Textbook Notes (369,133)
Canada (162,403)
Psychology (9,699)
PSYA02H3 (962)
Chapter 15&16

PSYA02: Ch. 15 & 16 Notes (Psychological Science: Modeling Scientific Literacy 1st Edition)

38 Pages

Course Code
Alexandra Pohlod

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 38 pages of the document.
Ch. 15. 1 Social Influences on Behaviour Social psychology-broad field of study that includes how ppl perceive & think about others, as well as how presence of other ppl can influence individuals’ behaviour -social psych challenges the ideas of being able to control own behaviour (freedom to choose what humans can’t & can’t do as well as act for good reasons), some behaviour depends more on where someone is rather than who they are Norms, Roles, and Conformity -regardless of culture, humans are sensitive to whether behaviour is socially acceptable/unacceptable Social norms-guidelines for how to behave in social contexts (usu. unwritten)->ex. manner used in polite company to topics suitable for convos ->some norms exist at societal level, other norms operate at level of smaller groups (ex. college have few norms specific to campus: how to dress for class, address faculty…etc…) Social roles-specific sets of behaviours associated with a position within a group ->while norms are general rules that apply to group members, roles are guidelines that apply to specific positions within group; roles are specific, includes labels -Stanford Prison Study: reveals how normal ppl. can take on virtually any role ->participants pre-screened (establishing psychologically healthy), then randomly assigned to plat role of prison or security guard (both groups were virtually same in terms of personality, mental health & intelligence) -role playing began as soon as prisoners “arrested”->brought to basement of Stanford psychology building, put into made-up prison ->those assigned to be guards issued uniforms, given tasks of overseeing prisoners, soon took jobs seriously ->some prisoners complied to orders; others resisted->some guards became abusive (methods of control so extreme some prisoners were stripped naked, did push-ups or cleaned toilets by hand) -despite similarities to prisoners, guards became brutal or became bystanders when abuse was carried out; at the same time, prisoners passively accepted harsh treatment (many exhibited stress-related symptoms like screaming & crying) ->experiment called off after 6 days, despite planned for 2 weeks, brought attention to closely examine ethical implications of research -*rmb. that guards & prisoners were role-playing, they were normal, well-adjusted individs (wanted some money from study or thought it’d be fun) ->only thing separating 2 groups was role assigned to them at random, differences were probably due to what was believed were proper behaviours for the roles -without appropriate supervision/instructions, good-natured ppl can do cruel things to other, not about who they are but where they are & what role they play Mimicry-when one person copies another’s behaviour, can be useful in terms of travel at home & internationally (watch how ppl. get around places, language spoken, customs practiced) -non-conscious mimicry, aka chameleon effect-when ppl. mimic another’s behaviour without intention or realizing they’re doing it ->ex. if someone else is whispering, another person will whisper as well (even if ? asked is, “why am I whispering?”), other ex.’s walking slower in presence of elderly, scratching one’s head when someone else does too -ppl more likely to mimic others when making good impression, wanting to be liked or part of a group (proven to work, person ends up liking imitator, “social glue” that binds groups together) -simply being among others can influence ppl. even without awareness, conformity-refers to change in behaviour to fit in with group, can be conscious decision (unlike chameleon effect) -1950’s conformity study by Solomon Asch: participant partakes in perception study with 5 other ppl, what he/she doesn’t know is that the 5 are confederates (working for experimenter) ->for perception task (see next page), each person asked which line is same length as standard line, despite obvious, correct choice, the other ppl. all gave same incorrect answer ->research showed about 75% of those perfectly capable participants conformed to group & gave wrong answer at least once during testing, 25% conformed regularly -after experiment, conforming participants felt that they may have not understood the test, or thought there was a trick behind it, while others wanted to avoid making a scene or being odd one out ->t/f conformity sometimes happens b/c ppl think they’re missing something while other times it’s to avoid social discomfort Group Influence and Authority -performance at work/play is to some extent determined by other group members (improve or impair performance) -in terms of group assignments, they can be more sophisticated & cover wider range of topics b/c more members are engaged ->yet there’s always that one group member who feels they did whole project themselves & another is always uninvolved Social loafing-when individ working as part of group reduces his/her effort (may not be aware of it but still affects group) ->appears in all sorts of physical, cognitive & creative tasks; it also seems to occur equally across all types of groups, regardless of age, gender & nationality -reasons for loafing: ->”my effort will not help my performance” (believing not capable of doing well) ->”my performance will not make a difference to the group’s performance” (believing he/she is capable but as whole, group will do poorly or is fine without them) ->”the group may get rewarded but it won’t matter to me” (might get paid, but each person’s share is seen as too small, or there’s conflict b/t members, the loafing members want to get group effort done & over with) ->”no one else is trying very hard” (contagious, when a member loafs, so does another) -reversely, if group member believes their contribution will lead to group success & values rewards, then he/she is likely to put forth best effort Social facilitation-when a person’s performance is better in presence of others than when alone->ex. runner who finishes a mile in just over 5 min. can finally break the mark when running with his teammates ->however presence of others doesn’t always help performance ->generally though, when ppl. have mastered a task, audience can help but for novices, audiences could hurt performance -research: being in groups can lead ppl to experience heightened arousal, preparing those to do well on tasks for which they’re confident in own abilities -in contrast, those who are uncertain about their skills can have their arousal turn into nervousness; impairing performance ->study: cockroaches had to run a maze or go down runway for reinforcement: the runway task (which was easier) showed that roaches completed it faster when other roaches were around ->in comparison, cockroaches did worse in maze when other roaches were present (usu. finding with complex tasks in front of audience) ->impaired performance for humans in presence of others may be due to heightened self-awareness, social facilitation effects increase when ppl are told they’re being evaluated (for easy tasks, evaluation is incentive to do well, for complex tasks, it creates anxiety & impairs performance) Groupthink-decision-making prob in which group members avoid arguments & strive for agreement ->3 main problems occur when arguments are avoided: 1. Group often becomes overconfident & gain sense of excitement over progress, 2. Members may minimize/ignore potential probs/risks, 3. Social pressure can be applied to members who are not fully in support of idea (getting them to conform) -lab research has shown that when groupthink occurs, there’s always a strong leader who suppresses everyone & encourage group to consider fewer alternative ideas ->experimental research confirms that the more group members have in common (esp. sociopolitical perspectives), the more likely they are to fall into groupthink patterns -however, there’s plenty of cases where groups with strong leaders & shared background didn’t fall into groupthink, also groupthink doesn’t always lead to bad decisions (sometimes, group may have found best solution early in decision process so any alternatives introduced later aren’t really needed) -in terms of obedience to authority: obedience-complying with instructions/orders from someone who is in position of authority ->authority comes from combo of social roles & social context (ppl. likely to obey parents, teachers, bosses & law enforcement b/c such title indicate authority) ->however, authority can be situational (physician asks you to undress in his room for check-up vs. at a supermarket) -it’s one thing for an employee to complete report for supervisor but another for employee to engage in behaviours that conflict with his/her values just b/c boss requested it ->to examine how far ppl. will go to obey authority, consider following study by psychologist Stanley Milgram (1961 classic study on obedience)->see next page: ->recruit shows up at psychologist’s lab, another man is already there, both men draw slips of paper to find out who will be teacher, who will be learner ->recruit is assigned to teacher (he isn’t informed that other man is a confederate) ->teacher told to read series of word pairs to learner (who’s in separate room), when given a word, learned is asked to repeat pair (learner is hooked up to an electrical shock apparatus->if learner can’t rmb words, teacher administers shock) ->unknown to teacher, learner will only be acting as if he received shocks ->each time learner gets answer wrong, teacher increases voltage on shocks (max. 450 V) ->upon the first shock, learner protests; as voltage increases, learner’s response becomes stronger, eventually demanding to leave & falling silent ->if teacher becomes concerned about learner, experimenter simply tells him to continue -before original experiments, expert’s estimated only small % of participants would obey psychologist’s instruction to continue shocking the learners; they also believed those who fully complied would have psychological probs (likely sadistic or antisocial) -however actual results showed more than ¾ of participants continued shocking past the point where learners screamed (begging to leave), 65% continued to increase shocks until they reached 450 V -extra footage showed some participants tried helping learner, they became very tense -notice social cues: psychologist was wearing lab coat (figure of authority); Milgram tested diff. nd variations by having experimenter wear street clothes or having 2 authority figure express concern for learner ->whenever authority was weakened, obedience was reduced, when there were one or more confederate acting as co-teachers, participants tended to conform ->when co-teacher complied with authority’s request, 92.5% of participants gave 450 V shocks, when 2 co-teachers refused to comply, only 10% gave 450V shock -Milgram’s study would not be considered ethical today; but in terms of significance, his study attempted to understand atrocities committed during WW2 (what cause a normal man to become a murderer in a concentration camp) ->social cues like the lab coat & official lab setting had tremendous influence (just like German concentration camps) Attitudes and Actions -most ppl like to think that he/she develops their own opinions, thus largely free of bias; ->BUT in reality, everyone likely has a bias blind spot (ppl tend to be blind to social influences on own beliefs) -in terms of conforming to group attitudes, researchers have tested attitude changes on fictional political issues (like proposed law to pay generous unemployment benefits ->when law supported Democrats, political conservatives thought proposal was too expensive; when the same law supported Republicans, the conservatives were more approving while the Democrats said it didn’t pay enough ->t/f researchers showed that actual proposal wasn’t due to individ. response but political party that proposed it -politics in reality, work the same way provided that the issue needs to be highly identified with group & ambiguity is involved -in terms of group polarization->sometimes groups affect attitudes directly, sometimes dynamic effects of group membership intensify members’ attitudes->increasing diff.’s b/t groups->group polarization-occurs when members of group discuss characteristic attitudes of their group & t/f, their views become stronger ->as this happens in 2 competing groups, opinions become polarized (2 groups become further apart in their views) -ex. students from Young Republicans & College Democrats met to discuss role of ethnicity in college admissions, if someone were to implement an attitude scale before discussion, it would show the 2 groups differ somewhat ->but if the scale was implemented again after discussion, the 3 groups may have moved even further apart (each become more extreme in its position) -groups become polarized perhaps due to hearing group position articulated over & over; maybe due to feeling closer to group (like a competition to be the most “group-like” individ in discussion) -a person’s actions, beliefs & attitudes aren’t independent but dynamically related, a state of tension can exist b/t 2 thoughts/beliefs ->ex. student spends many years getting into law school only to be rejected; he’ll experience tension b/t his goals & reality of situation ->may minimize importance of being a lawyer, t/f reducing tension ->cognitive dissonance-occurs when person has 2 thoughts (cognitions) that are inconsistent with each other (dissonance) & as a result experiences motivation to reduce inconsistency ->the tension provides motivation for someone to reduce cognitive dissonance either by changing behaviour or changing attitude -story: in 1954, Marian Keech, stay-at-mother in Chicago, thoughts beings from a planet called Clarion would wipe out life on Earth (flood) on Dec. 20th ->convinced of this prophecy, she & her followers made preparations for event (quit jobs, gave away possessions), if contacted, it would be at midnight on eve of disaster, then taken away in a spaceship & saved from flood ->on night of Dec. 20, group members waited for contact, after almost 5 hours, Mrs. Keech & her followers thought that b/c of their efforts, God decided to spare them & call off the flood -when prediction failed, there was tension b/t knowledge that invested in despite failure in prophecy; they reduced cognitive dissonance through justification of effort (efforts justified b/c of investing time to prevent flood) -another ex: boy in store wants pack of gum but has no $ to buy it, he notices clerk is busy with customers so he decides to slip gum into pocket ->2 thoughts occur: “stealing gum” & “stealing gum is wrong”, to reduce dissonance, the boy can return the gum, then he would think “stealing is wrong” & “that’s why I put gum back” (tension is gone) ->what often happens though is attitude changes: boy might think “gum is worth just a few cents so it’s not like it’ll affect such a big company” or “other kids do it to all the time”->boy’s attitude toward stealing loses negativity & behaviour stays the same, attitude can affect behaviour & vice versa -the boy resorted to trivializing by telling himself action wasn’t significant enough to cause concern, whereas in other cases, someone may completely change their attitude to avoid tension->denial of responsibility-occurs when person maintains same attitude about action but changes belief about his/her own role in action (“had no choice”, “forced to do it”) Two-Step Persuasion Techniques Foot-in-the-door technique-involves making a request followed by a more substantial request ->ex. if someone asks a person commit an hour at fundraising booth, he/she might be frustrated but if asked a small commitment (like signing a petition, it’ll be easier to convince him/her to come back full hour later) Door-in-the-face technique-beings with large request likely to be turned down, followed by smaller request likely to be accepted->see diagram on next page -psychologist Robert Cialdini argues these persuasive techniques work best when person is not thinking carefully->reasons: perhaps 1 step in request diminished person’s desire/ability to intentionally control their behaviour so they find it harder to resist requests st ->imagine self-control as a form of energy; for 1 step, saying no for door-in-the-face technique or saying yes for foot-in-the-door technique ->if 2nd request follows quickly, person has no time to refuel self-control t/f, person is nd more likely to comply with 2 request -study testing above hypothesis with foot-in-the-door technique: researchers randomly nd assigned volunteers to 2 groups, one group completed questionnaire about dietary habits, 2 group didn’t ->researchers measured depletion of self-control by having volunteers complete 2 task nd in which they had to come up with arguments for smthin they didn’t believe in (tuition increase) ->group that completed questionnaire had depleted self-regulatory energy (produced fewer arguments than control group & were more likely to comply with additional request of keeping a food diary for 2 weeks) -however in terms of limits, such techniques cannot persuade ppl to behave in a way they normally wouldn’t (like convincing innocent person to rob bank), also techniques have limited effects when other influences are present (ex. a boss can convince a new employee to work overtime, but employee can’t get a paid vacation from boss) -importance of 2-step persuasion techniques: *can be applied to many situations, from recruiting volunteers to work with juveniles to getting support for charitable food drives -there are 2 paths to persuasion: central route (to persuasion)-ppl take time, evaluate evidence & use valid logic/arguments & peripheral route (to persuasion)-quick judgments made based on limited evidence & emotions/vague impressions used more than logic -which path to take?->if ppl believe topic is important & have time to make decisions, central route is more persuasive->b/c of reasoning, appealing to those with high intelligence & analytical abilities ->topics less important & decisions likely to be made quickly, peripheral route may be more persuasive -persuasive techniques applicable to marketing, advertising, politics & public relations, possible 1st step: ID whether msg should be central or peripheral ->ppl who have little evidence to support their claim use peripheral processing by increasing emotional appeals/urging quick judgments (ex. TV act now technique), effective in convincing those who are close to purchasing a product to follow through ->msgs that play on fear can overpower msgs based solely on rational evidence (provided warnings seem like real threats) Ch. 15.2 Social Cognition -social-cognitive psychology includes cognitions (perceptions, thoughts & beliefs) a person may have about social contexts (other ppl, groups, situations) -there are 2 varieties of thought: intuitive thought-quick, effortless, automatic thinking (requires great effort when trying to control it), intuitions tend to be based on associations ->deliberative thought-more careful, rational process that requires effort -intuitive thinking precedes deliberation->ex. consider someone tries to control his temper at work b/c he feels he’s only person doing job->his intuitive thought when he learns of co-worker getting promoted before him might justify him in yelling at his boss & insulting co-worker ->intuitive thought is angry but then deliberative thought follows: reminds him that what he says/does determines whether he’ll get fired or not (don’t overdo it) ->another ex., what automatic intuitive thoughts might police officers have when they see man on dark street? (no time for deliberative thought) Person perception-refers to processes by which ppl form judgments & categorize other ppl, begins immediately in social encounters & guided by past experiences with others ->first impressions can be explained by automatic side of social cognition, ppl rely on schemas-clusters of knowledge & expectations about ppl & groups, *recall from PSYA01 that schemas bring certain traits to mind automatically -ex. person walks into class for tutorial for final exam, realize he’s early but after 30 secs, he has made an impression on the prof teaching & vice versa Thin slices-technique basing judgments of others on very limited info->studies of this might involve researcher presenting short video clips/still photos of someone, which are used by participants to make judgments of personal qualities ->can be compared to judgments made by others who have more info -using thin-slices techniques, researchers found participants who watched 30 secs of college lecture (without sound) gave instructor ratings similar to end-of-semester ratings of same class -it’s surprising that ppl can make judgments of trustworthiness, competence, likeability & aggressiveness in as little as half a second to a photo of someone’s face ->further exposure to face doesn’t change ratings much but it does have tendency to increase judges’ confidence in their ratings (impression doesn’t really change a lot, but judges feel they have more reason to believe it -relying too much on first impressions can affect how relationships develop -biggest impact of first impression comes from how they shape social behaviours, ex. study: participants acted as jurors & evaluated evidence against a defendant, participants were less likely to find a defendant guilty when shown photo of person who appeared more trustworthy Self-fulfilling prophecy-occurs when first impression affects observer’s behaviour & t/f first impression comes true ->context of teacher-student interactions: when teachers have high expectations, they behave differently towards a specific student; teachers tend to spend less time addressing behaviour & instead present more challenging work & give more reinforcement/constructive criticism to that student compared to another student with less potential ->self-fulfilling prophecy is complete when students with low expectations placed on them receive lower grades from teachers & lower scores on standardized tests -however there are many variables that can reduce effects of self-fulfilling prophecies (including grade level->older students less prone & familiarity->being in similar setting) ->some evidence suggests in classroom setting, teachers’ perceptions are correlated with performance b/c they’re accurate & not b/c of self-fulfilling prophecy (also self- fulfilling prophecy tends to have only small to moderate effect) -attributions: explanations ppl make about behavioural causes, like 1 impressions, they tend to start out as automatic & intuitive -two main types of attribution: internal attribution (dispositional attribution)-observer explains actor’s behaviour due to some intrinsic quality of actor & external attribution (situational attribution)-observer explains actor’s behaviour as result of social context (see next page diagram) -most behaviours are complex blend of disposition & situation Fundamental attribution error-tendency to make internal attributions for other’s behaviours while ignoring external influences ->think about driver cutting someone off, personal qualities that correspond to bad driving can include: selfish, hostile & stupid (there are all internal/dispositional qualities) ->however, consider external causes, maybe a blown-out tire (most often ppl don’t think unless time is taken to make a more thoughtful attribution) -when explaining own behaviour, attributions are more generous (ex. if person swerves into adjacent lane while driving, he’s likely to blame another reckless driver or some foreign object on the road ->this is ex. of self-serving bias-ppl will use internal attributions for when he/she does something well but external attributions when failing/committing errors, if driver successfully avoid accident, he/she is likely to credit it to his/her driving skill/alertness (internal dispositional attributions) -ppl tend to explain other’s behaviour in terms of internal attributions but explain their own behaviour based on internal or external (whichever makes person feel good about themselves) ->self-serving bias though may reduce chances of psychological distress, other factors can contribute to biases too: ex. time…on one hand, ppl watch others’ actions as they happen so ppl tend to make quick judgments but on the other hand, ppl may spend time planning behaviour & understanding situational events leading up to actions (t/f much more time to consider external attributions) -fundamental attribution error is largely a cultural phenomenon, East Asians are much more likely to consider situation when making attributions, some ppl from Japan exhibit opposite trend; attributing successes to support from family/peers while downplaying role of talent/intelligence/personality Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Stereotype-set of beliefs about a group of ppl as combo of ideas/opinions; can be viewed as type of schema->with stereotypes, ppl likely experience prejudice-attitude based on stereotypes that includes emotions/value judgments as well, discrimination-behaviour based on prejudice Outgroup-collection of ppl who are perceived as different, the perception of difference is enough to make distinction b/t groups (doesn’t have to be disliked or in competition with one’s own group)->one’s ingroup is perceived as having more +ve qualities Ingroup bias-occurs when attributing +ve qualities to social group one belongs to (similar to self-serving bias) Al Stereotypes are Based on Negative Characteristics -a hidden danger of stereotypes is found in well-intentioned stereotyping, ex. researchers have distinguished b/t hostile sexism (stereotypes that have –ve views “of one or both sexes”) & benevolent sexism (+ve views “ ”), consider the saying that women are “the fairer sex” ->person may mean it as compliment (virtuous) but psychologists have pointed out that even well-intended stereotypes can place restrictions on one’s behaviour ->by being considered “fair”, women may be held to diff. sexual standards than men, t/f may be seen as dependent on men for $/protection ->women may be set back in careers that require assertive/aggressive behaviour (like running a huge business or working front-line as police officer), t/f –ve effects of stereotyping happen even when intentions of someone may have been complimentary Social trends in stereotypes & prejudice: psychologists have researched stereotypes/prejudice related to weight/body size, sexual orientation & religious affiliation Scapegoating-happens when ppl use stereotypes to misplace/exaggerate blame on others ->ex->during econ. recessions, outgroup is often targeted for taking jobs from ingroup or depleting resources from local economy (gen. ppl overvalue qualities of their ingroup & undervalue qualities of other groups) -Caucasians in U.S. increasingly concerned about whether they appear prejudiced; as African Americans/Latinos are more likely to obtain diplomas/degrees & live longer than years ago ->however racial/ethnic differences persist (some African Americans experience more physical/aggressive treatment from police) -idea that police use more aggressive techniques on minority suspects than white suspects (black suspects historically 5x more likely to die in police confrontations than white suspects) -t/f even if one is against prejudice, he/she may implicitly hold stereotypes leading to prejudice/discrimination (important to acknowledge implicit stereotypes/automatic judgments) Explicit Versus Implicit Measures of Prejudice Explicit prejudice-when ppl confess to or openly demonstrate their stereotypes Implicit prejudice-includes forms of stereotyping/prejudice that are kept silent (intentionally or b/c ppl are unaware of their own prejudices) -Implicit Associations Test (IAT) measures how fast ppl respond to images/words flashed on screen (to complete it, person uses 2 fingers & 2 computer buttons), see diagram below -researchers reasoned that racial schemas associate more –ly with blacks than with whites, even if such associations are implicit, they still affect participants’ responses -in terms of validity, IAT developers focus on repeated findings showing consistency indicating favouritism toward ingroup & bias against outgroup, while some researchers think IAT measures what person knows about stereotypes rather than what he/she believes is true (simply knowing about stereotype doesn’t mean person believes it or uses it to judge/discriminate ppl) -*importance of IAT: applied to various other forms of stereotyping (social classes, sexual orientation & fraternities/sororities), demonstrates that implicit prejudice seems to be more common than what’s expressed in explicit tests->also being applied to clinical settings (ex. a research group developed IAT that measures attitudes about alcohol use, can predict how much alcohol one is likely to consume, even when explicit measures fail to do so) The Law Enforcement Academy -imagine decision to shoot or not shoot a potential criminal->video simulations put participants in such situations->split second of indecision in IAT corresponds to more mistaken shooting of innocent black ppl than innocent white ppl -stress of a real confrontation combined with complexity of real-world situation leads to much higher chance of mistaken shooting occurring ->to combat implicit influences of race on an officer’s decision to shoot, most law enforcement agencies require extended training of their employees, (ex. police cadets in Denver must complete 72 training hours related to shoot/don’t shoot decisions) 15.3 Helping and Harming Others -congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP) is a prob brought about by gene mutation that makes useless the specialized types of nerve cells that transmit pain msgs to brain (experience no pain whatsoever)->yet, ppl with COP can actually share pain they couldn’t possibly fuel (they have same kind of sympathy pain everyone else does); human beings are hard-wired to respond to others in caring way -prosocial behaviours-promote social functioning, group cohesion or well-being of ppl within group (sometimes behaviours are easy/enjoyable, other times they’re responses to emergencies & sometimes serious challenges must be overcome to show prosocial behaviours ->antisocial behaviours serve one person/small group at expense of greater community Empathy, Altruism, and Helping -humanity/humanitarian describe feelings/actions of compassion, existence highlights it as unique human quality; ppl highly motivated to look out for each other Empathy-emotional concern one person has for another’s well-being, includes feelings of compassion or distress for condition of others, perspective taking makes this possible (attempting to understand another’s situation by imagining what it’d be like to be that person) -just as important as perspective-taking is value placed on other people’s welfare (but obviously ppl will experience less empathy for a convicted murderer than for a friend) -in terms of physiological processes, humans have specialized type of nerve cell that can possibly serve as basis for empathy->called mirror neurons-respond to actions/expressions of others & are correlated with ability to understand another’s intentions/emotions ->similarly, neurons involved in pain perception are active when a person sees another in pain or even when one imagines pain -increased emotional responses like faster pulse rate, clammy hands; in one study, when more empathetic volunteers watched someone experiencing distress, their physiological responses tend to match those of person experiencing distress, known as shared physiology -at individ. level, willingness to help depends on situation (some seem more urgent) & individ (some ppl feel empathy more regularly than others) -group membership can also have a strong effect on helping, research shows empathy extends more toward those in one’s own groups but it doesn’t mean ppl always refuse to help those outside of one’s groups ->ppl more likely to help strangers when they can find similarities or likeable qualities, also those who feel they have strong, secure bond with family/friends more likely to help others regardless of their group membership Social-exchange theory-states that a person will consider costs/benefits of helping another before he/she acts (much like financial arrangement b/t not necessarily monetary, benefits can include +ve feelings & social approval for one’s deeds) ->cost/benefit ratios of such arrangements can be highly variable (from dropping loose change in a collection pot to donating kidney to a loved one) Altruism-helping others in need without receiving or expecting reward for doing so (ex. man named Wesley Autrey, who jumped in front of a train to save a stranger) Social responsibility norm-society teaches the value of helping goes beyond benefits one might receive & that individs who can’t help themselves require special help (ppl compelled to help children, elderly & medically ill) -in terms of evolutionary approaches to altruism: concept of costly signaling explains altruism as signals to others that helper would be valuable mate (although risky, helping others can be a way to assert status/make a statement of trustworthiness) Kin selection-predicts altruistic behaviour most likely to happen when it gives genetic benefit to individ (ex. if mother sacrifices herself for her child, her altruism raise chances that her genes will survive -challenge to king selection is that helping behaviour extends well beyond genetic relatives Reciprocal altruism-helping behaviour extended to non-genetic relatives, with possibility favour may be returned later (found in humans & non-human species) Bystander effect-happens when person in group doesn’t provide help, either b/c person believes someone else will help or b/c other ppl in group aren’t helping either -ex. one study: volunteer was led into small room while 1-3 confederates posing as volunteers were said to be waiting in similar rooms to have convos over intercoms ->while waiting, a confederate reported being prone to seizures & asked for help as seizure started, researchers concluded that the more confederates there were, the longer it took actual volunteer to react to calls for help -possible explanations for bystander effect: chance of embarrassment, thinking that others knows more or diffusion of responsibility-when ppl feel less responsible for a person in need when in presence of group (if no one is helping, then why care?) -ppl with specific training (like CPR) are more likely to help b/c he/she feels better equipped; also being among friends & family can reverse bystander effect (perhaps b/c group members share greater concer
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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.