UNIT 2 AOS 2 - Psyc summary notes PDF

Preview

Summary

UNIT 2 AOS 2 SOCIAL COGNITION: ATTITUDES AND STEREOTYPES CHAPTER 17SOCIAL COGNITION Social cognition is how we perceive and interpret information about others and ourselves in our social world.PERSON PERCEPTION: the process of forming impressions of others.  involves piecing together bits of inform...

Description

UNIT 2 AOS 2 SOCIAL COGNITION: ATTITUDES AND STEREOTYPES CHAPTER 17 SOCIAL COGNITION Social cognition is how we perceive and interpret information about others and ourselves in our social world. PERSON PERCEPTION: the process of forming impressions of others.  involves piecing together bits of information we have gathered about the person to get an idea of the characteristics of that person.  not always reliable - influenced by our own biases  can be based on  physical appearance  non-verbal communication ATTRIBUTIONS Inferences that we make about the causes of events, our own behaviour or the behaviour of others. We either see the cause of behaviour to be either  personal/dispositional (internal) OR  situational (external) INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTIONS Dispositional - internal

Situational - external

Traits

Environmental setting

Ability

Situation

Motivation

Luck

Attitude

Actions of another person

Mood Effort DISPOSITIONAL ATTRIBUTION An explanation based on internal characteristics within the person, such as their personality, ability, attitude, motivation, mood or effort. If we attribute behaviour to internal factors, we tend to blame the person for causing the behaviour. For example, if we hear that Shaun lost his job we may think it was typical because he is always unreliable and irresponsible.. SITUATIONAL ATTRIBUTION An explanation due to factors external to the person involved, such as the actions of another person, some aspect of the environment, the task, luck and fate. If we attribute behaviour to internal factors, we tend to blame the person for causing the behaviour.

For example, if we hear that Shaun lost his job we may say that it is because his workplace was restructuring

STEREOTYPES A collection of beliefs that we have about the people who belong to a certain group, regardless of individual differences among members of that group. This process of grouping or ‘fitting’ people into a category based on what we know about them is called stereotyping. ATTITUDES a positive or negative evaluation of a person, object, event or idea. An attitude is a learned, stable and relatively enduring evaluation of a person, object or idea that can affect an individual’s behaviour. STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDES: THE TRI-COMPONENT MODEL proposes that any attitude has three related components – the ABC of attitudes: Affective: the emotional reactions or feelings an individual has towards an object, person, group event or issue Behavioural: refers to the way in which an attitude is expressed through our actions Cognitive: refers to the beliefs we have about an object, person, group, event or issue Affective component

Behavioural component

Cognitive component

A person’s feeling and emotional response to an attitude object. It is mostly learned during the course of our daily lives.

The person’s behaviour towards the attitude object. What we say and how we act towards the object.

A person’s thoughts, ideas and understanding about an attitude object. It is what we know, or think we know about an attitude object.

E.g I love dogs

Eg. Get a dog and spend time with it.

Eg. Dogs are loyal and good companions. They can be good guard dogs.

CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE COMPONENTS All three components must be present before it can be said that an attitude exists In many cases, the A, B, C are consistent with each other. Eg. You enjoy playing Soccer (affective) so you play every Saturday (behavioural) and believe it’s good for your health (cognitive) LIMITATIONS OF THE TRI-COMPONENT MODEL There are often inconsistencies between a person’s attitude and their behaviour

PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Prejudice – is an unfavourable or negative attitude towards a group of people, based on insufficient or incorrect information about the group to whom it is directed.  Stereotyping often leads to prejudice. Discrimination – is the action that expresses the attitude of prejudice and it is often an individual who is the victim.

THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDES, PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION PREJUDICE Cognitive

Affective

The categorisation of people, and beliefs about the people that are put into these categories. Eg. Negative beliefs about the elderly Feelings that are hostile towards the group of people. Eg. Strong feelings of dislike towards the elderly

DISCRIMINATION Behavioural

Behaviour towards to the group of people. Eg. Discriminating against the elderly – not hiring them for a job

EXAMPLES OF PREJUDICE Prejudice type

Prejudice

sexism

gender

racism

ethnicity or race

ageism

age

homophobia

sexual preference

disability

physical or intellectual disability or mental illness

EXAMPLES OF DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination

description

example

Reluctance to help

Reluctance to help other groups to improve their position in society by passively or actively declining to assist their efforts. Publicly giving trivial assistance to a minority group in order to avoid accusations of prejudice and discrimination. Publicly being prejudiced in favour of a minority group in order to deflect accusation of prejudice and discrimination.

Inadequate facilities for physically disabled employees in the workplace.

Tokenism

Reverse discrimination

Employing one woman in a predominately male organisation.

Making it company policy to employ a certain percentage of minority group members but this can turn out to be discriminatory if once employed these members are singled out.

EFFECTS OF PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Effect

Example

Low self-esteem

Regular insults, denial of equality or violence can damage self worth

Disadvantage/failure

Being denied access to resources in society that are necessary for success. For example – education, health, housing and employment

Self fulfilling prophecies

Expectations about group members will influence interactions with members of that group and eventually change their behaviour so that it is in keeping with the original expectations.

Violence and genocide

Overt acts of prejudice that include physical harm. For example apartheid in South Africa or the Holocaust in the Second World War.

PREVENTING AND REDUCING PREJUDICE  Education  Intergroup contact  Cognitive interventions  Superordinate goals  Direct exposure EDUCATION Teaching tolerance, the consequence of prejudice and what constitutes discrimination INTERGROUP CONTACT Involves sustained interpersonal interaction between groups Most effective when:  There is mutual interdependence (groups engage in cooperative activites)  Groups have equal status  Social norms favouring the reduction of prejudice prevail SUPERORDINATE GOALS Working towards a shared goal that must require the contribution of both groups COGNITIVE INTERVENTIONS Reducing stereotypes through changing thought processes and perception For example: making information available to individuals reduces stereotype by minimising irrelevant information about groups of people. DIRECET EXPOSURE Experiencing another culture or lifestyle. Direct experience can result in better knowledge and understanding, and can reduce ignorance.

Group and Individual behaviour Chapter 18

WHAT IS A GROUP?  Consist of two or more people.  Individuals in a group must interact with each other over a period of time.  Individuals in a group must influence each other.  Members of the group must have a common purpose. STATUS WITHIN GROUPS Status refers to the importance of an individual’s position in the group, as perceived by members of the group. Status can:  impact an individual’s behaviour towards others in the group.  impact how individual group members relate to one another.  determine the amount of power an individual has within the group. POWER WITHIN GROUPS Power refers to an individual’s (or group’s) ability to control or influence the thoughts, feelings or behaviour of another person (or group).  A person is said to have power over another if there is a reasonable expectation that the second person will behave in the way the first person desires, even against the second person’s own wishes  When power is involved in a social interaction, it is described as social power.  There are 6 different types of social power. SIX SOURCES OF POWER Type of power

Source of power

Example

Reward power

Ability to provide desired outcome Ability to provide an unpleasant outcome Having knowledge that others desire Power is given by a higher authority and may be due to role or position Power is due to skills and depth of knowledge Power from other’s desire to relate to the person

Teacher can allow students to leave early Teacher can give a student a detention Secretary know where all the information is filed Police officer or coach

Coercive power Information power Legitimate power

Expert power Referent power

STYLES OF LEADERSHIP

Doctor or motor mechanic Admired sports or movie star

Democratic – a leadership style where the leader negotiates decisions with the group. Authoritarian – a leadership style where the leader actively makes all decisions and has control over the group. Laissez-faire – a leadership style where the leader lets the group make all decision and they take little responsibility EFFECTS OF STATUS AND SOCIAL POWER WITHIN GROUPS Status and social power within a group are often linked to the role each individual has in the group. Social Roles refer to the expectations, responsibilities, and behaviours we adopt in certain situations.  The ideas for expected or “normal” behaviour are reinforced both by the individual and by society. EFFECTS OF STATUS AND SOCIAL POWER WITHIN GROUPS Each of us takes on many different roles, and we shift among them throughout our lives and throughout each day. For example  A working mother starts her day in the role of a mum, in which she is expected to feed her children and get them ready for school  At the office she shifts to the role of project manager, where she oversees projects in a timely and professional manner.  On her lunch break she may take on the role of friend, in which she listens to a coworker’s problems.  If she fails to fulfill any of these roles she may face consequences, such as the loss of a relationship or loss of a job.

ZIMBARDO’S STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most famous psychology experiments at Stanford University in California.  Zimbardo wanted to find out the psychological effects of having a “role” of either a prison guard or a prisoner.  To do this, he set up a simulated prison environment in the basement of the Stanford University psychology building, complete with cells, security doors and drab surroundings without windows or light. Participants:  Zimbardo placed an ad in the local paper inviting male volunteers for a study on prison life that would run for up to two weeks for the pay of US$15 per day (equivalent to about US$150 today).  Applicants were psychologically tested and 24 that were judged to be ‘normal, average and healthy’ were selected How was status and power distributed? Guards (high status) were given:  military-style khaki uniforms  reflective sunglasses to conceal their identities and emotions  clubs (similar to batons)  whistles  They worked eight-hour shifts and went home when not on duty. Prisoners (low status) were:  Given a chain around the ankles  instructed to refer to themselves only by their prison number.  required to ask permission from the guards to perform routine activities such as using the toilet, smoking a cigarette or writing letters. The end result? Although the experiment had been planned to last for two weeks, it was terminated after six days because it was getting out of control.  Every aspect of the prisoners’ behaviour ‘fell under the total and arbitrary control of the guards’.  The guards were abusing their power and becoming genuinely brutal and vicious towards the prisoners  The prisoners were becoming withdrawn, submissive and bitter.

Ethical issues in Zimbardo’s experiment Violation of the “no harm principle:  people suffered and others were allowed to inflict pain and humiliation on their fellows over an extended period of time’  all participants were exposed to ‘seeing and hearing the suffering’ of prisoners  they did not end the study soon enough. It should have been terminated as soon as the first prisoner suffered a severe stress disorder on Day 2’.  Violation of ‘withdrawal rights’. Prisoners were only let out of the experiment after experiencing severe emotional distress. Zimbardo led participants to believe they were not able to exit the experiment. Obedience occurs when we follow the commands of someone with authority, or the rules or laws of our society. In comparison, compliance involves changing one’s behaviour in response to a request to do so, it does not necessarily involve an authority figure. MILGRAM’S EXPERIMENTS ON OBEDIENCE American psychologist Stanley Milgram (1963) investigated factors that can influence obedience to an authority figure. Milgram wanted to find out whether individuals would obey an authority figure who was instructing them to inflict pain on another person. Method Participants Subjects were recruited by newspaper ad. Those responding were paid US$4 for the hour. Participants were all men between 20 and 50 years old. Procedure  In pairs, one man is given a slip of paper telling him he is the ‘teacher’. The other is told that he will be the ‘learner’.  They are told the experiment is to see the effects of punishment on learning.  The ‘learner’ goes into a small, sealed room and the ‘teacher’ sits at a desk in front of a voltage meter.  The ‘teacher’ is then given a sample 45-volt electric shock from the electro-shock generator, as a "sample" of the shock the "learner" will receive during the experiment.  The ‘teacher’ reads out sets of word pairs which he is to teach the learner. e.g. blue hat, red door, green bus.  If the ‘learner’ next door says the wrong answer then he is given an electric shock.  Each time the ‘learner’ gets it wrong, the ‘teacher’ has to increase the shock by 15 volts.  After some time the ‘learner’ starts shouting, banging the wall and complaining of a heart condition. He demands to stop the experiment and be let out. Procedure- cont.

 The teacher believes that he is actually giving shocks to the learner participant. (In reality, there are no shocks being given to the learner. The ‘sounds’ of the learner being ‘shocked’ are provided by a tape recorder)  Many test subjects pause at 135 volts and begin to question the purpose of the experiment.  If at any time the “teacher” says he wants to stop the experiment, the experimenter in the white coat instructs him to continue. The Shocking Results The results were unexpected. Of the 40 participants:  All participants administered at least 300 volts  65% of participants administered the highest shock (450 volts) Conclusion Milgram concluded that people are likely to perform actions contrary to their beliefs and wishes (and inflict pain on another person) if they are instructed to do so by an authority figure. Ethical Issues No harm Principle  Participants showed extreme anxiety about what they were asked to do; nervous laughter from 14 participants and uncontrollable seizures from three participants ment that their rights were violated Withdrawal rights  The prods used by the researcher to ensure that the experiment continued even though the participants expressed the desire to stop were a direct violation of partipants’ rights. Deception  Participants were deceived about the purpose of the experiment as well as by the procedures used. It is unlikely the experiment had received approval from an ethics committee. Procedural Issues Sampling  The sample was not representative of the population about which Milgram wished to draw conclusions. The sample contained males only and they were all white Americans Setting  The experiment was conducted in a laboratory. There is no evidence that similar results would be found outside a formal laboratory setting.

FACTORS OF HELPING Chapter 19 HELPING BEHAVIOUR - PRO-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Pro-social behaviour:  benefits other people and society in general  is usually voluntary  is intended to help others FACTORS INFLUENCING HELPING BEHAVIOUR Social factors/norms  Reciprocity principle  Social responsibility norm Personal factors  Empathy  Mood  Competence Situational factors  Bystander effect  The decision-stage model of helping SOCIAL FACTORS: Social Norms Social norms are standards that govern what people should or shouldn’t do in different social situations. They are ‘unwritten rules’ of how to behave in society. E.g. Saying please/thank you, Not talking when at the movies RECIPROCITY NORM A social norm that we should do for others what they would do for us or what we would expect them to do  ‘Do unto others as they would do to you’  We are bound by a social expectation that if someone would help us we should help them E.g. You lend a friend a dress for Saturday night because you know that either she or another friend will likely lend you a dress if you need it. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NORM A social norm that prescribes that we should help those who need help because it is our duty to do so  No expectation of the assistance being returned.  People are only ‘expected’ to help others who are genuinely in need or a ‘victim of their circumstances Reciprocity norm SOCIAL FACTORS Social responsibility norm PERSONAL FACTORS: EMPATHY The ability to identify with and understand another person’s feelings or difficulties. We help others to alleviate our own discomfort in seeing them suffer

PERSONAL FACTORS: MOOD A good mood increases likelihood of helping behaviour.  Helping can maintain an already good mood. A bad mood may decrease likelihood of helping behaviour because your attention is focused on yourself. However, a bad mood may also increase likelihood of helping behaviour if you feel guilty about a wrongdoing and feel the need to make up for it. PERSONAL FACTORS: COMPETENCE Our actual or perceived ability to help.  We are more likely to help when we are confident in our abilities than when we are unsure if we have the skills to assist  Research findings indicate that people with abilities or training that are relevant to a situation in which help is required are more likely to help.

Empathy PERSONAL FACTORS

Mood Compe t e nc e

SITUATIONAL FACTORS: THE BYSTANDER EFFECT The tendency for individuals to be less likely to help another person in need when other bystanders are present, or believed to be present, as compared to when they are alone.  The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely any one of them is to help  This occurs due to: Diffusion of responsibility - Audience inhibition DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY When people feel less responsibility for taking action in a given situation, because there are other people who could also be responsible for taking action. AUDIENCE INHIBITION When a person does not do something because of a fear of appearing foolish in the presence of others.  A person may be reluctant to help because they are afraid of making a mistake in front of a crowd.  If you assist someone without an audience and make a mistake, there is less chance of embarrassment.

SITUATIONAL FACTORS: THE DECISION-STAGE MODEL OF HELPING The decision-stage model of helping i...