Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
62 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
aggression
|
verbal or phys. behavior meant to hurt or cause harm
2 types: 1. hostile 2. instrumental |
|
hostile agression
|
social
"hot" end goal is to hurt often emotional/unplanned ex: murderers |
|
instrumental aggression
|
means to an end
"cool" terrorism, wars, self defense |
|
3 major theories of aggression
|
1. biological drivers
2. natural response to frustration 3. learned/socialization |
|
aggression then and now
|
sharply increased after the 19th century; 20th was the most violent
|
|
bio. drivers of aggression
|
INSTINCT THEORY/EVOLUTIONARY PSYCH.: aggression is instinct (needed to survive)
--problems: doesn't explain cultural differences, personality, hinsight bias NEUROLOGY: no one spot in brain controls it; MORE aggressive people have LESS activity in the prefrontal cortex GENETICS: bad genes + bad environment are more likely to produce agression BIOCHEMICALS: alcohol and and testosterone increase aggression; low serotonin reduces impulse control |
|
frustration aggression theory
|
frustration = block to goal attainment
displacement: we learn to inhibit direct retaliation and redirect to safer targers REVISED!!!! mixed support EMPHASIS ON DEPREIVATION: arises from gap b/t expectation and attainment |
|
relative deprivation
|
we do not have to be deprived to be frustrated; it occurs from the gap b/t expectations and attainments
we compare ourselves to others |
|
social learning theory (bandura)
|
BANDURA ---> observational learning
vicarious conditioning: learn consequences of actions of others and model behavior accordingly (Bobo doll experiment) sources: -- family: absence of father or abuse from parents can increase aggression -- culture: subcultures, communities, gangs aversive experiences increase emotional arousal rewards and costs lead to anticipating consequences both lead to: dependencey, achievement, aggerssion, body symptoms, using alcohol and drugs to desensitize, constructive problem solving |
|
influences on aggression
|
1. aversive incidents
2. arousal 3. aggression cues 4. media |
|
aversive incident explamples
|
driver for aggression
pain: -- ARZIN'S RATS: shocked, which led to more aggression towards the other animals -- psych. pain: not feeding pigeons their rewards they are trained to get for pecking on a disk -- humans: hand in cold ice water (vs. warm) leads to agression towards people w/ unpleasant voices heat: higher violence in hot weather; riots 1967-1971 on hot days attacks: eye for an eye |
|
arousal
|
driver for agression
bodily arousal feeds emotion depending on how person interprets the arousal SCHACHTER and SINGER: injected men w/ adrenaline; if warned of effects, less likely to aggress spillover: more passionate love after a fight; rollercoaster ride and feelings of love aversive situation leads to arousal which leads to agression |
|
aggression cues
|
driver of arousal
sight of weapon: more electric shocks; children playing toy guns act more violently; primes hostile thoughts |
|
weapons used to commit murder in the US
|
gun are most common by far
people w/ guns in their homes are more likely to be murdered "easier" b/c of their distance in killing |
|
media influences and aggression
|
driver of aggression
television and video games are parallel research 1994-1997: 60% of programs contain violence, often not realistic; 73% of aggressors are not punished; 66% of kid cartoons portray violence as funny TV breeds violence, NOT the other way around -- why? arousal disinhibition imitation |
|
catharsis hypothesis
|
watching violent tv is an outlet for pent up hostility
NOT TRUE violent tv effects behavior and thinking |
|
TV viewing experiments
|
angered college kids reacted more aggressively after violent film than those who did not
when institutional deliquents in belgium were allowed to watch TV, there was a high increase in attacks there people exposed to violent films were more hostile to the researcher |
|
TV and thinking
|
desensitization: less assoc. b/t emotion arousing stim. and actual emotional response; lower arousal in people who watch TV less often
social scripts: action film sequence can applied to real life conflict altered perceptions: heavy viewers are more likely to think violence in the world is frequent and more likely to think they may be assualted cognitive priming: watching violent TV primes agression related idea |
|
videogames and violence
|
increases...
- arousal - aggressive thinking, feelings, behaviors decreases... prosocial behavior overall can increase aggressive personality |
|
group influences on aggression
|
diffusion of responsibility -- increase w/ distance and group size
social contagion -- group fed arousal and polarization (gangs, massacres, etc.) |
|
reducing aggression -- catharsis
|
viewing violence or acting that way DOES NOT produce catharsis
actually usually increases hostility |
|
reducing aggression -- social learning
|
if it is LEARNED, we can UNLEARN it
controlling it by counteracting factors that provoke it -- less violent tv and aggressive acts -- reduce averse stimulation -- reward and model nonaggressive behavior -- illicit reactions other than aggression |
|
altruism
|
doing good deeds for NOTHING IN RETURN
done out of kindness |
|
why we help
|
1. social exchange/social norms
2. evolutionary psych. 3. comparing and evaluating helping theories 4. genuine altruism |
|
social exchange theory
|
we aim to MINIMIZE COSTS and MAX. REWARDS of social interactions
rewards: internal vs. external social norms: reciprocity norm, social responsibility norm, gender differences NO SUCH THING AS TRUE ALTRUISM |
|
internal vs. external rewards
|
int.: doing things for self-worth, self-satisfaction, etc.
-- guilt: painful so we reduce it by trying to help; people are more likely to help if feeling guilty, sad, etc. -- exceptions: self-grief, self-focus ext.: giving to get |
|
happy people and helping
|
happy people are likely to help more ---> especially when happiness turns into relief
helping can soften a bad mood or sustain a good one |
|
social norms
|
we help others b/c WE OUGHT TO
-- reciprocity norm -- social responsibility norm -- gender and receiving help |
|
reciprocity norm
|
a social norm
if people help us, we should help them back definition of social capital -- supportive actions keep a community healthy and happy we are threatened to take help when we cannot return it the cheat, criminal, etc. is universally despised |
|
social responsibility norm
|
when people are clearly dependent and cant reciprocate (ex: kids, the poor, etc.) we do not expect help in return
strongest in collectivist cultures doesnt count if person's misfortune is their own fault |
|
gender and receiving help
|
women are less to receive help
women help men and women equally men help women more than than men help men women are also more likely to seek and accept help reminiscent of indeendence |
|
evolutionary psych.
|
genetic selfishness -- not usually in our nature to help (we are primed to compete for resources) except in the case of...
-- kin protection: parents put their childrens needs 1st since they are likely to pass on genes -- kin selection: favoritism to those who share our genes (ex: twins) |
|
group selection and helping
|
when groups are in competition, groups of supportive altruists outlast groups of nonaltruists
|
|
genuine altruism
|
beyond just avoiding pain; more about "peace of mind"
secure attachment = empathy ( we are sensitive to the feelings of others) -- focus on sufferer -- even primates display this (sharing food/shock experiment) when empathy is aroused, we are more likely to help than escape |
|
path of altruism
|
viewing someones distress --> feeling distressed --> egoistic motivation for reducing own distress --> helping to reduce own distress (negative)
viewing another's distress --> feeling empathy --> altrusistic motivation to reduce ditress of the other person --> helping to reduce other person's distress (positive) |
|
when we are most likely to help
|
when more people are around (noticing, interpretting, assuming responsibility)
when someone else does when person is similar when we are under less time pressure |
|
kitty genovese
|
attacked in apt. buidling; 38 people heard, but no one called helped
police were called much later when attacker had time to return and kill her |
|
bystander effect
|
when people are around, we are less likely to help
-- less likely when fighting w/ spouse than w/ stranger # of people: as # increases, likelihood of helping decreases -- noticing: more stimuli when more people are around, harder to notice people need help -- interpretting: we use others as cues to interpret event >> illusion of transpancy (worrying others will notice you losing your cool) >> ignorant that others are as worried as we are -- assumed responsbility: diffusion of it; we think someone else is more likely to respond; |
|
WHO will help?
|
-- mother theresa types: there are individual differences in helpfulness (positive emotions, empathy, self efficacy)
-- interaction w/ personality and situation -- men are morel likely to help in dangerous situations, women are more likely to help in nondangerous situations -- religion |
|
decision tree
|
see slides
|
|
increasing helping
|
1. reduce ambiguity, increase responsbility: interpret decision correctly, and assume responsbility (decision tree)
-- personal appeals most effective -- more likely to help when you see victim face to face 2. guilt and concern for self image: when chastized, more likely to help (door in face, zoo sign) 3 socializing altruism: -- teaching more inclusion: including people who differ from self; less ingroup/outgroup bias -- modeling altruism: ex. - mr. roger's neighborhood -- learn by doing: more helping experiences create positive self schemas |
|
coflict
|
perceived incompatability w/ actions and goals
many levels (w/in self, b/t 2 people, b/t groups, etc.) |
|
peace
|
low levels of hostility and agression
mutually beneficial relationships outcome of creatively managed conflict |
|
what creates conflict?
|
1. social dilemmas
2. competition 3. perceived injustice 4. misperception |
|
social dilemmas
|
multiple parties pursue only their own self interest
invidual self interst over communal well being |
|
prisoners dilemma
|
game example
see slides 2 choices: confess of deny best for individual: confess while the other remains silent (one gets a long sentence, the other goes free) best for group: both stay silent (both have smaller sentences) |
|
tradgedy of the commons
|
social delimma that involves 2 + parties
commons = air, water, any shared resource >> can be tradedy if everyone uses more than moderation immediate gratifaction comes at the expense of LT well being |
|
similartities b/t game strategies and lfie
|
temps people to commit FAE -- explaining their behaviors sitautionally and their partner's behavior dispositionally
motives change non-zero sum games are realisitc |
|
resolving social dilemmas
|
REGULATION to prevent social loafing and everyone getting a fair share
SMALL GROUPS to increase responsibility COMMUNICATION increases cooperation and distrust CHANGE PAYOFFS to increase rewards for cooperation APPEAL TO ALTRUISTIC NORMS |
|
competition
|
cause of conflict
competing for limited resources |
|
sherif's robber's cave
|
3 wk. summer camps
splitting boys who dont know eachother into 2 groups groups were split up for a week to do team building acts, then asked to compete in cometition chaos ensued |
|
perceived injustice
|
cause of conflict
my outcomes/inputs = you outcomes/inputs those w/ power convince themselves and those under them that they deserve what they get advantaged group may feel guilty, but tries to justify disadvantaged group: accepts, retaliates, or demands compenation |
|
misconception
|
cause of conflict
perceived incompatability -- over-exaggeration can cause it self-serving bias leads to FAE in groups; groups polarize tendencies and form stereotypes on outgroup |
|
types of misconception
|
mirror image perceptions: 2 sides have clashing perceptions; at least 1 misperceives the other, and self-fulfilling prophecy occurs (us vs. them)
simplistic thinking: rational thinking is hard in tense situations ; more stereotyping and ingroup bias shifting perceptions: perceptions change in times of peace |
|
how to achieve peace
|
contact: can be good or bad >> usually decreases prejudice (desegregation)
cooperation: contact on its own is not enough, cooperation is needed |
|
aspects of cooperation
|
common ext. threats: threats can build group cohesiveness
subordinate goals: goals that require everyone's participation cooperation learning and racial attitudes: students who participate in coop activities (teams, projects, etc.) have more friends of different races and pos. attitudes towards other races group and subordinate identities: being mindful of identities that are shared w/ other groups |
|
sherif study on cooperation
|
cont. from study on conflict; groups became more peaceful when dealing with shared problems
|
|
bargaining
|
toughness -- those who demand more often get more
negotitators often end up w/ lose lose agreement that is costly to both parties |
|
mediation
|
turning win-lose into win-win
needs to be trust b/t parties, and if not there should be a mediator controlled communiation |
|
arbitration
|
more then just mediation
mediator imposes a settlement if people no arbitration may happen they will try harder to fix problem costly final offer arbitration: 3rd party chooses one of 2 final offers |
|
conciliation
|
those who are 100% cooperative are usually exploited
|
|
GRIT
|
grad. and reciprocated incentives in tension reduction
|