3/26-3/28: Pro-social Behavior ; Altruism

Altruism

• Altruism- desire to increase another person's welfare without self-interest  
• helping someone for no reward/self-gain
• Bystander effect- person less likely to provide help in emergency when others are present
• Darley Latane (1968) [bystander effect experiment]
• student seemed to seizure, heard via intercom- who helped
• conditions: 1 bystander/ 2 bystanders/3 bystanders; results:
• 1 = 85%
• 2 = 62%
• 3 = 31%
• Diffusion of Responsibility - responsibility shared among those present [impediment to step 1]
• when responsibility is shared, people feel less obligated; more people, less obligation
• Emergency 5 Step Model * print full version of bb Important
• Step 1- Notice something is happening
• Impediment = personal distractions
• Darley and Bateson (1973) [step 1 of 5 step Emergency model experiment]
• talk on Good Samaritan
• encountered person outside who needed help
• 3 conditions :  Ahead/On time/Behind
• Ahead schedule: 63
• On time : 45
• Behind schedule: 10
• most of time in this situation most didn't know there was an emergency
• Step 2- Interpret event as an emergency
• Impediments:
• Ambiguity
• is she/he in trouble or just sick?
• Relationship between attacker and victim
• they'll have to solve their own family quarrels
• Pluralistic ignorance
• no one else seems worried
• Latane and Darley [Step 2 experiment]
• Fire in room; who helps put it out
• Alone = 75%
• 2 Passive cofederates = 10%
• 3 naive subjects = 38%
• Pluralistic Ignorance- assume nothing is wrong because others seem unconcerned 
• Step 3 - Take responsibility for providing help
• Impediment: Diffusion of Responsibility -  assumption that others will help, so one isn't individually responsible
• someone else must have done/will do something
• Step 4 - Know how to help
• Impediment: Lack of Competence
• not trained to handle this
• Step 5 - Provide help
• Impediment:
• Audience Inhibition
• I'll look like a fool
• Costs Exceed Rewards
• what if I make it worse/ he sues me/ it costs me too much time
• Other Predictors of when we help
• Mood
• people who found money in pay phone more willing to help others pick up dropped folder
• more likely help - good mood
• Rewarded for prior help
• increased likelihood of helping rather than neutral/punishing reaction
• Modeling
• see someone helping another- more likely you'll help someone
• Deservingness of requester
• person deserves help- you'll more likely help
• Place we live
• live in rural area - more likely to help than urban area
• too much going on in urban areas
• are some cities more helpful than others?
• Levine (1994)
• 6 types of helping behavior in 36 US cities(rochester #1)
• hypothesis - depends on values and residential mobility 
• Explanations for Helping Behavior
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
• Mood Management Hypothesis
• Social and Personal Norms
• Our Genes
• Empathy-Altruism hypothesis: feel Empathy------Help even if no personal gain
• Altruism vs. Egoism
• Altruism - without regard to self-interest
• Egoism- helping out of a consideration of one's own self-interest
• Mood Management hypothesis - help to Reduce own Negative Emotion [Form of Egoism]
• can be used to increase positive emotion but mostly used to reduce negative
• Batson (1981) 
• completed questionnaire, watched Elaine supposedly get random shocks
• Two Empathy conditions: High/Low Empathy
• High -told subject that Elaine is a lot like you
• Low - told subject that Elaine is not like you
• Two Escape conditions: Easy/Difficult Escape
• Easy- Leave
• Difficult- Switch places with her; Watch her
• Results
• High empathy group - Most helped her
• Low empathy group - Most left her
• Mood Management Group's Interpretation of Baston experiment
• Subjects felt sadness when saw Elaine shocked; helped to rid sadness
• Empathy-Altruism's Interpretation of Baston
• Two selves merge upon seeing similarity thus subject feels what she feels
• Norm- general standard for appropriate behavior
• 3 Norms Influencing Helping Behavior
• Norm of Social Responsibility-  responsibility help those who depend on you or has a reasonable request
• socially shared
• e.g. help old lady cross street
• Norm of Reciprocity- people help those who have helped them
• socially shared
• "scratch my back, i'll scratch yours"
• Personal Norms - personal obligation to help certain people based on our value system
• basis is what you've growed up learning - manners, honor, Christianity, etc
• unique to yourself
• Genes
• Kinship selection- help those who share our genes
• Predictions
• greater genetic similarity, more help
• help relatives rather than strangers
• more help from gene similar others in life threatening situations
• more help of young, healthy genetically similar others
• they can pass on their genes to next generation
• Threat-to-self-esteem model
• Self-supportive- recipient feels appreciated and cared for
• Self-threatening- recipient does not feel appreciated or cared for when:
• help conveys Inferiority or Dependency
• help Deviated from Socialized Values
• too much help imbalances social reciprocity which causes discomfort
• help does Not Increase Probability of Future Success or Decrease Need for Future Assistance 
• help doesn't fix situation, "band-aid solution"
• Double binds in helping behavior
• Recipient's Double Bind- Direct Benefit; Questions about Own Character or Ability
• Helper's Double Bind- Avoid Negative Message of Inferiority; Guilt if doesn't help

3/19-3/21: Cognitive Dissonance and other Theories

 *( Psychological Science Essay 1 page assignment: go to library resources-----journals-----type psychological science)
When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? (6 Answers)

• Absence of Situational Constraints
• Same Level of Specificity
• attitude and behavior on same level = high predictor
• not same level   = lower predictor
•  Attitude is Potent 
• Formed via Direct Experience
• direct experience will lead to one behaving much more accordingly
• Attitudes Assessed Right Before Behavior
• They're stronger than otherwise; likely to predict accurately
• ex: voters will have stronger attitudes the day before election than month ago
• For Low Self-Monitors
• introspects self, ponders what self would do based on what they want

Cognitive Dissonance theory

• Consistency in Cognitions of People is Desired
• cognitions = thoughts, wants, behaviors
• provides comfort
• Perceived Inconsistency in Cognitions----Dissonance
• produces discomfort
• ex: cognition about smoking
• A = it's good
• B= causes cancer
• Cognition A and B Conflict
• Reduce Dissonance via various means
• Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)
• Experimenter asks subject who did dull peg turning task to set expectation for next subject
• Conditions: A) Control: tell truth B) Insufficient justification: $1 to tell lie C) Sufficient justification: $20 to tell lie
• At end asked how much did they enjoy the task
• Question: Did the Conditions change the subject's attitude?
• Result: Group A = Very much disliked task ; Group B = Greatly Favored ; Group C = Indifferent
• Take Home Message: Group B members had Dissonance because they sold out for an Insufficient Justification - changed attitude for comfort as result of prior behavior

Dissonance-based phenomenon

• Counterattitudinal behavior
• Change attitude = make it more consistent with behavior
• example:
• write an essay that you did not want to write but someone convinced you'
• chose to write freely
• change attitude toward writing
• Decision justification
• Justify your decision by not acknowledging pros of other choice
• example:
• pick one from two choices you like
• classify positive and negative of the one you did not choose
• suddenly, your choice becomes less favorable
• as result, dissonance sets in
• purposely forget the positives of the one you didn't choose for justification
• Effort justification
• Reduce Dissonance to justify the effort spent in the activity
• study example:
• people join discussion group about sex
• put effort to go to the group and spend time there
• turned out to be boring talk about beetle sex
• result: tell friends that discussion was awesome
• Other ways to reduce dissonance
• change attitude
• add cognitions: 
• alter importance
• reduce perceived choice
• change behavior
• Alternatives to Dissonance Theory
• Self-perception theory
• self-perceive from behavior your attitude
• attitude change is rational and emotionless
• Bem (1965)
• subjects read and Festinger and Carlsmith experiment and guessed results
• reasoning: if predict results then inferred attitudes from behavior
• results: most successfully guessed results
• does not work for imbedded attitudes ; does work for unimportant ones
• Impression Management theory
• People want to APPEAR consistent rather than be consistent
• what looks like attitude change isn't
• ex: Subjects from Festinger and Carlsmith experiment in $1 grouo
• Self-affirmation theory
• Do ANYTHING to restore positive view of self( need not be related to the inconsitency)
• maintain general, positive view of oneself; win battle not war
• give an opportunity to feel better about themselves unrelated from the inconsistency and they'll take it
• Summary of Theories
• Is the attitude change motivated by a desire to reduce discomfort?
• Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
• Self-Perception = No
• emotionlessly infer attitude
• Impression Management
• Self-affirmation
• Does a person's private attitude really change?
• Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
• Self-Perception = Yes
• create attitude
• Impression Management = No 
• act like you have a different attitude than the one you have
• Self- Affirmation = Yes
• Must the change be directly related to the attitude-discrepant behavior?
• Cognitive Dissonance =Yes
• Self-Perception = Yes
• Impression Management = Yes 
• Self-Affirmation= No
• if you can do something irrelevant to inconsistency to make yourself feel good (money to charity etc.) than that suffices
• Theories' Relevance Today
• Cognitive Dissonance = highly regarded
• Self- Perception = somewhat relevant
• Impression Managemnet = not great alternative
• Self-Affirmation = real challenge to Cognitive Dissonance
• Elaboration Likelihood Model: theory stating that there's two ways that people can change their attitude and they differ in the way you elaborate and think about the persuasive appeal
• Central Route
• logical, rational, careful and straightforward; make up mind based on weight of evidence
• reason-based
• Peripheral Route
• people don't think carefully but influenced by cues that are often irrelevant but have importance in attitude change
• emotion-based
• What determines Central vs Peripheral Route in ELM?
• Motivation: Yes for Central
• Ability: (time/attention): Yes for Central
• Central: 
• NEEDS BOTH MOTIVATION and ABILITY
• Compelling factor = Argument
• Info, the facts
• Peripheral: 
• Lack of Motivation and/or Ability
• Compelling factor = Cues
• Accentuate the Perks, say its cool parts
• Peripherally vs Centrally-based attitudes
• Peripherally-based
• Weaker Foundation
• More Easily Changed
• Less Predictive of Actual Behavior
• Source characteristics
• Credibility
• expert
• trustworthy
• best is the one that argues against self-interest
• ex: people don't know they're being taped/not being paid to say
• Likeability
• physical attractiveness
• fame
• similarity
• breeds attraction, relatable 
• Message Characteristics
• Amount of Info ---more = better
• better argument, more persuasive
• better for central = info aspect
• better for peripheral = heuristic of there must be something to do this
• backfire- too much, lose audience
• Repetition---- more = better
• breeds familiarity
• backfire- bombardment breeds boredom; mainly con to peripheral
• solution - repetition with variation
• 1 vs 2 sided ---- depends
• key- audience initial perspective
• no knowledge
• 1 side
• because want focus on info, no getting lost
• knowledge
• 2 side
• argue against opposing side
• Reason vs Emotion------ depends
• well-educated and interested audience
• rational argument works best - central
• not well-informed, uninterested
• appeal to their emotion- peripheral
• Positive and Negative emotion----- positive = better
• no limits on positivity 
• negativity used sparingly based on topic, work or doesn't
• Resistance to Persuasion
• Reactance: negative reaction to perceived threat to one's personal freedom which increases resistance to persuasion leads, to attitude change in opposite direction
• negative reaction to perceived threat-----opposite attitude
• e.g. someone tells you can't __, you do ___
• Inoculation- develop counter arguments to attacks and will be less likely to change your mind
• exposure to some persuasive appeals over time then,
• develop immunity to persuasive appeals
• Forewarning- told ahead of time that someone will try to persuade you, less likely to be convinced
• guard is up, ready to counterattack 
• Selective Avoidance- selectively avoid info that challenges personal beliefs 
• e.g. republican won't listen to democrat speeches

3/7: Attitudes

Attitude Formation

• Attitudes formed by
• Cognitive appraisal 
• Observational learning
• Self-Perception
• conscious
• behavior in situation = attitude
• Physical Movement
• certain types can induce negative attitudes and others can induce positive
• unconscious process, unaware that it's influencing attitude
• Self-Perception Theory - we infer our internal states from our behavior
• presume behavior is consistent with attitude
• reflect behavior in situation to be mirror image of attitude
• self-perception processes necessary when stimulus is too ambiguous 
• Physical Movement
• Strack's pen experiment
• lip condition(frown) = 4.3 hand condition(neutral) = 4.7 teeth condition(smile) = 5.1 
• act in a certain way and it can carry over into attitude
• Wells and Petty (1980) earphone experiment
• up and down bob head condition emulated agreement and rated earphones more positively
• agreeing mood leads to more positive outlook
• Cacioppo (1993) meaningless word/symbol  experiment
• subjects pressing up rated more favorably
• push toward us what we like
• Embodied Condition - brain and body are deeply intertwined; reciprocal influence
• Thinking evokes bodily states (1)
• brain's thoughts orders body to move
• Bodily states influence thinking (2)
• movement adjusts thought behavior
• Genes---Basic Traits------Attitudes
• genes influence basic traits that play a role in determining attitude

Attitudes as Predictors of Behavior

• LaPiere (1934)
• experiment: traveled with Chinese couple during time of prejudice against Asians.  only refuse service once out of 250 hotels/restaurants;wrote letter to each place to ascertain consistency with encountered behavior
• results: good consistency 92% No
• Wicker came up with personality coefficient as true result
• WHEN are attitudes predictors of behavior?
• Absence of Situational Constraints
• Same Level of Specificity (behavior and attitude) 
• When Attitude is Potent
• Attitude is formed through Direct Experience
• Attitude is assessed Shortly Before Behavior
• For Low Self- Monitors

3/5: Unconscious Biases and Attitude

Accessibility and Priming

• Accessibility - easily retrieved info more  likely to be used
• form impressions, make decisions, guide behavior, social judgment
• toolbox metaphor example: use the tools on top e.g. hammer
• Higgins, Rholes, and Jones (1977) [Accessibility and Priming]
• Memory task- lists of words: priming certain traits e.g. adventurous, reckless
• second experiment- read donald paragraph, about an adventure, and rate on positive characteristics
• affected by priming? answer: yes
• Results: adventurous prime condition = rate more positive
• Bargh,, Chen, and Burrow (1996) [Accessibility and Priming]
• scrambled sentence task; primed condition:polite, rude, or neutral; does subject when done interrupt experimenter's conversation within 10 minutes
• Results- Yes, Priming influences people's behavior. Percent of subjects who interrupted:
• polite 17%
• neutral 38%
• rudeness 69%
• Murphy and Zajnoc (1993) [unseen priming]
• shown Chinese ideographs for 2 seconds ; prior to each one, happy face, angry face, or polygon for 4 milliseconds; rate each on 1-5 scale
• can priming that can't be seen with naked eye influence your behavior?
• Results: YES
• happy - 3.4
• polygon - 3.1
• angry - 2.7
• Holland, Hendriks, and Aarts (2005) [ Conditional Priming]
• complete filler questions in either no smell condition or citrus scent condition(the prime); go to another lab room to eat a biscuit; how clean do people keep the table (rated via hidden camera)
• Results: times you cleaned the crumbs from table
• Citrus scent condition- 3.54
• Control condition - 1.00
• Priming
• What it Cannot do
• implant a thought or action that person would not have done anyway
• What it Can do
• activate the easiest accessibility tool

Attitude

• Attitude- evaluative reaction that are favorable/unfavorable judgments to any stimulus
• Attitude Formation: The Factors
• Mere Exposure
• Basic Learning Processes
• Cognitive Appraisal
• Self Perception
• Physical Movement
• Genetics
• Mere exposure effect- more exposure leads to more positive feelings
• Zajonc (1968)
• 10 Chinese ideographs 2 seconds at time; presented different frequencies; subjects guessed whether they're good or bad meanings
• Results: more times, like more
• Images example: Answer Why = Familiarity
• Self likes Reverse image because used to it
• Others like Straight on image because used to it
• Minority Experiment example [Classical Conditioning]
• Prejudiced parent becomes emotionally upset seeing a minority
• Child then becomes upset because parent is upset
• After repeated encounters, child becomes upset seeing a minority without parent being present
• Observational Conditioning
• witness reward from an act, does the act