Group Decision making

• Brainstorming- group members encouraged to produce as many ideas as possible in uninhibited way
• Cons
• Group < Individual Decision in Brainstorming due to Production blocking
• Production blocking - failure to express ideas due to norm that only 1 talks at a time
• forget own idea when listening
• don't listen to others and blurt own idea that's unheard
• Pros
• People like it
• Creates Cohesion
• Group Polarization - group induced exaggeration of preexisting tendency  
• Group Discussion shifts Group's Normal view-------------> Extreme View 
• Strongest : Important decision
• All agree on preexisting tendency
• How Group Polarization Works
• Social Comparison- want to feel/look good when comparing selves to others
• characterize own view in the extreme = self looks good
• form of Normative influence 
• Mutual Persuasion
• different ways of thinking make view look better
• Groupthink
• Groupthink- group members share such strong motivations to come to a consensus that they lose the ability to think independently 
• Conditions that lead to Groupthink
• Highly Cohesive = group
• Isolated from Contrary opinions
• Ruled by Dominant Leader who is not open to disagreement
• Symptoms of Groupthink
• Invulnerable thinking
• moral high ground, can do no wrong
• Close-mindedness and Collective Rationalization
• Group = Only Feasible position
• Increased Pressure towards Unanimity 
• Self-censorship
• Active discouragement of dissenting statements
• Social Facilitation- Others Present = perform Simple tasks Better
• Difficult tasks = Worse when others present
• example: push-ups
• Social Loafing- Efforts Pooled = Less Effort
• Solution : Individuate people (cameras, coaches, recognition, etc.)
• Deindividuation- Loosening of Constraints = in Group or under Anonymity 
• Example: Mardi Gras ; Celebrate Victory
• Conditions Promoting Deindividuation 
• Anonymity
•  enabler to do things wouldn't do otherwise
• Attention Away from Self
• group situations enable crazy stuff because puts attention away from self
• Johnson and Downing (1979)
• Told task recommend increase or decrease in shock level for confederate
• Two Clothing conditions what Subject wore:
• KKK robe
• Nurse outfit
• Deindividuation conditions:
• Deindividuation = Hood over Face in both clothing conditions
• Control
• Results:
• KKK condition no hood = +.75
• KKK condition hood = +.97
• Nurse condition no hood = -.30
• Nurse condition hood = - 1.6
• Gergen (1973)
• 4 male and 4 female subjects in room for 1 hour
• No rules in room; Won't see others after experiment
• 2 Conditions:
• Control (Lights on)
• Individuation (Lights off)
• Results:
• Touching others: 
• Control = 0%
• Deindividuation = 90%
• Hugging/Kissing :
• Control = 0%
• Deindividuation = 50%

Social Influence (Relationship Problems end)

• Relationship after 1st year on average = deteriorating
• Gottman's "Big 3" Predictors of Relationship Problems
• Verbal contempt- hostility and answering negative emotion with negative emotion
• [normal] "You are insufferable! [normal---> respond angrily]
• Defensiveness- inability to agree with other on anything
• "Yes.. but"
• Stonewalling by husbands- detaches emotionally from other in argument
• anger and no response
• Markman's couple communication skills (just the Gist; don't memorize)
• General
• Relate first then resolve
• Eye contact; smile and nod responsively
• Monitro your own attempts to change too
• Speaker skills
• Express your side as uncritically as possible
• Short statements
• Gripes specific and behavioral
• Polite
• Declarative sentences
• Listener skills
• Edit out typical response; really listen to what other is saying
• don't confuse understanding with agreement
• understanding only happens when wife feels understood
• Clark and Hatfield (1989)
• Experimenter says "I've noticed you around campus, you're very attractive"
• Asks one of three questions
• Will you go out with me tonight?
• Will you go to apartment with me tonight?
• Will you go to bed with me tonight?
• Results (opposite for men and women)
• Male- highest = bed
• Female - highest = go out

Social Influences

• 3 types of Social Influences
• Most Direct = Obedience: A change in behavior due to Commands of others. 
• Middle= Compliance: Yielding to Direct explicit Appeal meant to produce Certain behavior or agreement to particular point of view (influence)
• Most Indirect = Conformity: Brought about by a Desire to follow the beliefs/standards of others
• Milgram's Obedience study
• Study effect of Punishment on Learning
• Heard responses via intercom: ow----owww----heart problem said-------agonizing scream------silence
• Used prompts to keep subject going; 1 level higher per mistake
• Results:
• Prior estimation study:
• Self estimates = 135 volts; none expected >300
• Other estimates = slightly higher than self
• Actual study:
• Only 25% = 300 volts; 63% = 450 volts
• Take home message: People will most likely obey orders that they would not even think of doing normally
• Martin (1976)
• ID people who possess rare ability to hear ultra high frequencies
• Noise apparatus: dial 0-10
• Teahcer = experimenter--told subjects to move dial to next level. hear sound, indicate it (no sound given).
•  No Prods given
• Question: How far do students follow pre-given order
• Results:
• 95%= Level 6; 54% further  = Level 10
• Take home message: Blind obedience = powerful
• Compliance strategies
• Foot-in-the door technique
• Door-in-the-face technique
• That's not all technique
• Lowballing
• Bait and Switch
• Labeling
• Foot-in the door technique - small request, then larger request
• Critical = Yes to first, small request
• Larger 1st = Larger 2nd
• Larger 1st = Less likely Yes
• Freedman and Fraser (1966)
• Asked sign petition for safe driving
• Weeks later, different experimenter asked same people to put huge billboard in their yards (large request). Control = just large request
• Results:
• Agreed to prior small request = 55%
• Not solicited for prior small request = 17%
• Door-in-the-face technique - refusal of larger request, then small request
• Cialdini (1975)
• Asked willing to spend 2 hrs/week over 2 years as "big brothers/sisters" None agreed
• Followed with 2nd request: willing 2 hrs Once taking kids to zoo
• Results:
• Preceding large request = 50%
• No preceding large request = 16%
• That's not all technique: offered deal, then offers an addition
• "buy this and get.."
• Lowballing- initial agreement reached, then adds cost (negative piece of info)
• "I forgot to tell you, you need $ for ___ for the car"
• Identity process - My car; 300 for air conditioner = minor annoyance
• Additional Cost doesn't have much effect compared to Total cost
• Cialdini (1978)
• Two conditions:
• Control - told experiment began 7 AM
• Lowball- agreed to participate for experiment, then says see you at 7 AM
• Results:
• Control = 31% ( less than 1/4 of these showed up)
• Lowball = 56% ( over 1/2 of these showed up)
• Bait and Switch- initial commitment, then product not available, then more costly offer
• Joule (1989)
• participate in interesting study; paid $6
• arrive, told experiment cancelled; told volunteer uninteresting experiment w/ no $
• baseline- tell them before they arrive
• Results:
• Baseline = 15%
• Bait and Switch = 47%
• Labeling - label assigned, Request Consistent with the Label
• ex: profile of someone = voter ; they show up when invited to voting booth
• Exposure to Compliance techniques ------> Resistance to their effectiveness
• Two types of Influence in Conformity
• Informational influence- accepting evidence of reality provided by others from desire to be right
• assume others' interpretations of ambiguous situations are correct and follow suit
• Sherif (1936)
• Autokinetic effect
• Sealed in dark room and asked estimate how much stationary light moved
• Next day returned and said Aloud estimate with 2 others
• Repeated 3rd and 4th day- Group estimation
• Question: Do group members' estimates converge when said aloud?
• Results:
• Convergence
• 1st day - scattered answers
• 2nd day - much convergence
• 3rd day - more convergence
• 4th day - complete agreement
• Publicly and Privately Conforming
• Individually = all at group's converged result
• Normative influence- desire to fulfill others' expectations (often for acceptance)
• situation is not ambiguous; know the answer
• do what others are doing to be accepted/not stand out
• Asch (1955)
• Given unambiguous Line matching/comparison task said right answer aloud
• Two conditions:
• Control condition: answered solo
• Group condition: trial confederates said wrong answer
• Results:
• Control condition= < 1%
• Group condition = 35%
• 75% subjects = incorrect answer at least once
• Factors influencing when people conform
• Group Size
• 1 other person-----> 5 or 6 others much more influence; > 6 doesn't change much
• Cohesiveness of group
• Unanimity of group
• all or nothing
• Status of group members
• higher status, more conformity
• Prior commitment
• changing response after public stating belief rare
• Resisting Conformity
• Reactance - desire to protect/restore one's sense of freedom when one feels it's threatened
• Opposite done of what's told/conformed to do
• Reactance triggered, Conformity fails
• Desire for Uniqueness
• Uncomfortable if Too Similar to everyone else
• e.g. identical twins
• Minority Influence - contrary to what the majority does
• feels rejected by the majority group
• can be "trampled" by majority
• Factors that Affect Minority Influence
• Consistency
• deviation from consistent matter = no more influence
• Confidence
• more likely to have listeners
• Flexible and Open-minded, Not Rigid
• not viewed as close-minded or rigid-----> majority group shuts them down
• Not Too Deviant from the Majority
• someone A Little Ahead of the Curve ; Future Oriented
• Too Deviant = "that's person's out of his mind"
• Originally held Majority view
• most credible; "must see something in other side"
• ear of the majority group member
• Research on Majority and Minority Influence- Sum
• Majority Influence = Public acceptance, Normative
• don't want to face social rejection
• don't deviate from social norms
• Minority Influence = Private acceptance, Informational
• join minority group because you think they know something you and everyone else doesn't
• " I know the truth now; Everyone else are suckers"

4/16-4/18: Attraction

• Factors leading to Attraction
• Proximity
• Reciprocal liking
• Similarity
• Physical attractiveness
• Proximity- people become friends with people that's near their location
• Festinger (1950)
• studied friendship formation in housing complex
• randomly assigned to apartments
• asked to name 3 closest friends in complex
• Results
• 41% next door neighbors = close friends
• 22% two doors down = close friends
• 10% opposite ends of hall = close friends
• Next to 1st floor stairwell = more close friends on 2nd floor
• How = More Contact over time, Like them More (Dislike More)
• Reciprocal liking-  liked by someone, like them (like for like)
• Curtis and Miller (1986)
• "Get acquainted" conversation with confederate
• Allowed to overhear confederate express dislike or liking of subject
• Another, videotaped, conversation
• Results 1(low liking) to 7 (high liking):
• Overheard Dislike = 3.8
• Overheard Like = 5.6
• Similarity- similarities between people lead to liking; birds of a feather flock together
• Similarity-attraction paradigm
• measure attitudes/personality
• form judgment of target person based on limited info: Manipulation- degree info provided is similar to subject's
• similar condition - target person like you
• dissimilar condition- target person opposite of you
• Results 
• more Similarity------> more Attraction
• Reason: Similar person----->Validates our Reasoning
• Two adages: true or false?
• "Opposites attract" - False
• Similarity------>Relationship/Attraction
• "We are attracted to those whose characteristics complement our own" - False
• Similar characteristics >>>complementary
• Physical attractiveness- applies to everyone, every relationship kind, all ages  
• Attraction and physical attractiveness
• Babies reaction to attractive/unattractive masks
• attractive>>>>unattractive
• Mothers of attractive/unattractive
• more playful and attentive with attractive babies
• Blind date 
• physical attractiveness = strongest predictor of liking and wanting another date
• Matching Hypothesis - we're attracted to similarly attractive others
• Research
• Same sex friends
• roommate similar attractiveness---->likely to get along
• Dating
• similar in physical attractiveness-----> date and keep dating
• similar-----> more public affection
• Marriage
• similar in physical attractiveness-----> marry and stay marriage
• Gender Difference in Attraction
• Men: primarily Beauty, also Youth
• Women- Handsomeness, also Wealth, Status, and Older
• Physical Attractiveness Stereotype: physical beauty-----> other positive characteristics
• Perceived to be: more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, socially skilled
• Only truth = Physical attractiveness------>socially skilled
• self-fulfilling prophecy: treated better, easy to respond well
• Downside of Physically Attractive
• more Undesired Sexual Advances
• more Resentment
• people your own gender resent you
• Difficulty Interpreting Positive Feedback "Sucking up stereotype"
• who's sucking up and who's truthful
• Used to advantage- Backfires
• Thornton and Moore (1993)
• Rate own attractiveness
• Two conditions
• model photographs in room
• control
• Question: Do pictures of beautiful people affect ratings
• Results:
• Man: self-rating drops a bit
• Woman: self-rating drops more strongly
• Major (1984)
• Attractive/unattractive subjects write essays
• Told would be evaluated by member of opposite sex
• Two conditions
• Seen 
• Unseen
• Received positive feedback, Rate own work
• Results (1-7): Attractive factor in "sucking up" stereotype; Unattractive does opposite "must like me even in spite of my appearance"
• Attractive seen- 4.1
• Attractive unseen- 5.1
• Unattractive seen - 4.4
• Unattractive unseen - 3.2
• Sigall and Ostrove (1975)
• Mock jurors sentence defendant
• Three defendant conditions:
• Attractive defendant
• Unattractive defendant
• Control
• Two crime conditions
• Burglary
• Swindle (face-to-face use of beauty)
• Results:
• Swindle
• Attractive = 5.45 years
• Unattractive = 4.35 years
• Control = 4.35 years
• Burglary
• Attractive = 2.80 years
• Unattractive = 5.20 years
• Control = 5.10 years
• What do we find attractive in a Face?
• Particular Facial Features
• Both men and women = "Babyface" (Large eyes, Small nose)
• Innocence appearance
• Warmth and nurturing appearance
• Men = Prominent Cheekbones, Large Chin
• Women = High Cheekbones, Narrow Cheeks, Small Chin
• Symmetry
• Average
• Mere Exposure effect - easier on the eyes
• No Extremes of anything even desirable features
• What do we find attractive in a Body?
• Males 
• average weight 
• shoulder:hip ratio forming a "V"
• Females  
• around average weight 
• waist 1/3 of hips
• Evolutionary Perspective on Attraction
• Male preference: healthy, fertile-looking female (pass along quality genes)
• Female preference : strong, dominant-looking male (protect and provide resources)
• Attachment Styles
• Percentage breakdown
• Secure= 56%
• Anxious-ambivalent = 21%
• Avoidant = 23%
• Secure
• Caregivers: warmly responsive to their needs
• showed positive emotions in interactions
• Encourage, not force, exploration
• lets them explore by self and support when needed
• As Adults: trusting of others
• other person will continue provide love and support
• Beliefs about self, others, romantic relationships[Optimistic]
• Self = I'm Likeable
• Others = Goodhearted
• Romantic Relationships = Can Last
• Anxious-ambivalent
• Caregivers: Inconsistent
• preoccupied to notice child's needs
• Overbearing and Intrusive
• Discourage exploration
• As Adults: Fear of Abandonment
• Unfulfilled needs feeling
• Beliefs about self, others, romantic relationships
• Self = doubts, feel i'm hard-to-get-to-know
• Others = few willing to do what it takes to get to know me
• Romantic Relationship= easily fall in/out of love
• Avoidant
• Caregivers: Consistently Distant
• Physically there, Emotionally away
• Force exploration
• As Adults: Protective Detachment
• don't want to get involved with others to protect self
• Beliefs about self, others, relationships
• Self = hard-to-get-to-know
• Others = hard to find someone to love
• Romantic Relationship = Rarely last
• Correlates of Attachment styles
• Secure
• more positive emotions during relationship
• longer relationship
• more adaptiveness 
• least loneliness
• Anxious-ambivalent
• more negative/unstable emotions
• spill all on first date
• shorter duration of relationship
• Avoidant
• more negative emotions (anger, boredom)
• rare believe true love
• greater loneliness
• more distance
• Passionate vs Compassionate Love
• Passionate love- Intense longing for union
• physical/sexual matters
• physiological arousal "butterflies in stomach"
• typically 1st step; can lead into compassionate love
• Compassionate love - Affection and Intimacy feeling
• sometimes, friends----->love connection
• deep connection, deeper than physical
• not as intense/emotionally based
• key to lasting relationship 

4/9-4/11: Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Stereotype -- Cognitive Representation
Prejudice -- Attitude (affective evaluation)
Discrimination-- Action

• Stereotype: cognitive representation that associates a social group with a specific attribute(s) in an oversimplified way
• Don't Agree with Book's definition: Stereotype = belief   
• Prejudice : unjustified negative attitude toward anyone of a particular social group
• Cognitive Sources of Stereotypes
• Social categorization- classifying persons into groups
• Grouping occurs automatically and naturally (heuristic thinking)
• Snap judgments happens inevitably 
• Does harm to social relationships= problem ; Undermine inevitability = solution 
• groups = gender, race, occupation etc.
• In-group/Out-group categorization - Identification, or lack of, with a group 
• In group = group you're in; Out group = group you're not in
• Us vs Them judgment
• Social priming makes one group more usable in particular situations
• Us/Them Biases
• Outgroup homogeneity bias - People of one outgroup are more similar than your ingroup
• "They're all alike" "They all look alike"
• Ingroup-outgroup bias - hold less favorable views of outgroups than ingroups
• Minimal Group Procedure
• Assigned to group on trivial criteria
• blue-eyed people, tails people etc.
• Rate both groups' personality
• Result: Bias toward fellow group members
• Social Identity theory
• All have basic need to maintain/enhance self-esteem (SE)
• Self-esteem influenced by Personal and Social IDs
• Personal - individual accomplishments
• Social -  social group's accomplishments
• Motivated evaluate ingroups more positively than outgroups
• Social Identity research
• Ingroup bias experience----> increased SE
• positive time with ingroup, more SE
• SE threat------> increased ingroup bias
• fail at something, want group to succeed even more to increase SE
• Lower status groups show more ingroup bias
• low SE, more ingroup biasing 
• Birging
• BIRG - Basking In Reflected Glory
• football game study - football game won, much more university colors worn
• Allport and Postman (1947)
• Picture of Black man near White man holding razor shown to white subjects
• Telephone game played; 6th subject desrcibes scene
• Results: Over half the sessions Black man holding the razor
• Racial Bias (Ingroup-outgroup Bias)
• Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1997)
• Scrambled sentence task
• Two conditions: 
• Elderly stereotype - grey, wise, wrinkle, bingo
• Control- thirsty, clean, private
• Timed as walking down hall 
• Elderly stereotype primed = take longer to walk
• Trivial Stereotype findings
• NBA fouls - more called against black players
• Baseball - mixed race pitcher/umpire more likely to call ball
• Stereotype threat - self-confirming fear of validating stereotype
• How it works
• Stereotyped group knows stereotype
• In potential confirming situation, members become anxious
• Anxiety interferes with optimal functioning ends up confirming stereotype
• Stereotype + Anxiety = Stereotyped Behavior
• Like Self-fulfilling prophecy
• Spencer and Steele (1997)
• Woman/men (equal math ability) told given math test
• 2 conditions
• Stereotype threat - noted woman usually underperform
• Control -  noted both groups similar 
• Results:
• Stereotype condition: M = 27  W = 7
• Control condition: M = 18   W= 17
• Steele and Aronson (1995)
• Whites/Blacks told take SAT-like test
• 2 Conditions:
• Stereotype threat - report race 
• Control - no race report
• Results out of 20
• Stereotype Condition: Black = 7.3 White = 9.8
• Control: Black = 9.1 White = 7.3
• Princeton Trilogy [Optimistic position: Stereotypes Changing] (African American traits)
• Superstitious: from 84% to 13%
• Lazy : from 75% to 26%
• Ignorant: from 38% to 11%
• Duncan, 1976 [Pessimistic position: Stereotypes Same]
• Two men conversing, mild spat, one lightly pushes the other
• Conditions: White pushing Black ; Black pushing White
• Question: Is the push playful or violent
• Results(% thought Violent): White = 13% Black = 73%
• Take home message: Duncan thought that people are subconsciously prejudiced as shown in responses
• Devine's  (1989) Dissociation Model
• Stereotypes and Beliefs = different cognitive structures
• Stereotypes = well-known associations that you may/may not believe
• Beliefs = endorsements which you strongly support
• Black stereotype can be Automatically activated
• Stereotype Socialized frequently, becomes part of natural cognitive process
• Behavior for low and high prejudice based on this unless checked (for low prejudice)
• Aware of process -----> Behavior Consistent with Prejudice
• Time and Motivation needed for Awareness and Change
• High prejudice = Stereotypes and Beliefs Overlap
• Prejudice reduction = Long, difficult process
• Adopting Non-prejudice belief
• Aware of Stereotype Activation
• Guilt of prejudice-behavior drives you to not let this happen
• Devine and Elliot, 1995
• Check adjectives (princeton trilogy) representing Black stereotype
• Check adjectives you believe
• Prejudice level measured
• Results:
• Low Prejudice- Stereotypes = prejudiced; Beliefs = Non-prejudiced 
• High Prejudice- Stereotypes = prejudiced; Beliefs = prejudiced
• Message: Stereotype Discrepant from Belief
• Devine (1989)
• Prejudice level measured
• Shown brief flashes- 2 conditions
• Stereotype activation flash
• Control flash
• Rate ambiguous person's hostility
• Results (0-10):
• Stereotype activated = 7.52
• Control = 6.87
• No difference for high/low prejudice = Both affected by Stereotype Activation
• Beliefs don't matter; Activate stereotype, behavior will be accordingly
• Chen and Bargh (1997 [Actual Behavior]
• Brief flashes, asked left/right
• 2 Conditions
• Black face subliminally shown
• White face subliminally shown
• Played verbal game against same-race person; hostility coded
• Results (1-7 scale):
• Black face- 3.1
• White face- 2.7
• Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes
• Subtyping- reacting to people who deviate from a stereotype via creating a sub-stereotype group that's an exception to the stereotype
• keeps stereotype intact
• make a group exceptional to stereotype
• "I'm not prejudiced; Some of my best friends are black"
• Illusory Correlations- overestimating strength of relationship of two unusual events
• Majority groups Few Interactions w/ Minority groups (distinctive event)
• Distinctive Events = Negative events
• Overestimate Co-occurrence of Distinctive Events
• Ultimate Attribution Error- tendency to attribute Behavior of Minority member     Negative = Disposition; Positive  = Situation 
• Stereotype Suppression Effects- Stop Suppression--->Stereotype Rebounds
• intentional avoidance of topic---->stop avoidance------> think about topic
• Macrae study (1994)
• Photo of skinhead shown; write paragraph about day in person's life
• 2 Conditions
• Suppression - told don't use stereotypes
• Control - no instructions
• Meet skinhead; Sit near skinhead; Measure distance
• Results 1-9 writing task; 1-7 distance
• writing task
• suppression = 5.58
• control = 6.83
• distance
• suppression = 5.25
• control = 4.41

Exam 2 Review Session

• * Skim Bolded Material for Ones Not in Lecture
• Instrumental Conditioning = Operant Conditioning
• Embodied Cognition- mind and body deeply intertwined
• thinking causes bodily movement
• bodily states influences thinking
• relates to self-perception
• Self-perception- infer internal states from own behavior
• Confirmatory Bias- people seek info to back up preexisting bias
• Self-fulfilling Prophesy- treat someone the way you think they are, elicit the perceived behavior
• Cognitive Appraisal- make self think decisions were rational
• Dispositional Inference Bias - associate seen behavior to a person's personality that's actually due to a situation
• Fundamental Attribution Error- people act a certain way because that's the way they are, situation not taken into account
• Actor Observer Bias-  What you do is part of your personality, What I do is due to my situation 
• Conjunction Error- assume combo of two events is more likely than two independent events
• Aggression cue- associated with aggression; enhances aggression
• Direct Provocation - eye for an eye, retaliate aggression
• Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance, know all 5
• Change Attitude (easiest)
• tell self that smoking is good
• Change Behavior (hardest)
• stop smoking entirely
• Add Cognitions
• add reasons to justify decisions
• smoking makes me feel good etc.
• Alter Importance
• right now, relaxing more important than potential lung cancer
• Reduced Perceived Choice
• convince self didn't freely choose behavior
• "I have no other choice"
• Central vs Peripheral Route
• Central
• straightforward to the facts approach
• depends on: compelling argument
• Peripheral
• quicker approach
• depends on: compelling peripheral cues
• nice
• emotional
• flashy
• weaker
• less resistant counterargument
• less predictive of actual behavior
• Recipient Double Bind vs Helper Double Bind
• Recipient Double Bind:
• want help to benefit from it
• but know will have to help them later
• affect how people see them inferiority 
• Helper Double Bind
• want to help b/c feel guilty otherwise
• don't want to convey message of superiority
• Impression Management
• want to appear consistent, reduces dissonance
• attitudes don't change
• appearance
• Catharsis vs Displacement
• Catharsis- purge anger
• Displacement- displace anger onto someone 
• Straightness Heuristic- make things tidier/simpler than are
• e.g. San Francisco or Reno, NV which is farther? Think San Francisco b/c in California but really Reno
• When Attitudes are Predictors of Behavior
• Absence of Situational Constraint
• Same Level of Specificity
• Potency of Attitude
• Attitude Formed via Direct Experience
• Attitude Assessed Shortly Before Behavior
• Low Self Monitors
• Attitude at Same Level of Specificity
• More Specific the Event, More Predictor the Attitude
• Mere Exposure - more exposure = like thing more ; doesn't work with something disliked
• Inoculation - continued exposure develops immunity to present argument [Resistance to Persuasion]
• same argument heard over and over, develop effective counterargument 

4/2: Anti-social Behavior

• Aggression: behavior intended to hurt someone against the person's will
• "against person's will" added to original definition
• Two Categories
• Emotional(hostile) vs Instrumental
• two Types
• Direct vs Indirect
• how it's Expressed
• Can be Combined
• Direct Emotional: angry, throws chair at boss
• Indirect Emotional: under cover of night, deflates boss's tires
• Direct Instrumental: robber shoots guard attempting thwart robbery
• Indirect Instrumental: spin slanderous rumor to take someone out of picture
• Emotional aggression: aggression used because mad and wants to hit someone
• most typical form of aggression; malice
• Instrumental aggression: aggression used as means to an end
• no malice; done under obligation mostly
• Direct Aggression: face-to-face aggression experience
• Indirect Aggression: intended to hurt someone behind their back
• Causes of Aggression
• Biology
• Instinct
• predisposition
• Genes
• inheritable
• Neurochemcials- testosterone and serotonin
• former - positive related    latter- negative related
• CON: Not defined specifically enough
• Basic Learning Processes
• Instrumental learning: rewarded for being aggressive
• Observational learning: see someone get rewarded, imitate aggressiveness
• Frustration
• Frustration-aggression hypothesis- aggression always result of frustration
• Frustration - blocking of goal-directed behavior
• Displacement - redirection of aggression
• away from source of frustration, towards acceptable place
• Specific Situational Determinants of Aggression
• Aggression Cues- something associated with aggression
• more likely to aggress if see a gun
• Berkowitz and LePage (1967)
• Grade essays via Shocks
• Conditions:
•  Anger: Other subject said you should get high, 7, number of shocks  
• No Anger: Other subject said you should get only 1 shock
• Assigning shock to other subject. two conditions
• Gun on table = Aggression cue
• Badminton on table
• Critical Question: Angered person give more shocks when Gun is in room?
• Results: Anger, gun: 6.0 Anger, badminton: 4.8
• Message: Anger + Aggression Cue = More/Lead to Aggression
• Heat
• People Lose Cool when it's Hot
• Summer = season with MOST Crime
• Alcohol
• 75%  Crimes involved Alcohol 
• Direct Provocation
• Reciprocation; Eye-for-eye
• Proportionate response encouraged implicit in social culture
• Viewing Violence in TV and Movies
• Violent material
• huge effect
• Non-violent, sexually explicit material
• small effect
• Violent and sexually explicit material
• big effect
• Liebert and Baron (1972)
• watch tv show, play with others ; conditions: violent/nonviolent show
• result: violent show begat violence
• Eron and Huesmann (1984)
• data on amt of violent tv watched at age 8 and 9, aggressiveness rated, collected data on criminal activity 10 years later
• critical question: does tv violence lead to more aggressiveness down the road?
• results: Showed Increase in aggression Relative to kids who didn't watch as much tv
• Zillman and Bryant (1984)
• 36 movies over 6 weeks ; 2 conditions: porn movies, standard movies
• Weeks later, sentence rape defendant in mock trial
• Results: Males/females watched porn: lighter sentence and less support for women ; Males: report more negative attitudes toward women
• How Viewing Violence Promotes Violence
• Imitation
• "that's how you do it" 
• copycat killings
• Disinhibition
• "if they can do it, so can I"
• weakens one's inhibitions toward violence
• possibly related to desensitization
• Desensitization
• "yawn, another brutal beating"
• seen frequently, less concerned reaction
• Attitude Change
• "it's not really that bad"
• violence seems real, attitude toward violence becomes more positive
• Ways to Reduce Aggression
• Catharsis- discharging aggressive energy that continually builds up within
• once aggressive out, no longer there
• does not work, sets in place behavioral actions for later

Exam 2 Instructions

* What to know for exams: 75% exam: Lectures 10%: Overlap from Book 15%: Just Book
Book: Questions on Bolded Concepts that's not in class. Definition and Knowledge of the terms
Dates  Names Know what people: Found, Tested, Content of what's tested

Hoyt Auditorium

Same format