Psychology 217 Exam 2 Study Guide.docx

34 Pages
Unlock Document

Psychology & Brain Sciences
Brian Lickel

Psychology 217 Exam 2 Study Guide Cooperation, Trust and Deception Lies Human social coordination requires a lot of trust We ask people for investments all the time • Their time • Their social capital and connections • Their financial help • Their commitment to forgo other relationships When there’s a breakdown in trust and cooperation, there is deception We give investments in people that give trust in others Humans do not trust unconditionally Evolved social cooperative rationality • “Because most people are cooperative, it is smart to be cooperative to increase our joint rewards” Machiavellian “Exploitative Rationality” Renaissance writer • “Because most people are cooperative, I can exploit that trust for my gain” • He believed trust is like an onion (lots and lots of layers) People contain both the capacity for cooperation and exploitation • Truthfulness is strategic • “Avoid being exploited, sometimes exploit when benefits outweigh risks” • If we never exploited each other, we’d always be truthful Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • The norm is typical for most people to not tell the truth a significant amount of the time Being viewed as trustworthy and generous is very important As cooperators, we are choosy • We don’t want to invest in people who will not be good reciprocators We also want to be viewed as generous and trustworthy ourselves • So others will invest in relationships with us But we also often want to avoid costs or obtain benefits from social relationships without completely honoring reciprocity An example of a common dilemma Aguy in the class says he missed the lecture from last Wednesday and doesn’t understand the PowerPoint slides • He asks, “Can I borrow your class notes?” • You don’t really want to give him your notes doe… Options • Give them anyway • Say “No, sorry” • Say “Oh yeah you know, I wasn’t here neither. I haven’t even looked at the PowerPoint slides, are they complicated?” • Even when we don’t want to cooperate, we want to look cooperative and it is often done through lying! Lies are common in everyday life De Paulo et al, Interaction Record Study • Agroup of college and community participants kept track of their (10 minutes or longer) interactions for a week • Recorded (at the end of the day) the nature of the interaction and any lies they told during the interaction Lies told in about 30% of interactions Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • 68% outright lies • Commonly about feelings, plans, and past behavior – Sometimes it’s a shading of the truth by answering with maybe or provide a weak excuse Everyday lying is less common with close others We are most likely to tell these sorts of lies to people who are not close to us In DePaulo et al.’s Interaction Record study, lies were less likely in close relationships We use lying to avoid cooperation with uncooperative individuals or we are mildly exploiting people who we don’t have social connections with However, different when people report the most serious lies they have ever told (DePaulo’s serious lies study) • 20% about infidelity • 20% about money or job • 20% other serious misdeeds • 40% other (protecting others from truths, embellishing history, and forbidden socializing) • When we lie to people close to us (which is rare), it’s usually about something rather serious (see above list) Our ability to detect lies is limited Bond and DePaulo MetaAnalysis (2006) Meta-analysis: combining all research studies with a mathematical calculation to conclude one big study of a theory; done in health and behavioral/psychological research) • Atotal of 4,435 individuals’attempt ot dupe 24,483 others in 206 different studies (utilized a large calculation/meta-analysis so results are better) • Are we above chance at detecting differentiating lies and truth? o Barely: 54% accuracy (remember, guessing is 50/50) o 61% of true statements were viewed as true, 47% of lies viewed as false o Note the “believe it is true bias” Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o We are more likely to say both truth and false statements are true Very little of the variation in detecting lies stems from variation in detectors’ability Some claims of above average ability to detect lies in “special populations” There is not a particular verbal or non-verbal signal that is conclusively linked to deception Some claims of above average (@70%) in particular: police officers, judges, and secret service agents, etc. • Secret service agents are trained to detect these things so they do most likely have an above average ability Even here, claims are overall fairly weak when you look at the “top” performance and account for chance (for example, lucky guessing) Lie detector (or polygraph) measures physiological reactions and it is not reliable to measure lie detection. The main purpose of a polygraph is to strike and instill fear in the culprit and most of them usually just admit the truth before they have to go through with doing a polygraph If detecting lies is so important, why aren’t we better at it? No clear answer But strong possibility of an evolutionary “arms race” Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • What do we mean by an arms race in everyday language? The capacity at being good at lying and good at detecting lying are both under evolutionary pressure at the same time Ostracism and the Pain of Social Isolation – Internal moral Guides and Self- Regulation on Behavior Humans are a social species Humans work and live in groups • Cooperation is key to social success and (ancestral) survival What about the possibility of ignoring the needs of others or exploiting those who cooperate? • There is always a strain between individual interest and cooperation/helping • We generally most easily help and cooperate with those closest to us • But, what actually stops us from ignoring or exploiting others? o Even the people close to us? Several factors play a role in promoting “moral” behavior • Threat of punishment • Internal moral guides o Emotions such as guilt, shame, and embarrassment Humans are a social species • Humans work and live in groups • Human life in ancestral environments o Family o Band structure o Ad hoc hunting or gathering groups • Being kicked out of your group essentially was a death sentence! Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • Cooperation is the key to social success and (ancestral) survival o People have “irrationally” strong reactions to ostracism Recent experimental work has focused on ostracism • Ostracism: being ignored or excluded from one’s social group or relationship o Being left out/kicked out o Being ignored (the “silent treatment”) • Methods in the lab o “Cyber-ball” computer game o “Life alone” personality feedback o “No one wants to work with you” feedback The Pain of Ostracism • People use pain related words (hurt, cut, sharp) to describe the experience of social conflict and ostracism o Across cultures and many languages • This may be more than a metaphor… Eisenberger cyberball functional MRI Study • Participants played the cyberball game with “two other participants” o fMRI: baseline, inclusion, and exclusion • Exclusion correlated with physical pain in the brain • Post-experiment reports of how distressed participants felt correlated with brain activation which is the same biological pattern with physical pain o Same biological pattern with physical pain Coping with pain of ostracism DeWall et al. (2010) Tylenol studies Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide Study 1: • 3 week daily diary of social pain (Structured survey of your daily experience) • Assigned to: Tylenol or placebo groups • After Day 9, Tylenol group reported less social pain on “today’s” hurt feelings scale o Same pattern with physical pain The experience of ostracism can be very negative: Ostracism and violence • Current explanations of mass shootings focus particularly on ostracism o Appears to be part of the explanation in many of the mass shooting instances o Leary school shooting analysis: 13 out of the 15 school shootings involved students who experienced chronic social rejection of bullying • Famous example: Columbine school shooting Internal Moral Guides; Shame, Guilt, and Embarrassment • Ostracism is a form of social punishment • But, internal emotional guides are even more important o Anticipation of feeling these emotions can stop “bad” behavior o Feelings these emotions after wrongdoing can help us “fix” the wrongdoing • The building block of shame is a fundamental feeling The Dark Triad – Anti Social Personality Traits • Narcissism: Inflated self-views and may be extroverted but low in agreeableness • Machiavellianism: Low in agreeableness and conscientiousness – socially attuned but very manipulative • Psychopathy: Low in anxiety, extroverted, and low in agreeableness and conscientiousness o CEOs have high scores of psychopathy The Dark Triad and Shame and Guilt • Dark Triad personality traits are linked to weaker feelings of shame and guilt Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • Multiple reasons… o Narcissism inflated self-views tend to view self as not blameworthy o Low agreeableness and conscientiousness (in several of the Dark Triad types linked to lower concern for others) o Low anxiety (in psychopathy) linked to less affective force for self-blame Some personality types can be extreme • But each of us has the capacity for displaying those kinds of behaviors o When risks of being detected are low o When costs of behaving “morally” are high or the benefits of “immorality” are high  Internal moral guides help us resist temptation o When the person or people towards whom we are behaving are not close  Moral exclusion of those outside our circle Building and Maintaining Relationships – Forgiveness Exploitative Rationality • Machiavellian “Exploitative Rationality” o Because most people are cooperative, I can exploit that trust for my gain • Evolution has done two things: make us attune to instances where it’s to our benefit to exploit others and build into us mechanism we’d act on instances where we’re being used (where revenge comes into play) • In a population of forgiving cooperators, a few people can adopt an exploitative strategy (or all of us some of the time) o So we have a capacity for being “choosy” about forgiveness o When someone does exploit us, we are choosy to who we forgive as well Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o It applies to any species that engage in cooperative behavior; easiest to see in other primates Building and maintain relationships • Conflict can create strong emotions o Anger, hate, fear, worry • These emotions make us more vigilant • Reaction of anger is a part of the psychological immune system to protect us from being exploited. The anger can motivate you to retaliate • These emotions have a purpose o This does not mean to just “go with” our emotions o Anger is an universal emotion/building block but then it becomes a question on how you deploy or regulate it o Anger’s primary function is to help/force/push us to not let the other people push or exploit us o How we express, cope with, and regulate our emotions is important Positive and negative emotions in marriages • Work by Gottman has examined marriages over very long spans (Beginning in 1983) o We have the highest level of trust which comes with a credible amount of cooperation in these close relationships o Close relationships is our greatest conflict where betrayal and pain comes from o How do couples manage conflict?! You won’t always see eye to eye because we won’t always want the same thing • Brings couples into the lab and the videotape them discussing a topic about which they had recently argued about • Analyzes these video tapes for particular forms of positive and negative emotions and interaction styles o Gottman had followed up with these couples every year Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o He’s trying to predict divorce o Not everyone stays married and he’s able to look back at the videotapes o There’s striking differences in how people manage conflicts overtime Four behaviors predict (early) divorce (7 years) In any couple, there is some degree of each of these behaviors. But the more you have, the more likely you are to end up in an unfulfilling relationship • Criticism o Friendly and light vs. fault finding and belittling o The issue is how you talk or criticize each other o Version 1: Honey can you help clean the house with me? o Version 2: You’re a slob, why don’t you clean the place? o Both asking for a change in behavior but version 2 criticizes the person’s character • Defensiveness o Denying responsibility, reacting with anger o If somebody has a disagreement with you and you say “it’s not my fault; it correlates more with the divorce group • Stonewalling o The “silent treatment” o Form of ostracism in couples; it’s a very bad signal and ineffective o It’s a way of saying “I’m not the problem, you are! So I’m not talking to you” o It’s destructive in relationships and does not maintain them • Contempt o The most important predictor of divorce o Gottman identified the “eye roll contempt disgust” as the biggest indicator since it shows a huge sign of disgust Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o Contempt is not linked to any good emotion o Its function is to split us off from relationships o Expressing contempt in a relationship (you want to be in) is counterproductive Trust can be broken in close relationships Feelings of trust being broken is extremely painful • Examples: Lies – DePaulo, et al’s interaction record study • However, different when people report the most serioue lies they have ever told (DePaulo’s serious lies study) o 20% about infidelity o 20% about money or job o 20% other serious misdeeds o 40% other (protecting others from the truths, embellishing history, and forbidden socializing) • The most adaptive thing to do is to break off any relationship with that person and retaliate against them • We as humans and group living primates are more forgiven to the people that have done us wrong than you’d anticipate When trust is broken, have to decide whether to forgive • Conciliation Tendency (CT): Tendency for increased friendliness (conciliation) after conflict (Biology perspective) o High amongst primates, including humans • Computer simulations of the evolution of cooperation indicate the most successful, evolutionary stable, strategies are more “forgiving” than tit-for-tat reciprocity o Chimpanzees that are friends or allies will groom each other more than ones they have antagonizing relationships with o You tend to groom the ones you’re close to o Animals that are like us live in a cooperative group setting where two people in the group that have a conflict, they are more likely to “apologize” • Tit for tat: If someone exploits us, we should retaliate immediately! Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • We are more forgiving than biologists/economists would have expected us to be • We should cut off people that exploit us! But you’re going to cut off all of your social relationships When do humans forgive and reconcile? We don’t forgive everyone but we will if it’s accidental, it won’t happen again or how much we value the relationship • Perceived harm and intent o How much harm was there? o What did the person intend to do? What were the intentions of the other people? We are more likely to forgive accidents o Less serious events o Unintended events (or regretted events) • Perceived safety o Will this happen again? • Relationship value o Close to others and those who we either can’t or don’t want to lose as relationship partners (of all kinds, including coworkers, family, and friends) o We evaluate the relationship; what’s the continued value? If we see value, we’re more likely to forgive Increasing the chances for forgiveness • Apologize o Signal response o Be careful of making excuses – counterproductive! • Self-abasing displays: when you look miserable/pathetic, it can have a real effect on them willing to forgive you o Restore victim’s status Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o Key example: public apology – if someone is willing to take on the shame and humiliation of cheating on you, they’re more likely to forgive you and it is more powerful • Compensation (and costly signals of change) o People want you to do these things because it will have meaning cost to you! o People are looking beyond a simple apology; they want you to incur a cost The Shift from Interpersonal to Intergroup Behavior In Interpersonal situations, people show a tendency towards cooperation • Joint payoffs are highest when both players choose the cooperative… • Always choose Y because it will protect you from being exploited • In an experiment, if it’s you and one other individual, it induces more of a cooperative setting which ends with a joint payoff! In Intergroup situations, behaviors shift to competitive • Just shifting the game so that it is played between two players rather than two individuals changes behavior Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • Schopler Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Study o We shift from a cooperative choice to a competitive choice o It feels like the “smart thing to do” by choosing the competitive option Sumner (1906) • “The insiders in a we-group (an ingroup_ are in a relation of peace, order, law…” o Sociologist who looked at the nature of human relations in groups o Crystalizing observations of people’s behavior o Division of ingroups and outgroups is the first step of a lot of problems Since Sumner… • We’ve come to see that often our stance towards outgroups is one of the indifference rather than hostility • But, the propensity towards conflict always remains • People showed a marked tendency to favor ingroups over outgroups (“Ingroup Bias”) o Ingroup bias: Our ingroups is considered to be more prestige and better than other groups; and treatment of ingroup members is better Ingroup protection and enhancement • Because human life is organized around groups, our self-centered bias extends to our groups Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide • Ingroup Bias: The tendency to treat members of our “ingroups” better than members of “outgroups” o Members of ingroups from a “moral community” to which moral rules apply o Humans tend to have a moral disregard to outsiders PerdueAutomatic Ingroup Bias Study • Perdue wished to examine the extent to which ingroup bias is cognitively automatic • Hypothesis: Predicted positive traits will respond faster with we/us and negative traits will respond faster with they/them • Cognitive automaticity can be defined in a number of ways • But in the present day study, we are defining automaticity in terms of non-conscious activation through priming • Cognitive psychologists show that other related ideas become more cognitively accessible in your brain when certain words are shown (i.e. cat: fur, pet, paw) • Priming: (Jargon term): I give you one image and I examine what happens when the image is presented to you; First thing you do to get ready. It activates thoughts in your head to get ready for what you’re going to see • Participants viewed words on a computer screen and had to indicate whether words they saw on the screen were positive or negative • These are the “target words” o Stupid, clean, and nice • Participants were unaware that before each target word, another word was very briefly flashed on the screen • These are the “primes” (prime words) o We, us, they, and them • The speed of identifying the target words was influenced by the prime (even though there was no conscious awareness of the prime) • Facilitate positive words and inhibit negative for the ingroup Psychology 217: Exam 2 Study Guide o So, really fast to identify CLEAN when preceded by WE, but slow to identify STUPID o Some evidence of the reverse for outgroup primes (longer for good words, faster for negative words) • Perdue concludes that ingroup connection is strong with good things but our outgroup is not as strong with bad things Realistic Conflict Theory • Assumption of realistic conflict theory o Research done by Sherif o Humans in every culture live and work in groups o Individuals reach their individual goals through group memberships o If you want to get something done, you have to be in a group to get it done o For example: Being in this class – You chose UMass and you chose this o Coordinating our behaviors with another person is essentially group membership o Material resources are scarce and human desires are vast o Group conflicts arise when groups are in competition for scarce resources The Robber’s Cave Studies • Sherif tested these ideas in the famous Robber’s Cave study • In the early 1950’s, Sherif conducted a series of experiments in which boys participated in a summer camp • Parents sent their children to a psychology experiment without them knowing • Sherif was careful in selecting the boys: same age, middle class, protestant backgrounds, Caucasian, and all screened on psychology inven
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 217

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

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

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.