Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Discussion 3 | excelpaper.org/
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Answer each question in 150 words using only the sources provided

1. Based on the Prejudice lectures, let’s assume most people have implicit biases (for example being implicitly biased against someone of a certain race, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc.). Beyond the legal system and the workplace, what are some other areas of our lives in which implicit biases may cause problems? What might this bias look like in those situations and how could this problem be resolved?

2. In reference to the PowerPoint, Fiske and Taylor in 1991, found that people think more about people than any other subject. However, it was also mentioned that we do not like to think because it requires energy and effort. To tie into the lessons in the previous weeks is the natural urge to compare ourselves to other driven by how frequently we think of other people? Why would we spend some much time thinking about other people to the point of comparison if we don’t even like to think?

Chapter 11
Attraction & Exclusion

Today’s Outline
Attraction
Belongingness
Similarity
Physical attractiveness
Reciprocity
Rejection
Causes of rejection
Effects of rejection
Loneliness

Attraction & Exclusion
As social animals, humans are, at their core, truly concerned with attraction and exclusion
Indeed the point of social psychology may be to understand why some are accepted and loved, while others are rejected
Take a moment to consider times in your life where you might have been afraid of romantic rejection or perhaps were seeking social acceptance with a new group of peers

Attraction & Exclusion
The need to belong is defined as the desire to form and maintain close, lasting relationships with some other individuals
Needing to belong is considered a fundamental drive or basic need of the human psyche
Warren Jones, “In two decades of studying loneliness, I have met many people who said they had no friends. I have never met any one who didn’t want to have any friends.”

Need to belong
From an evolutionary psychology perspective:
Attraction and acceptance are necessary for reproduction
Additionally, humans likely developed a herd mentality to increase our odds of survival
Consider all the ways we know our behavior changes in groups
Monkeys can recognize that any two monkeys may have an alliance, be forming one, or might be likely to fight
One theory is that the human brain developed more to keep track of a highly complex social world

Two components to belongingness
1. Regular, positive social interactions
Regular is key here, many of us have formed friendships but moved on to new situations in our life and lost regular contact with old friends
Positive is also key, hanging out with that person you always argue with doesn’t fill that social need
2. Stable relationship/friendship in which people share mutual concern for each other
Typically research has shown people want about 1-5 close friends
People are less concerned with casual friends/acquaintances

How bad for you is not belonging?
Belonging is called a need, not a want, perhaps for these reasons
Death rates from various diseases increase among people with no social connections (Lynch, 1979)
People who are alone have more mental and physical problems (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996)
Loneliness reduces the ability of the immune system to heal the body (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005)

Attraction – Similarity,
complementarity, & opposites
Which old saying turns out to be true, “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract”
The research has pointed to birds of a feather being the clear winner
In any relationship ranging from acquaintance to lover, opposites are unlikely to stay connected in the long run
Typically, but not always, our friends are similar in age, race, education level, political leaning, economic status, etc.
Note this is kind of a bad thing too, as it can lead us to assume everyone shares the opinions of your social group

Chapter 5
Social Cognition Part 2

Today’s outline

Findings about automated processing
Heuristics
Cognitive biases
Attributions
Fundamental attribution error

Social Cognition continued
Last class we discussed the theme of automated/non-conscious/peripheral processes vs controlled/conscious/central processes.
As you may recall seeing, another way to describe automated cognition is called ‘heuristics’
If you don’t know how that word is pronounced/sounds, click here and click on US https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/heuristic

Heuristics
Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts that the automated mind uses to help us make decisions quickly/easily
They can, however, also be prone to certain errors
Indeed, you may recognize the name Daniel Kahneman
He won the Nobel Prize for “having integrated insights from psychology into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty”

Representativeness Heuristic
‘The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the extent to which is resembles a typical case’
Which series of coin flips is more likely? (h = heads; t = tails)
HHHHH or
HTHTH
Most people say the second one, but in reality, the odds are the same

Representativeness Heuristic continued
What’s more healthy?

Turns out rats that were fed Lucky Charms grew and were fine, but rats fed 100% natural Quaker Oats Granola didn’t grow and died early in their life span
Granola seems healthier, but had tons of saturated fat

OR

Availability Heuristic
Were you more afraid to fly on your first airplane or to drive somewhere?
Most would say airplane
But the chances of dying in a car crash (1 in 5,000) are many many many times more likely than dying in an airplane (1 in 11 million)
Car crashes remain one of the leading causes of death, alongside heart attacks and cancer
Plane crashes, though, stand out because they’re rare and usually covered extensively in the news

Heuristics continued
A lot of the time, heuristics can help us make decisions
But often there’s a major flaw with our brain:
Information from base rates and statistics get overshadowed by biases, like the availability heuristic or representativeness heuristic
Also the gambler’s fallacy, which we’ll discuss shortly

Anchoring & adjustment heuristic
In estimating the likelihood or frequency of an event, if there’s a starting number present, people will anchor on to that and adjust either up or down
E.g. in a negotiation, if the company offered you 60k a year.

Anchoring & adjustment heuristic
Tversky and Kahneman (1974):
Spun a random 1-100 wheel in front of participants (the wheel was rigged to either land on 65 or 10)
Whichever it landed on, researchers would ask: “Is the percentage of African countries in the UN higher or lower than the # on the wheel?” Then, “What was the # of African countries?”
Participants who were anchored by the number 10%, estimated 25%, whereas those anch

Chapter 5
Social Cognition Part 1

Today’s outline
Social cognition in general
Elaboration likelihood model
A model that explains two possible routes for processing information and making decisions
Controlled vs automatic processing
Knowledge structures
Schemas, scripts, priming, framing
Cognitive coherence
A model that explains how people make decisions in the real world

Development of social cognition
Behaviorism had been focused on observable actions and not internal states
But social psychologists contended that we can still measure/access thoughts, both directly and indirectly, using clever methodology
E.g. Measuring behavior after a discussion with someone of another race, in order to assess racist attitudes

Social cognition
Social Cognition: the study of any kind of thinking by people about people or social relationships

It’s a good thing social psychologists decided to look into social cognition because it turns out we think more about people than any other subject (Fiske & Taylor, 1991)

Social psychology
Do you like to think?

Humans have the largest prefrontal cortex of any animal, but…
Do humans like to think???
Turns out, no!
Conscious, rational thought requires a lot of energy and effort

Social cognition
Social psychologists developed the term ‘cognitive miser’ to describe human thought
Just as a miser doesn’t like to spend money and does so rarely, so do cognitive misers avoid thinking
*Notable exceptions:
When it comes to people’s favorite things (hobbies, sports, interests, etc.) people can and do readily think and devour knowledge
Some people do like to think in general, how do we know?

Need for cognition
Caccioppo & Petty (1982) developed a scale called Need for Cognition (NFC)
It measures the “tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking”
Going back to persuasion from last lecture, someone’s NFC level is an audience (to whom) characteristic
Those high in NFC are more easily persuaded by strong arguments, but do not find weak arguments compelling
Example of strong argument: college students should have to take comprehensive exams at the end of senior year because that boosts starting salaries
Example of a weak argument: college students should have to take comprehensive exams because graduate students complained that because they have to, undergrads should too

Brief Note:
Before we continue, we are going to use a lot of terms in this chapter to mostly express the same things concerning the two different modes of thinking and the duplex mind:
Conscious vs. non-conscious
Central vs. peripheral
Systematic vs. heuristic
Controlled vs. automated
At different points we will use different terms, only because those were the terms the researchers used for their specific studies
But it’s important to recognize the themes and similarities

Elaboration Likelihood Model
Petty and Caccioppo (1986) later proposed a general model of how people process information to make decisions
Elabo

Chapter 14
Groups

Today’s Outline
Groups
Deindividuation
Social facilitation
Social loafing
The accuracy of group decisions & thinking
Wisdom of crowds
Groupthink
Risky/Stingy Shifts
Leaders and leadership
Toxic and dangerous leaders
Leadership styles and power

What groups are and do
We divide ourselves into many different groups
Sometimes even just two people, a dyad, can count as group
Ideally, people want to have enough in common with a group to feel close to them, but also stand apart in some ways, called optimal distinctiveness

Groups, roles, & selves
Being in groups is double-edged sword
They help us to feel like we belong
Even when the group is complete nonsense (e.g. you were seated at table 1 with other people due to a coin flip), called the minimal group effect from Ch. 13 on prejudice
When our group does well we tend to ‘bask in the reflective glory’ and feel like we have done well also
E.g. when your favorite team wins an important game

Groups, roles, & selves continued
But groups can also have major downsides
We tend to assume there’s less variability within groups than between groups, but it’s the opposite
Deindividuation is a huge problem with groups!
A loss of self-awareness and individual accountability
when in groups (E.g. mob violence)
– Said another way, being anonymous. Often results
in aggression, we’ll come back to this in Ch. 10

Group action – Social Facilitation
If you play or played sports, did you like it when your parents or friends came to watch your games?
Personally I disliked it, felt like it made me play worse, I told them not to come lol
But research shows observers can indeed affect us
Recall back in chapter 1, Triplett’s original social psychology study that found bikers biked faster against people than against the clock

Social facilitation
Since Triplett’s studies, much
more research has been conducted!
One finding showed that if you replaced other bikers with just observers, people still biked harder than with no observers
Thus people called that evaluation apprehension
Concern about how others perceive you and your performance, we want it to be favorable
This can lead to more effort and better performance
But, the presence of others can make people perform worse too and ‘choke’ under pressure

Social facilitation
How do we resolve that discrepancy then?
Do people watching make us perform better or worse?
Zajonc (1965) proposed his social facilitation theory
Based on animal behavior, how the presence of animals of the same species increases an animals arousal and its most common response/behavior

Zajonc’s Social Facilitation Theory
Presence of other people leads
to arousal
Arousal leads to an increase in the
dominant response
Aka most common/typical
response
If that response is correct, you
perform better (social facilitation)
If it’s incorrect, you perform worse,
(social inhibition)

**Put more s

error: Content is protected !!