they are used to working with one another and are dealing with important real-world problems if they engage in groupthink [2] Janis et al -> ANTECEDENTS OF GROUPTHINK 1.GROUP IF HIGHLY COHESIVE ⁃ group is valued and attractive ⁃ people very much want to be members 1.GROUP IS ISOLATED FROM CONTRARY OPINIONS 2.- isolated in that they are protected from hearing alternate viewpoints 1.GROUP IS RULED BY A DIRECTIVE LEADER 2.- controls the discussion and makes his/her wishes known 1.HIGH STRESS 2.- members perceive threats to the group 1.POOR DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES 2.- no standard methods to consider alternative viewpoints -> SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK (given that the antecedent (preconditions) are met (ie. 1,2,3), then these symptoms can arise: 1.ILLUSION OF INVULNERABILITY 2.- group feels that it is invincible and can do no wrong 3. 1.BELIEF IN THE MORAL CORRECTNESS OF THE GROUP 2.- “God is on our side” 1.STEREOTYPED VIEWS OF OUT-GROUP 2.- opposed sides viewed in a simplistic, stereotyped manner 1.SELF-CENSORSHIP 2.- people decide themselves to not say contrary opinions (self-censorship) so as to not “rock the boat” because they fear 1. - ruining the high morale or esprit de corps of the group or 2. - of being critized by others 1.DIRECT PRESSURE ON DISSENTERS TO CONFORM ⁃ if anyone says a contrary viewpoint, then the rest ofthe group quickly critizes that person ⁃ pressuring him to conform to majority view 1.ILLUSION OF UNANIMITY ⁃ illusion is created that everyone agrees ⁃ example – done by not calling on people known to disagree 1.MINDGUARDS 2.- group members that protect the leader from contrary viewpoints -> DEFECTIVE DECISION MAKING 1.INCOMPLETE SURVEY OF ALTERNATIVES 2.FAILURE TO EXAMINE RISKS OF FAVOURED ALTERNATIVE 3.POOR INFORMATION SEARCH 4.FAILURE TO DEVELOP CONTINGENCY PLANS Example of groupthink ⁃ former Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney – how he handled the Meech Lake Accord in 1990 ⁃ met in a closed room for 7 days with his provinicial premiers to make decision regarding constitutional reform ⁃ politicians met in isolation – away from media, advisers ⁃ meetins took place shortely before Accord would have to be ratified ⁃ => little time to discuss laternatives ⁃ Mulroney was persuasive, directive leader ⁃ managed to coinvince premiers that Meech Lake Accord was answer to Canada's unity problems ⁃ failure to sign the accord would place country in political & economic peril ⁃ his goal in this decision – ensure that dissenters conformed ⁃ under the condition of the most prominent dissenter being absent from a meeting, the group reached a consensus p254 Further investigation into groupthink ⁃ can occur even when some of the antecedents are missing ⁃ ie. it may be enough for people to ⁃ identify strongly with the grop, ⁃ have clear norms about what group is supposed to do, and ⁃ have low confidence that group can solve the problem ... and yet groupthink still would occur Avoiding the Groupthink Trap 1.REMAIN IMPARTIAL ⁃ leader should not take directive role but should remain impartial 1.SEEK OUTSIDE OPINIONS 2.- leader should invite opinions from people who 1. - are not members of the group, and whom 2. - are less concerned with maintaining group cohesiveness 1.CREATE SUBGROUPS 2.- leader should divide group into subgroups that 1. - first meet seperately 2. - then meet together to discuss their different recommendations 1.SEEK ANONYMOUS OPINIONS 2.- leader should take secret ballet such that group members are asked to write down their opinions anonymously 3.- by doing this, can ensure that members give true opinions, which are not censored by fear of being accused for saying something from another member of the group Group Polarization – Going to Extremes [D] GROUP POLARIZATION = tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of their members ⁃ can be tested for using Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire ⁃ comprised of series of stories that present a dilemma for the main character ⁃ ask reader to choose how much probability of success there would have to be before the reader would recommend a riskier alternative ⁃ first choose answers alone, then meet in group to discuss opinions, and ultimately arrive at unanimous group decision for each dilemma [2] findings from many questionnaire studies ⁃ groups make riskier decisions than individuals do ⁃ groups tend to make decisions that are more extreme in the same direction as the individual's initial predispositions ⁃ ex. Chess game – alone – say chess player should make that move if there is 30% chance of success ⁃ in group – 10%; => risky shift [3] ⁃ if people are initially inclined to be conservative, then when in group, they tend to make even more conservative decisions than the individuald does p255 What are the two main reasons for which group polarization occurs? 1.persuasive arguments interpretation 2.- all individuals bring to the group a set of arguments, some of which other individuals have not considered to support their initial recommendation 1. - result: group members end up with greater number of arguument in support of their positioon than they initially started out with comparison interpretation 2.- when people discuss an issue in group, they first check how everyone feels 3.- to be liked, many people then take a position that is similar to everyone else's but a little more extreme 1. - in this manner, the individual supports the group's values and also presents himself/herself in a positive light ⁃ ie. People are more likely to see him/her as an impressive thinker p256 LEADERSHIP IN GROUPS [1] [D] GREAT PERSON THEORY = certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the istuation the leader faces ⁃ best-known answer so far regarding question about what makes a great leader ⁃ if this theory true, then we should be able to isolate key aspects of personality that makes someone a great leader Leadership and Personality [1] ⁃ only waek relationships found between specific personal characteristics and leadership Albright et al ⁃ compared to non-leaders, leaders tend to be slightly more ⁃ intelligent ⁃ extroverted ⁃ driven by desire for power ⁃ charismatic ⁃ socially skilled ⁃ adaptive and feleible ⁃ more confident in their leadership abilities ⁃ few personality characterisitcs correlate with leadership effectiveness Bradley et al ⁃ for a 5-year period, followed Canadian Forces officer candidates ⁃ found little relationship between ⁃ personalty variables ⁃ leadership ability ⁃ dominance was the only trait that was esp. Useful at predicting who would make a great leader ⁃ reason: military operations are not the place for insecure people [2] Suedfeld et al ⁃ integrative complexity – ability to recognize mroe than one perspective on an issue and able to integrate these various perspectives ⁃ another variable that correlates with leadership effectiveness ⁃ found significant correlations between these 2 variables among leaders ⁃ ex. Canadian prime ministers [3] Simonton et al ⁃ gathered information on 100 personal attributes of all US presidents ⁃ ex. family background, educational experience, job, personalit finding: ⁃ height, family size and number of books published by president before he/she took office ⁃ these were the only variables that correlated with historians' ratings of how effective the presidents were in-office => to be more likely to be great leaders, presidents had to be ⁃ tall ⁃ come from small families ⁃ publish many books [4] McCann et al ⁃ analyzed same data as Simonton, but using different statistical techniques finding: ⁃ the following variables correlated with presidential efficiency: IQ, height, attractiveness, tidiness, achievement drive => great presidents tend to be ⁃ smart ⁃ tall ⁃ not good-looking ⁃ messy ⁃ achievement-oriented Leadership Styles [1] 1.TRANSACTIONAL LEADERS 2.= set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them 3.- do a good job of making sure that needs of organization are met and that things run smoothly 1.TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS 2.= inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals 3.- “think outside the box” 4.- identify important long-term goals 5.- inspire followers to work hard to meet these goals p257 [1] Arnold et al ⁃ transformational eldaership associated with psychological well-being Ivey et al, 2010 ⁃ members report higher job satisfaction and positive attitudes towards leaders that are transformational Dussault et al – Transformative leaders in school setting ⁃ did study with about 500 French Canadian school teachers ⁃ finding: ⁃ positive correlation with principals' transoormational and transactional leadership and teachers' confidence that they could do their job effectively Bader et al, 2010 ⁃ transoformational leadership by principals, vice-principals, and teachers associated with fostering community and civic engagement among students [2] Judge et al ⁃ neither of the leadership styles are closely linked to personality traits ⁃ => people are not “Born” to be one, or the other type of leader ⁃ suggests that it is posisble to do something to develop these styles of leadership Mullan et al ^- did the suggestion ⁃ randomly assigned managers from health-care organizations to either ⁃ 1. transformational leadership training ⁃ 1a) intended to foster general transfomrational leadership through lectures, discussion and developing personalized plans for goal setting and goal attainment ⁃ 1b) focused specifically on transformational leadership in filed of occupational safety ⁃ received same training as 1a, except focused specifically on topic of leadership in context of workplace safety ⁃ or 2. control group that did not receive any training ⁃ employees supervised by managers constantly reported on characteristics of workplace, finding: ⁃ when employees asked specifically about degree to which their manager promoted safety outcomes, the mangers that underwent safety-specific transformational leadership (1b) received the highest ratings ⁃ suggests that ⁃ leaders can be taught to take on a transformational leadership ⁃ when specific outcome (ex. Occupational safety) is desired, transformational leadership training focuses on specific area that is most effective [4] Judge et al ⁃ transformational and transactional leadership styles are not mutually exclusive ⁃ best leader is one who takes on both styles Leadership – The Right Person in the Right Situation [1] ⁃ it is not enough to be a good person (wrt leadership); have to be right person in the right time in the right situation (ex) Ballard et al ⁃ relationship between prime ministerial greatness and integrative complexity differs depending on the situation ⁃ when people under stress, integrative complexity decreases ⁃ more difficult to see other viewpoints, integrate them and come up with complex solutions ⁃ but for great leaders ⁃ experience increase in integrative complexity during times of stress, and then returns normal afterwards => situational factors (ex. Times of crisis (stress situation)) influence how qualities of a leader are manifest [2] What theory ⁃ is about leadership ⁃ focuses on ⁃ characteristics of leader ⁃ his/her followers ⁃ situation ? -> best one = [D] CONTEINGENCY THEORY OF LEADERSHIP = leadership effectiveness depends both on how task oriented or relationship-oriented the tleader is, and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group ⁃ 2 types of leaders: ⁃ [D] TASK-ORIENTED LEADER = more concerned w/ getitng the job done instead of feelings of, and relationships among workers ⁃ do well in high control work situations ⁃ = in which: ⁃ leader has excellent interpersonal relationships w/ subordinates ⁃ his/her position in company clearly preceived as powerful ⁃ work to be done by group is strcutured and well- defined ⁃ also do well in low control work situation ⁃ = in which: ⁃ leader has poor relationships w/ subordinates ⁃ work to be done not clearly defined ⁃ when situational control very high, ⁃ people are very happy ⁃ everything is running smoothly ⁃ no need to worry about people's feelings and relationships ⁃ => in this situation, task-oriented leader is best ⁃ when situational control very low, ⁃ task-oriented leader is best at taking charge and imposing order ⁃ [D] RELATIONSHIP-ORIENTED LEADER = mainly concerned w/ feelings of and relationships among the workers ⁃ most effective in moderate control work situations ⁃ things are going smoothly, except that some attention is needed to distress caused by poor relationships, or hurt feelings Gender and Leadership [1] ⁃ more men than women in workforce (46.7%) ⁃ more women than men out of all people who hold university degrees (58%) ⁃ more male full professors than female (18%) ex's ⁃ more men than women in positions like ⁃ - chiefs leading aboriginal tribes ⁃ oard of directors ⁃ coroporate officers [2] Eagly et al -> two forms of prejudice against women 1. if women behave in communal fashion, then are freuqnetly preceived as having less leadership potential 2. - communal fashion = way they are “supposed” to behave according to societal norms 1. - ex. Concerned with welbeing of others, warm, helpful, kind, affectionate 2. - reason: people typically expect successful leadesr to be more agentic 3. = assertive, controlling, dominant, independent, self-confident 4. ... instead of communal 1.receive more negative evaluations than men when they exhibit agentic leadership behaviour 2.- reason: these behaviours are contrary to how women are “supposed” to behave [3] Mann et al ⁃ another reason why women are less likely to be selected for leadership positions is because ⁃ society expects them to ⁃ be modest ⁃ not draw attention to their accomplishments rYAN ET AL ⁃ when women get top leadership positions, they are often put into situation such that it is difficult to succeed ⁃ identified the “glass cliff” ⁃ when women have broken through the “glass ceiling” into top leadership position, they are more likely than men to be put in charge in times of crisis, or when risk of failure high ⁃ finding from expt consistent with this: ⁃ - subjects more likely to ⁃ recommend a women be in leadership position in crisis ⁃ men take on this position when operation running smoothly [3] What is one reason for the “glass cliff”? ⁃ women are preceived to be better at crisis management ⁃ esp. When there are interperonal problems that need to be handled Budworth et al, 2010 ⁃ if women's leadesrhip style is stereotypically masculine (Ex. Bossy, autrocratic, task-poriented), then receives more negative evaluations than men with the same style ⁃ particularly true if men are doing the evaluating ⁃ [4] Ayman et al, 20009 ⁃ when women take on transformational leadership style, even then they receive negative evaluations from their male workers finding: ⁃ the more the women used this style with male workers, the lower the performance rating received ⁃ evaluations from female workers was opposite ⁃ male leaders rated equally effective by both male and female workers ⁃ regardless of what level of transformational leadership they have p260 [1] Double bind for women 1.if conform to societal expectations about how women should behave, then preceived as having low leadership potential 2.if succeed in getting leadership position and act in ways expectant of a leader (agentic, forceful manner), then often preceived negatively for acting not acting how women should behave [2] Prejudice towards women appears to be lessening (ex) Gallup poll: ⁃ what gender for boss would you prefer? ⁃ 1953: 63% man, 5% woman, 25% no preference ⁃ 2002: 32% man, 19% women, 49% no preference (ex2) ⁃ growing recognition that effective leaders must be able to act ⁃ in stereotypical female (ie. Communal) ways + ⁃ stereotypical male (ie. Agentic) ways CONFLICT AND CO-OPERATION [1] ⁃ oppurtunity for interpersonal conflict exists whenever 2/more people interact ⁃ often when people have incompatible goals, conflict between them arises Frue,d 1930 ⁃ conflict is an unavoidable by-product of civilization ⁃ reason: goals & needs of individuals often clash with goals and needs of their fellow human beings [2] ⁃ conflicts vary in how they turn out ⁃ ex1. Many are resolved peacefully with little stand-off ⁃ ex. being able to solve differences in a mutually acceptable manner ⁃ ex2. Conflict erupts into open hostility ⁃ ex. people resorting to violence to resolve their differences ⁃ exA. Murder ⁃ exB. Warfare between nations Social Dilemmas [1] SOCIAL DILEMMA = conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual, if chosen by most people, will have harmful effects by everyone ⁃ ex. Stephen King's novel ⁃ gave everyone access to a portion of his novel on-line ⁃ can either pay the fee, or download free. ⁃ given that 75% of people paid the fee for downloading portions of the novel, then he will continue writing the novel and post new portions ⁃ if fewer than 75%, then would stop writing, and no one would get rest of novel ⁃ most beneficial action – just buy it free [2] How are social dilemmas commonly studied in lab? ⁃ using game “Prisoner's Dilemma” ⁃ 2 people choose one of 2 options without knowing what other person picked ⁃ number of points you win depends on what option chosen by both people (ex) ⁃ must choose either X or Y without knowing what friend will choose ⁃ how much money you get dep. On what you, and your friend chooses ⁃ ex. if botho of you choose X, then you win $3 ⁃ ex. if you choose X, friend chooses Y, then winnings are: ⁃ You: $6 ⁃ Friend: $3 ⁃ ex. If you choose Y, friend chooses X, then winings are: ⁃ You: $6 ⁃ Friend: -$6 [3] Question: what option do people choose? ⁃ majority ⁃ start by choosing Y ⁃ because they do not know if they can trust their opponent, so think that Y is “safe” ⁃ problem: if both players are thinking like this, then both lose $1 (Y, Y) FRIEND'S OPTIONS YOUR OPTION YOUR OPTION (X) (Y) (X) YOU: $3 YOU: $6 FRIEND: $3 FRIEND: -$6 YOU: -$6 YOU: -$1 (Y) FRIEND: $6 FRIEND: -$1 [4] Prisoner's Dilemma and Real-life ⁃ people's actions in game seems to reflect many everyday-conflicts (ex:1) ⁃ to find a solution that is desired by both parties, people must rtust each other ⁃ often they don't ⁃ this lack of trust leads to an escalating series of competitive moves ⁃ such that in the end, no one wins (ex:2) ⁃ 2 countries in an arms race ⁃ feel they cannot back out, out of fear that other side thinks they are weak ⁃ result: both sides add furiously to their offense ⁃ neither side gains superiority over other (ex:3) divorce ⁃ goal seems to hurt the other person rather than to further one's own or the children's needs ⁃ after divorce, both suffer (Y,Y) Increasing Co-operation in Social Dilemmas [1] ⁃ when people play Prisoner's dilemma game or do similar social dilemma tasks, they will under certain conditions choose more co-operative response ⁃ ensures that both sides get + outcome -ex 1. Cohen et al ⁃ if playing with friend or expect to interact with that person in the future, then more likely to choose co-operative strategy that maximizes both their own profits, and that of their partner's -ex 2. Bonta et al ⁃ Asian cultures foster more co-operative orientation than Western Wong et al, 2005 ⁃ showing symbols of Chinese culture before the Prisoner's dilmenna game to Chinese students made them more co-operative ⁃ if shown symbols of Western culture, then made them more competitive [2] ⁃ allow individuals, instead of opposing groups, to resolve a conflict ⁃ because 2 individuals who play Prisoner's Dilemma/face social dilemma task more likely to co-operate than two groups who play the same game/doing the same task ⁃ reason: people more likely to assume that another individual is co- operaive and trusted, but if groups of individuals, then are likely to betray ⁃ => greater trust in individuals than groups [3] ⁃ play social dilemma games with small instead of large group ex. Latham et al setup ⁃ subjects told they can invest money in either ⁃ personal account OR ⁃ joint account ⁃ if money placed in here, then would double and be divided equally among group members finding: ⁃ subjects in 3-person groups more co-operative than subjects in 7-person groups ⁃ result: made more money ⁃ 7-person groups ⁃ more likely to focus on maximizing own gains instead of that of group p263 [1] ⁃ try the TIT-FOR-TAT STRATEGY = means of encouraging co-operation by at first acting co-operateively but then always responding the way your opponent did (ie. Co-operatively or competitively) on the previous trial ⁃ communicates willingnesss to co-operate as well as unwillignes to sit back and let the other party take advantage of you should they not be co-operative ⁃ typically successful in getting other person to respond with in a co-operative, trusting manner [2] Does the strategy of co-operating consistently throughout work? Weber et al, 2008 ⁃ qn: are consistent co-operatores “suckers or saviours” in social dilemma situations? Finding ⁃ consistent contributers (those who contribute to the group on each round) create a norm of co-operation in the group ⁃ result: each group member, including the consistent contributer, leaves with greater payout than group members that do not have a consistent contributer ⁃ if consistent contributer is of high status (ex. PhD student in group of undergrads), then will encourage greater consistent contributing than low- status group members (Ex. Part-time secretory) ⁃ groups with low-status consistent contributers still able to end up with higher profits than groups that do not have consistent contributer => evidence that consistently modelling co-operativ ebehaviour benefits everyone, even the consistent contributer who stands to lose the most by contributing everytime [3] Consistent co-operators (con.) Barclay et al, 2008 showed that: ⁃ co-operators receive more + evaluations from other group members than freeloaders ⁃ freeloader = person who benefits from other group members' contributions, without contributing themselves setup ⁃ group member is given oppurtunity to ⁃ punish (take money away) or ⁃ reward (give more money) ... to co-operators and freeloaders finding ⁃ co-operators more likely to be rewarded ⁃ freeloaders more likely to be punished ⁃ also examined how group memberes who gave reawrd or punishment were preceived by rest of group ⁃ if gave punishment, then received – evaluations by rest of gorup ⁃ => despite freeloaders can be preceived as punishment-desereving, people apparently realize that punishment is not best way to promote social good ⁃ those who failed to reward co-operateive behaviours were also given – evaluations ⁃ suggests that failing to promote collective good is frowned upon conclusion ⁃ co-operation more likely to be maintained by reward system, not punishment system Cadsby et al, 2007 ⁃ freeloading is less likely when rewards at stake are large, not small ⁃ given that freeloading is decreased, now groups can come to decision that can benefit everyone and they do more easily and efficiently p264 USING THREATS TO RESOLVE CONFLICT [1] ⁃ When experiencing a conflcit, many people tempted to use threats to get the other party to act how we want them to ex. parents commonly use physical threat to get children to behave ex. teacher often threathen student that if you don't listen, you will get visit to principal's office [2] Deutsch et al, 1960-1962 ⁃ showed that threats are not an effective way to reduce conflict ⁃ (look at Figure 8.6 (p264), 8.7 (p265) while reading this setup ⁃ dvelopeed game where two subjects imagined they were in charge of trucking companies ⁃ 1) Acme Trucking Company ⁃ 2) Bolt Trucking Company ⁃ goal of each company ⁃ transport products as fast as possible to destination ⁃ subjects paid 60 cents for each trip but 1 cent deduction for every second it takes to make trip ⁃ most quickest route to destination was one-lane road ⁃ => only one company truck can travel on it at a time ⁃ conflict is formed from the one-lane road ⁃ if both companies try to take it, then neither truck can pass, and so both lose money ⁃ each has choice of taking alternative route, but that is longer and it guarantees 10 cent loss on every trial [3] How did subjects resolve the dilemama? ⁃ eventually, most worked out a solution that allowed both trucks to make fair amount of money ⁃ ie. took turns to take one-lane road ⁃ one goes first, then the other follows behind [3] Truck study version 2: had unilateral threat condition ⁃ ie. Acme Company given a gate that they can use to lower one-lane road, thereby blocking access to that road for Bolt Company ⁃ expectation: using force (ie. Gate) increases Acme's profits, because all Acme had to do was threathen Bolt to stay off one-lane road ⁃ result: is opposite ⁃ Acme still won more than Bolt, but both subjects lost more than when neither company had gate ⁃ occurred because Bolt retaliated by this threat issuing by blocking the one-lane road by parking their truck there ⁃ result: both lose money p265 [1] Truck study version 3: had bilateral threat condition ⁃ ie. Both companies given gate ⁃ expectation: companies would learn to co-operate v.quickly after recognizing the conflict that would arise if both uses gate ⁃ result: is opposite ⁃ both companies lost more money in this condition than any other condiiton ⁃ occurred because both companiues trhreatened to use their gate, and did so very often Effects of Communication [1] How does the trucking game not generalize to real life? ⁃ by fact that there was no communication allowed between the two companies ⁃ qn: would companies work out differences if they were able to communicate with each other? Truck study version 4: communication allowed ⁃ expectation: more co-operation ⁃ result: ⁃ no dramatic increase in profits [2] Why was there no dramatic increase in profits, despite communication being permitted? ⁃ communication in these studies did not promote trust ⁃ instead, subjects were using the communicating device to issue threats to other company Truck study version 5: instructed communication ⁃ ie. Experimenters ⁃ instructed subjects as how to how to communicate, ⁃ telling them to come to solution that is fair for both companies ⁃ result: verbal communication increased profits for both companies ⁃ reason: promoted trust instead of increasing competition, or threat- issuing p266 [1] Stuchlmacher et al, 2005 ⁃ mode of communication affects development of trust finding: ⁃ negotiations conducted over electronic media were ⁃ more hostile ⁃ resulted in lower profits ... iin comparison to traditional, face-to-face negotiations => downside of electronic communication is that it is more harder to ⁃ get to know people ⁃ learn to trust them NEGOTIATOIN AND BARGAINING [1] [D] NEGOTIATION = form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict, in which offers and counter-offeres are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree [2] Limitation to successful negotation ⁃ often people assume that they are stuck in a fonclit where only one party will come out advantageous over the other ⁃ do not realize that solutions favourable to both parties are available Resolution: INTEGRATIVE SOLUTION = solution to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests; each side concedes (agrees) the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side p267 [1] De Dreu et al ⁃ often times, it is difficult for people to decipher integrative solutions Barriers to finding out integrative solution ⁃ 1. tendency to assume that what is important to us is obvious to everyone, even the opponent Vorauer et al ⁃ students either: ⁃ a) participate in negotiation sessions ⁃ b) observe key finding: ⁃ despite negotiators believing their goals were obvious during interaction, observers were not even better than 50% correct at identifying these goals [2] O'Connor ⁃ the more people have at stake in a negotiation, the more biased are their perceptions of their opponent ⁃ tend to ⁃ distrust proposals made by the other side ⁃ overlook interests both sides have in common ^- tendency is one reason why neutral mediators are often hired to solve ⁃ labour disutes ⁃ legal battles ⁃ divorce proceedings ⁃ b/c they are in better position to recognize that there are mutually agreeable solutions to the conflict [3] Conclusion about Negotiation ⁃ when negotiating with somebody, it is key to keep in mind that often times, integrative solutions are possible ⁃ try to other sides' trust ⁃ communicate your own interests in an open manner ⁃ the way you construe the situation is not necesssarily the same as how member of another party does it ⁃ higher likelihood of finding a solution beneficial to both parties if the other side communicates its interests more freely as a result of you doing the above acts. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – Why do People Help? WHY DO PEOPLE HELP? [D] PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR = any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person ⁃ can be ⁃ done out of self-interest ⁃ motivated by [D] ALTRUISM = desire to help others, even if it involves a cost to the helper (ex) Aklewenzie risked his life by intervening when a woman was being harassed at a bus stop (ex) Moores sacrified her life to safe the child from drowning p313 [1] EXAMPLE OF ALTRUISM Balfour et al ⁃ examined motivations HIV-infected individuals had for taking part in HIV vaccine trials ⁃ despite 69% being aware that taking part in the trials can cause unpleasant side effects 34% had concerns about vaccine causing further health problems for them ... they continued to to do this ⁃ all of the subjects expressed that were doing the trials because they wanted to help the global HIV community ⁃ EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: INSTINCTS AND GENES [1] Darwin ⁃ according to this theory of evolution ⁃ natural selection favours genes that promote the individual's survival ⁃ any gene that increases the survival and increases the likelihood of producing offspring is likely to be passed on from one generation to next ⁃ those that lower chances of survival will decrease chances of producing offspring and less likely to be passed on Evolutionary psychology ⁃ field that attempts to explain social behaviour in terms of genetic factors that evolved over time, according to the principles of natural selection [2] Darwin and altruism ⁃ it would seem that over time, altrustic behaviour disappears because poeple who acted that way would be putting themselves at risk, and so would produce fewer offspring than if they didn't do this ⁃ so would not selfish behaviour be more likely to be passed on? KIN SELECTION = idea that behaviour that helps a genetic relative is favoured by natural selection [1] ⁃ can increase chances that genes will be passed on by ensuring that genetic relatives have children because you share some of their genes => natural selection should favour altruistic acts directed towards genetic relatives Webster et al ⁃ genetic relatedness was strong predictor of estate allocations => the closer the genetic link, the greater the designated inheritance [2] Burnstein et al ⁃ people are more likely to help genetic relatives than strangers in life-and-death situations ⁃ ex. house fire ... but not when situation is non-life threathening [3] Sime et al ⁃ interviewed survivors of fire finding ⁃ when people became aware that there was fire, more likely to search for family members before exiting the building than they were to search for friends p314 [1] Evolutionary psychological view: Kin selection ⁃ the genes of people who follow this “biological importance” rule (ie. Be altruistic to relatives) are more likely to survive than the genes of people who do not ⁃ over the millenia, kin selection became ingrained in human behaviour [2] Korchmatos et al ⁃ subjects lsit names of immediate and extended family members ⁃ then say how close they felt to each ⁃ then, presented with variety of possible helping situations ⁃ asked: to report which family member they would be most likely to help finding ⁃ contrary to kin selection ⁃ degree of genetic relatedness did not predict willingness to help ⁃ critical variable was degree of closeness sbujects more likely to help family members whom they are more closer to suggestion ⁃ evolution may have created tendency to help those who are close to us, not to help anyone who is related to us THE RECIPROCITY NORM [D] NORM OF RECIPROCITY = expectation that helping others will increase th elikelihodo that they will help us in the future [1] ⁃ more harder for group of wholly selfish individuals to survive vs. Those who are co-operative ⁃ those who are most likely to survivee are people who developed an understanding with thie neighbours about reciprocity ⁃ ie. I will help you now, with the agreement that when I need help, you will return the favour ⁃ because it is valuable for survival, likely that this norm became genetically based [2] Dunfield et al ⁃ nrom of reciprocity in infancy is detectable setup ⁃ 21-month old infants seated across table from 2 female confederates who offered, but did not give the infant an attractive toy ⁃ 2 conditions “unwilling condition” - confederate pulled toy away before infant can take it “unable condition” - toy accidently rolled off table before confederate could hand it over ⁃ phase 2: confederates introduced an attractive toy, but dropped it ⁃ situation set up so that both confederates reached for toy but couldn't recover it, and so infant had to go and get it finding ⁃ 1/3 infants who picked up toy kept it to themselves ⁃ the remaining 2/3 were significantly more likely to give toy to confederate who had intended, but was unable to to give toy earlier, than to confederate who was was unwilling ⁃ Dunfield et al ⁃ infant's reactions to confederates were compared between these two conditions: ⁃ a) confederate is willing, but unable to give toy ⁃ b) confederate handed over toy to infant finding ⁃ if dropped, then infants likely to geive toy to confederate with gelpful interntions as to the confederate who had actually been helpful (ie. b) conclusion ⁃ infants ⁃ reciprocate good deeds ⁃ can pick up whether someone intends to help them and reciprocate accordingly p315 [2] Brown et al ⁃ from an evolutionary persepctive, it would be adaptive to be able to distinguish true altruists form those who are cheating cheating => have no plan of reciprocating acts in the future ⁃ people are really good at figuring out whether act of altruism is true or not LEARNING SOCIAL NORMS [1] ⁃ highly adaptive for individuals to learn social norms from other members of society person who learns rules from cultures ex. which foods are harmful/helpful ex. how co-operation should work .... more likely to ssurvive than person who doesn't ⁃ ability to learn social norms has become part of our genetic makeup, by natural selection Hoffman et al ⁃ ex. Of learned norm – value of helping others considered to be valuable in all societies ⁃ people are genetically programmed to learn social norms, and one of them is altrusim Keltner et al ⁃ those who co-operate are more likely to survive p316 [1] Evolutionary psychological view – Summary ⁃ believe that people help others because ⁃ kin selection ⁃ reciprocity norm ⁃ ability to learn and follow social norms ... have become ingrained in peoples' genes Criticism against evolutionary psychological view ⁃ strangers help each other, even there is no reason for them to assume that they share same genes, or that favour will be reciprocated SOCIAL EXCHANGE: COSTS AND REWARDS OF HELPING [1] ⁃ altruistic behaviour can be based on self-interst ⁃ recall: social exchange theory a lot of what we do originates from desire to maximize rewards minimize costs What are rewards of helping? ⁃ helping someone is an investment in the future ⁃ - someday someone will help you when you need it ⁃ helping can relieve distress of the bystander ⁃ - peoplea re aroused and sitributed when they see another suffer ⁃ - they help at least in aprt to relive their own distress [2] What are costs of helping? ⁃ will decrease when costs too high can put us in physical danger result in apin, embarasement take too much time Basic assumption of social exchange theory ⁃ people hel ponly when benefits outweigh costs According to social exchange theory ⁃ true altrusim = people help even when doing so is costly, DNE ⁃ => all proscoail behaviour can be traced to self-interest of helper [3] ⁃ prosocial acts are doubly rewardining in that they help both the giver and recipient of the aid => it is to everyone's advatnage to promote and praise such acts EMPATHY AND ALTRUISM – TRUE MOTIVE FOR HELPING [1] [D] EMPATHY = ability to expreience events and emoitons the way another person experiences them ⁃ pure alutrism likely to be involved when we feel empathy for person in need of help ⁃ ability to put ourselves in the other opersons' shoes experience events and emotions the way that person experiences them [D] EMPATHY-ALTRUISM HYPOTHESIS = when person feels empathy for another person, that the former will attempt to help the latter purely for altrusitic reasons, regarldess of what the former has to gain [2] What if person does feel empathy? ⁃ then social exchange is involved if there is something to be gained, then you will help if you will not profit from helping, then you will not help ⁃ difficult to isolate the exact causes of complex social behaviours (ex. Empathy) [3] Is helping ever truly altruistic? ⁃ an act that seems truly altruistic is sometimes motivated by self-interst ex. wanting to help save someone, while other people are watching self-interest part is getting positive approval from people for doing the saving act [4] Batson et al ⁃ university subhjects asked to evaluate some tapes of new programs university's radio station one tape heard is interview with some handicapped student who is having trouble keeping up with a course, and will have to drop it unless someone can note-take for her ⁃ after listening to the tape, the expter gives subject an envelope marked “to the student listening to the accessibility student tape” and says that it came from professor supervising the research ⁃ note in envelope is request from professor for subject to note-take for the accessibility student p318 Batson et al ⁃ pt of study = look at under what conditions do people agree to help the accessibility student? ⁃ varied how much empathy people felt toward this student high-empathy condition – people told to try to imagine how Carol felt about hwat had happened to her, and how it changed her life low-empathy condition – be objective and to not be concerned about how student felt finding (consistent with hypo.) ⁃ subjects in high-emapthy condition reported feeling more empathy for student than those in low-empathy condition [3] 2nd form of variation to Batson et al expt ⁃ varied how costly it would be to NOT help the student ⁃ high-cost condition = student will start coming back to class the week after, and the class she is coming back to is the same one as that of the subject's ⁃ low-cost condition = student would be studyign at home and not coming to class; so they would never have to see her in the wheelchair and so never feel guility about helping her out p319 [1] ⁃ prediction = if empathy is high, then people should be motivated by genuine altruistic concern and should help regardless of cots finding (look at figure 10.2) ⁃ in high-empathy condition, many people agreed to help when they thought they would see thatstudent in class as when they thought they would not see her in class suggests that people had student's interests in mind, and not their ow n ⁃ in low-emapthy condition, many more people agred to help when they thought they would see student in class than when they thought she would not be in class ⁃ suggests that when empathy low, social exchange comes into play such that people base their decision to help based on costs and benefits to themselves helped when it was their interest to do so ex. when they see student in wheel-chair and feel guilty for not helping ⁃ ... but not otherwise ex. when student not present in class ever [2] Piferi et al ⁃ generalized Batson et al's findings to field studies ⁃ examined hepling in emergence of 9/11 terrorist attacks ⁃ assessed several variables (ex. Empathy) when it comes to this event finding ⁃ subjects high in empathy reported providing more help both right afetr 9/11 and a year after vs. Those with low in empathy ⁃ consistent with empathy-altruism hypohteiss those whose primary motivation was to relive distress were more likyl to provide help immediately after the attacks but not 1 year later (when they believed that distress lessened) ⁃ those motivated by altruistic motives more likely to help anyways, whether it is after 9/11 or a year later [3] Roberts et al ⁃ demonstrated importance of empathy using children as subjects ⁃ finding those who were empathetic more likely to behave in proscoail ways towards another empathy related to helping among children as young as 5 years => consistent with altruism-empathy hypothesis's suggestion that sometimes people do behave in truly altruistic ways p320 SUMMARY OF 3 BASIC MOTIVES UNDERLYING SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ⁃ evolutionary psychological view ⁃ - heling is an insitnctive reaction to promote wellbeing of those genetically similar to us ⁃ social exchange theory ⁃ - reward of helping frequently outweighs costs for doing so, thus helping is in our self-interest ⁃ empathy-altruism hypothesis ⁃ - under some conditions, empathy for other prompts self-less giving PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – WHY DO SOME PEOPLE HELP MORE THAN OTHERS? [1] ⁃ consider the personal determinants of prosocial behavour that differnetiate the helpful person from the selfish ⁃ INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES – THE ALTRUISTIC PERSONALITY [1] [D] ALTRUISTIC PERSONALITY = aspects of person that cause him/her to help others in various situations ⁃ ex. Person left his young family behind to go to Haiti to help build shelter for earthquake victims [2] Batson et al ⁃ despite some people being obviously more helpful, personality itself does not determine behaviour 2.ex. People with high scores on personality tests of altruism are not that much more likely to help than those with lower Why not? ⁃ need to consider other factors, for example: ⁃ situational pressures that're affecting people ⁃ gender ⁃ culture they grew up in ⁃ current mood 2.people's personalities interact with the situation to determine whether or not they will engage in prosocial behaviours GENDER DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ⁃ Women tend to, more than men, possess high levels of nurturance, optimism, and focus in close relationships ⁃ Men, more than women tend to have greater acts of bravery ^- likely differences because in almost all cultures, norms prescribe different traits and behaviours for males and females, and these are learned by children as they age 2.Westen society male – chivalrous, heroic female – nurturant, caring, valuing close, long-term relationships SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR [1] Piff et al ⁃ being poor (ie. Low SES) makes you more helpful finding ⁃ low SES people ⁃ give morem money earned during an experiment to their partner in the experiment ⁃ more likely to help their partner in experiment complete his/her tasks ⁃ if asked what % of one's income shoud be donated to charity, gave higher number than did subjects with higher SES piff et al ⁃ can greater helpfulness be induced in people with high SES? Setup ⁃ to prime compassion, high SES subjects watch film clip on child poverty ⁃ finding ⁃ this prime had effect of making high SES people just as generous as low SES people typically are conclusion ⁃ low SES people concerned with needs of others more than high SES this concern results in them acting in prosocial ways CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR [1] ⁃ prediction – peple in collectivistic cultures more likely to help person in need because more likely to define themselves with respect to their social relationships have more sense of being connected witho thers [2] Sturmer et al ⁃ people in all cultures are more likely to help someone they call an IN-GROUP MEMBER more likely to feel empathy for in-group members and this results in increased helping [D] INGROUP = group with which individual indeitfies, and of which he or she feels a member ⁃ less likely to help someone they preceive to be an OUT-GROUP MEMBER [D] OUTGROUP = group with which individual does not identify Leung et al ⁃ collectivistic culture members more likely to help in-group members than members of individualistic cultures ⁃ because consider needs of in-group members more improtant than those of out-group members McCrae et al ⁃ Leung's explanation is reason why collectivist culture members score lower on scales that assess altruistic personality type than people in idnividualistic cultures Iwata et al ⁃ compared altruistic intentions of collectivist culture students vs. Individualistic culture students finding ⁃ individualists experssed greater altruism towrds person they see occasionally but whom they have no relationship with ⁃ collectivists and individualists do not differe when altruism directed toward person with whom one has personal and close relationships with ⁃ => to be helped by other people, it is important they they view you as member of their in-group esp. True in collectivistic cultures [2] Lee et al ⁃ in collectivistic cultures, children taught to be modest and self-eeffacing ⁃ includes not seeking recognition for helpful acts setup ⁃ presented scenarios about helping to youth, adults, teachers and parents, in collectivistic culture, and individualistic culture ex. Kelly knew that friend Anne lost money she needed for class trip,so Kelly sneakly put some of her own money into Anne's pocket. Aterwards, teacher asked Kelly if she knew who had given the money to Anne. ⁃ asked: do you think Kelly should admit this helpful act? Finding ⁃ individualistic culture members believed that she should ⁃ collectivistic culture members believed she should NOT ⁃ beggining for praise would violate social norms of modesty THE EFFECT OF MOOD ON PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR [1] ⁃ mood of people can affect whether or not they will help -> Effect of Positive Moods – Feel Good, Do Good [1] Manifestation of “feel good, do good” effect: Isen et al ⁃ what effect do good moods have on prosocial behaviour? Field ⁃ shopping malls in 2 US cities setup ⁃ leave dime in coin-return slot of pay telephone at mall and wait for someone to find it ⁃ when found, a confederate would drop the folder about a metre in front of the shopper qn: does the shopper stop to help pick up his papers? Finding ⁃ finding the dime had dramatic effect on helping ⁃ ~4% of people who didn't get dime helped ⁃ ~84% of people who did find dime helped [2] More Manifestations of “feel good, do good” effect: North et al ⁃ people more likely to help others after doing well on test, receiving a gift, when they are thinking happy thoughts, listening to pleasant music Carlson et al ⁃ when poeple in good mood for any of these reaosns, are more helpful in many ways ex. contributing money to charity, helping someone find lost contact lens, tutoring another student, donating blood, helping co-workers in job [3] Why does being in good mood increase helping? ⁃ makes us look at bright side of life ⁃ - tend to see the good side of other people, giving them the benefit of doubt ⁃ - ex. Victim who may normally feel annoying will, when in good mood, seem like decent, needy person who is worthy of our help ⁃ helping other people is excellent way of prolonging this good mood ⁃ - not helping when we know we should deflates our good mood ⁃ good moods increase self-awareness 2.icnrease amount of attention we pay to ourselves this makes us more likely to behave in according to our values and ideals p324 [1] Shariff et al 4.people are more helpful whenthey are self-aware setup ⁃ university students put in either one of these conditions, depending on what prime was: exptl (a) – God concepts exptl (b) – Morality concepts control – none finding ⁃ exptl (b) subjets nearly as generous as exptl (a) ⁃ control were least generous suggestion ⁃ primes serve to icnrease self-awarness, which results in people omore likely to behave in way that is consistent with their altruistic values Negative-State Relief – Feel Bad, Do Good [1] Baumeister et al ⁃ feeling guilty results in one increase in their helping ⁃ often times, people act on idea that good deeds cancel out bad deeds if do something that makes oyu guilty, then helping another person balances this out, and so reduces feelings of guilt ⁃ ex. Harris et al ⁃ - churchgoers more likely to donate money to characteities before attending confession then afterward because confessing to priest reduced their guilty [2] Carlson et al ⁃ under certain conditions, sadness can lead to increase in helping wEGENER ET AL ⁃ WHEN PEOPLE SAD, THEY ARE MOTIVATED TO DO ACTIVITIES THAT make them feel better Cialdni et al [D] NEGATIVE-STATE RELIEF HYPOTHESIS = people help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress ⁃ people help someone else with goal of helping themselves – which is by relivering their own sadness and distress in this manner, if you are feeling bad, then ex. More likely to donate money to charity Emotional Numbness: Feel Nothing, do Nothing [1] Twenge et al ⁃ emotional numberness that people feel when they are excluded by group of people they care about can interfere with their prosocial behaviour ex. setup ⁃ subjects itneracted in same-gendergroups ⁃ then, asked to name 2 group membrers with whom they most like to work 2 conditions ⁃ acceptance conditiion – told that everyone chose you ⁃ exclusion condition – told that no one chose you ⁃ then, subjects told that experiment was over and they can leave if they want, or help with some other experiments finding ⁃ 90% subjects in accepteance condition agreed to help ⁃ 20% subjects in exclusion condition agreed to help DeWall et al ⁃ subjects who're excluded from group less likely to donate money to charity help someone clean up after mess made reason? ⁃ people who were rejected seemed to experience a transient inability to feel anything too deeply ⁃ if they do nothing, then they avoided pain of being rejected by others also made them less able to feel empathy toward someone who needs their help SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – WHEN WILL PEOPLE HELP? -> ENVIRONMENT – RURAL VS. URBAN [1] ⁃ help is more likely to be offered in small towrads than in larger cities Explanation: Milgram et al ⁃ [D] URBAN-OVERLOAD HYPOTHESIS = theory that because poeple living in cities are constantly bombarded with stimulation, they keep to themselves to avoid being overloaded by it ⁃ - ex. If you put urban inhabitants in calmer, less stimulating environment, then
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.