Managerial Psychology Reviews PDF

The Reviews of Managerial Psychology Learning zrelatively permanent change in an organism’s behavior due to experience Is Is Acquired Involves Relatively Through Change Permanent Experience...

The Reviews of Managerial Psychology Learning zrelatively permanent change in an organism’s behavior due to experience Is Is Acquired Involves Relatively Through Change Permanent Experience 2-2 Association § We learn by association § Our minds naturally connect events that occur in sequence § Aristotle 2000 years ago § John Locke and David Hume 200 years ago § Associative Learning § learning that two events occur together § two stimuli § a response and its consequences Classical Conditioning § Classical Conditioning § organism comes to associate two stimuli § a neutral stimulus that signals an unconditioned stimulus begins to produce a response that anticipates and prepares for the unconditioned stimulus Classical Conditioning § Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS) § stimulus that unconditionally--automatically and naturally--triggers a response § Unconditioned Response (UCR) § unlearned, naturally occurring response to the unconditioned stimulus § salivation when food is in the mouth Classical Conditioning § Conditioned Stimulus (CS) § originally irrelevant stimulus that, after association with an unconditioned stimulus, comes to trigger a conditioned response § Conditioned Response (CR) § learned response to a previously neutral conditioned stimulus The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions zPositive emotions also provide spark for changes in cognitive activity that an lead to newer and more adaptive Thought actions tendencies. yPeople behave in specific ways because they have learned to associate certain cognitive activities or ways of thinking with certain actions. 1. Operant Conditioning 2. Social Learning Theory Operant Conditioning § Operant Conditioning § type of learning in which behavior is strengthened if followed by reinforcement or diminished if followed by punishment § Law of Effect § Thorndike’s principle that behaviors followed by favorable consequences become more likely, and behaviors followed by unfavorable consequences become less likely Operant Conditioning § Operant Behavior § operates (acts) on environment § produces consequences § Respondent Behavior § occurs as an automatic response to stimulus § behavior learned through classical conditioning Operant Conditioning: Social-Learning Theory zBased on the idea that people can also learn indirectly: by observation, reading, or just hearing about someone else’s – a model’s – experiences. ——Bandura  Social-Learning Theory zKey Concepts: yAttentional processes xMust recognize and pay attention to critical features to learn. yRetention processes xModel’s actions must be remembered to be learned. yMotor reproduction processes xWatching the model’s behavior must be converted to doing. yReinforcement processes xPositive incentives motivate learners. 2-11 zWe learn about products by observing others’ behavior.  Operant Conditioning zKey Concepts: yConditioned behavior: voluntary behavior that is learned, not reflexive. yReinforcement: the consequences of behavior which can increase or decrease the likelihood of behavior repetition. yPleasing consequences increase likelihood of repetition. yRewards are most effective immediately after performance. yUnrewarded/punished behavior is unlikely to be repeated. 2-13 Shaping: A Managerial Tool Systematically reinforcing each successive step that moves an individual closer to the desired response. zFour Methods of Shaping Behavior: yPositive reinforcement xProviding a reward for a desired behavior (learning) yNegative reinforcement xRemoving an unpleasant consequence when the desired behavior occurs (learning) yPunishment xApplying an undesirable condition to eliminate an undesirable behavior (“unlearning”) yExtinction xWithholding reinforcement of a behavior to cause its cessation (“unlearning”) Shaping: A Managerial Tool Systematically reinforcing each successive step that moves an individual closer to the desired response. zFour Methods of Shaping Behavior: yPositive reinforcement xProviding a reward for a desired behavior (learning) yNegative reinforcement xRemoving an unpleasant consequence when the desired behavior occurs (learning) yPunishment xApplying an undesirable condition to eliminate an undesirable behavior (“unlearning”) yExtinction xWithholding reinforcement of a behavior to cause its cessation (“unlearning”) Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory zAn individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. yHigher efficacy is related to: xGreater confidence xGreater persistence in the face of difficulties xBetter response to negative feedback (work harder) Increased Confidence Given Hard Goal Higher Performance Higher Self-Set Goal 7-16 Attachment Theory zInfants need a “secure base” (i.e. are able to trust) their primary caregiver yA Secure Attachment leads to subsequent healthy development yAn Insecure Attachment leads to unhealthy development zAttachment style affects relationships throughout life Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos Attachment Theory Secure base: A responsive caregiver provides security to explore the environment – If the caregiver’s responses to the child’s needs are appropriate, then the child will feel confident to explore a strange environment, occasionally returning to the caregiver for confirmation – If the caregiver’s responses to the child are inappropriate, the child becomes insecure and are less likely to use the caregiver as a base for exploring a strange environment Caregiver – Typically the infant’s mother – May include others who respond to an infant’s needs Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos Attachment Styles z Securely Attached: Belief that the caregiver will protect and provide for them yExplores the environment with the parent yMight protest separation from parent but smiles more often when the parent is present yShows pleasure at reunion with parent y65% of middle-class American infants z Insecure-Avoidant: Belief that the caregiver will not protect or provide. The caregiver is not a safe haven in stressful circumstances yDoes not protest at parent’s departure yResponds the same to the stranger and the parent, or more positively to the stranger yAvoid parent upon return y20% of middle-class American infants Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos Attachment Styles Insecure-Resistant: Uncertainty about whether the parent will protect or provide safety in stressful circumstances – Remain close to parent. Refuse to explore the new environment – Distressed at separation of parent – Mixture of approach and avoidance when reunited – 10% of middle-class American infants Disorganized or Disoriented: No consistent way of dealing with the stress – Exhibits contradictory behavior at the strange situation – Typical attachment style when the infant is abused or neglected – Less than 5% of middle-class American infants Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos  Implications of Attachment Theory for Education Parents need to be sensitive to their infants’ needs. Parents need to provide a stable home environment for their children If children are not functioning well in school, the first problem to investigate is their home life. Any caring, stable adult can provide a secure attachment for a needy child Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos  There is a hierarchy of five needs. As each need is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. Assumptions Self-Actualization Higher Order Esteem yIndividuals cannot move to the next Internal higher level until Social all needs at the current (lower) Lower Order Safety level are satisfied External Physiological yMust move in hierarchical order  Alderfer’s ERG Theory Developing base on Maslow’s theory, a reworking of Maslow to fit empirical research. zThree groups of core needs: y Existence (Maslow: physiological and safety) y Relatedness (Maslow: social and status) y Growth (Maslow: esteem and self-actualization) zRemoved the hierarchical assumption yPeople can be motivated by all three at once y If the higher level needs are not satisfied, people will move back to lower level needs and this lower level needs become more stronger than before. zPopular but not accurate theory 6-23 Learned Helplessness zLearned helplessness is a mental state in which an organism forced to endure aversive stimuli, or stimuli that are painful or otherwise unpleasant, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are escapable, presumably because it has learned that it cannot control the situation Affect, Emotions and Moods Affect A broad range of emotions that people experience Emotions Moods Intense feelings Feelings that tend that are directed at to be less intense someone or than emotions and something that lack a 4-25 contextual stimulus James-Lange Theory of Emotion § Experience of emotion is awareness of physiological responses to emotion- arousing stimuli Sight of Pounding Fear oncoming heart (emotion) car (arousal) (perception of stimulus) Cannon-Bard Theory of Emotion Pounding heart § Emotion-arousing (arousal) Sight of stimuli simultaneously oncoming car trigger: (perception of stimulus) § physiological responses Fear § subjective experience (emotion) of emotion  Schachter’s Two-Factor Theory of Emotion Pounding heart § To experience (arousal) Sight of Fear emotion one oncoming (emotion) car must: (perception of stimulus) § be physically aroused Cognitive § cognitively label label the “I’m afraid” arousal Emotional Labor An individual’s expression of organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions at daily life. zEmotional Dissonance: yEmployees have to project one emotion while simultaneously feeling another yCan be very damaging and lead to burnout Emotional Labor An individual’s expression of organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions at daily life. zTypes of Emotions: yFelt: the individual’s actual emotions yDisplayed: required or appropriate emotions xSurface Acting: displaying appropriately but not feeling those emotions internally xDeep Acting: changing internal feelings to match display rules - very stressful  Affective Events Theory zAn event in the work environment triggers positive or negative emotional reactions yPersonality and mood determine response intensity yEmotions can influence a broad range of work variables Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education 4-31 Implications of AET 1. An emotional episode is actually the result of a series of emotional experiences triggered by a single event 2. Current and past emotions affect job satisfaction 3. Emotional fluctuations over time create variations in job performance 4. Emotion-driven behaviors are typically brief and variable 5. Both negative and positive emotions can distract workers and reduce job performance z Emotions provide valuable insights about behavior z Emotions, and the minor events that cause them, should not be ignored at work; they accumulate  Emotional Intelligence (EI) zA person’s ability to: yBe self-aware xRecognizing own emotions when experienced yDetect emotions in others yManage emotional cues and information zEI plays an important role in job performance zEI is controversial and not wholly accepted yCase for EI: xIntuitive appeal; predicts criteria that matter; is biologically-based. yCase against EI: xToo vague a concept; can’t be measured; its validity is suspect. zEmotional Intelligence is a person’s ability to yPerceive emotions in the self and others. yUnderstand the meaning of these emotions. yRegulate one’s emotions accordingly in a cascading model.  Contrast the Evidence For and Against the Existence of Emotional Intelligence Contrast the Evidence For and Against the Existence of Emotional Intelligence zEI is controversial and not wholly accepted. yThe case for EI xIntuitive appeal. xPredicts criteria that matter. xIs biologically-based. Contrast the Evidence For and Against the Existence of Emotional Intelligence zEI is controversial and not wholly accepted. yThe case against EI xResearchers do not agree on definitions – too vague as a concept. xCan’t be measured. xIs nothing but personality with a different label. Identify Strategies for Emotion Regulation and Their Likely Effects zEmotion regulation involves identifying and modifying the emotions you feel. yEffective emotion regulation techniques include: xAcknowledging rather than suppressing emotional responses to situations. xRe-evaluating events after they occur. xVenting. zChanging your emotions takes effort, and this effort can be exhausting. Errors and Biases in Attributions zSelf-Serving Bias yThe tendency for individuals to attribute their own successes to internal factors while putting the blame for failures on external factors yIt is “our” success but “their” failure 5-39 Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others zSelective Perception yPeople selectively interpret what they see on the basis of their interests, background, experience, and attitudes Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others zHalo Effect yDrawing a general impression about an individual on the basis of a single characteristic Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others zContrast Effects yEvaluation of a person’s characteristics that are affected by comparisons with other people recently encountered who rank higher or lower on the same characteristics Frequently Used Shortcuts in Judging Others zProjection yAttributing one’s own characteristics to other people Personality Structure § Id § contains a reservoir of unconscious psychic energy § strives to satisfy basic sexual and aggressive drives § operates on the pleasure principle, demanding immediate gratification Personality Structure § Superego § the part of personality that presents internalized ideals § provides standards for judgement (the conscience) and for future aspirations Personality Structure § Ego § the largely conscious, “executive” part of personality § mediates among the demands of the id, superego, and reality § operates on the reality principle, satisfying the id’s desires in ways that will realistically bring pleasure rather than pain The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator zMost widely used instrument in the world. Sociable Extroverted Introverted Quiet and and (E) (I) Shy Assertive Unconscio Practical Sensing (S) Intuitive (N) us and Processes Orderly Uses Values Use Thinking Feeling (F) (T) & Emotions Reason and Logic Want Judging (J) Perceiving Flexible (P) and Order & Spontaneo Structure us The Big Five Model of Personality Dimensions zOpenness yThis trait features characteristics such as imagination and insight. People who are high in this trait also tend to have a broad range of interests. They are curious about the world and other people and eager to learn new things and enjoy new experiences. yPeople who are high in this trait tend to be more adventurous and creative. People low in this trait are often much more traditional and may struggle with abstract thinking. The Big Five Model of Personality Dimensions zConscientiousness yStandard features of this dimension include high levels of thoughtfulness, good impulse control, and goal-directed behaviors. Highly conscientious people tend to be organized and mindful of details. They plan ahead, think about how their behavior affects others, and are mindful of deadlines.  The Big Five Model of Personality Dimensions zExtraversion yExtraversion (or extroversion) is characterized by excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional expressiveness. People who are high in extraversion are outgoing and tend to gain energy in social situations. Being around other people helps them feel energized and excited. yPeople who are low in extraversion (or introverted) tend to be more reserved and have to expend energy in social settings. Social events can feel draining and introverts often require a period of solitude and quiet in order to "recharge."  The Big Five Model of Personality Dimensions zAgreeableness yThis personality dimension includes attributes such as trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial behaviors. People who are high in agreeableness tend to be more cooperative while those low in this trait tend to be more competitive and sometimes even manipulative.  The Big Five Model of Personality Dimensions zNeuroticism yNeuroticism is a trait characterized by sadness, moodiness, and emotional instability. Individuals who are high in this trait tend to experience mood swings, anxiety, irritability, and sadness. Those low in this trait tend to be more stable and emotionally resilient. Stress Appraisal Appraisal Response Threat (“Yikes! This is Panic, freeze up beyond me!”) Stressful event (tough math test) Challenge (“I’ve got to apply Aroused, focused all I know”)  Life events Personal appraisal Challenge Threat Personality type Easy going Hostile Nondepressed Depressed Optimistic Pessimistic Personality habits Nonsmoking Smoking Regular exercise Sedentary Good nutrition Poor nutrition Level of social support Close, enduring Lacking Tendency toward Health Illness 非暴力沟通模式总结 1. 诚实表达自己，不批评、论断、指责。 1.1 观察：我所观察（看、听、想）到的有助于（无助于）我的福祉的具 体行为。 z“当我看（听、想、回忆到的）......” 1.2 感受：对于这些行为，我有什么样的感受（情感而非思想）。 z“我感到.......” 1.3 需要：什么样的需要或价值（非偏好或某种具体的行为）导致我产生 那样的感受。 z“因为我需要/看重.......” 1.4 请求：清楚的请求（非命令）那些能让我感到生活美好的具体行为。 z“你是否愿意......?” 非暴力沟通模式总结 2. 关切的倾听他人，而不解读为批评或指责。 1.1 观察：你所观察（看、听、想）到的有助于（无助于）他人的福祉的具体行 为。 z“当你看（听、想、回忆到的）......” 1.2 感受：对于这些行为，他人有什么样的感受（情感而非思想）。 z“你感到.......吗？” 1.3 需要：什么样的需要或价值（非偏好或某种具体的行为）导致他人产生那样 的感受。 z“因为你需要/看重.......” 1.4 请求：清楚的请求（非命令）那些能让他人感到生活美好的具体行为。 z“所以，你想......?” Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  The Mere Presence of Others  Social facilitation  Strengthening of dominant responses whether correct or incorrect in the presence of others.  Boosts performance on easy tasks.  Impairs performance on difficult tasks. Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  The Mere Presence of Others  Social facilitation Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  The Mere Presence of Others  Social facilitation  The effects of social Arousal  Studies of more than a quarter million college and professional athletic events worldwide reveal that home teams win approximately 6 in 10 games (some what fewer for baseball and football, somewhat more for basketball and soccer, but consistently more than half [ Table 8.1 ]). The home advantage may, however, also stem from the players’ familiarity with their home environment, less travel fatigue, feelings of dominance derived from territorial control, or increased team identity when cheered by fans (Zillmann & Paulus, 1993).  Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Crowding: The Presence of Many Others  The effect of others’ presence increases with their number (Jackson & Latané, 1981; Knowles, 1983). Sometimes the arousal and self-conscious attention created by a large audience interferes even with well-learned, automatic behaviors, such as speaking.  Given extreme pressure, we’re vulnerable to “choking.” Stutterers tend to stutter more in front of larger audiences than when speaking to just one or two people (Mullen, 1986).  Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Crowding: The Presence of Many Others  Effect of others’ presence increases with their number.  Being in a crowd intensifies positive or negative reactions.  Enhances arousal. Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  What you do well, you will be energized to do best in front of others (unless you become hyperaroused and self-conscious).  What you find difficult may seem impossible in the same circumstances? What is it about other people that creates arousal?  Evidence supports three possible factors (Aiello & Douthitt, 2001; Feinberg & Aiello, 2006):  evaluation apprehension  distraction  mere presence Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  Evaluation apprehension  To test whether evaluation apprehension exists, Cottrell and his associates (1968) blindfolded observers, supposedly in preparation for a perception experiment.  In contrast to the effect of the watching audience, the mere presence of these blindfolded people did not boost well-practiced responses.  Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  Evaluation apprehension  Other experiments confirmed Cottrell’s conclusion: The enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think they are being evaluated.  In one experiment, individuals running on a University of California at Santa Barbara jogging path sped up as they came upon a woman seated on the grass— if she was facing them rather than sitting with her back turned (Worringham & Messick, 1983). Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  Driven by distraction  Glenn Sanders, Robert Baron, and Danny Moore (1978; Baron, 1986) carried evaluation apprehension a step further. They theorized that when we wonder how coactors are doing or how an audience is reacting, we become distracted.  This conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task overloads our cognitive system, causing arousal. We are “driven by distraction.” This arousal comes not just from the presence of another person but even from a nonhuman distraction, such as bursts of light. Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  Mere presence  Can be arousing even when we are not evaluated or distracted.  Zajonc, however, believes that the mere presence of others produces some arousal even without evaluation apprehension or arousing distraction.  Recall that facilitation effects also occur with nonhuman animals. This hints at an innate social arousal mechanism common to much of the zoological world. (Animals probably are not consciously worrying about how other animals are evaluating them.)  At the human level, most runners are energized when running with someone else, even one who neither competes nor evaluates. Social Facilitation: How Are We Affected by the Presence of Others?  Why Are We Aroused in the Presence of Others?  Mere presence Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Social Loafing  Tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable. Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Social Loafing  They observed that the noise produced by six people shouting or clapping “as loud as you can” was less than three times that produced by one person alone. Like the tug-of-war task, however, noisemaking is vulnerable to group inefficiency. Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group? Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Many Hands Make Light Work  Effort decreases as group size increases  Free riders  People who benefit from the group but give little in return.  In the group condition, people were tempted to free-ride on the group effort. Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Social Loafing in Everyday Life  People in groups loaf less when the task is  Challenging  Appealing  Rewards are significant  Involving  Team spirit  Friendship Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Social Loafing in Everyday Life  People in groups loaf less when the task is  Challenging, Appealing, and Involving  On challenging tasks, people may perceive their efforts as indispensable. When people see others in their group as unreliable or as unable to contribute much, they work harder.  But, in many situations, so do less capable individuals as they strive to keep up with others’ greater productivity.  Adding incentives or challenging a group to strive for certain standards also promotes collective effort.  Group members will work hard when convinced that high effort will bring rewards. Social Loafing: Do Individuals Exert Less Effort in a Group?  Social Loafing in Everyday Life  People in groups loaf less when the task is  Friendship  Groups also loaf less when their members are friends or they feel identified with or indispensable to their group. Even just expecting to interact with someone again serves to increase effort on team projects. Collaborate on a class project with others whom you will be seeing often and you will probably feel more motivated than you would if you never expected to see them again. Cohesiveness intensifies effort. Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Group Polarization  Group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies; a strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not a split within the group.  The group decisions were usually riskier. Dubbed the “risky shift phenomenon,” this finding set off a wave of group risk-taking studies.  These revealed that risky shift occurs not only when a group decides by consensus; after a brief discussion, individuals, too, will alter their decisions. Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Group Polarization  Group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies; a strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not a split within the group. Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  “Risky Shift” Phenomenon  Occurs not only when a group decides by consensus; after a brief discussion, individuals, too, will alter their decisions  Juries  Business committees  Military organizations  Teen drivers  Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Do Groups Intensify Opinions?  Group polarization experiments Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Do Groups Intensify Opinions?  Group polarization in everyday life  Schools  Accentuation effect  Communities  Self-segregation  Internet  E-mail, blogs, and electronic chat rooms offer a potential new medium for like-minded people to find one another and for group interaction that increases social fragmentation and polarization.  Terrorists organizations Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Explaining Polarization  Informational influence  According to the best-supported explanation, group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favor the dominant viewpoint.  Some discussed ideas are common knowledge to group members people hear relevant arguments without learning the specific stands other people assume, they still shift their positions. Arguments, in and of themselves, matter.  “IF YOU HAVE AN APPLE AND I HAVE AN APPLE AND WE EXCHANGE APPLES, THEN YOU AND I WILL STILL EACH HAVE ONE APPLE. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA AND I HAVE AN IDEA AND WE EXCHANGE THESE iDEAS, THEN EACH OF US WILL HAVE TWO IDEAS.” —ATTRIBUTED TO GEORGE BERNARD SHAW (1856–1950) Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Explaining Polarization  Informational influence  Active participation  Active participation in discussion produces more attitude change than does passive listening. Participants and observers hear the same ideas, but when participants express them in their own words, the verbal commitment magnifies the impact. The more group members repeat one another’s ideas, the more they rehearse and validate them (Brauer & others, 1995). Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Explaining Polarization  Normative influence  Social comparison  A second explanation of polarization involves comparison with others. As Leon Festinger (1954) argued in his influential theory of social comparison, we humans want to evaluate our opinions and abilities by comparing our views with others’. We are most persuaded by people in our “reference groups”— groups we identify with.  Moreover, wanting people to like us, we may express stronger opinions after discovering that others share our views. Group Polarization: Do Groups Intensify Our Opinions?  Explaining Polarization  Normative influence  Pluralistic ignorance （人众无知）  A false impression of what most other people are thinking or feeling, or how they are responding. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Groupthink  Mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Groupthink  Janis believed those blunders were bred by the tendency of decision- making groups to suppress dissent in the interest of group harmony, a phenomenon he called groupthink. (See “The Inside Story: Irving Janis on Groupthink.”) In work groups, camaraderie boosts productivity (Mullen & Copper, 1994).  Moreover, team spirit is good for morale. But when making decisions, close-knit groups may pay a price. Janis believed that the soil from which groupthink sprouts includes  an amiable, cohesive group.  relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints.  a directive leader who signals what decision he or she favors. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Symptoms of Groupthink  Following lead group members to overestimate their group’s might and right  Illusion of invulnerability  The groups Janis studied all developed an excessive optimism that blinded them to warnings of danger.  Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality  Group members assume the inherent morality of their group and ignore ethical and moral issues. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Symptoms of Groupthink  Following leads group members to become closed- minded  Rationalization  The groups discount challenges by collectively justifying their decisions.  Stereotyped view of opponent  Participants in these groupthink tanks consider their enemies too evil to negotiate with or too weak and unintelligent to defend themselves against the planned initiative. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Symptoms of Groupthink  Following leads group to feel pressure toward uniformity  Conformity pressure  Group members rebuffed those who raised doubts about the group’s assumptions and plans, at times not by argument but by personal sarcasm.  Self-censorship  Since disagreements were often uncomfortable and the groups seemed in consensus, members withheld or discounted their misgivings. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions?  Symptoms of Groupthink  Following leads group to feel pressure toward uniformity  Illusion of unanimity  Self-censorship and pressure not to puncture the consensus create an illusion of unanimity. What is more, the apparent consensus confirms the group’s decision.  Mindguards  Some members protect the group from information that would all into question the effectiveness or morality of its decisions. Groupthink: Do Groups Hinder or Assist Good Decisions? What Is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?  Defining Prejudice  Prejudice is negative attitude.  Preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members.  Supported by stereotypes  The negative evaluations that mark prejudice often are supported by negative beliefs, called stereotypes.  Beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people. What Is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?  Defining Prejudice  Discrimination  Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or its members.  Racism  Prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race.  Sexism  Prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given sex. What Is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?  Racial Prejudice  Subtle forms of prejudice  Labor market discrimination  Patronization  Avoiding criticisms  Overpraising accomplishments  For example, Kent Harber (1998) gave White students at Stanford University a poorly written essay to evaluate. When the students thought the writer was Black, they rated it higher than when they were led to think the author was White, and they rarely offered harsh criticisms. The evaluators, perhaps wanting to avoid the appearance of bias, patronized the Black essayists with lower standards. What Is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?  Gender Prejudice  Gender stereotypes  Strong gender stereotypes exist.  Members of the stereotyped group accept the stereotypes.  Most believe that men and women are different yet equal. What Is the Nature and Power of Prejudice?  Gender Prejudice  Sexism: Benevolent and hostile  Attitudes toward women have changed rapidly.  Most see women as understanding, kind, and helpful.  Gender discrimination  Disappearing in democratic Western countries.  Non-Western countries gender bias is still strong. What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Social Inequalities: Unequal Status and Prejudice  Social dominance orientation  Motivation to have one’s group dominate other social groups.  Being in a dominant high-status position tends to promote this orientation and justification.  What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Socialization  Authoritarian personality  A personality that is disposed to favor obedience to authority and intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status.  Ethnocentricity  Believing in the superiority of one’s own ethnic and cultural group, and having a corresponding disdain for all other groups. What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Socialization  Ethnocentricity: Believing in the superiority of one’s own ethnic and cultural group, and having a corresponding disdain for all other groups. What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Socialization  Religion and prejudice  In almost every country, leaders invoke religion to sanctify the present order.  Use of religion to support injustice helps explain a pair of findings concerning North American Christianity.  White church members express more racial prejudice than nonmembers  Those professing traditional or fundamentalist Christian beliefs express more prejudice than those professing more progressive beliefs. What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Socialization  Conformity  If prejudice is socially accepted, many people will follow the path of least resistance and conform to the fashion.  If prejudice is not deeply ingrained in personality, then as fashions change and new norms evolve, prejudice can diminish. What Are the Social Sources of Prejudice?  Institutional Supports  Government  Schools  Magazines and newspapers  Face-ism: facial prominence  Films and television What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?  Frustration and Aggression: The Scapegoat Theory  Displaced aggression  When the cause of our frustration is intimidating or unknown, we often redirect our hostility. This phenomenon of “displaced aggression” may have contributed to the lynchings of African Americans in the South after the Civil War.  Realistic group conflict theory  The theory that prejudice arises from competition between groups for scarce resources.  What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?  Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior to Others  The “we” aspect of our self-concept; the part of our answer to “Who am I?” that comes from our group memberships  We categorize: We find it useful to put people, ourselves included, into categories. To label someone as a Hindu, a Scot, or a bus driver is a shorthand way of saying some other things about the person.  We identify: We associate ourselves with certain groups (our ingroups ) and gain self-esteem by doing so.  We compare: We contrast our groups with other groups (outgroups), with a favorable bias toward our own group. What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?  Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior to Others  Ingroup bias  The tendency to favor one’s own group.  Because of our social identifications, we conform to our group norms.  When our group succeeds, we feel better by identifying strongly with it.  ingroup  “Us”—a group of people who share a sense of belonging, a feeling of common identity.  outgroup  “Them”—a group that people perceive as distinctively different from or apart from their ingroup. What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice? What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?  Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior to Others  Need for status, self-regard, and belonging  Terror management  According to “terror management theory,” people’s self- protective emotional and cognitive responses (including adhering more strongly to their cultural worldviews and prejudices) when confronted with reminders of their mortality. What Are the Motivational Sources of Prejudice?  Motivation to Avoid Prejudice  Motivation to avoid prejudice can lead people to modify their thoughts an actions  Self-conscious people will feel guilt and try to inhibit their prejudicial response. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Categorization: Classifying People into Groups  Spontaneous categorization  Social identity theory implies that those who feel their social identity keenly will concern themselves with correctly categorizing people as us or them.  pressed for time (Kaplan & others, 1993).  preoccupied (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991).  tired (Bodenhausen, 1990).  emotionally aroused (Esses & others, 1993b; Stroessner & Mackie, 1993).  too young to appreciate diversity (Biernat, 1991). What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Categorization: Classifying People into Groups  Categorization is necessary for prejudice.  Perceived similarities and differences  Outgroup homogeneity effect  Perception of outgroup members as more similar to one another than are ingroup members. Thus “they are alike; we are diverse.”  “理工男”、“南方人or北方人”  In general, the greater our familiarity with a social group, the more we see its diversity. The less our familiarity, the more we stereotype. Also, the smaller and less powerful the group, the less we attend to them and the more we stereotype. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Categorization: Classifying People into Groups  Categorization is necessary for prejudice.  Perceived similarities and differences  Own-race bias  The tendency for people to more accurately recognize faces of their own race. (Also called the cross-race effect or other-race effect.)  What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out  Distinctive people  Feeds on self-consciousness  Many report being stared or glared at, being subject to insensitive comments, and receiving bad service (Swim & others, 1998). Sometimes, however, we misperceive others as reacting to our distinctiveness.  What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out  Distinctive people  Stigma consciousness  A person’s expectation of being victimized by prejudice or discrimination. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out  Vivid cases  Given limited experience with a particular social group, we recall examples of it and generalize.  Can prime the stereotype What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out  Distinctive events foster illusory correlations  Stereotypes assume a correlation between group membership and individuals’ presumed characteristics.  Attentiveness to unusual occurrences can create illusory correlations. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Distinctiveness: Perceiving People Who Stand Out  Distinctive events foster illusory correlations  Stereotypes assume a correlation between group membership and individuals’ presumed characteristics (“Italians are emotional,” “Jews are shrewd,” “Accountants are perfectionists”).  Often, people’s stereotypes are accurate (Jussim, 2012). But sometimes our attentiveness to unusual occurrences creates illusory correlations. Because we are sensitive to distinctive events, the co-occurrence of two such events is especially noticeable— more noticeable than each of the times the unusual events do not occur together. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Attribution: Is It a Just World?  Group-serving bias  Explaining away outgroup members’ positive behaviors; also attributing negative behaviors to their dispositions (while excusing such behavior by one’s own group).  Just-world phenomenon  The tendency of people to believe that the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get.  Blaming the victim results from the common presumption that because this is a just world, people get what they deserve. What Are the Cognitive Sources of Prejudice?  Attribution: Is It a Just World? What Are the Consequences of Prejudice?  Self-Perpetuating Prejudgments  Whenever a member of a group behaves as expected, we duly note the fact; our prior belief is confirmed  When a member of a group behaves inconsistently with our expectation, we may interpret or explain away the behavior as due to special circumstances What Are the Consequences of Prejudice?  Self-Perpetuating Prejudgments  Subtyping  Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s stereotype by thinking of them as “exceptions to the rule.”  Subgrouping  Accommodating individuals who deviate from one's stereotype by forming a new stereotype about this subset of the group.  Well educated black people  This subgrouping —forming a subgroup stereotype—tends to lead to modest change in the stereotype as the stereotype becomes more differentiated (Richards & Hewstone, 2001).  Subtypes are exceptions to the group; subgroups are acknowledged as a part of the overall group. What Are the Consequences of Prejudice?  Discrimination’s Impact: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy  Social beliefs can be self-confirming  Prejudice affects its targets  A disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype.  Unlike self-fulfilling prophecies that hammer one’s reputation into one’s self-concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects. What Are the Consequences of Prejudice?  Stereotype Threat Attitude  Attitudes efficiently size up the world. When we have to respond quickly to something, the way we feel about it can guide how we react. For example, a person who believes a particular ethnic group is lazy and aggressive may feel dislike for such people and therefore intend to act in a discriminatory manner. You can remember these three dimensions as the ABCs of attitudes: Affect (feelings), Behavior tendency, and Cognition (thoughts) ( Figure 4.1 ). What factor could influence our attitude? Three components of an attitude: How Well Do Our Attitudes Predict Our Behavior?  When Attitudes Are Specific to the Behavior  Theory of planned behavior  One’s (a) attitudes, (b) perceived social norms, and (c) feelings of control together determine one’s intentions, which guide behavior. Compared with their general attitudes toward a healthy lifestyle, people’s specific attitudes regarding jogging predict their jogging behavior much better. Copyright 2016 © McGraw-Hill Education. Permission required for reproduction or display.  Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?  Self-Presentation: Impression Management  Assumes that people, especially those who self-monitor their behavior hoping to create good impressions, will adapt their attitude reports to appear consistent with their actions  But there is more to attitudes than self-presentation, so other theories try to explain this phenomenon. Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?  Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance  Tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions.  To reduce this tension, we adjust our thinking or change our behavior.  Insufficient justification  Reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one’s behavior when external justification is “insufficient”. Copyright 2016 © McGraw-Hill Education. Permission required for reproduction or display.  Dissonance Means Disagreement  Dissonance theory pertains mostly to discrepancies between behavior and attitudes  A person who smokes cigarettes may be aware of the studies linking smoking to lung-cancer.  The person may either stop smoking, or downplay the quality of the study.  Festinger argued that to reduce the discrepancy between behavior and cognition (knowing smoking is dangerous) , the person will change either the behavior or the cognition. Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?  Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance  Dissonance after decisions  When faced with two alternatives that are equally attractive we usually upgrade the alternative we have chosen and downplay the alternative we had given up.  Deciding-becomes-believing effect  Can breed overconfidence Copyright 2016 © McGraw-Hill Education. Permission required for reproduction or display. Why Does Our Behavior Affect Our Attitudes?  Self-Perception Theory  When we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer them much as would someone observing us, by looking at our behavior and the circumstances under which it occurs.  Expressions and attitudes: When people were asked to manipulate their facial muscles in a smiling or sad expression, after couple of minutes they reoprted an internal emotional state corresponding to their facial expression.  Imitating other people’s expression help us sense how they are feeling  Emotional contagion: It is fun to be around happy people. Copyright 2016 © McGraw-Hill Education. Permission required for reproduction or display. Overjustification and intrinsic motivations  When you pay or reward people to do something that they actually do on their own (have intrinsic motivation) you find that they perform this behavior less.  The reason: This is explained in the context of self-perception theory: You observe your own behavior, and the conditions under which this behavior is performed. You perform because you are being paid, you attribute your behavior to the reward rather than to your enjoyment.  Your actions are seen as externally controlled rather than externally appealing.  However, unanticipated reward does NOT diminish intrinsic interest, because people can still attribute their behavior to intrinsic motivation. Overjustification and intrinsic motivations Comparing the theories