Study Guides (238,072)
Canada (114,906)

Social Psych Final Exam Notes-2.doc

53 Pages
Unlock Document

Humber College
Psychology 2720A/B
Nelson Heapy

Social Psych Final Exam Notes Why Worry about Pornography? Canadian Attitudes • It seems possible that pornography can alleviate some sexual tension that might lead to a much more serious serve outcome • However, on the other hand, it really objectifies women, and portrays them in an unrealistic way. • This might instigate some sort of social learning for men influenced by porn. Definitions • The definitional problem oSometimes used to describe sexually explicit content in the media oHowever, this isn’t the same as someone raping a women and coming after her eventually with a gun to killer her oThese two images are quite different oYet, very often, discussion of this issue seems to conflate the two images as pornography oFor some, both images are called pornography oFor this purpose—pornography will be the more violating oErotica will be the explicit and mutually consenting. • Erotic versus violent oErotica= nudity and sexual explicitness can be considered sexually arousing, but its not something considered negative in its character oPornography= we find more exploitation. This word is used more in the media. oElderly people don’t often engage in sex, but sometimes a partner may want to reinvigorate themselves as a sexual being oTherapist shows a video of two elderly people engaging in sexual activity, naked, from foreplay on—this is erotica. • Violence oSexual violence sexual materials is on increase  Sexually explicit videos used to only be able to be purchased at XXX stores, it could not be advertised  Violent content is increasing in all films—particularly in those that have explicit sexual themes where there is nudity  The sales of these materials is on the rise was well oSuch violence might have antisocial effects.  Little evidence of how the public feels about this dramatic increase of sexually explicit content in the media  Though, there is some disturbing evidence that suggests that watching these films, either mutually consenting or more explicit, can lead to an increase in direct sexual violence towards women Antisocial Effects of Violent Content After watching X-rated films, research suggests the following: • Increased acceptance of rape myths o Rape myth= refers the idea that women really do want to be reaped or dealt with violently as sexual foreplay o Secret fantasy of women to be “taken” • Increased acceptance of violence o Men believe to use violence toward violence toward women if they are provoked o Believe that it its okay to engage in that sexually violent behavior o Following these films there is an increased willingness to accept domestic violence as a means to dealing with domestic dispute • Increased rape fantasies o Particularly in men o Fantasies that involve taking a women sexually against her will o Men think that women secretly like the idea of being raped, as they want to feel overpowered and possessed. • Increased lab aggression towards women o Men watch a film and then are put in a position where they have to evaluate a woman’s work o They can use an apparatus to deliver shock o After watching a pornographic film, men will use a greater level of shock o There is a desensitization of sexual violence • Decreased belief in rape suffering o After watching a film, when men are asked how much a women suffers after a rape incident there is a significant drop in the percentage of pain the woman endures. o There is a lesser amount of sympathy for the woman. • Future desensitization to sexual violence o Men get desensitized to pain and suffering of the victims in these films. • Increased reported willingness to rape o What is most concerning is that if you could be assured that no one would know and you would not be caught, there is a 55-65% willingness to engage in rape after viewing violent content o Deterrent to rape is getting caught, has nothing to do with the value of women A Canadian Survey • Heapy worked with James Check and put together a survey to ask people across Canada about sexually explicit content in the media o This survey would be of interest because there is growing literature suggesting serious antisocial consequences • We don’t know how long these effects last because they are in lab settings; we don’t know how people feel a month after seeing these films. • When sexual content is joined with violence, it becomes controversial. • The law that was in place prior to this research were obscenity laws—however these laws were inconsistent and gave little guidance • Introduced a law of Canadian community standard o Anything that offends the Canadian community standard of tolerance would be considered to be obscene o However there was no information of what the Canadian community standard of tolerance was • Sexually violent versus non-violent content • Standards of acceptance versus tolerance o Previous surveys • Legal people do not like surveys • Previous surveys were very bad, where people accosted outside of a theater and were shown an x-rated film—obviously would get a negative opinion o Legal Hearsay • Surveys represent only the people who filled out the surveys • If in court, the defense might say its hearsay evidence b/c unless you can examine all the people who filled it in then it is not really evidence. • Survey results are hearsay because the responses cannot be verified. o The standard is community standards • Surveys provided us with evidence for what the Canadian community standard of tolerance was • D. Fulton said that anything that offends the community standard of tolerance (these types of films) would be considered to be obscene • Fulton made an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Someone might consider something to be personally unacceptable, but can understand and tolerate why others think it is okay, and vice versa. • Not what you personally accept, but something that you would tolerate. • Heapy thought that Canadians who are socially conservative would say that they could watch these films and it would not affect them b/c they are too smart. The people were arrogant, and thought that other people shouldn’t watch because it will affect them too much. • “I may not tolerate other people watching it but I might accept watching it myself” • “I do not tolerate drivers who speed, but if I have to speed its ok” o The judge’s opinion • Judges did not define this “standard” • Judges think they know the standard, but who are they to decide o What in the @#%*& is the standard? • There is a great need for a well constructed survey carried out in an unquestionable way involving a representative sample Methodology • Wanted to make a distinction between sexually explicit and violently explicit content • Contrast violent content with nonviolent consent o Violent content (rape, torture, bondage) with explicitly consenting sexual behavior • Wanted to include the distinction of personal acceptance vs. what you would tolerate • The methodology was something that fell into Heapy and Checks lap • James Check was working at CBC o Working with the director of a show called Man Alive o Because of his involvement, he got to know a man named Oleh Iwanyshn o He was the chief statistician at CBC and his job was to find out what Canadians attitudes were toward various programming at CBC • The weekly CBC survey o CBC sent out regular surveys about Canadian programming every week to a randomly selected group of Canadians o A quarter was attached to each survey; it was given to say “sorry for bugging you” o Oleh agreed to attach a set of questions related to Heapy and Checks porn issue at the end of the regular surveys • Random Digit Dialing o Rather then sending a survey out, Oleh was going to use a better kind of survey technique that involved random digit dialing o Involves use of Canadian census o Country is broken down into various area codes o It is known exactly how many people live in each area code o Advantage of this is that you can decide if you want a sample of the whole country or what proportion of your whole sample has to come from each area code o In the end you will have a proportionally representation of the Canadian population-- you also know how many children and adults were involved, and have a gender breakdown. o It is as close to a truly random sample of Canadians as you can get • Heapys sample was one there he wanted only people age 14+ • Survey at the time was very expensive—over 100 000 dollars o CBC was also using the survey for their services so they covered the cost • Household contacted o Randomly contacting people and asking their permission o Only 1.2 percent of people did not have telephones—did not count o Heapy was confident in his sample • If agreed, CBC booklet sent out • 2104 booklets sent out, 1071 returned o 50% return rate o How do we know that this is representative of Canadians? We can take the profile of the sample and compare it with the last Canadian census o Break down of the sample was very similar to the Canadian census o Sample picked up on all of the major demographics male vs. female, language spoken • November/December 1984 o First occurred in 1984 • Repeated 1998 o Also repeated in 2002 • The ones who find it more acceptable are the ones who are consuming more Survey Questions • Survey involved 32 different regions of Canada, including Quebec (although there were sometimes legal issues against surveying in Quebec) 1. What would you find acceptable for your own personal viewing? 2. What is acceptable for airing on public television? 3. What restrictions should be placed on videos? (For private viewing) 4. What restrictions should be place of movies? (In public theatres) • Trying to get at questions that no one had ever addressed in law or psychology • Hypothesis= people would find things acceptable for themselves, but not for other people to watch (hypocrisy) • There are 3 different kinds of explicit or sexual content: • Sexually violent and degrading sex topics of rape, torture, bondage • Explicit consenting not violent • Simulated sex left to your imagination, but its clear a sexual act is taking place Some Results • Personal Viewing vs. acceptable for television o 1. Sexually violent  12% acceptable for own violent viewing  7% thought it was acceptable for others to view o 2. Consenting  44% own viewing  27% acceptable for public television o Simulating  72% own viewing  67% for television o People are more willing to watch sexually controversial material privately in their own home, and majority think it is better if it is privately viewed • Restrictions for videos o No restrictions  9% thought there should be no restrictions for sexually violent o Age restrictions over 14  32% thought there should be age restrictions for sexually violent o Totally ban  60% thought there should be a total ban for sexually violent content in films o When asked what restrictions should be placed on videos that involve highly degrading sex—it’s striking as people allow others to watch this kind of material more then they would themselves • Restrictions for theaters • Implications of the question of tolerance versus acceptance o Thought there would be a higher figure for banning then for socially unacceptable o 88% find this unacceptable for their own personally viewing, yet only 60% would ban it for other people o “I wont watch it, but its ok for other people to want to watch it” o On the whole, Canadians found really raunchy material personally unacceptable, but were not willing to impose restrictions on other people  More tolerant allowing others to do something that they are less likely to personally do o Surveys done similar to this have found the exact opposite  About 60% of Americans fund it unacceptable to watch sexually violent material  Around 90% would be willing to ban it  “I find it more acceptable for me to watch it then others” • The US had laws that prohibited watching content that did not fit the community standard of acceptance • Canadians are more tolerant • American law in some ways is a little more sensitive to local differences o Defines the community standard as being the community standard within a legal district o Can say that the community standard is relevant to the legal jurisdiction within where you live o Legal standards are local as opposed to national • In Canada the standard is national • To what extent do the figures, national in character, apply to the different regions across Canada? o Heapys survey broke down the country into 32 regions o We could look at the figures again and see if they change from region to region. Supplementary Analyses • Regional variations o Although you think there would differ from province to province, there were no significant differences across regions o In the US, regions differ—but in Canada there is not as much variation o For some reason there is homogeneity with attitudes across Canada o Canadian broadcasting services reach everywhere in Canada—could be the media that keeps us so unified (CBC) • Urban versus rural o Again, no statistical difference • Sex differences o We Do see differences here o Women were both less tolerant and accepting then men on all categories  All differences between men and women are matters of degree  Using a 7-point scale—les acceptable doesn’t mean they totally disagree on a certain side  Women find viewing sexually explicit films less acceptable then men, but men can still find it unacceptable • Age differences o Most fascinating and disturbing o The break down of ages: 12-17, 18-34, 35-49, 50+  12-17 say that erotic is the same as pornographic-- 15%  18-24—20%  35-49—25%  50+-- 46% say that erotic and pornographic are the same o When it comes to personal viewing, older people are less interesting in watching sexual material, more conservative—50 and over are least likely to watch o 14 year olds claim to be the highest consumers of violent sexual material  Problem with the survey: 14-year-old males are known to be boastful. They could be lying about the fact they watch porn to be cool; surveys could be inaccurate Further on Age Differences • The nature of phone surveys • The bravado of youth • Hugh Hefner doesn’t fool around o Hugh carries out surveys that inform him about his readers o Hugh carried out a survey for playboy as sales were leveling off—he wanted to know why o He noted that there had been an age shift in who was buying playboy, and he wanted to satisfy the demographic o He randomly selected stores that sold his magazine and had people going to the stores to perform entrance/exit surveys—wanted to see who was buying playboy, and wanted to satisfy the demographic o He also had a paper and pencil kind of survey that was distributed across the US. o His results showed that the 12-17 age group was the largest group of consumers. As people get older they are less tempted to watch Summary and Discussion • The Courts o As a result of this survey, results emerged and the government changed laws that were considered obscene o New laws led to a definition of what is porn and erotica, and took the distinction into mind  Pornography has been defined in a variety of ways revolving around sex and violence  Erotica has been defined as sexually explicit, involving mutually consenting adults • Canadians as unexpectedly very tolerant o Canadians are surprisingly tolerant of this material—attitude—“it is not good for me but I am not going to ban it from other people” o Canadians do not vary in their opinions across the country  There are sex differences between men and women but they are matters of degree o Unlike in Canada where there is a consensus, in the states it is more violent in its character.  Americans are more willing to say its okay for me and not for others. o There is a discrepancy between personal acceptance and willingness to ban material  90% say the will not watch the material themselves, but only 60% sad they would ban all material • Disturbing implications regarding age o If young boys are the main consumers, the main concern is that they are at a very impressionable age and the idea they are getting about women is troubling o Not the kinds of images we want young teenagers to get; the fact that they are so young possess a downside as it can have harmful effects  They are just emerging from puberty and violent porn is not creating a realistic depiction of the emotional involvement is sexual relations o There are great differences between age groups  Older people are more antagonistic to sexually explicit material in the media • Other Implications that fall from this study: o More and more kinds of public sentiment that is favorable is disposed to more sexual content in the media o More viewing leads to desensitization, which leads to community standards drifting to be more tolerable o But we have law makers who are opposed to the drift and have the power to change the laws o The very age group making laws about this content (50+) are the people who are able to reflect their prejudices in the law; a paradox o There is a tension between consuming groups and law makers Conformity, Obedience, and… …Disobedience • The discussion of conformity will gain raise a kind of tension between ideals for ourselves • The tension referring too how people would like to be treated as an individual and would not like to be treated as a number—people want to be unique and stand out in some sense • It is now the case that one of the top career goals for young teens is to be a celebrity • There are many television shows now that present opportunities for people to becomes stars • The auditions are ones that are almost tragic in their unfolding o These people show a large group that they are untalented • There is a growing sensation of people anted to have 15 minutes of fame • Tension comes from the fact that we are conformists o Tension between wanting to have style and be accepted by others, and being an individual and sticking out in a unique way= two aspirations in conflict • There is something about conformity that limits people • Early research was characterized in a way that we have to find ways to overcome conformity • When we are talking about conformity, we are talking about changing your behavior so it accords with what is the desirable behaviors of others o Conformity is not necessarily a bad thing but it can be • Social comparison= when we are uncertain as to how to behave so we look to compare ourselves to others—the essence of conformity Conformity A bit of history • Conformity= A change in behavior or belief to accord with what is considered the desired way others o E.g. change what you wear o Being affect by how others act; it is acting differently from the way you would act alone • Compliance= Conformity that involved publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing o A sense of doing something you’ve got to do; but it does not necessarily represent your personal taste o E.g. Men will wear a tie grudgingly b/c they want to comply with societal norms • Obedience= Acting in accord with a direct order o Is a case where you acknowledge another’s authority o E.g. people will follow commands from authority that can lead to the harm of other people  People will engage in things that they claimed they would never do • We sometimes genuinely believe in what the group has persuaded us to do o E.g. we may join millions of others in drinking milk b/c we are convinced that milk is nutritious. This sincere, inward conformity is called acceptance= conformity that involves both acting and believing in accord with social pressure o Acceptance sometimes follows compliance • Ask yourself: would I do that if I were by myself? Would I behave this way? o I.e. would you rise to cheer the goal if you were the only fan in the stands The Asch study • Wanted to create a set up where people would be faced with a unanimous consensus that was contrary to what they believed • Task of visual perception and acuity • You come into the study with either 1,2,3,4, or 5 other participants o You are the only one who is a real subject—the rest of the subjects are confederates of the study • There are a row of chairs; everyone grabs a seat before you and you end up at the end • A line is flashed on the screen and you have to remember it in terms of its length. • You will then be shown 3 other lines and have to choose the one most similar in length. • People who are sitting to your right start off and they pick the line that is not most similar in length. • All the “other” participants of the study are actors and are programmed to give the same wrong answer • This puts a social pressure on you. What will you do? o Turns out that majority of people went along with the wrong answer (conformed)—at least once over a series of trails o The more people before you in the group, the more likely you are to conform and accept the wrong line o You will give into the social pressure, and choose a blatantly wrong line • This study was done in the 50’s—highly conformist time • Heapy conducted a study this year: Infantile Amnesia o Most people cannot remember things from 4-years-old and younger o This information is not available to you b/c brain differences; your brain was not fully developed at that time, so those memories are not accessible • Most people do not know this o Can have people read other’s stories about early memories that occurred at the age of 2 o Memory of when you first spoke, first took steps-- It seems plausible that you could remember these events (big moments for parents) but you cannot actually remember • B/c the size and structure of the brain changes so much o You read a bunch of bogus stories with bogus memories from people saying they remember these early events o You are then asked to write about your first memory • People start writing about memories that never really occurred • Being exposed to other peoples bogus stories of early memories has a direct conforming influence in terms of when you believe you had your first memory • Bogus people choose an age of memory where memory could not even occur • If you see an ad that says that you can be hypnotized to take you back to the time you were born and alleviate burden and trauma of birth, you laugh your heads off • You cannot remember what happened to you at birth! o Even if you do remember something, you will relate it to another time in your early life (4 or 5)—first memory is usually around 4 Sharif and the autokinetic effect • Involves an interesting kind of illusion—need a room where there is no light leaking and you can hardly see anything • A stationary spot of light is turned on • If you watch the stationary light you have a strong illusion that it is moving all over the place • Why would something appear to move if it is not moving at all? • Our eyeballs are constantly moving slightly—we do not know this • The movement creates a constant scanning that is fed back to the visual cortex and it evaluates a stable image on the visual cortex • We interpret the eye movement as movement of the light o Number of people (1,2,3,4, or 5 others) come into the room and everyone looks at the light—other subjects are confederates • Researcher says I want you to tell me how far the light moved and in what direction • One person will say moves to the left, so will the next person, and so will the next. o However, you saw it move to the right—all their answers are bogus • People are very prone to conforming to a situation like this • Afterward you ask the subject “did the light really move in that direction?” Most will say it did o Did the people really become convinced that it was moving to the left? Or were they just unwilling to admit that they conformed. • Now you are put in a group where you are put in the position to influence a subject • Strong probability that you will carry on that incorrect claim to the next generation o 80% of people who conformed will carry that information into the second study • This suggests that conformity happens, and it happens substantially • You are never forced to conform, it is something you choose to do Obedience The Milgram study, briefly • Milgram, a young researcher, was a Jew and was horrified about the implications of the Holocaust • Milgram wanted to test a hypothesis—he believed that there was a great difference in the socializations of German children and those raised in the US • Still evident in Germany that the family structure was a very king of patriarchal organization—highly authoritarian o Father was head of the household, mother was number two, and the children were in an order. o There was an authoritarian upbringing for children o Many say it is the highly organized society that led Germany to be a successful economic country • Milgram wanted to stress that people will go along with the expectations of people who were in authority • Wanted to compared German and American University students • Created a situation that allowed people to obey or disobey an authority figure • Pair associate learning involves learning a list of paired words and being tested on the pairs later on o If one of the words was “mother, dog”, if mother was said, you would have to say dog—standard learning kind of task The roles • One person was the teacher, and the other participant was the learner due to a “flip of a coin”—however, the learner was really a confederate, and the real participant was the teacher • In one variation, the participant was given 5 dollars at the very beginning of the experiment that was not contingent on what they did The equipment • The confederate was strapped to a chair, and it was pointed out that there were wires that deliver a shock • There was a shock box that goes up in 15-volt increments. Box went up to 300v 450v, and XXX. • When the toggle switch was pressed the voltage would be given to the learner in the chair • Milgram wanted to see how far people would go when ordered to deliver a shock to a learner • The learner never actually receives the shock—its all fake The instructions • The participant is told to use the shock apparatus if the learner gives an incorrect word pair • The teacher (participant) will read out a word and the learner (confederate) will have to answer with the appropriate word pair • Prior to being strapped to the chair, the learn will say “I hope these shocks don’t have any serious affects on my hear b/c I have a heart mummer that could harm my heart”—so you are set up to think that something is wrong with them • The “learner” always makes a mistake, enough mistakes so that the participant can make it to XXX o Each mistake required a shock, and each excessive mistake required more shock • Milgram tells the “teacher” that the shocks, although they might be strong, should not require any damage o Around 300 volts the learner starts pounding on the wall—after that, there is dead silence o The teacher says “shouldn’t we go in there and check if he is ok” and Milgram says, “no, a wrong answer needs another shock. It is important for you to go on with the study” The results • Results are shocking • 65% of Yale University students go all the way o This is a school that attracts the best of the best • Milgram decided not to go to Germany to carry out the study o If 65% of Americans will go all the way, it will be eve worst in Germany • Follow up studies in different continents show consistent results o 70% of students at U of T went all the way • When told by an authority figure to hurt someone, the average person will in fact do so. An update (2007) • A replica of the study allowed subjects to choose the amount of voltage they used • Most subjects used 45-50 volts and never increased it o 45 volts is not particularly high which shows that it is not aggression that is bringing about the shocks, it is obedience • In studies with Milgram, he wore a white scientists coat, and had a very stern look and personality • Thought that if he acted as a real pussycat who was kind, results would perhaps turn out differently o However, there was no change—there was a marginal difference of 62% from 65% • Today, a study like this could not be conducted b/c there is such an emotional component involved and they do not want to subject people to this A Little Known Study Manufacturer’s Human Relations Consultants (MHRC) study • Gamson was a psychologists at Michigan State who wanted to extend the thinking of Milgram into a more group like context o Tried to replicate the essence of the Milgram study with ethical boundaries o Gamson study took place in 1976, Milgram study took place in 1969 o Believed his results would turn out similar to Milgrams but his results were opposite • He wanted to solicit people from the larger community to take part in the study; git together sample by advertising in paper (random samople) o People would be reimbursed for their participation Permission to be deceived • This was the only study that took effort in the knowledge that they were deceiving their participants • Called a phone number where people were interviewed and asked whether or not they would be willing to participate in any or all of the kinds of research • Over the phone, researchers offered people a set of choices that they would be able to choose from: o Research on brand recognition of commercial products o Research on product safety o Research where you will be mislead until afterwards o Research involving group standards • People were to indicate if there were any options that they did not want to partake in-- given the opportunity to say no to being mislead • No one who was solicited indicated that there were any choices they did not want to partake in—everyone agreed to all. The Holiday Inn • Study took place at the Holiday Inn • Researchers told participants that they were a research group carrying out research dealing with appropriate group ethical standards in the work place • Each group involved 9 people • Participants were set up in a U-shaped arrangement, so the participants could see each other and face the leader • The leader was acting as a market researcher; he was a good looking man, and authoritative • Each location had a noticeable microphone, a two-way mirror, and three noticeable cameras o People agreed to be deceived in this study The story • “The market researcher” describes a case study to the participants o People involved discuss the case study and decide on an appropriate and ethical course of action • Researcher purposely tries to make participants feel sympathy for Mrs. C over the gas company The first discussion • When the audio and video equipment is turned on the researcher tells participants to discuss the case o Proceeds for 5 minutes • After 5 minutes the researcher re-enters the room and asks 3 people to argue an antagonistic view about the behavior discussed in the case for 5 minutes o Asks people to argue the case for the gas company • Asks another 3 people to argue for the same thing for 5 minutes • Eventually got all individuals to argue for the same thing • Then asks participants to sign a consent form to show this discussion in court against Mrs. C—asking them to fabricate evidence. o Even though it was a set up discussion and argument • He expected results to be similar to the Milgram study—people would go along with the outrageous behavior when asked and present a case for the gas company • With that one request to role-play and argue in favor of the gas company, people rebelled • Study never really came to completion The Results of the MHRC study The research design Control group, and three experimental groups, 20 subjects per group Study stopped after 33 groups: 9 pretests, 18 baseline, 6 confederate groups had been looked at • Study never got too far b/c it started to get dangerous after 33 groups • Confederates: o One begins at session to disagree about going along with this o Second tells them how they’re manipulating us • For every condition, when it got to the 6 person, everyone rebelled against the study o Opposite of the Milgram study • When 1 person goes against the trend, the subjects are less likely to conform o Gamsons study proved this Compared to the Milgram Study Exchange of Information • Opportunity in Gamow’s study where people were able to discuss what was happening while the researcher was setting up in the other room • People could exchange information and ask what other people thought about the study • When there was an exchange of information, participants mentioned that they felt awkward of what was being asked of them • Seems to trump what you might predict from the diffusion of responsibility—in a group situation one person can lead the group when it aligns with the group attitude over what the authority figure wants Diffusion of responsibility • When people are in a group they do not have to take on as much responsibility as they do when they are on their own • Gamson thought that b/c they were in a group there would be more conformity. • However, in the Milgram study, an individual had to take full responsibility. By diffusing the responsibility of the group they felt more free to disagree. • When one person disagrees with the study it allows everyone else to disagree Triggering • As soon as someone stood up (not a confederate) it lead to rebellion. • Once one person says something about doing the right thing, it triggers everyone else to do the right thing as well • All you need is one person to say the right thing, and conformity to the authority will not occur Back to Asch’s research • Asch pointed out as long as there is another ally, you will not go along with the outrageous request. • If an individual is seen to have legitimate authority, but one or two people agree with you on going against the authority, you will not obey o In Asch’s line study, if another person chose the correct line you would not conform and agree with the those who choose the incorrect line • Not all conformity is bad—it is possible for people to be in agreement in regard to what is the right answer Rebellion • If one person suggests rebellion, a “get on the band wagon” type of action will emerge J.C Davies, a historian • Davies is a historian of a particular issue: revolutions • Wanted to look at revolutions and see if there are consistencies associated with major revolutions that occurred through our history (i.e. American and French revolution) • A theory of rebellion emerges A theory of revolution and rebellion • Individuals who lead successful revolutions are not the people who were most oppressed by the circumstances which brought about the reaction • Most people assume that the people who are suffering the most will lead the revolution this in fact is not the case o It is the middle class who rebel o In the case of the French revolution; involved 20 high class people • Why is it the case that people who are oppressed don’t rise up? • Those who are somewhat already favored are the ones who take charge of the revolution • Davies posses an interesting hypothesis of revolution—the most likely circumstance in which people are going to see a revolution is when things started off badly, and then circumstanced did improve o When people have experienced over a period of time an approving state of affairs o For some reason, circumstances gradually improved and suddenly there is a notable setback • When expectations are so out of touch with realty, people will be shocked. The major revolutions as examples • Take the American revolution for example o Fits Davies model • The overall economic benefit to people in the middle class was one where their circumstances were improving—economically, socially, culturally, etc. • There began to be severe taxation (economic shock) o The poor aren’t really the ones who are concerned with taxation—it is the middle and upper class • Circumstances had been improving and all of a sudden there is an economic downturn—particularly for the wealthy and middle class of society • Davies draws our attention to a psychological insight—as things improve for us (economically) we assume and expect that these improvements will continue o E.g. the Stock market—people become delusional and think that b/c there is some type of boom going on, it will continue forever • People have been expecting improvement based on what is happening; expectations outstrip the reality we are faced with • People expect things to get better and better, and then suddenly there is a downturn, a deviation from what they expect • Reality turns against them, and the reality of revolution sets in • But at its worst, the economic decline associated with the downturn is not as bad as the previous decade The upside down J- Curve • Davies introduces an upside down J curve • Along the x-axis we have time, and the y-axis measures satisfaction • Rebellions or revolutions will occur when circumstances are bad—when the gap between expectations and reality is unacceptable • Davies found that rebellions will not occur where people are constantly suppressed; their expectations will not be too far off from reality (acceptable gap) o They occur when there is a society that has been experiencing a level of upturn, and then a sudden down turn o High expectations, and then reality hits • A sudden decline (the gap) leads to a sense of panic of what the future will hold • When this happens, you are dealing with a disappointed and frustrated society that can lead to a dramatic effort to over throw the governing situation (the cause that brings upon the alternation) Rebellion at Home Domestic violence • The question that rises with domestic violence: why do the women who are suffering stay? Why doesn’t fear motivate them to leave? • Women would come to a clinic to get away from the abuse • The Davies model can explain this o The pattern of violence that women are subject too seems to follow a similar/ predictable pattern The cycle of violence • A women suffers a form of physical abuse—something very real and severe happens o Probably has happened before • Starts with an episode of violence • There will be an aftermath that is predictable o Aftermath requires that the women seeks medical treatment because of what she had suffered o The man will go to the emergency room with her to make sure she doesn’t say anything about the abuse o Will say the woman fell down the stairs or bumped into the door—doctors and nurses are very sensitive and watchful to these made up stories o The couple will go home together and the husband will show deep guilt and remorse—the “clean up” phase o Will proclaim his love, and sense of astonishment with himself; will say “I don’t know why this overcomes me” and will apologize The ‘honeymoon’ phase • The honeymoon phase comes next • Dinners, flowers, sex (passionate, caring, sensitive) • So, in many ways part of the aftermath of the assault is an effort to make up for what has happened o A period of time where the circumstances are improving for the woman Another assault A peculiar prediction • Then there is another assault • Woman’s expectations have been going up due to the honeymoon phase • Left with a paradoxical prediction • The discrepancy between the woman’s expectations, and the reality o The woman’s expectations and reality are close together right after she has been beaten (refer to graph) • The longer the time period between battering episodes her expectations will grow • Similar to the J-curve o There is no revolution until you get closer to the gap in the graph o The longer the period of time between episodes, the more likely the woman will leave the relationship is she is battered again o If a woman is oppressed constantly she will stay because those are her expectations (reality and expectations close together= consistently at the bottom of the graph = no rebellion) • Suggests the woman would be least likely to rebel in situations were she is always battered. o A growth in lifestyle, a rise in good things, and then there is a sudden downturn which predicts rebellion The evidence • At the woman’s clinic they have the data to show this • They can see the distance between the battering episodes o The longer women went between battered attempts, the more likely they were to ask for help • The fewer the number of battering episodes the more likely the women will leave • People rebel b/c they have greater expectations that aren’t being met Group Polarization From Risky Shift, Cautious Shift, to Group Polarization • Groups are more effective then the individual, especially in terms of Business • Business schools are premised on the assumption that group work is more effective, and draw upon various cognitive skills that one individual alone cannot posses The Organization Man Whyte’s book • A successful CEO • Wrote a book called The Organizational Man • Had a large impact on business schools and entrepreneurs who were trying to better their competitive edge • It was thought that when it came to decision making, if you wanted to get the job done, rely on groups so you can draw on many resources for many people • Whyte thought that groups were in fact highly constrained and conservative the decisions they give you and that they stifle creativity Personal experience • Had personal experience with committee meeting. There is bickering over things that seem to always represent a kind of compromise o There are instances in group decision making where ideas are limited or constrained with the need to get to a consensus • In Whyte’s experience, interesting and off the wall creative type of suggestions are often dispelled by the more conservative majority that makes up the group • Whyte says you want an individual who is able to express their ideas The appeal of the group • Groups quickly develop norms and expectations of their members—these are not good conditions for innovative thinking Whyte’s experience regarding groups • Believed that large corporations will always fall behind smaller and more aggressive cooperation’s b/c they put too much emphasis on groups and group decision making • However, the best solution will come from the one individual who has an innovative mind • Irony—although Whyte argues against groups, but the only evidence her provides is from his personal experience Stoner’s Study • James Stoner, a young masters at Massachusetts institute of technology (MIT), wanted to test Whyte’s idea • Compared risk taking by individuals and groups The choice of Dilemma Questionnaire • First thing that Stoner did was get a hold of the choice dilemma questionnaire by Whollock and Kogan o Made another set of items that followed the same kind of structure Risk Versus Caution • To test the commonly held belief that groups are more cautious than individuals, stoner posed 12 decision dilemmas • Read a story where the principle character is faced with a difficult choice o Between one alternative that is quite risky, but if it works out it will be tremendously advantageous to the story o The other is more likely to get a successful outcome, but outcome will just be mediocre • Mr. A probability of success is high, but utility of success is moderate • Mr. B probability of success is low, utility of success (value) is high, probability of failure is high • E.g. A football game o Quarterback is faced with needing to make a decision in the last few minutes of the game o Field goal would tie, touchdown would win o So you’re responding to the questionnaire—give advice to protagonist in these stories • Undergrads had to have to indicate how willing they would to encourage people to choose the risky option • Stoner then creates groups of 5, and says you have to make the same decision as a group, and keep with it until you have a group consensus • Control group—makes an individual decision, engages in an unrelated task (nothing to do with the decision making—would take as much time as the group decisions, but was unrelated) and then have an individual make an individual decision The hypothesis • Stoner looked at the scores for each of the 12 problems and averaged them • Stoners hypothesis was that group decisions would be less risky o Compared group decisions with average of individual decisions • To everyone’s amazement, Stoner finds opposite of what he predicts, and finds that the group decisions were usually riskier • The average of individuals decisions were far more cautious • After the group decisions, individuals would say what they originally thought again • The second round of individual decisions were more riskier then original decisions o After group discussion, individuals too, will alter their decisions o Group discussions changes individuals willingness to take risks • Groups are more risky • This has become one of the most dominant questions in social psychology o When you are in a group, you no longer feel solely responsible for the outcome of a situation o Like helping behavior—if you’re the only person who is a witness, you are likely to do something b/c the burden will fall on you o But if you are in a group, you do not have to take on the full burden diffusion of responsibility • In this study, likely that when making group decision, individuals will not feel full responsibility for negative consequences-- group decisions end up to be riskier • There is something that goes on in a group that is of persuasive character that changes peoples views about risk that shows up in the aftermath Search for an Explanation • Wagers are made more risky in a group then when the individual made the decision Diffusion of Responsibility • Diffusion of responsibility cannot account for the aftermath where the individuals are more risky Then there was Social Comparison • Social comparison= turning to others to see what to do • In our society, being risky is a moderately valued concept; it is not a nice idea to be a stick in the mud • So most people, as individuals try to make choices that are consistent with societal values (what would be most typical of other people) • Then you get into a group—likely that there is 1 or 2 other people who endorse riskier decisions then you yourself did • If you are typical, on a 7 point scale you will choose something 4/4.5, something in the middle • But in a group, those who are willing to endorse more risk as you show you that your level or risk taking isn’t “all American” as it could be o You then shift your choice up a little bit • There is a shift in the aftermath, but no where near as big as a shift as when there is a group discussion • It is possible that social comparison is part of the explanation • But it is not enough to account for the full-blown shift! o The group discussion and decision-making MUST involve something else… • The types of decisions we have been talking about are decisions under uncertainty; no correct answer • Bay of Pigs fiasco—happened under JFK in the United states o JFK was one of the more favored presidents in the US o But he made a number of odd decisions, including the Bay of Pigs o The “Bay of Pigs decision” was one where the US (JKF) decided that they were going to invade Cuba, right after its take over by Castro o Not sure what the invasion was going to bring about, you cant just invade countries b/c you don’t like their government o The US government scoped around Florida and put together a group of mercenaries, armed them, and gave them tools necessary to invade o Thought it would be easy to take over b/c Castro’s Army was weak o Bay of Pigs= large bay in Cuba. One of those beaches were the beach goes out a mile with the water up to your ankles  To invade, soldiers have to dock two miles away and walk towards the beach o When the soldiers were running towards the pay of pigs, they were basically running to their deaths  The Bay of Pigs was also covered in trees—every tree had a Cuban solider standing behind it waiting to shoot o The soldiers could see the US running towards them from two miles way  Ended in utter massacre o Embarrassment on the part on the US, and a silly decision on JFK’s part o JFK authorized another stupid humorous plan—he authorized sending Castro exploding Cuban cigars • Why did JFK endorse these plans? o All these decisions were made in the context of a group o People will end up endorsing decisions that are much riskier than an individual decision o Some individuals in the group were more risky then the rest, and their decisions seemed to prevail o This is paralleling the risky shift—riskier opinions prevailed Look in the textbook at group think Oh dear! Now there is a cautious shift • Norwegian researcher Nord Hoy did something nobody else had thought to do up until the point of this research • In stoners study, he would look at the scores for each of the 12 problems and average them • Hoy looked at each of the 12 problems individually and wanted to see which problems shifted most • Found that 10 of the problems shifted to risky • Two of the problems went in the opposite direction o These two problems are of a type o They were included purposely b/c they involved different types of problems • Mrs., C had a difficult pregnancy and now she is having contractions and goes to the hospital. She find she is in a situation where she has to have an abortion or she will lose her life, or she can take the chance that her child will be born ok and she will survive o Having the baby is risky—she could lose her life and the babies life o The second option is riskier, but if it works out it is the best situation • Mr. and Mrs. G have been saving up to take a world tour. They have been planning this retirement trip for years. The morning before they leave Mr. G wakes up experiencing lower abdominal pain. If he goes to the emergency room they will miss the first leg of their trip and their whole trip will have to be arranged. What will you do? o Doesn’t take long to figure out that the pain is in his appendices and if your appendices bursts on a airplane you will die. He would be putting his life on the line • When you look at these group decisions in these two cases, the results show a shift towards being cautious • These are life threatening situations o Not like throwing the football situation • You could predict this cautious shift if you looked at the average of the individual responses • You can get risky or cautious shifts depending on the initial problems • If all individuals original decisions tended towards caution, then the group would increase that caution shift in the group discussion o Can get risky or cautious shifts depending on the initial situation • In terms of explanation, we are still not fully clear—some degree of diffusion of responsibility, and some aspect of social comparison Values, and Relevant Arguments • The relevant arguments position • Begins with the idea of something already talked about-- the idea that one of these problem/choice dilemmas we have talked about, the content is going to evoke value • The value people are focused on was risk taking • 10 out of the 12 problems evoke a value of moderate risk taking • If that’s the case, then most people as a result of shared value, will have more arguments in their mind that support risk taking then making cautious moves • If you value something, you will have that value more readily available in your head o If you value something, you will have more information that you retained, remember, etc. with that value • With valuing caution, it comes when peoples lives are at stake—people will have arguments about putting your life at risk • When it comes to a risky problem, people look at a problem and give it a judgment —going to indicate how risky you think it is • Everyone of average are going to have more info supporting risk taking then being cautious • There is a version of an experiment where you don’t revel your initial decision, but you give your arguments that you think are relative to the particular problem • Add two other groups to the Stoner study o In the full group decision full-blown risky shift o In social comparison condition get a replication that you get some degree of shift in the appropriate way o In the relevant arguments condition also get a shift, but not to the same extent of the full group • The arguments are important o Can manipulate others opinions depending on the number/quality of the comments in the discussion • We are left with a dynamic situation—diffusion or responsibility, social comparisons, and relevant arguments (the value the problem engages—caution or risk) all comprised together o A number of things converging together to work in the same direction • Diffusion of responsibility is more evident in group discussions were there is a likelihood of something not working out—when things can possibly go off track • Social comparison is more evident when people are not always confident in their decisions and look to other people o The individuals decision shifts after the group discussion b/c the variety of these dynamics are having an impact Group polarization A new name, and a new life Moscovici and group polarization Groups don’t necessarily foster consensus • Eventually, a French researcher, Moscovici, brings up this sort of dynamic • People differ in their degree to agree/disagree with abortion • When putting together people who are pro-abortion, there seems to be a group discussion that amplifies the ideas and pushes them more towards pro • When you put all these people favoring abortion in a group what is going to happen? o They are going to be even more pro after the discussion • People have the naïve view that if you get people together who have different opinions they will compromise o This is NOT true o After discussion, the 2 groups are going to be even more polarized then they were coming into the talk o They are going to end up forming alliances • With any kind of decision, it will be enhanced if the group you are dealing with are like-minded people • Putting together people of different opinions are the least likely vehicle to come together and form a unanimous decision Whyte’s skepticism revisited But for a very different reason • Larger issue is that groups don’t compromise—they polarize the issues that already exist • Whyte (who was the inspiration for Stoners study) argued that groups might not be in most cases the best suited vehicle for decision making when y
More Less

Related notes for Psychology 2720A/B

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.