Defining a Group in Social Psychology PDF

Defining a Group in Social Psychology A group is more than just a collection of people standing together. It consists of individuals who interact with each other, influence each other's thinking, behaviors, and feelings, and help each other out. "A group is a set of individuals who are interacting...

Defining a Group in Social Psychology A group is more than just a collection of people standing together. It consists of individuals who interact with each other, influence each other's thinking, behaviors, and feelings, and help each other out. "A group is a set of individuals who are interacting with each other in a shared environment, influencing each other's thinking, behaviors, and feelings, and helping each other out." Characteristics of a Group Number of people: A group consists of multiple individuals. Interaction: Group members interact with each other. Influence: Group members influence each other's thinking, behaviors, and feelings. Helping each other: Group members help each other out. Differentiating between a Group and a Collection of People Scenario Is it a Group? Doctors and nurses working together to help a patient (unless they start interacting and helping each People standing together at a bus stop other in an emergency) The Importance of Groups Groups are essential for human survival and happiness. As social animals, humans thrive in the company of others. Being in a Group Context When we are in a group context, our behavior, thoughts, and feelings tend to become more intense. This means that our individual characteristics are amplified in a group setting. Research on Group Influence According to research, being surrounded by other people can have both positive and negative effects on our performance. Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition Social Facilitation: The presence of others can enhance our performance, especially on well-learned tasks. Social Inhibition: The presence of others can hinder our performance, especially on difficult or novel tasks. Robert Zajonc's Theory Zajonc proposed that the mere presence of others can: 1. Increase arousal: People are unpredictable stimuli, making us more alert and aroused. 2. Make us more rigid: Arousal can make us more likely to do what we're already inclined to do. 3. Enhance dominant responses: Arousal can energize our dominant responses, leading to better performance on easy tasks and poorer performance on difficult tasks. Experiment with Cockroaches Zajonc tested his theory using cockroaches in mazes. The results confirmed his theory: Performance with Another Maze Type Cockroach Performance Alone Simple Faster Slower Complex Slower Faster This study demonstrates the social facilitation effect on easy tasks and the social inhibition effect on difficult tasks. ## Social Facilitation and Social Loafing Social Facilitation Social facilitation is the phenomenon where the presence of others affects an individual's performance. There are three explanations for social facilitation: Near Presence Theory: The presence of others can improve or impair performance due to mere presence, without any evaluative component. Evaluation Apprehension Theory: The presence of others can create concern about being evaluated, leading to arousal and improved or impaired performance. Distraction Conflict Theory: The presence of others can create distraction, leading to divided attention and arousal, which can improve or impair performance. Experiments and Findings Experiment Condition Result Cockroaches in a maze with or Cockroaches ran faster with light Cockroach Experiment without light (social facilitation) Participants performed a task Participants performed better in Audience Effect Experiment alone or in front of an audience front of an evaluative audience Participants performed a task in No social facilitation effect was Blindfolded Observer Experiment front of blindfolded observers observed Practical Implications Workspace Design: Depending on the task, workspaces can be designed to facilitate or inhibit social facilitation effects. Exam Taking: Students can take advantage of social facilitation effects by taking exams in a group setting. Social Loafing Social loafing is the phenomenon where individuals exert less effort when working in a group compared to working alone. Definition "Social loafing occurs when individuals working in a group make less effort than they would if they were working alone." Experiment and Findings Experiment Condition Result Cheering and Clapping Students cheered and clapped Students made less noise when Experiment alone or in groups of 2, 4, or 6 working in larger groups Results The study found a negative correlation between group size and productivity per person. As the group size increased, the productivity per person decreased. Key Takeaway When the size of the group (x) increases, the productivity per person (y) decreases.## Social Loafing Reduction Strategies Understanding Social Loafing Social loafing occurs when individuals exert less effort when working in a group compared to working individually. This phenomenon is also known as the "diffusion of responsibility," where individuals feel less accountable for the task outcome when shared among multiple people. Factors Influencing Social Loafing Factor Description Tasks that require collective effort, such as Task Type brainstorming or shared projects, can lead to social loafing. Western cultures tend to exhibit social loafing more Cultural Background than Asian cultures, where collective achievement is valued over individual achievement.  Research suggests that men are more prone to Gender social loafing than women. Reducing Social Loafing To mitigate social loafing, consider the following strategies: Make individual contributions measurable and identifiable: Monitor individual performance or require separate submissions to track progress. Increase member commitment to task success: Encourage group members to take ownership of the task and its outcome. Emphasize the importance and value of the task: Highlight the significance of the task and its impact on the group's goals. Create challenging, appealing, and involving tasks: Design tasks that are engaging and motivating to reduce the likelihood of social loafing. Form smaller work groups: Smaller groups make it easier to monitor individual contributions and reduce the likelihood of social loafing. Assign specialized roles and tasks: Clearly define roles and tasks to make individual contributions more visible. Provide direct and immediate feedback: Offer regular feedback to motivate group members and track progress. Foster a sense of group cohesion: Encourage group members to care about the group's success, which can lead to increased effort and reduced social loafing. By implementing these strategies, you can reduce social loafing and promote a more collaborative and productive group environment. Deindividuation Deindividuation is a state where individuals lose their sense of self and responsibility, leading to a lack of self-regulation and increased impulsive behavior. Why does it happen? When individuals are in a group, they can lose their sense of personal identity and become more anonymous. This anonymity can lead to a decrease in self-regulation and a increase in impulsive behavior. Factors that Contribute to Deindividuation Factor Description Desire for Anonymity Individuals want to remain unknown and unseen. The presence of others can energize and stimulate Energizing Effect of Others behavior. Loud noises, shouting, and other intense stimuli can Stimulus Overload contribute to deindividuation. Theoretical Model of Deindividuation 1. Factors that Contribute to Deindividuation: Desire for anonymity, energizing effect of others, and stimulus overload. 2. Internal State: Lowered self-observation, lowered self-evaluation, and loss of self-control. 3. Behavioral Manifestations: Impulsive behavior, acting without rationale, emotional behavior, and engaging in harmful behavior. The Trick-or-Treat Study In this study, Edward Diener and his colleagues explored how children's behavior changed when they were in a group and anonymous.  Condition Result 50.7% of children took more than one piece of Alone and Anonymous candy. Alone and Identified 7.5% of children took more than one piece of candy. 50.7% of children took more than one piece of In a Group and Anonymous candy. In a Group and Identified Not reported. The study showed that children were more likely to break the rules (take more than one piece of candy) when they were in a group and anonymous. Group Decision Making Group Realization occurs when the initial tendencies of group members become more extreme following group discussion. Group Pluralization is the phenomenon where groups produce an enhancement of members' preexisting tendencies, strengthening the members' average tendency. "Group realization occurs when the initial tendencies of group members become more extreme following group discussion."## Group Decision Making Group Polarization When people discuss an issue with like-minded peers, they tend to become more extreme in their views. This phenomenon is called group polarization. Why does group discussion lead to group polarization? Informational influence: Group members hear more persuasive arguments that support their own views, including points they had not previously considered. Normative influence: People want to be liked by others and tend to express stronger attitudes when they discover that others share their views. Example: Myers and Bishop's Racial Attitude Study In this study, students were measured for their level of prejudice towards African Americans. The results showed that: Prejudice Level Before Discussion After Discussion Low Low Still Low Moderate Moderate More Extreme High High Even More Extreme Groupthink Groupthink is a type of faulty thinking that occurs in highly cohesive groups. It is characterized by: Ignoring alternative viewpoints Discouraging others from coming forward with different ideas Believing in the wisdom and morality of the group Dismissing warnings for bad decision making Symptoms of Groupthink Illusion of invulnerability: Feeling that the group cannot be overcome or won over.  Illusion of morality: Believing that the group's actions are morally justified. Stereotyping: Viewing outsiders as inadequate or inferior. Direct pressure: Pressuring group members to conform to the group's views. Self-censorship: Group members withhold their own doubts and concerns. Illusion of unanimity: Assuming that everyone agrees with the group's decisions. Mindguards: Appointing members to protect the group from opposing views. What causes Groupthink? Group isolation Directive leader High stress and limited time Lack of decision-making procedures How to prevent Groupthink Encourage diverse perspectives Assign a devil's advocate Take breaks to reconsider decisions Seek outside opinions Establish a clear decision-making procedure## Defects in Group Decision Making Collective Rationalization Rationalization is when you explain away different opinions or opinions different from yours. When members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. Belief in Inherent Morality Believing in the rightness of your cause and ignoring the ethical or moral consequences of your decision. Stereotype View of Out-Group Negatively viewing people who try to warn you or viewing them as an enemy. Self-Censorship Individually holding and not expressing doubts or deviations from the perceived group consensus. Symptoms: Withholding information or opinions in group discussions Tendency to not speak up against the group's agreed-upon solution Illusion of Unanimity Assuming the majority view and judgment are unanimous, when in reality, they may not be. Result: Majority view and judgment are assumed to be unanimous Individuals may not speak up against the group's agreed-upon solution Mind Guards Protecting the group and the leader from information that's contradictory to the group's agreed-upon solution. Consequences: Defect Description Failure to look around, incomplete search of Defective Decision Making possible alternatives, failure to consider risks Ignoring ethical or moral consequences, poor Bad Decision Making information, and incomplete analysis Group Dynamics and Decision Making Presence of Others Can increase arousal and energize the dominant response to a task Can also make individuals relax and reduce effort in working on the task Deindividuation Losing the sense of self and individuality within a group, leading to either good or bad behavior. Group Decision Making Can be erroneous and lead to bad decisions Requires careful consideration and awareness of group dynamics Reflection: Are groups good or bad? Can you think of positive functions that groups can serve? Can you think of situations where groups do bad things? Review: Go back and review the different points and topics discussed throughout this lecture. Social Influence Definition of Social Influence Social influence is a process that occurs when an individual's attitude or behavior is changed due to the actions of another person or group of people. Difference between Social Influence and Persuasion Social influence is different from persuasion, which we discussed in the previous lecture. Social influence involves changing one's attitude or behavior due to the influence of others, whereas persuasion involves a deliberate attempt to change someone's attitude or behavior through communication. Forms of Social Influence There are three main forms of social influence: Conformity: changing one's behavior to be more like others due to social pressure Compliance: doing something asked by another person, even if one doesn't want to Obedience: following an order or command from someone in authority Conformity Conformity is about changing how you behave to be more like others, seeking the approval and friendship of others. Conformity can run deep, leading individuals to change their beliefs and values to fit in with their peers and admired superiors. Compliance Compliance is when a person does something that they are asked to do by another, they may choose to comply or not to comply. Compliance involves a direct request, and the individual has some degree of freedom to choose whether to comply or not. Obedience Obedience is when you agree to perform or behave in a way that is requested or ordered by someone in authority. Obedience involves a clear authority figure, and the individual may feel they have no choice but to comply. Comparison of Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience Form of Social Influence Characteristics Degree of Freedom Changing behavior due to social Conformity Low pressure, no direct request Direct request, individual has Compliance some degree of freedom to Medium choose Clear authority figure, individual Obedience Low feels no choice but to comply Examples of Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience You see someone carrying a nice bag and decide to buy the same one. (Conformity) Someone asks you to pass the salt, and you comply. (Compliance) A military officer orders you to perform a task, and you obey. (Obedience) Classic Studies of Conformity We will be covering two classic studies on conformity: Shewartz's Autokinetic Effect Study: a study on how people estimate the movement of a dot of light in a dark room Asch's Experiments on Line Judgment: a study on how people judge the length of lines based on the opinions of others## Conformity to Group Norms The Dot of Light Experiment In this experiment, participants were asked to estimate the distance a dot of light had moved. The task was designed to be uncertain and difficult, making it easy for participants to doubt their own judgments. Individual Session Participants initially made their estimates alone  Estimates varied widely, with some participants giving high numbers and others giving low numbers Group Session Participants were then put into groups and asked to share their estimates out loud As participants heard others' judgments, they began to conform to the group's opinion Estimates became more similar, and eventually, all participants gave the same answer (around 2 inches) Group Norms "What is agreed upon by members as the correct response or behavior in a specific situation." In this experiment, the group experience changed participants' behavior, even if they didn't realize it. When asked if they were influenced by others, most denied it. However, their actions showed otherwise. The Role of Others in Uncertain Situations When faced with uncertainty, we often look to others for guidance. This is called Informational Social Influence. "When we use others as a source of information about what's likely to be proper or effective." We conform to others' views because we think they might know better. Ash's Line Judgment Study In this classic study, participants were asked to match a standard line to one of three comparison lines. The twist: only one participant was real, and the others were confederates (members of the experimenter's team) who gave incorrect answers. The Study Design Role Description Real Participant Sitting at the table, trying to match the lines Members of the experimenter's team, giving Confederates incorrect answers Results 75% of participants conformed to the erroneous majority at least once Even though the correct answer was clear, participants were still influenced by others Why Do We Conform? In Ash's study, participants conformed for a different reason than in Sherry's experiment. While the nature of the task was easy, the presence of confederates made it difficult for participants to trust their own judgments. Conformity in Society Conformity forms the bedrock of socialization processes in all societies. We learn and practice common ways of doing things from our social groups.## Normative Social Influence Normative social influence is the desire to avoid disapproval, harsh judgment, or social sanctions that others might deliver. It is the tendency to act alike just to be liked. Conformity Experiment In an experiment, participants were asked to identify the correct answer among three options. The majority of participants conformed to the incorrect responses of the confederates, even when they knew the correct answer. Number of Trials Percentage of Participants Conforming 0 25% (stayed strong and gave the correct response) 1-2 50% (conformed at least once) 3-4 20% (conformed most of the time) 5 (every time) 10% (always conformed) Identifying Conformity To identify conformity, participants were tested alone and then with 6 other people (confederates). The results showed a significant drop in correct estimates when participants were with the group. Group Size and Conformity Ash's experiment looked at how group size influences conformity. The results showed that conformity increases as the size of the group increases, but the effect levels off after 4-5 members. Number of Opponents Error Percentage 1 10% 2 20% 3 30% 4-5 40% 6-15 40% (levels off) Aligned Ally The experiment also looked at what happens when a participant has an ally who gives the same answer (correct or incorrect). The results showed that conformity reduces when an ally is present. Situation Conformity Rate Alone 30% With 6 confederates 60% With an ally 40% Types of Social Influence There are two main reasons why we conform to others: Informational Influence: because we want to do what is right and be correct Normative Social Influence: because we want to be part of the group and avoid disapproval or social sanctions Definition of Conformity Conformity is the act of changing one's behavior or opinion to match the group's, even if it goes against one's own judgment or values. Definition of Normative Social Influence Normative social influence is the desire to avoid disapproval, harsh judgment, or social sanctions that others might deliver, leading to the tendency to act alike just to be liked.## Social Influence: Conformity and Norms Private Conformity vs. Public Conformity Private Conformity: a genuine change in attitude or belief Public Conformity: a superficial change in behavior, but not in attitude or belief Types of Social Influence Informational Influence: when we use others as a source of information, especially in uncertain or difficult situations Normative Influence: when we conform to norms due to a desire for social approval and fear of rejection When We Yield to Social Influence In uncertain or difficult situations, we may conform to informational influence When we care about other people's judgment, we may conform to normative influence The Effects of Non-Conformity Ostracism: the act of excluding or banishing someone from a group due to non-conformity Sanctioning can be hurtful, especially for teenagers seeking approval and identity The John Norco Study Role Description Argues for an alternative response, even if the Deviant majority disagrees Norm Agrees with the majority  Initially disagrees, but then moves towards agreeing Slider with the majority Results of the Study The group tried to persuade the deviant to agree with them, but eventually showed hostility towards them The deviant was later voted out of the group Understanding Norms in Negative Behavior Descriptive Norms: what people are doing Injunctive Norms: what is approved of by the peer group False Consensus Effect: the tendency to think that others think and act as we do Helping Teenagers Deal with Peer Pressure Gain insight into how norms work in negative behavior among teenagers Create a plan or campaign to help teenagers resist bad norms Note: This study guide is designed to be easily digestible and aesthetically pleasing, with bolded keywords, blockquote definitions, emojis, bullet points, and organized tables.## Social Norms and Influence The Drinking Problem in College Students College students tend to believe that the norm of drinking (in terms of quantity) is higher than the actual behavior. This misconception applies to both descriptive norms (what people do) and injunctive norms (what people approve of). Meta-Analysis A study about studies, gathering and analyzing existing research to draw conclusions. A meta-analysis found that most students: ○ View themselves as drinking less and being less approving of alcohol use than their peers. ○ Overestimate the drinking norm. Environmental Influence Norms are also important in the environmental area. Professor Robert Cialdini, a renowned expert in social influence and norms, proposes:  ○ Avoid sending mixed messages about what is socially disapproved but widely practiced. ○ Align descriptive and injunctive normative messages to work together rather than in comparison. Effective Persuasive Communication Approach Effectiveness Sending mixed messages ↓ Aligning descriptive and injunctive normative ↑ messages Further Exploration If you're interested in using norms to influence people and tackle social problems, explore further! Compliance and Obedience Compliance refers to yielding to or saying yes to a direct request, even if you do not believe it is right. This involves a low-power tactic, where the requester may not have more power than the requestee, but still tries to gain compliance. 2-Step Techniques to Get People to Do What You Want These techniques involve two steps to follow: 1. Small Request: Start with a small request that is easy to agree to. 2. Large Request: Follow up with a larger request that is the actual goal. Foot-in-the-Door Technique The Foot-in-the-Door Technique is a popular 2-step technique to gain compliance. "You start with a small request, and then you follow it with a large request. And, hopefully, you will get a yes as well." How it Works: Step Request Purpose Small Request (e.g., sign a Get the requestee to agree to 1 petition) something small Large Request (e.g., put a Get the requestee to agree to the 2 billboard on their lawn) actual goal Classic Study: Committee for Safe Driving by Freeman and Fraser Condition 1: One-step request (intrusive only) - 20% compliance rate Condition 2: Two-step request (Foot-in-the-Door Technique) - higher compliance rate Important Components for Foot-in-the-Door Technique to Work Small but Meaningful Request: The initial request must be meaningful and noticeable to allow people to make a conclusion about their identity. Purely Voluntary: The initial request must seem purely voluntary to allow the target to establish themselves as cooperative. Why it Works: Self-Image Maintenance: The first request creates a perception of the requestee's image as helpful and supportive. Consistency Maintenance: Saying yes to the first request leads to a desire to maintain consistency and say yes to the second request. Self-Perception: Saying yes to the first request allows the requestee to observe themselves as supportive, leading to a higher likelihood of saying yes to the second request. Example: The Marshmallow Sundae Cartoon Mom, can I have a short-lived marshmallow sundae with whipped cream and a cherry on top? (Large Request) Well, then, can I have 2 cookies instead? (Small Request) This is an example of the Foot-in-the-Door Technique in action! ## Door in the Face Technique The door in the face technique is a tactic used to influence people's behavior by making an initial large request that is likely to be rejected, followed by a smaller request that is more reasonable. How it Works Make an initial large request that is likely to be rejected Follow up with a smaller request that is more reasonable Why it Works Contrast Effect: The initial large request makes the smaller request seem more reasonable by comparison Reciprocal Concessions: The requester appears to be making a concession by reducing their request, which puts pressure on the target to reciprocate Self-Image Repair: The target has the opportunity to repair their negative self-image by agreeing to the smaller request Example Asking someone to donate blood for 2 years (initial large request)  Following up with a request to donate blood for just today (smaller request) Lowballing Lowballing is a tactic used to influence people's behavior by making an initial request that is appealing, but then adding hidden costs or conditions that make the deal less favorable. How it Works Make an initial request that is appealing and gets the target to commit Follow up with hidden costs or conditions that make the deal less favorable Why it Works Cognitive Dissonance: The target has invested effort and commitment into the initial request, and will likely follow through to justify their effort Consistency: The target wants to be consistent with their initial commitment, even if the deal has changed Example Percentage of Participants Who Agreed to Condition Participate Upfront Condition 31% Lowball Condition 56% In the lowball condition, participants were initially asked to participate in an experiment for extra credit, and only later told about the early starting time. This tactic resulted in a significantly higher percentage of participants agreeing to participate.## That's Not All Technique The "that's not all" technique is a tactic used to influence people's behavior by offering an initial deal and then making it sweeter while the target is still making up their mind. Steps: Step 1: Offer a deal, perhaps not too attractive Step 2: Make the deal better by reducing the price or adding gifts How it Works: The sweetening of the deal invokes a feeling of indebtedness that increases compliance. This technique is similar to the "door-in-the-face" technique, but differs in two important ways: Technique Initial Request Response to Initial Request That's Not All Less attractive deal No response elicited Door-in-the-Face Unreasonable request Rejected Initial offer made less sour Deal made sweeter The Norm of Reciprocity: The "that's not all" technique works by creating a sense of obligation in the target to return the favor by accepting the sweeter deal. Lowballing and Other Techniques Lowballing is a technique that involves offering a product at a high price, not allowing the customer to respond, and then offering a better deal. Thought Questions: What do all low-power techniques have in common? How do they work? Will changes in attitudes and behavior be lasting, or do we just want compliance right then? Is influence direct or indirect?  How can these techniques be used to get people to do good things, like donating to charity? Obedience Obedience is a form of changing behavior according to an authority's order. Miriam's Obedience Study: Watch the video link to learn more about obedience. Authority: An authority is someone who has the right to make you do something Examples of authorities include parents, teachers, and police officers Milgram's Experiment Stanley Milgram's experiment was a classic study on obedience. It involved recruiting male participants to administer electric shocks to a learner in a different room. The Experiment: The participant was the teacher and had to administer shocks to the learner The experimenter was the authority figure The shock generator had clear levels of shock, with the highest level being deadly The learner made mistakes and responded with pain and distress The participant was told to continue administering shocks despite the learner's protests Results: 65% of participants followed the experimenter's orders till the end, even when the learner was screaming and refusing to answer The experiment showed that people are willing to obey an authority figure even if it goes against their moral values Factors that Influence Obedience Rate: Victim distance: Participants were more likely to obey if they were not in the same room as the learner Other factors: Milgram tested various factors that influence obedience rate, including the participant's relationship with the experimenter and the victim.## The Milgram Study Factors Affecting Obedience Obedience rates dropped when the experimenter was not physically present, such as giving commands by telephone.  Participants also refused to comply when the experimenter was not a legitimate authority figure, but rather just someone in charge. The study was conducted at Yale University, a prestigious institution, which may have influenced the participants' willingness to obey. The Experiment Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, starting with small intensities and increasing to more intense shocks. The study revealed that behavior can influence attitudes, and that the power of the situation plays a significant role in obedience. What Did We Learn? Human behavior is influenced by the situation, rather than by inherent mean or bad nature. The fundamental attribution error (FAE) occurs when we attribute behavior to a person's character rather than the situation. The study emphasized the importance of considering the power of the situation in social psychology. Ethics The study would not pass modern ethical standards, as it involved potential psychological harm to participants. Participants may have experienced psychological harm, lost trust in authority figures, and learned uncomfortable truths about themselves. Some critics argue that the laboratory setting is not representative of real-life obedience, as participants may be more prone to obey in a lab setting. Criticisms of the Study Criticism Description The laboratory setting may not accurately reflect Lack of Realism real-life obedience. The study may have caused psychological harm to Harm to Participants participants.  The study reinforces the fundamental attribution FAE error, attributing behavior to the person rather than the situation. Conclusion The Milgram study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing obedience, but raises important ethical concerns. Can we design a study that balances the need to learn about obedience with the need to protect participants' rights and well-being? Interpersonal Attraction Why Study Interpersonal Attraction? Relationships surround us every day. As social animals, we live with people, friends, family, colleagues, and others. Understanding how to maintain positive relationships or healthy relationships is crucial. The Magic Ratio: 5 to 1 The magic ratio proposes that as long as there are 5 times as many positive interactions between partners as negative, the relationship is likely to be stable, happy, and good. This ratio can even predict divorce, as unhappy couples tend to have more negative interactions than positive ones. Negativity is necessary for a stable relationship, as it allows for conflict resolution and a stronger bond. However, positivity helps love and relationships grow. Practicing the Magic Ratio Send 5 positive texts to an important other to make up for 1 negative interaction. Examples of positive interactions: ○ A pat on the back ○ A smile ○ A nice warm meal ○ A compliment How Relationships Affect Us According to Scientific American, even extraordinary experiences are not as enjoyable without friends and family. Friends and family have a significant impact on our experiences, making them more meaningful and special. The Consequences of Extraordinary Experiences Extraordinary experiences can be enjoyable, but they can also make people who have them feel like strangers to others. These experiences can lead to social costs, such as isolation from peers and feelings of loneliness. The Hidden Costs of Extraordinary Experiences Researchers Clue, Cooney, Gilbert, and Wilson studied whether extraordinary experiences carry hidden costs. They found that events like meeting a musical idol can make us happier in the moment but lead to a sense of loneliness and isolation. Study: The Social Costs of Extraordinary Experiences Group Video Clip Rating Participant 1 5-star (special) Participants 2-4 2-star (normal) Researchers had participants watch a video clip and then discuss it together. The study showed that having an extraordinary experience can lead to feelings of isolation and disconnection from others.## The Power of Togetherness In a study, researchers explored how sharing extraordinary experiences with others can affect our perception of enjoyment. They found that even with extraordinary experiences, the sense of exclusion from the post-viewing conversation can outweigh the enjoyment of the experience itself. The Experiment The researchers conducted a mediation analysis to investigate the relationship between extraordinary experiences and post-interaction feelings. They had two conditions: Condition Description Ordinary 3 people watching a 2-star clip Extraordinary 1 person watching a spatial video clip They found that the extraordinary experience led to greater negative feelings afterward, which was explained by the mediator of feeling excluded from the interaction with the other group members. The Importance of Shared Experiences The researchers concluded that having friends and family is crucial in making experiences more enjoyable. It's not about having something luxurious or extraordinary, but about sharing the experience with others. "What they are doing is just having a normal life... But what's important is that they share this experience together." The Effects of Shared Experiences Research has shown that having a shared experience with another person enhances the experience, even in the absence of direct communication. Condition Description Participants believed they would do activities with a Shared Experience confederate (friend) Unshared Experience Participants believed they would do activities alone They measured the flavorfulness of chocolate being tested and liking of the chocolate, and found that: Shared experiences amplified the positive experience Shared experiences made negative experiences more negative Positive and Negative Experiences The researchers tested the hypotheses both ways: Positive Experience Condition Liking of Chocolate Flavorfulness of Chocolate Shared Experience Higher Higher Unshared Experience Lower Lower Negative Experience Absorption in On the Same Condition Liking of Chocolate Experience Wavelength Shared Experience Lower Higher Higher Unshared Experience Higher Lower Lower The results showed that shared experiences can make positive experiences more enjoyable and negative experiences more unpleasant.## Social Psychology of Relationships The Power of Social Experience Being with others can enhance our experiences, making good things better and bad things worse. Social experiences can add a "technicolor" to our daily lives, making them more vibrant and meaningful. Factors Influencing Relationship Formation Proximity (Propinquity) Physical closeness is a significant factor in forming relationships. Research has shown that people tend to form friendships with those who live closest to them. The closer we are to someone physically, the more likely we are to form a relationship with them. Study Results Percentage Same building 65% Next door 41% 2 doors down 22% Opposite ends of the hallway 10% Mere Exposure Effect Repeated exposure to someone leads to increased liking. Familiarity produces liking, as it signifies safety and predictability. The more we see someone, the more likely we are to develop a relationship with them. Physical Attractiveness Research suggests that physical attractiveness plays a role in attracting others. However, there are different types of attractiveness, and it's not just about fitting one specific pattern. Gender Differences in Attractiveness  Women tend to prioritize brains over physical attractiveness. Men, on the other hand, tend to prioritize physical attractiveness over brains. Gender Priority Women Brains Men Physical Attractiveness Types of Attractiveness Cute Type: characterized by a baby-like face, large eyes, small nose, and a big smile. Mature Type: characterized by elegant cheekbones, a big smile, and a more mature features. "There's not just one pattern of beauty that we all have to fit."## Attraction and Relationship Formation Physical Attractiveness We tend to like those who are physically attractive due to our bias for beautyor halo effect. This means we have a positive stereotype for attractive people, believing they are friendlier, have better social skills, and are healthier. Physical Attractiveness Stereotype We believe that good-looking people are: Friendlier Have better social skills Are healthier Have more active sex lives Are happier Have higher self-esteem However, research shows that beauty has no correlation with measures of IQ, personality, adjustment, or self-esteem. Attractive people may be more relaxed and socially polished due to self-fulfilling prophecy, where we treat them in a way that confirms our expectations. Matching Phenomenon Despite liking attractive people, we tend to end up with someone who is in the same league of attractiveness as ourselves. This is known as the matching phenomenon, where we pair off with someone similar in terms of physical attractiveness. Similarity Similarity is another factor that increases relationship formation. We like those who are similar to us in terms of: Preferences: attitudes, judgments, and values Goals: what we want to achieve in life Lifestyle: daily habits and routines Similarity provides belief validation, where having someone who shares our preferences and values reinforces our own beliefs. It also leads to smooth interaction, with less conflict and more harmonious conversations. Opposites Attract? The common notion that opposites attract suggests that we are drawn to someone with complementary characteristics, such as a dominant person being attracted to a submissive one. However, research shows that complementarity does not influence attraction. Reciprocity Reciprocity is the act of returning a favor. In the context of attraction, showing that we like someone first can increase their attraction towards us. This is because we tend to like those who like us first. Reciprocity Study Condition Rating Partner likes you More favorable rating Partner dislikes you Less favorable rating If we believe someone likes us, we are more likely to rate them favorably. This phenomenon can be attributed to self-fulfilling prophecy, where our behavior is influenced by our expectations. Review Questions If someone asks you for advice on how to get someone to like them, what would be your suggestion based on: Proximity Physical attractiveness Similarity Reciprocity Add any other factors you think are relevant to increase attraction and relationship formation. Happy Relationships Evolutionary Perspective The evolutionary perspective suggests that relationships are shaped by natural selection and our innate desires to maximize our reproductive success. "Women must be highly selective because they are biologically limited in the number of children they can bear and raise in a lifetime, while men can father unlimited numbers of kids." According to this theory, women prefer partners with economic resources, physical strength, and social status, while men prefer partners with physical attractiveness, signaling reproductive fertility. Data Supporting Evolutionary Theory Characteristic Importance for Men Importance for Women Good Financial Prospect Lower Higher Physical Attractiveness Higher Lower However, this theory is controversial and can be criticized for: Being limited by gender inequity, where women lack direct access to economic power and social status Failing to consider other factors, such as social structure and culture, that influence relationship preferences Social Exchange Theory The social exchange theory views relationships as an economic exchange, where individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs. "Relationships that provide more rewards and fewer costs will be more satisfying." This theory suggests that individuals are motivated by self-interest and will engage in relationships that benefit them the most. Equity Theory The equity theory is a special version of the social exchange theory, which takes into account the comparison between two people in a relationship. "People are happiest in relationships when the rewards and costs are comparable in terms of the ratio." Partner Contribution Benefits You High Low Partner Low High In an equitable relationship, the ratio of benefits to contributions is similar for both partners. If one partner benefits more than they contribute, or vice versa, the relationship becomes inequitable. Key Points: Equity is different from equality The balance between benefits and contributions is what counts in a relationship Inequitable relationships can lead to feelings of unfairness and dissatisfaction## Equity Theory In social psychology, the Equity Theory proposes that both over-benefit and under-benefit are unstable and unhappy states in relationships. This theory highlights the importance of balance in relationships. Under-benefited partners: feel angry and resentful because they are giving more than their partner for the benefit they received.  Over-benefited partners: feel guilty because they are profiting unfairly. Triangular Theory of Love According to Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love, there are three components of love: Component Definition The feeling of drives that lead to romance, physical Passion attraction, and sexual consummation. The feelings of closeness, connectedness, and Intimacy bondedness in a loving relationship. The decision to love someone else and the Commitment commitment to maintain that love. With the combination of these three components, there are 8 possible subtypes of love: 8 Subtypes of Love Combination Type of Love Intimacy alone Liking Passion alone Infatuation Commitment alone Empty Love Intimacy + Commitment Companionate Love Intimacy + Passion Romantic Love Passion + Commitment Fatuous Love Intimacy + Passion + Commitment Consummate Love None Non-Love Nature of Each Component Passion: peaks early in a relationship and then declines over time. Intimacy: continues to build gradually over time. Commitment: rises relatively slowly at first, speeds up, and then levels off in successful relationships. Importance of Intimacy Self-Disclosure: the key to building intimacy. Social Penetration: the depth of self-disclosure increases as relationships become closer. Building Intimacy: takes time for self-disclosure to get wider and deeper, leading to increased intimacy. What Influences Our Relationships? Trust: why some people are confident and trusting in their relationships. Anxiety: why some people are anxious being away from their partners. Please complete a brief measure to reveal something important about yourself and your relationships. Click on the link posted on Blackboard along with this video link.## Attachment Styles Attachment styles refer to the emotional bonds formed early in life with primary caregivers, which influence relationships in adulthood. Formation of Attachment Styles A child's attachment style is shaped by the reliability of their caregiver in meeting their needs for food, care, warmth, protection, stimulation, and social contact. This leads to the formation of: Positive Model of Self: a positive self-image and high self-esteem, resulting from good treatment by the caregiver. Negative Model of Self: a negative self-image and low self-esteem, resulting from poor treatment by the caregiver. Working Model of Others: a model of how much to trust others, based on the caregiver's reliability. Types of Attachment Styles Attachment Style Model of Self Model of Others Secure High self-esteem High trust Fearful-Avoidant Low self-esteem Low trust Preoccupied Low self-esteem High trust Dismissive High self-esteem Low trust Characteristics of Each Attachment Style Secure : High self-esteem and trust in others Form lasting, committed, and satisfying relationships Fearful-Avoidant : Low self-esteem and trust in others Tend not to form close relationships or have unhappy ones Preoccupied : Low self-esteem and high trust in others Form relationships but tend to cling to others and expect rejection Dismissive : High self-esteem and low trust in others Tend to stay alone and depend on themselves Can Attachment Styles be Changed? Yes, attachment styles can be changed. Research suggests that internal working models of self and others can be modified through experience and interaction. What Predicts Committed Relationships? The Investment Model proposes that commitment to a relationship is determined by: Satisfaction (s): the feelings experienced in the relationship, such as happiness and fulfillment. Investment (I): the resources, such as time and energy, invested in the relationship. Availability of Attractive Alternatives (a): the presence of other appealing relationship options. The formula: c = s + I - a To maintain a committed relationship, one needs high satisfaction, high investment, and low availability of attractive alternatives.## Relationship Commitment Investment Trap The tendency to stay in a relationship due to the resources (e.g., time, effort, money, emotion) invested in it, even if it's unhappy. "I've been with this person for 10 years, I have so much invested in this relationship, I don't want to leave." Alternative  The presence of other attractive options or alternatives to the current relationship. Can affect commitment level; if alternatives are high, commitment may be lower. RASBOLD Model Predictor Effect on Commitment Satisfaction Positive Investment Positive Alternative Negative Survey Results People in stable relationships tend to have: ○ High satisfaction ○ High investment ○ Low alternative People who have decided to leave a relationship tend to have: ○ Low satisfaction ○ Low investment ○ High alternative Jealousy Feelings of insecurity or threat when a romantic partner shows attention to someone else. Can lead to distress and anxiety. Understanding Jealousy Research suggests that jealousy operates largely through reductions in self-esteem. The presence of a threat can lower self-esteem, leading to jealousy. 5:1 Ratio For every one negative behavior in a relationship, there should be five positive behaviors to maintain a happy and stable relationship. Dealing with Troubled Relationships Strategies  Dimension Category Description Example Taking action to solve Active vs Passive Active Calling to discuss issues the problem Not taking action to Passive Ignoring the issues solve the problem Destructive vs Actions that harm the Destructive Calling to break up Constructive relationship Actions that improve Working together to Constructive the relationship resolve issues Factors Affecting Strategy Choice Commitment level: If you want to make the relationship work, you may be more likely to choose an active and constructive approach. Other factors: What drives someone to choose exit, voice, loyalty, or neglect? Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination are crucial topics in social psychology that affect individuals and groups in their daily lives. What are Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination? These three related terms are often interconnected but have distinct meanings: Term Definition > A belief about the attributes of a group of people. It is a cognitive component, a mental picture of a Stereotyping group that influences our perception of individual members. > A negative attitude towards members of a specific Prejudice group. It is an affective component, involving feelings and emotions towards a group. > Behavior or actions that result from prejudice, Discrimination often leading to unfair treatment of individuals or groups. It is a behavioral component. Understanding Prejudice Prejudice is a complex topic that has been studied extensively in social psychology. It is essential to recognize the difference between personal disliking and prejudice: Personal disliking: A negative attitude towards an individual based on their personal characteristics or behavior.  Prejudice: A negative attitude towards an individual based on their membership in a particular group. Blatant vs. Modern Prejudice In the past, prejudice was often expressed openly and obviously (blatant prejudice). However, due to changing social norms and laws, prejudice now takes more subtle forms (modern prejudice): Blatant Prejudice: The explicit expression of prejudice and discrimination, often illegal in many countries. Modern Prejudice: Prejudice revealed in subtle, indirect ways, often hidden from public settings but expressed in safe environments. Examples and Applications To better understand these concepts, try to break down a prejudice against any group into stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination. For instance: Stereotype: "All members of a particular group are lazy." Prejudice: Feeling negatively towards an individual because they belong to that group. Discrimination: Refusing to hire someone from that group because of the prejudice. By recognizing and understanding these concepts, we can work towards creating harmony among different groups and promoting a more inclusive society. ## Social Influence and Prejudice Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Prejudice: an attitude towards a group of people that can be explicit or implicit. "Explicit prejudice refers to feelings and evaluations that are reportable and aware of, while implicit prejudice refers to unconscious attitudes that are not explicitly acknowledged." Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Stereotype: a belief about a group of people that can be activated automatically upon exposure to information or the target person. Prejudice: a negative attitude towards a group of people. Discrimination: behavior towards a target group, often resulting from prejudice. Sources of Prejudice 1. Stereotypes Stereotypes can contribute to prejudice, especially when they are negative and overgeneralized. Realistic Group Conflict Theory: competition for scarce resources can lead to prejudice and discrimination. 2. Self-Esteem Desire for positive self-esteem can lead to prejudice and discrimination. Characteristics of Stereotypes Overgeneralization: assuming everyone in a group is the same. Exaggeration: overstating differences between groups. Outgroup Homogeneity Effect: believing that outgroups are homogeneous, while ingroups are diverse. How Stereotypes Are Formed Matching Characteristics Group Membership Attributes, Qualities Illusory Correlation: a mistaken perception of a relationship between a group and its characteristics, leading to stereotype formation. Factors Contributing to Illusory Correlation Minority Group Members: rare and distinctive groups can lead to illusory correlation. Negativity Bias: remembering negative events or behaviors more than positive ones. Selective Attention: focusing on specific information that confirms stereotypes.## Illusory Correlation Two events that stand out clearly in our perception are the minority and negative behavior. These events are low frequency, yet when they occur together, they catch our attention, leading to the overestimation of their frequency. Example: Myanmar Murder Case  A Myanmar national was charged with the murder of an 85-year-old woman in Singapore. This event combines two rare events: the minority (Myanmar people) and negative behavior (murder). This leads to an illusory correlation, where we mistakenly think that these events happen together frequently. Stereotypes and Illusory Correlation Stereotypes are persistent due to several mechanisms: Mechanisms Preserving Stereotypes Mechanism Description We search, interpret, and remember information Confirmation Bias that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and stereotypes. We explain the cause of behavior to preserve Attributions stereotypes, often making attributions that are biased or unfair. We create special categories for individuals who Subtyping don't fit our stereotypes, allowing us to maintain our overall stereotype. Our expectations influence our behavior, which in Self-Fulfilling Prophecy turn confirms our expectations and stereotypes. Content of Stereotypes Stereotypes are made up of beliefs about a group's characteristics, such as: "Thai people are kind, lazy, and laid back." We use two universal dimensions to categorize these beliefs: competence and warmth. Competence and Warmth Dimensions Dimension Description Competence Relates to a group's ability, skill, and intelligence. Relates to a group's intentions, friendliness, and Warmth empathy. By recognizing these dimensions, we can better understand the content of stereotypes and how they are formed and preserved.## Stereotype Content Model (SCM) Susan Fisk, a well-known social psychologist, and her colleagues, Amy Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu, proposed the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) in 2002. Dimensions of SCM The SCM argues that all group stereotypes and interpersonal impressions can be reduced to two dimensions: Warmth: Referring to how a person treats others, or their social behavior. Competence: Referring to a person's ability or skill. Combinations of Stereotypic Warmth and Competence The SCM suggests that unique intergroup emotions result from the combinations of stereotypic warmth and competence. Warmth Competence Emotion Prejudice Examples  Elderly people, Low Low Pity Paternalistic disabled people, housewives In-group members, High High Admiration In-group bias politicians Rich people, Low High Envy Jealousy businesspeople, Asians Poor people, High Low Disgust Resentment welfare recipients Links to Status and Competition Under the SCM model: Status is linked to competence, where high-status groups are perceived as competent and low-status groups are perceived as incompetent. Competitive behavior is linked to warmth, where competitive behavior signals low warmth. Testing the SCM Theory One way to test the SCM theory is to: 1. List stereotypes towards a specific group. 2. See if all stereotypes can be fit into the dimensions of warmth and competence. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Mustafa Sharif proposed the Realistic Group Conflict Theory, which suggests that: Limited resources are the problem.  Conflict between groups leads to prejudice and discrimination. "Limited resources, such as job positions, food, water, and natural resources, lead to conflict between groups, resulting in prejudice and discrimination."## Discrimination and Scarcity of Resources Discrimination is often linked to the scarcity of resources. When resources are abundant, there is no need for competition, and everyone can be happy without competing against each other. However, when resources are scarce, competition arises, and prejudice toward minority groups may occur. Desire for Value Resources When we have enough resources, there is no need for competition, and everyone can be happy. This is similar to a course grade, where everyone can get an A if they put in the effort. Scarcity of Resources But when resources are scarce, competition arises, and prejudice may occur. This is because if one person gets the resource, others may not be able to get it. AEC (Asian Community) Example In Thailand, there is an open policy to allow skilled laborers from neighboring countries to come in and find jobs. However, this can lead to prejudice against people from these countries, as some may feel that they are taking away jobs. Cherry Brand Field Experiment A famous field experiment was conducted at Robert's Cave State Park in Oklahoma, USA, to test the theory that competition for scarce resources leads to intergroup conflict and prejudice. Phases of the Experiment The experiment consisted of three phases: Phase Description  Group formation: The boys were divided into two 1 groups and kept separate to create intragroup corporations and friendships. Competition: The two groups were brought together 2 and engaged in a series of competitions for prizes and privileges. Harmony building: The groups were forced to work 3 together to achieve superordinate goals. Phase 1: Group Formation In this phase, the boys developed strong attachments to their group through activities such as hiking, swimming, and exploring the forest together. The number of friends increased, and group identities were formed. Phase 2: Competition In this phase, the two groups were brought together and engaged in competitions for prizes and privileges. The trophy and individual prizes were scarce resources that could only be won by one team, leading to intense competition and conflict between the groups. Phase 3: Harmony Building In this phase, the groups were forced to work together to achieve superordinate goals, such as fixing a broken water supply or getting a bus started. This required intergroup cooperation and led to a decrease in conflict and prejudice. Superordinate Goals A superordinate goal is a goal that cannot be reached by one group alone. It requires cooperation and collaboration between groups to achieve. Examples of superordinate goals include: Fixing a broken water supply Getting a bus started Achieving a common goal that requires intergroup cooperation By working together to achieve these goals, the groups were able to overcome their differences and build harmony. Sources of Prejudice In this section, we'll explore the sources of prejudice and how they can lead to negative evaluations of a group. Stereotypes A stereotype is a form of categorical thinking where we assign characteristics to a group based on limited information. If these characteristics are negative, they can lead to prejudice towards the group. Realistic Group Conflict Theory We've learned that when two groups are in competition for limited resources, it can lead to conflict and prejudice towards each other. However, introducing superordinate goals that require cooperation can dissolve the prejudice and conflict. Social Identity Theory Social Identity Theory explains how our desire to feel good about ourselves can lead to the degradation of other groups. We strive to maintain a positive social identity, which is our identity as a member of a group. This identity can boost our self-esteem. In-Group Favoritism and Out-Group Derogation We tend to favor our in-group and derogate out-groups to enhance our social identity. This can be seen in in-group favoritism, where we allocate more resources to our in-group, and out-group derogation, where we evaluate out-groups more poorly. In-Group Out-Group Resource Allocation More resources allocated Fewer resources allocated Evaluation Evaluated more positively Evaluated more poorly Self-Esteem and Social Identity Our self-esteem is linked to our social identity. We can boost our self-esteem by: Achieving personal successes (personal identity) Being part of a successful group (social identity) "If my group is good, I must be good too." Testing Social Identity Theory To test Social Identity Theory, we need to create an environment where people are grouped based on trivial criteria, such as the flip of a coin. This allows us to study the consequences of believing that people belong to a group, without any prior history of conflict or differences. "What are the consequences of believing that these people belong to a group?"## Minimal Group Paradigm In social psychology, a minimal group is a group that barely meets the criteria of a group, with no interaction, no shared goals, and no social interaction between group members. Definition of Minimal Group A minimal group is a group that is created by simply categorizing people into in-group and out-group, without any interaction or shared goals. Characteristics of Minimal Group No interaction among group members No shared goals or interdependence among members Participants are usually unaware of other group members Group membership is often based on arbitrary criteria (e.g., first name starting with a certain letter) Resource Allocation Task In this task, participants are asked to allocate resources (e.g., points or money) to their own group and another group.  Participants tend to give more resources to their own group, showing in-group favoritism This occurs even when there is no competition over scarce resources The pattern of in-group favoritism is strong evidence for the social identity theory In-Group Bias and Out-Group Discrimination In-group bias: the tendency to favor one's own group over another group Out-group discrimination: the tendency to discriminate against another group These biases can occur even in the absence of competition over scarce resources Social Identity Theory and Self-Esteem Boosting Self-Esteem and Disliking the Out-Group When self-esteem is threatened, people may try to boost it by derogating an out-group This can lead to increased in-group bias and out-group discrimination Study on Self-Esteem and Out-Group Evaluation Condition Job Applicant Evaluation Positive Feedback Italian: Neutral, Jewish: Neutral Negative Feedback Italian: Neutral, Jewish: Negative Participants who received negative feedback on a test tended to evaluate a job applicant from a negatively stereotyped group (Jewish) more negatively This is evidence that self-esteem is at work when derogating an out-group to boost one's own self-esteem Mechanism of Self-Esteem and Out-Group Evaluation When self-esteem is threatened, people may derogate an out-group to boost their own self-esteem This can lead to increased in-group bias and out-group discrimination## Reducing Prejudice Contact Hypothesis The contact hypothesis, proposed by Allport, suggests that group A dislikes group B mainly because they don't know each other. The lack of contact leads to prejudice. To eliminate prejudice, we need to create contact between the groups, allowing them to interact and learn about each other. Conditions for Contact to Work For a meetup between two groups in conflict to work in reducing prejudice, we need to ensure the following conditions are in place: Condition Description Equal Status No group has higher or lower status than the other. 1-on-1 interaction between individual members of Personal Interaction the two groups, with many interactions to overcome subtyping. The two groups work together towards a common Cooperative Activities goal, requiring cooperation and joint effort. The surrounding environment and social norms Supportive Environment support intergroup harmony, with authorities and laws advocating for cooperation over competition. Jigsaw Classroom The jigsaw classroom, proposed by Elliot, is a cooperative learning environment where students from different racial backgrounds work together in small groups to learn about a topic. Each member contributes equally to the group learning, promoting mutual understanding and respect. Creating a Jigsaw Classroom To create a jigsaw classroom, follow these steps:  Form groups of 6-7 people from different racial backgrounds. Assign each group a topic to learn about, such as the life of Barack Obama. Divide the topic into subtopics, such as childhood, education, career, and hobbies. Ensure each group member contributes equally to the learning process. Encourage cooperation and mutual support among group members. Practice Exercise Think about a conflict between two groups in society, such as students from different schools. How can you bring them together and create an environment that contains the four conditions mentioned earlier? For example, could you assign them to work together on a project, such as building a school for underprivileged children? How would you implement this project to ensure the four conditions are met?## Group Learning Strategies Dependence among Group Members To learn about a topic, each group member needs to contribute and teach their part of the lesson to others. This creates dependence among group members, promoting: Bonding: Group members rely on each other to achieve a common goal. Friendship: Increased interactions lead to stronger relationships among group members. Greater Self-Esteem: Each member feels like an expert in their assigned topic area. Helping Behavior: Members assist each other in presenting materials, especially if English is not their native language. Less Aggression: Reduced hostility and aggression among group members. Strategies to Boost Self-Esteem Superordinate Goals: Cooperate to achieve a common goal, promoting inclusivity and reducing prejudice. Recategorization: Create a new category that includes both in-group and out-group members, promoting a sense of unity. Categorization and Prejudice "Categorization helps at simplifying things when we perceive, not only objects, but people surrounding us." To reduce prejudice, we can: Recategorize: Create a new category that includes both in-group and out-group members. Decategorize: Reduce the salience of categorization by emphasizing individual characteristics over group membership.  Strategy Description Create a new category that includes both in-group Recategorization and out-group members. Reduce the salience of categorization by Decategorization emphasizing individual characteristics over group membership. Accompanying Resource Watch the documentary "A Class Divided" to further understand the concepts discussed in this lecture. Aggression Aggression is a negative behavior that harms another person. As social psychologists, it's essential to address this issue and find ways to reduce aggression in our society. Definition of Aggression Aggression is about hurting somebody, but it's not just any behavior that hurts someone. It's about the intention to harm or hurt another person. Types of Aggression Aggressive behavior can be categorized into two dimensions: Dimension 1: Antisocial vs. Prosocial Antisocial: behavior that goes against the norm and is bad for the public Prosocial: behavior that aims for positive consequences for the public Dimension 2: Hostile vs. Instrumental Hostile: aggression that involves anger and the intention to hurt someone Instrumental: aggression that is a means to an end, where the goal is to achieve something beyond just hurting the target person Examples of Aggression Behavior Aggression? Why? Stepping on someone's toe No Lack of intention to harm without intention Intention to harm, even if it wasn't Shooting someone but missing Yes successful Making a remark without intention No intention to harm, but can still No to hurt, but it hurts someone be a warning Teacher hitting a student lightly Yes Intention to punish or discipline with a ruler Playing roughly with a friend and No Lack of intention to harm accidentally injuring them Note: These examples are meant to help you practice identifying aggressive behavior according to social psychology's definition.## Human Aggression Theories Instinct Theory Perspective In this perspective, human aggression is seen as an unlearned and universal trait, inherited through our genes. According to this theory, humans are born with the tendency to act aggressively in order to survive and pass on their genes. Instinct: A natural, unlearned behavior or response that is present in an individual from birth. Assumption Description Humans are born with the tendency to act Unlearned aggressively. People everywhere, regardless of environment, Universal would express the same pattern of aggressive behavior. However, research evidence suggests that the frequency of aggressive actions varies tremendously across human groups, questioning the role of genetic factors in aggression. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis According to this theory, frustration is the key to understanding aggression. Frustration leads to anger, which provides a readiness to aggress. Frustration: A feeling of dissatisfaction, often resulting from being prevented or blocked from obtaining a desired goal or pleasure. Condition Description Important goal Frustration is stronger when the goal is important. Frustration is stronger when the block is complete Complete block and cannot be overcome. The original definition of this theory stated that frustration always leads to aggression, but this has been revised to include the role of environmental factors. Revised Theory Description Frustration leads to anger, which provides a Frustration → Anger readiness to aggress.  Aggressive cues in the environment are needed to Environmental cues trigger aggression. Research has shown that frustration can serve as a powerful determiner of aggression under certain conditions, such as when the frustration is viewed as unjustified. Unjustified Frustration Description People tend to aggress when they feel they have Unfair treatment been treated unfairly. They may seek revenge against the perceived Revenge source of frustration. The frustration-aggression theory also mentions the concept of displacement, where aggression is directed towards an innocent target when the source of frustration cannot be challenged. Displacement Description Aggression is directed towards a different target, Redirected aggression often an innocent one.  Displacement can reduce anger towards the original Reduces anger source of frustration.## Displacement Displacement is a concept where an individual redirects their frustration or anger towards a more socially acceptable or less intimidating target, rather than the original source of their frustration. Example: A man who is humiliated by his boss at work may redirect his frustration towards his wife, son, or dog at home. Social Learning Theory This theory proposes that we acquire aggressive behaviors through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Key Factors: Observation: We learn by observing others, including social models, and the consequences of their actions. Imitation: We imitate the behaviors we observe, including aggressive ones. Reinforcement: We learn through reinforcement, either positive (receiving a reward) or negative (avoiding a punishment). Examples: Situation Observation Imitation Reinforcement Child seeing a strong "Using strength gets me The child uses force to Receives the reward person get a reward for a reward" get what they want (positive reinforcement) using force Boy hitting another boy The boy hits others who Stops the bullying "Hitting stops the bully" to stop bullying bully him (negative reinforcement) Protesters using violence The protesters use "Using force gets Get their demands met to get attention from the violence to get their attention" (positive reinforcement) government demands met Media Influence on Aggression TV and Video Games Long-term studies show that individuals who watch more violence on TV as children exhibit more violence as teens and adults. Video games can have a more significant impact due to the interactive nature, allowing players to rehearse aggressive scripts. Power Rangers Example The show portrays heroes using violence to maintain justice, with no remorse or apology. This can lead to a desensitization to violence and a lack of empathy for victims. Video Games Concerns Players can identify with characters and rehearse aggressive scripts. The interactive nature of video games can lead to a deeper engagement with aggressive behaviors. Classic Study by Bandura Bobo Doll Experiment: Children watched an adult model playing aggressively with a Bobo doll. Results: Children who observed the aggressive behavior were more likely to imitate it and exhibit aggressive behavior themselves. Let's discuss the effects of violence in media and how we can observe, imitate, and learn from it. ## Aggression in Media The Bobo Doll Experiment In this experiment, children were prohibited from playing with attractive toys, creating frustration. Later, they were allowed to play with toys designed for aggressive play, including the Bobo doll. The adult model played aggressively with the doll, and the children observed and imitated the behavior. Adult Model's Behavior Children's Imitation Sat on the doll and hit it Sat on the doll and hit it Used verbal aggression (e.g., "Hit you in the nose") Used verbal aggression (e.g., "Hit you in the nose") Threw the doll in the air Threw the doll in the air Used a mallet to hit the doll Used a mallet to hit the doll Kicked the doll Kicked the doll The experiment showed that children learn to imitate aggressive behavior by observing it. Social Learning Theory "Violence in media teaches viewers, especially the young ones, how to aggress." According to social learning theory, people learn to aggress by observing and imitating others. This theory suggests that violence in media can influence viewers, especially children, to exhibit aggressive behavior. Criticism of the Bobo Doll Experiment Some critics argue that the experiment's results may be due to the fact that children naturally play aggressively with dolls, rather than solely imitating the adult model's behavior. However, the verbal imitation of the adult model's aggression suggests that the children did learn from observation. Violence in Media Statistics About 80% of TV programs in the US contain violence. Almost 80% of these violent acts are shown without remorse or penalty. About half of these violent acts are committed by heroes or role models. By age 12, American kids have seen over 100,000 violent acts on TV. Consequences of Watching Violence in Media Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress Difficulty falling asleep and increased nightmares Increased aggression and violent behavior The General Aggression Model (GAM) The GAM is a newer framework that incorporates multiple factors influencing aggression, including: Person factors: individual differences, attitudes, beliefs, values, and skills Situational factors: other people and environmental influences Social learning perspective: learning to aggress through observation and imitation The GAM provides a more comprehensive understanding of aggression, acknowledging the complex interplay of various factors.## Situational Variables and Aggression The situational variable includes factors that influence aggression, such as: Media violence: exposure to violent media can increase aggressive behavior Temperature: high temperatures can lead to feelings of frustration and aggression Pain: physical pain can increase aggression Drop: a drop in something (e.g. a drop in performance) can lead to frustration and aggression Effects on the Recipient of Aggressive Cues The recipient of aggressive cues (e.g. watching a violent movie) can experience: Hostile feelings: feelings of anger or resentment Physiological arousal: increased heart rate, blood pressure, etc. Aggressive thoughts: thoughts about harming others or engaging in aggressive behavior Factors Influencing Decision Making The elicited cognitive, affective, and physiological factors can influence:  Factor Influence on Decision Making Interpretation of the situation, e.g. "Did they mean to Cognitive step on my toe?" Emotional response to the situation, e.g. anger or Affective fear Physiological response to the situation, e.g. Physiological increased heart rate The Aggression Model The aggression model takes into account multiple factors that influence aggression, including situational variables, recipient factors, and decision making processes. "The game is certainly more complex than earlier theories of aggression." - Zigula Effects of Violence in Media The effects of exposure to violent media have been extensively researched over the past 40-50 years, leading to a clear understanding of the harmful consequences on individuals and society. Background "More than 40 years of research... has made clear that exposure to media violence can have very harmful effects on society." Hundreds of studies have been conducted to investigate the link between media violence and aggression in children and adults. The results indicate that exposure to media violence is a contributing factor to high levels of violence, particularly in countries where violent media is widely consumed. Consequences of Exposure to Media Violence The following are the consequences of exposure to media violence: Arousal: increased heart rate, excitement, and readiness to act "Arousal is feeling like when you are exercising. You have an increased heart rate, you seem to be excited and ready to act on something." Imitation: learning and imitating violent behavior "You watched the hero kicking, killing, murdering people. So if they can do it, so can I? Or, oh, so that's how you do it." Desensitization: decreased emotional response to violence "It's the numbing effect, meaning you don't feel anything anymore. You don't feel bad for the victim, and you don't feel anything when you see the act of stabbing and the blood splashed from it."  Copulative Priming: thoughts and aggression are triggered by environmental stimuli "Priming is when something in the environment brings up or elicits some thoughts, but not the other." More Accepting Attitudes Toward Violence: decreased concern for violence and aggression "Violence is okay. It's not that concerning. Don't worry too much." Decreased Self-Control: reduced ability to regulate one's behavior and make good choices "Self-control is good. It is one factor that makes you now watching this video because it's something you've got to do." Research Findings The following table summarizes the research findings on the effects of media violence: Consequence Description Research Finding Increased heart rate and Watching violent media increases Arousal excitement arousal and aggression  Exposure to media violence Learning and imitating violent Imitation increases imitation of aggressive behavior behavior Repeated exposure to media Decreased emotional response violence leads to desensitization Desensitization to violence and decreased emotional response Thoughts and aggression Media violence priming increases Copulative Priming triggered by environmental aggressive thoughts and behavior stimuli Exposure to media violence leads More Accepting Attitudes Toward Decreased concern for violence to more accepting attitudes Violence and aggression toward violence Media violence exposure Reduced ability to regulate one's Decreased Self-Control decreases self-control and behavior and make good choices increases impulsive behavior Note: The research findings mentioned above are based on a summary of research in the field and are not specific to a single study.## The Effects of Exposure to Violent Media on Behavior The GTA Study In this study, participants were divided into two groups: one played a violent video game (Grand Theft Auto 3) and the other played a non-violent game (pinball or mini golf) for 30 minutes. Afterward, they were given chocolates as a reward and were observed to see if they would cheat by taking more chocolates than they earned. Results: The participants who played the violent video game took more chocolates than those who played the non-violent game. The violent video game players also cheated more by taking more rewards than they earned. The Importance of Self-Control Self-control is cru