Merge branch '2024a'
This commit is contained in:
mxr612
commit
9c467a0ef8
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
||||
# 1. Introduction to Abnormal Psychology
|
||||
# 1.1 Introduction to Abnormal Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
### Course Objectives:
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
|
||||
# 1.1 Historical and Contemporary Views of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
# 1.2 Historical and Contemporary Views of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## Historical Views of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
229
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/02.md
Normal file
229
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/02.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
|
||||
# 2. Causes of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## Risk Factors and Causes of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- A **necessary cause** (X) is a condition that must exist for a disorder (Y) to occur.
|
||||
- A **sufficient cause** of a disorder is a condition that guarantees the occurrence of a disorder.
|
||||
- A **contributory cause** is one that increases the probability of a disorder developing but is neither necessary nor sufficient for the disorder to occur.
|
||||
|
||||
### Causes of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- **Distal risk factors** are causal factors occurring relatively early in life that may not show their effects for many years.
|
||||
- **Proximal (immediate) risk factors** are factors that operate shortly before the occurrence of the symptoms of a disorder.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Feedback and Bidirectionality in Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
In the study of abnormal psychology, it can be challenging to determine with certainty which conditions are causes and which are effects due to the complex and bidirectional nature of mental health disorders.
|
||||
|
||||
### Diathesis-Stress Models
|
||||
|
||||
Combination of diathesis and stress to cause disorder.
|
||||
|
||||
- Diathesis: Relatively distal necessary or contributory cause that is not sufficient to cause disorder
|
||||
- Stress: Response of individual to taxing demands.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Protective factors
|
||||
|
||||
Stronger Resilience with:
|
||||
|
||||
- Healthy Family environment
|
||||
- Exposure to stressful experiences that are dealt with successfully
|
||||
- Emotional intelligence
|
||||
|
||||
## Perspectives to Understand the Causes of Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
### The Biological Perspective
|
||||
|
||||
Four categories of biological factors relevant to maladaptive behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Genetic vulnerabilities
|
||||
|
||||
Heredity is important predisposing contributory cause for number of disorders.
|
||||
|
||||
##### The Relationship of Genotypes to Phenotypes
|
||||
|
||||
**Genotype:** Total genetic endowment.
|
||||
|
||||
**Phenotype:** Observed structural and functional characteristics.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Methods for Studying Genetic Influences
|
||||
|
||||
**Traditional methods:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Family history method
|
||||
- Twin method
|
||||
- Adoption method
|
||||
|
||||
**More recent methods:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Linkage analysis
|
||||
- Association studies
|
||||
|
||||
#### Brain dysfunction and neural plasticity
|
||||
|
||||
Subtle deficiencies of brain function are rarely implicated in mental disorders.
|
||||
|
||||
Genetic programs for brain development are not as rigid and deterministic as was once believed.
|
||||
|
||||
The Developmental Systems Approach
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Neuro-transmitter & hormonal abnormalities in brain and CNS
|
||||
|
||||
**Neurotransmitter imbalances:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Can result in abnormal behavior
|
||||
- Created in various ways: overproduction, deactivation, abnormally
|
||||
sensitive or insensitive
|
||||
|
||||
**5 Most studied neurotransmitter:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Norepinephrine
|
||||
- Dopamine
|
||||
- Serotonin
|
||||
- Glutamate
|
||||
- Gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)
|
||||
|
||||
**Hormonal Imbalances**
|
||||
|
||||
Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis:
|
||||
|
||||
- Messages (CRH) travel from the hypothalamus to the pituitary
|
||||
- Pituitary releases ACTH, which stimulates cortical part of the adrenal gland, produces epinephrine (adrenaline) and cortisol
|
||||
- Cortisol provides negative feedback to hypothalamus and pituitary to decrease their release of CRH and ACTH, which in turn reduces the release of adrenaline and cortisol
|
||||
|
||||
#### Temperament
|
||||
|
||||
**Temperament:**
|
||||
|
||||
Child’s reactivity and characteristic ways of self-regulation.
|
||||
Early temperament is basis from which personality develops.
|
||||
|
||||
**Five Dimensions of Temperament:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Fearfulness
|
||||
- Irritability and frustration
|
||||
- Positive affect
|
||||
- Activity level
|
||||
- Attentional persistence and effortful control
|
||||
|
||||
### The Psychological Perspective
|
||||
|
||||
#### Psychodynamic
|
||||
|
||||
**Freud** theorized that a person’s behavior results from interaction of:
|
||||
|
||||
- Id (pleasure principle)
|
||||
- Ego (reality principle)
|
||||
- Superego (executive branch)
|
||||
|
||||
**Newer Psychodynamic Perspectives:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Ego psychology
|
||||
- Attachment theory
|
||||
- Object-relations theory
|
||||
- Interpersonal perspective
|
||||
|
||||
#### Behavioral
|
||||
|
||||
- Classical Conditioning
|
||||
- Operant Conditioning
|
||||
- Generalization and Discrimination
|
||||
- Observational Learning
|
||||
|
||||
#### Cognitive-Behavioral
|
||||
|
||||
- **Schema:** Underlying representation of knowledge that guides current processing of information
|
||||
- **Attributions:** Process of assigning causes to things that happen
|
||||
- **Attributional style:** Characteristic way in which individual may tend to assign causes to bad or good events
|
||||
|
||||
**Cognitive Therapy:**
|
||||
|
||||
- The way we interpret events and experiences determines our emotional reactions to them.
|
||||
- Clinicians use a variety of techniques designed to alter a client’s negative cognitive biases.
|
||||
|
||||
### The Social Perspective
|
||||
|
||||
Factors with detrimental effects on a child’s socioemotional development.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Early deprivation or trauma
|
||||
|
||||
- Depriving essential resources
|
||||
- Institutionalization
|
||||
- Neglect and abuse at home
|
||||
- Separation from parents
|
||||
|
||||
#### Problems in parenting style
|
||||
|
||||
A parent–child relationship is always bidirectional:
|
||||
Parents who have various forms of psychopathology tend to have one or more children at heightened risk for a wide range of developmental difficulties.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Marital discord & divorce
|
||||
|
||||
**Long-standing marital discord:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Aggressive behavior
|
||||
- Poor quality relationships
|
||||
|
||||
**Divorce:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Insecurity, rejection
|
||||
- Delinquency
|
||||
- Lower educational attainment
|
||||
|
||||
#### Low Socioeconomic Status and Unemployment
|
||||
|
||||
In our society, the lower the socioeconomic class, the higher the incidence of mental and physical disorders.
|
||||
|
||||
- Children and adolescents from lower socioeconomic status (SES) families tend to have more psychological problems.
|
||||
- Studies have repeatedly found unemployment to be associated with enhanced vulnerability to psychopathology.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Maladaptive peer relation-ships
|
||||
|
||||
- Peer exclusion or abuse
|
||||
- Proactive and reactive aggression in bullying
|
||||
- Cyberbullying
|
||||
|
||||
#### Prejudice and Discrimination in Race, Gender, and Ethnicity
|
||||
|
||||
Increased prevalence of certain mental disorders may be related to:
|
||||
|
||||
- Prejudice against minority groups and women
|
||||
- Perceived discrimination and self-esteem
|
||||
|
||||
### The Cultural Perspective
|
||||
|
||||
**Cultural context of behavior:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Universal and Culture-Specific Symptoms of Disorders
|
||||
- Culture: Over-and Undercontrolled Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
#### Universal and Culture-Specific Symptoms of Disorders
|
||||
|
||||
**Universality of some disorders:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Certain psychological symptoms are consistently found among similarly diagnosed clinical groups
|
||||
|
||||
**Sociocultural factors:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Which disorders develop
|
||||
- Prevalence, course
|
||||
|
||||
#### Culture: Over- and Undercontrolled Problem
|
||||
|
||||
**Undercontrolled problem:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Agression, disobedience, disrespect
|
||||
- Exhibited by American
|
||||
|
||||
**Overcontrolled problem:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Shyness, anxiety, depression
|
||||
- Exhibited by Thai
|
||||
180
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/03.md
Normal file
180
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/03.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
|
||||
# 3. Assessment of Mental Health Problems
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduction to Basic Elements in Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Interaction of **Importance of trust and rapport** and **Impact on assessment** process.
|
||||
|
||||
### Identification of presenting problem
|
||||
|
||||
- Situational or pervasive?
|
||||
- Duration?
|
||||
- Prior attempts to help or treat?
|
||||
- Self-defeating or resourceful?
|
||||
- How does problem impact social roles?
|
||||
- Does problem match any DSM-5 disorder criteria?
|
||||
|
||||
### Advantage of classification of presenting problem
|
||||
|
||||
- Treatment planning
|
||||
- Knowledge of range of diagnostic problems
|
||||
- Insurance payment
|
||||
|
||||
### Good assessment includes
|
||||
|
||||
- social history noting:
|
||||
- Personality factors
|
||||
- Social context
|
||||
- various professional orientations:
|
||||
- May determine assessment techniques
|
||||
- Does not limit clinician to one type of assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Dynamic formulation
|
||||
|
||||
Describes the current situation but also includes hypotheses about what is driving the person to behave in maladaptive ways.
|
||||
|
||||
- Hypotheses about future behavior are derived.
|
||||
- Decisions about treatment are made collaboratively with the consent and approval of the individual.
|
||||
- Assessment may involve the coordinated use of physical, psychological, and environmental procedures.
|
||||
|
||||
### Psychological Assessments are
|
||||
|
||||
- Reliable
|
||||
- Valid
|
||||
- Standardized
|
||||
|
||||
## Assessment of the Physical Conditions
|
||||
|
||||
### General physical examination
|
||||
|
||||
Many psychological problems have physical components either as
|
||||
|
||||
- Causal factors
|
||||
- Symptom patterns
|
||||
|
||||
### Neurological examination
|
||||
|
||||
- **EEG:** graphical record of brain’s electrical activity
|
||||
- **CAT scan & MRI:** images of brain structures that may be damaged or diseased
|
||||
- **PET scan:** metabolic activity of specific compounds
|
||||
- **fMRI:** mapping psychological activity to specific regions in the brain
|
||||
|
||||
### Neuro-psychological examination
|
||||
|
||||
- Involves use of expanding array of testing devices
|
||||
- Measures cognitive, perceptual, and motor performance
|
||||
- Provides clues to extent and location of brain damage
|
||||
|
||||
**Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (HRNB) (10 tests in total):**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Halstead Category Test:** Learn & remember
|
||||
- **Tactual Performance Test**: Motor function, response, tactile & kinesthetic cues
|
||||
- **Rhythm Test:** Attention, sustained concentration
|
||||
- **Speech Sounds Perception Test:** Identify spoken words
|
||||
- **Finger Oscillation Task:** Speed
|
||||
|
||||
## Psychosocial Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
### Assessment Interviews
|
||||
|
||||
- Face-to-face interaction
|
||||
- Structured interviews
|
||||
- Unstructured interviews
|
||||
|
||||
### Clinical Observation of Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- Clinical observation in natural environments
|
||||
- Clinical observations in therapeutic or medical settings
|
||||
- Self-monitoring
|
||||
|
||||
### Psychological Tests
|
||||
|
||||
#### Intelligence tests
|
||||
|
||||
- WISC-IV(children); WAISIV (adults)
|
||||
- Stanford-Binet
|
||||
|
||||
#### Personality tests
|
||||
|
||||
##### Projective personality tests
|
||||
|
||||
- Unstructured stimuli are presented
|
||||
- Meaning or structure projected onto stimuli
|
||||
- Projections reveal hidden motives
|
||||
|
||||
**Projective personality tests examples:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Rorschach Inkblot Test
|
||||
- Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
|
||||
- Sentence Completion Test
|
||||
|
||||
##### Objective personality tests
|
||||
|
||||
Examples: NEO-PI, MMPI-2
|
||||
|
||||
Objective personality tests offer several advantages, such as standardization, efficiency, and ease of administration, but also have limitations, including limited depth, potential response distortion, and cultural bias.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Integration of Assessment Data
|
||||
|
||||
- Developing integrated, coherent working model
|
||||
- Utilizing individual or team approach
|
||||
- Identifying definitive picture vs. discrepancie
|
||||
|
||||
### Ethical Issues in Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
- Potential cultural bias
|
||||
- Theoretical orientation of clinician
|
||||
- Underemphasis on external situation
|
||||
- Insufficient validation
|
||||
- Inaccurate data or premature evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
## Classifying Abnormal Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- Classification involves attempts to delineate meaningful sub-varieties of maladaptive behavior.
|
||||
- Classification makes it possible to communicate about particular clusters of abnormal behavior in agreed-on and relatively precise ways.
|
||||
- Classification of some kind is a necessary first step toward introducing order into our discussion of the nature, causes, and treatment of such behavior.
|
||||
- Classification enables the clarification of insurance issues.
|
||||
|
||||
### Differing Models of Classification
|
||||
|
||||
Three basic approaches include:
|
||||
|
||||
- Categorical approach:
|
||||
a patient is healthy or disordered, but there is no overlap
|
||||
- Dimensional approach:
|
||||
the patient may fall along a range from superior functioning
|
||||
to absolutely impaired functioning
|
||||
- Prototypal approach:
|
||||
a conceptual entity depicts an idealized combination of
|
||||
characteristics, some of which the patient may not have
|
||||
|
||||
### Formal Diagnostic Classification of Mental Disorders
|
||||
|
||||
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
|
||||
- International Classification of Disease (ICD-10)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Definition criteria based on:
|
||||
|
||||
- Symptoms (subjective)
|
||||
- Signs (objective)
|
||||
|
||||
#### The DSM-5
|
||||
|
||||
- More comprehensive and more subtypes of disorders
|
||||
- Allows for gender related differences in diagnosis
|
||||
- Provides structured interview regarding cultural influences
|
||||
|
||||
#### Problem of diagnostic labeling
|
||||
|
||||
- Allows label capturing more than a behavioral pattern
|
||||
- Creates assumptions among clinicians
|
||||
- Creates social identity (stigma)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Diagnostic Interviews
|
||||
|
||||
- Unstructured:
|
||||
- Freewheeling
|
||||
- Clinician can follow leads
|
||||
- Clinical picture may vary, based on interviewer
|
||||
- Structured
|
||||
- Controlled
|
||||
- Determine if symptoms fit diagnostic criteria
|
||||
234
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/04.md
Normal file
234
PSYG2500 Abnormal Psychology/04.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
|
||||
# 4. Stress
|
||||
|
||||
## What Is Stress?
|
||||
|
||||
- External demands placed on an organism
|
||||
- Organism’s internal biological and psychological responses to such demands
|
||||
|
||||
### Behavioral Medicine
|
||||
|
||||
Concerned with psychological factors that may predispose an individual to medical problems: Health psychology
|
||||
The effects of stress and other psychological factors in the development and maintenance of physical problems
|
||||
|
||||
### Stress and *DSM*
|
||||
|
||||
- Significant component of multiple DSM diagnostic categories
|
||||
- DSM-5: Trauma- and stressor-related disorders
|
||||
|
||||
### Factors Predisposing a Person to Stress
|
||||
|
||||
- Experience of crisis
|
||||
- Life changes
|
||||
- Individual perception of stressor
|
||||
- Individual stress tolerance
|
||||
- Lack of external resources and social supports
|
||||
|
||||
### Characteristics of Stressors
|
||||
|
||||
Life changes, Crises, and Perception of benefits.
|
||||
|
||||
- Severity
|
||||
- Chronicity
|
||||
- Timing
|
||||
- Degree of impact
|
||||
- Level of expectation
|
||||
- Controllability
|
||||
|
||||
Measuring Life Stress
|
||||
|
||||
- Social Readjustment Rating Scale
|
||||
- Self-report checklist
|
||||
- Limited
|
||||
- Life Events and Difficulties Schedule
|
||||
- Interview-based
|
||||
- Rates chronic and acute stress
|
||||
|
||||
### Resilience
|
||||
|
||||
Factors linked to resilience:
|
||||
|
||||
- Male gender
|
||||
- Older age
|
||||
- Higher Eeducation
|
||||
- Economic resources
|
||||
- Positive thinking
|
||||
- Self confidence
|
||||
|
||||
## Stress and Physical Health
|
||||
|
||||
#### Allostatic load
|
||||
|
||||
Biological cost of adapting to stress.
|
||||
|
||||
- High load = more stress
|
||||
- Everyday forms of stress can also elevate risk for coronary heart disease and death
|
||||
- Mental stress raises blood pressure, migraine, and elevates epinephrine levels
|
||||
|
||||
#### The Stress Response
|
||||
|
||||
Two of body’s systems respond when stressor is perceived:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Sympathetic-adrenomedullary (SAM) system:** mobilize resources and enable the body to metabolize glucose more rapidly.
|
||||
- **Hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system:** produce cortisol to enable the the body for fight or flight and promote escape behavior
|
||||
|
||||
### Stress and Immune System Functioning
|
||||
|
||||
#### The Mind-Body Connection
|
||||
|
||||
Stress may cause overall vulnerability to disease.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Understanding the Immune System
|
||||
|
||||
- Protects body from such things as viruses and bacteria
|
||||
- Provides leukocytes: front lines of defense
|
||||
- Communicates with brain via cytokines
|
||||
|
||||
#### Stress and Immune System Functioning
|
||||
|
||||
Stress is linked to immune system suppression
|
||||
- Short-term stress compromises immune system
|
||||
- Long-term stress associated with global immunosuppression
|
||||
|
||||
#### Chronic Stress and Inflammation
|
||||
|
||||
1. Long term stress
|
||||
2. Body cannot turn off cytokine production
|
||||
3. Chronic inflammation
|
||||
|
||||
Stress and Premature Aging
|
||||
|
||||
1. Stress
|
||||
2. Shortens telomere length
|
||||
3. Shorter telomeres affect cell function, increase disease risk
|
||||
|
||||
### Emotions and Health:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Personality Types
|
||||
|
||||
The Type A behavior pattern:
|
||||
|
||||
- Excessive competitive drive
|
||||
- Extreme commitment to work
|
||||
- Impatience and time urgency
|
||||
- Hostility
|
||||
|
||||
Type D Questionnaire:
|
||||
tendency to experience negative emotions and also to feel insecure and anxious
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Emotion
|
||||
|
||||
- Depression: Associated with disrupted immune function beyond stressors that precipitated depressed mood
|
||||
- Anxiety
|
||||
- Phobic anxiety is linked to increased risk for sudden cardiac death
|
||||
- Social isolation and lack of social support
|
||||
- Lonely people at increased risk of developing heart disease
|
||||
- Positive emotions
|
||||
- Forgiveness may lower stress levels
|
||||
- Emotion regulation
|
||||
- Psychological well-being
|
||||
- Physical health
|
||||
|
||||
### Treatments of Stress-Related Physical Disorders
|
||||
|
||||
#### Biological Interventions
|
||||
|
||||
- Surgical procedures (handling problems for e.g. CHD)
|
||||
- Lipid-lowering medications: reduce anxiety
|
||||
- Aspirin: reduce pain
|
||||
- Antidepressant medications
|
||||
|
||||
#### Psychological Interventions
|
||||
|
||||
- Emotional disclosure
|
||||
- Biofeedback
|
||||
- Relaxation and meditation
|
||||
- Cognitive-behavior therapy
|
||||
|
||||
## Stress and Mental Health:
|
||||
|
||||
### Adjustment disorder
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Acute Stress Disorder
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Posttraumatic stress disorder PTSD
|
||||
|
||||
- Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (cont.)
|
||||
- Trauma and stressor-related disorder
|
||||
- DSM classification
|
||||
- Combat, rape, concentration camp, natural disaster
|
||||
- Examples of Causes
|
||||
- Combat, rape, concentration camp, natural disaster
|
||||
- Clinical description
|
||||
- Trauma memory re-experienced involuntarily, with same emotional force
|
||||
- Symptoms last for at least 1 month
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Prevalence of PTSD in General Population
|
||||
|
||||
- Lifetime prevalence rate in the U.S. is 6.8%
|
||||
- Higher rates in women despite finding that men are more likely to be exposed to traumatic events
|
||||
|
||||
Research suggests that the higher prevalence of PTSD in women despite men being more likely to be exposed to traumatic events may be due to differences in coping mechanisms, social support, and biological factors.
|
||||
Women may be more likely to seek help and support after a traumatic event, while men may be more likely to suppress their emotions and avoid seeking help.
|
||||
Additionally, hormonal differences between men and women may play a role in how they respond to and recover from traumatic events.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Rates of PTSD After Traumatic Experiences
|
||||
|
||||
- Natural and human disasters
|
||||
- Human intent
|
||||
- Degree of exposure
|
||||
- PTSD definition & assessment
|
||||
|
||||
#### Causal Factors in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
|
||||
|
||||
##### Individual Risk Factors
|
||||
|
||||
- Lack of college education
|
||||
- Conduct problem
|
||||
- Family history of psychiatric disorder
|
||||
- Scoring high on measures of extraversion and neuroticism
|
||||
|
||||
##### Biological Factors
|
||||
|
||||
- Genetics:
|
||||
5HTTLPR gene
|
||||
- Reduced size of hippocampus:
|
||||
Brain site related to memory & stress response
|
||||
|
||||
##### Sociocultural Factors
|
||||
|
||||
- Higher risk for PTSD
|
||||
- Membership in minority group
|
||||
- Returning to negative and unsupportive social environment
|
||||
|
||||
- In combat-related trauma:
|
||||
- Justification for combat
|
||||
- Identification with combat unit
|
||||
|
||||
## Prevention and Treatment of Stress Disorders
|
||||
|
||||
### Advanced preparation of stressor (Inoculation training)
|
||||
|
||||
- Military service
|
||||
- Medical procedures
|
||||
- Relationship termination
|
||||
|
||||
### Approaches to treatment include:
|
||||
|
||||
- Telephone hotlines
|
||||
- Crisis intervention
|
||||
- Psychological debriefing
|
||||
- Medications
|
||||
- Cognitive-behavioral treatments
|
||||
128
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/01.md
Normal file
128
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/01.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
|
||||
# 1. Introduction & Research Methods
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG 2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
What is social psychology:
|
||||
The **scientific** study of the way in which people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people.
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.1 Social Psychology focuses on the behavior of individuals
|
||||
|
||||
Four core values to be scientific:
|
||||
|
||||
- Accuracy – in a careful, precise and error-free manner
|
||||
- Objectivity – free from bias
|
||||
- Skepticism – accept findings as accurate after verifying repeatedly
|
||||
- Open-mindedness – to change the viewpoints when evidence shows the inaccuracy of the viewpoints
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.2 Social Psychology seeks to understand the causes of social behavior and thought
|
||||
|
||||
We are not isolated from social and cultural influences.
|
||||
|
||||
To understand the factors that shape the actions and thoughts of individuals in the social contexts.
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. love, violence, helping…
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.3 Social Psychology seeks to understand the causes of social behavior and thought
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3.1 The actions and characteristics of other people
|
||||
|
||||
**Our emotions, thoughts and behavior are affected by others.**
|
||||
|
||||
When others are watching us (e.g. an attractive person looked at you at the canteen/ your lecturer stood next to you when you were having the examination)
|
||||
|
||||
Others’ physical characteristics (e.g. tall/short; fat/slim; young/old; attractive/less attractive…)
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3.2 Cognitive processes
|
||||
|
||||
**Engage in social cognition – to think about other persons.**
|
||||
|
||||
*Infer* other people and then *affect* how we behave to them (i.e. your reactions in a situation will depend upon your memories of someone’s past behavior and your inferences about whether his/her explanation is really true)
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. You are going to have lunch with your friend and she is late for an hour, how will you react when she says…
|
||||
She has totally forgotten? She had diarrhoea?
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3.3 Environmental variables
|
||||
|
||||
**The physical environment influences our feelings, thoughts and behaviors.**
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. Do people become more aggressive and irritable when the weather is hot? Does exposure to a pleasant smell in the air make people happier?
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.3.4 Biological factors
|
||||
|
||||
**Comes from the Evolutionary Psychology – we now possess a large number of evolved psychological mechanisms that help us to deal with important problems relating to survival.**
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. attractiveness (women rate sense of humor very high on the list of desirable characteristics in potential romantic partners)
|
||||
= Signal high intelligence, more attractive, interest in forming new relationships
|
||||
|
||||
## 1.4 Social Psychology aims to search for basic principles under the ever-changing social world
|
||||
|
||||
- Develop basic principles that are accurate regardless of when and where they applied or tested.
|
||||
- Social psychologists also recognize that cultures differ greatly and the social work keeps on changing (e.g. independence or interdependence)
|
||||
- E.g. Would the determinants of attraction change after the advancement of technology, e.g. online dating? Social media?
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.4.1 Research as a route to increase knowledge
|
||||
|
||||
#### Systematic observation
|
||||
|
||||
Mainly by *naturalistic observation*.
|
||||
|
||||
The researcher just simply record what is happening in each context.
|
||||
He/she would make no attempt to change the behavior of the people being observed
|
||||
|
||||
#### Survey Method
|
||||
|
||||
- Advantages:
|
||||
- Easy to gather information
|
||||
- Can quickly get the opinions
|
||||
- Large sample size
|
||||
- Disadvantages:
|
||||
- Social desirability
|
||||
|
||||
#### Correlation
|
||||
|
||||
- Search for *relationships* between two events
|
||||
- Make *predictions*
|
||||
- Represents in a *number*, from $-1$ to $+1$
|
||||
- Positive correlation: when one variable increases, the other also increases
|
||||
- Negative correlation: when one variable increases, the other decreases
|
||||
- NOT implying causation
|
||||
|
||||
#### Experimental Method
|
||||
|
||||
One or more factors (IVs) are systematically changed to determine whether the changes will affect one or more factors (DVs)
|
||||
|
||||
- Independent variables (IVs): the factor/variable that is changed/manipulated in an experiment
|
||||
- Dependent variables (DVs): the factor/variable that is measured in an experiment
|
||||
|
||||
Researchers vary the independent variable (e.g., the number of bystanders people think are present) and observe what effect that has on the dependent variable (e.g., whether people help).
|
||||
|
||||
- Random assignment – the participant must have an equal chance to be exposed to each level of the IVs
|
||||
- Internal validity – Making sure that nothing besides the independent variable can affect the dependent variable
|
||||
- External validity – The extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and to other people
|
||||
|
||||
### 1.4.2 Research vs. human rights
|
||||
|
||||
#### Informed consent
|
||||
|
||||
**The research participants be told enough to enable them to choose whether they wish to participate**
|
||||
|
||||
Informed consent should include:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A brief description of the purpose and procedure of the research, including the expected duration of the study
|
||||
2. A statement of any risks or discomfort associated with participation
|
||||
3. A guarantee of anonymity and the confidentiality of records
|
||||
The identification of the researcher and of where to receive information about subjects’ rights or questions about the study
|
||||
4. A statement that participation is completely voluntary and can be terminated at any time without penalty
|
||||
5. A statement of alternative procedures that may be used
|
||||
6. A statement of any benefits or compensation provided to the subjects and the number of subjects involved
|
||||
7. An offer to provide a summary of findings
|
||||
|
||||
#### Debriefing
|
||||
|
||||
1. Provide necessary information (e.g. yourselves, nature, hypotheses) about the experiment.
|
||||
2. Clear any misunderstanding or misconceptions
|
||||
Explain why deception was used (if any)
|
||||
3. Minimize psychological harm or uncomfortable feelings aroused from the experiment
|
||||
4. Make sure they leave with positive feelings
|
||||
5. Appreciate and thank them for their contribution and help
|
||||
Let them know where to get further information
|
||||
230
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/02.md
Normal file
230
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/02.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
|
||||
# 2. Social perception
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG 2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
*The study of how we form impressions of and make inferences about other people.*
|
||||
|
||||
## 2.1 Nonverbal communication
|
||||
|
||||
- The way in which people communicate, intentionally or unintentionally, without words, including via facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body position, movement, touch and gaze.
|
||||
- It provides abundant information about others
|
||||
- Help us to express our emotions, attitudes, and personality
|
||||
- Relatively irrepressible (difficult to control)
|
||||
- **Basic channels of nonverbal communication:**
|
||||
- **The visible channel** – facial expressions, eye contact, body movements, posture, and touching
|
||||
- **Paralanguage** – voice pitch, loudness, rhythm, inflection, and hesitations to convey information
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1.1 Channels of nonverbal communication
|
||||
|
||||
#### Facial expression
|
||||
|
||||
**Changes in the face that can occur as an automatic response to an internal state or as a voluntary response to a social situations.**
|
||||
|
||||
- Reveal emotions
|
||||
Six basic types: anger, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise and disgust (e.g., Ekman, 1982)
|
||||
- Culturally universal?
|
||||
Yes, both the use and recognition (Ekman & Friesen, 1975)
|
||||
- Can we accurately recognize others’ facial expressions?
|
||||
Depends on people’s intentional focus on showing their own emotions in their facial expressions
|
||||
|
||||
#### Eye contact
|
||||
|
||||
- Gaze: looking at another person’s eyes
|
||||
- High level of gazing from another person = interest or friendliness (Kleinke, 1986);
|
||||
- Avoid eye contact = unfriendly or shy
|
||||
- Too high/intense gazing = stare
|
||||
- A sign of anger or hostility (Ellsworth & Carlsmith, 1973), leads to the termination of social interaction
|
||||
- Bushman (1998) advised drivers to avoid eye contact with aggressive motorists
|
||||
Assault may result because they may perceive aggressiveness
|
||||
|
||||
#### Body language/ Gestures
|
||||
|
||||
- Our emotions are often reflected in the position, posture and movement of our bodies
|
||||
- Large no. of movements (esp. touching, rubbing, scratching) = emotional arousal
|
||||
E.g. ‘Fidgeting’ = lying
|
||||
- Gestures have meaning mainly when observers and participants understand the context and the culture (e.g. emblems)
|
||||
- Emblems: nonverbal gestures that have well-understood definitions within a given culture, usually having direct verbal translations, e.g. OK sign
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Touching
|
||||
|
||||
- The appropriateness of touching depends on the situation.
|
||||
- Depends on who? Nature of the touching? The context?
|
||||
- Suggest friendliness, affection, sexual interest, dominance, caring, or aggression.
|
||||
- Handshake is acceptable in many cultures.
|
||||
Firmer and longer handshakes = higher extraversion and openness to experience
|
||||
|
||||
#### Distance
|
||||
|
||||
Standing close is a sign of friendship or interest.
|
||||
|
||||
- We stand closer to friends than strangers (Aiello & Cooper, 1972)
|
||||
- People who want to be friendly would choose smaller distances
|
||||
- People who are sexually attracted to each other stand close (Allgeier & Byrne, 1973)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Paralanguage
|
||||
|
||||
- Contains many emotional meanings (Banse & Scherer, 1996)
|
||||
- Tone (an attitude/feeling conveyed through sound)
|
||||
- Pitch (highness or loudness of sound)
|
||||
- Sounds that occurred during speech (e.g. laughing, crying) and facial expressions were more accurate guides to the emotions underlying people’s statements than the spoken words (Hawk, van Kleef, Fischer, & van der Schalk, 2009)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Look of love?
|
||||
|
||||
- People in love tend to look at and touch each other differently than those not in love (e.g. holding hands in public, standing very close) (Gonzaga, Kelmer, Keltner, & Smith, 2001)
|
||||
- The stronger the love, the more frequently the nonverbal cues showed (e.g. smiles, head nods, leaning towards one another)
|
||||
- In short, inner feelings of love were reflected in the overt nonverbal actions under both positive and negative conditions
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1.2 Theories
|
||||
|
||||
#### Facial feedback hypothesis
|
||||
|
||||
- Facial feedback hypothesis (Duclos, Laird, Schneider, Sexter, Stern, & Van Lighten, 1989).
|
||||
Our emotions influence our nonverbal cues, the cues themselves influence our internal feelings as well!
|
||||
- The facial expression triggers the emotions or feelings.
|
||||
E.g. You are laughing because you are happy BUT You also feel happier when you are laughing!
|
||||
|
||||
#### Gender differences on nonverbal behavior?
|
||||
|
||||
Girls and women tend to be more expressive, more involved in their interpersonal interactions, and more open in the expression of emotion (DePaulo, 1992)
|
||||
|
||||
- Use more nonverbal behavior during interaction with others
|
||||
- Better at communicating happiness; Men at communicating anger (Coats & Feldman, 1996)
|
||||
- More accurate interpreting the nonverbal cues than men (Hall, 1978)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Deception
|
||||
|
||||
**Facial expressions are not very helpful in helping people to detect deception (Ekman & Friesen, 1974).**
|
||||
How to detect? NONVERBAL LEAKAGE
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Microexpressions** – fleeting facial expressions that last only a few tenths of a second
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Interchannel discrepancies** – inconsistencies shown between the nonverbal cues
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Eye contact** – blinking, dilated pupils, low level of eye contact or unusually high
|
||||
|
||||
4. Exaggerated facial expressions – smile more/greater sorrow than is typical in a given situation
|
||||
|
||||
5. **Linguistic style** – the voice is higher, shorter answers, longer delays in responding, more speech errors
|
||||
|
||||
Deception leads to negative social relations
|
||||
|
||||
## 2.2 Attribution
|
||||
|
||||
**A description of the way in which people explain the causes of their own and other people’s behavior.**
|
||||
E.g. Why has a father just yelled at his daughter?
|
||||
|
||||
- **Internal attribution:** the inference that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude, character, or personality (e.g. father is impatient)
|
||||
- **External attribution:** the inference that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in, with the assumption that most people would respond the same way in that situation (e.g. his daughter has just stepped into the street without looking?)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2.1 Theories of Attribution
|
||||
|
||||
#### Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965)
|
||||
|
||||
**Use others’ behavior as a basis for inferring their traits.**
|
||||
|
||||
- This theory is to describe how we use others’ behavior to infer their dispositions.
|
||||
- We like to make a dispositional attributions for a person’s behavior when:
|
||||
1. the behavior is freely-chosen (not being forced)
|
||||
2. the behaviour is clearly intentional
|
||||
3. the behavior is not a function of the situation or expected roles
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. If Peter is late to school:
|
||||
Internal attribution: He is lazy; He is not responsible
|
||||
External attribution: He is late because of traffic jam; He is late because of the physical discomfort
|
||||
|
||||
#### Kelly’s covariation theory (1973)
|
||||
|
||||
**The typical social situation has three components:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. A person who displays a particular behaviour
|
||||
2. An object/stimulus towards which the behaviour is directed
|
||||
3. The behaviour occurs at a particular time or occasion
|
||||
|
||||
**Three types of information are needed:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Consensus** – The extent to which other people behave the same way toward the same stimulus as the actor does
|
||||
e.g. When you see a snake, you will scream, and many people scream when seeing a snake, so the consensus is high
|
||||
2. **Consistency** – The extent to which the behavior between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances
|
||||
e.g. You scream whenever you see a snake.
|
||||
Consistency is high because you scream whenever you see a snake
|
||||
3. **Distinctiveness** – The extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli
|
||||
e.g. You do not scream when you see a cockroaches
|
||||
You scream only when you see a snake, so the distinctiveness is high
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2.2 Attribution : Sources of errors
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fundamental Attribution Error (Jones & Harris, 1967)
|
||||
|
||||
> also called The Correspondence Bias
|
||||
|
||||
We tend to underestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the impact of internal, dispositional factors when we are analyzing others’ behavior
|
||||
E.g. James is late to school, and we think he is an irresponsible person even though we know there is a serious traffic jam in Shatin.
|
||||
|
||||
**The attribution bias is dependent on too many factors:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Culture - stronger in Western cultures (Miyamoto & Kitayama, 2018)
|
||||
- Age – young people in the West explain behaviour in terms of specific factors within the situation, and only later begin to show a tendency to favour personality attributions
|
||||
|
||||
#### The Actor-Observer effect (Malle, 2006)
|
||||
|
||||
**A tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational causes but others’ behavior to dispositional causes.**
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. You believe you fail the quiz because the lecturer is too harsh whereas if Josephine fails the same quiz because she is stupid
|
||||
We are well aware of the external/situational factors affecting us but less aware of its effects on others
|
||||
|
||||
#### The Self-Serving Bias (Miller & Ross, 1975)
|
||||
|
||||
**A tendency to attribute one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one’s failures that blame external, situational factors.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Explanation:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Cognitive reason: we want people to think well of us
|
||||
- Motivational reason: to protect our self-esteem
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. We attain a good grade on the quiz because we are smart; We fail the quiz because Josephine is harsh
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2.3 Applications of attribution theory
|
||||
|
||||
**Attribution and Depression:**
|
||||
|
||||
- A self-defeating pattern of attributions
|
||||
- Such a pattern is opposite to the self-serving bias
|
||||
i.e. They attribute the negative outcomes to internal causes but positive outcomes to external causes
|
||||
E.g. A depressed woman being dumped by her boyfriend because she is bad
|
||||
- There are some therapies that help to change this attribution pattern,
|
||||
e.g. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)
|
||||
|
||||
## 2.3 Impression formation
|
||||
|
||||
The process we form the impression of another person
|
||||
|
||||
- affects how we react to that person later
|
||||
- carries a long-lasting and powerful effects on our perception
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3.1 First impression
|
||||
|
||||
- Before, Social psychologists concluded that the first impression is formed very quickly but usually inaccurate
|
||||
- But recent research showed that even with ‘thin slices’ of information, the first impression formed is relatively *accurate*
|
||||
**Thin-slicing:** Drawing meaningful conclusions about another person’s personality or skills based on an extremely brief sample of behavior
|
||||
- The formation of the first impression takes a few seconds (!!)
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3.2 Implicit Personality Theories
|
||||
|
||||
- The beliefs about which characteristics would go together
|
||||
- When a person possesses some traits, he also possesses others as well
|
||||
E.g. Ice is nice and friendly, then she must be cooperative
|
||||
E.g. Josephine is lazy and impolite, then she must be irresponsible
|
||||
- People also have implicit beliefs about birth order
|
||||
1st – more intelligent, responsible, obedient, stable
|
||||
Last born – most creative, emotional, disobedient
|
||||
Only – most disagreeable, self-centred
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3.3 Impression management
|
||||
|
||||
How can we produce/create a favorable first impression on other people?
|
||||
**Tactics:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Self-enhancement (appearance, self-introduction)
|
||||
- Other-enhancement (agree with others to make others feel good)
|
||||
145
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/03.md
Normal file
145
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/03.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
|
||||
# 3. Social Cognition
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
**Social cognition:**
|
||||
|
||||
- How people think about themselves and the social world (Aronson, Wilson & Sommers, 2021).
|
||||
- How we select, interpret, remember, and use social information to help us make judgements and decisions (Aronson, Wilson & Sommers, 2021)
|
||||
|
||||
**The three approaches we often use:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Heuristics
|
||||
- Schemas (概要)
|
||||
- Affect and cognition
|
||||
|
||||
**Automatic Thinking:**
|
||||
|
||||
Thinking that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless (Heuristics & Schemas).
|
||||
Low-effort thinking (vs. High-effort thinking: thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary and effortful)
|
||||
|
||||
## 3.1 Heuristics (mental shortcuts)
|
||||
|
||||
*People use to make judgements quickly and efficiently.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Information overload: Demands for our cognitive systems > our cognitive capacity (especially under stressful situations).**
|
||||
|
||||
We have too much information, Heuristics let us do more, with less effort.
|
||||
|
||||
**Types of heuristics:**
|
||||
|
||||
- Representativeness
|
||||
- Availability
|
||||
- Anchoring and adjustment
|
||||
- Status quo
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1.1 Representativeness heuristic
|
||||
|
||||
*A mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case.*
|
||||
|
||||
The judgments are often accurate because we follow the group norms in behavior and style.
|
||||
|
||||
**Possible error:**
|
||||
|
||||
- *Base rates* – the frequency with a given event/patterns occur in the total population
|
||||
- *Discounting other important information*
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1.2 Availability heuristic
|
||||
|
||||
*A strategy to make judgments based on how *easily* specific kinds of information brought to our mind.*
|
||||
The more easily recall something (something dramatic), the greater its impact on subsequent judgments or decisions.
|
||||
|
||||
**We are more easily to retrieve the information on our familiar task for making judgments.**
|
||||
Judgements about objects that we are personally familiar with (e.g. consumer brands) are influenced by ease of retrieval more than judgments about brands that we are less familiar with
|
||||
|
||||
**Possible error:**
|
||||
overestimate the probability of events that are dramatic but rare.
|
||||
E.g. car accidents vs flight accidents
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1.3 Anchoring and adjustment
|
||||
|
||||
*The tendency to use something we know (anchor) as a starting point to which we then make adjustments to deal with uncertainty.*
|
||||
|
||||
- We use particular standard as a starting point (anchor), then try to determine if we should guess higher or lower than the starting point (adjustment) (DeLamater & Myers, 2011)
|
||||
- We use ‘self’ as the anchor
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.1.4 Problem: Negative Bias
|
||||
|
||||
*The fact that we show greater sensitivity and likely to remember the negative information than to positive information.*
|
||||
|
||||
## 3.2 Schemas
|
||||
|
||||
*Mental structures people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects and that influence the information people notice, think about and remember.*
|
||||
|
||||
- Including our knowledge about other people, ourselves, social roles (e.g. what a lecturer is like), and specific events.
|
||||
- Help us organize and make sense of the world and to fill in the gaps of our knowledge.
|
||||
- Particularly useful in confusing or ambiguous situations.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2.1 Advantages of Schematic Processing
|
||||
|
||||
Schemas aid and speed up information processing:
|
||||
|
||||
- Help remember or interpret new information
|
||||
- Be more efficient
|
||||
- Fill in the gaps in our knowledge
|
||||
- Perceive and label the new information which is consistent or inconsistent with the schemas
|
||||
- Reduce ambiguous elements in the situation
|
||||
|
||||
### 3.2.2 Limitations of Schematic Processing
|
||||
|
||||
People fill in gaps with information that does not belong but is schema-consistent.
|
||||
People may ignore information which does belong but is schema-inconsistent
|
||||
Selective attention.
|
||||
|
||||
**Halo effect (Thorndike, 1920):** A general bias in which a favorable or unfavorable general impression of a person affects our inferences and future expectations about that person.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Confirmation bias (confirmatory hypothesis testing)
|
||||
|
||||
*A tendency to search for information that confirms our original hypotheses and beliefs.*
|
||||
People are overly accepting of information that fits a schema.
|
||||
|
||||
Snyder and Swann (1978) asked 50% of their participants to find out if the other person they were interviewing was an extrovert (easy-going and sociable), and the other half to find out if s/he was an introvert (shy and withdrawn).
|
||||
People tended to select questions from a provided list that confirmed the hypothesis they were testing.
|
||||
|
||||
Holding an opposite hypothesis or having a need for valid information reduces the degree to which people selectively confirm hypotheses.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Self-fulfilling prophecies
|
||||
|
||||
*People have an expectation about what another person is like, which influences how they act toward that person, which causes that person to behave consistently with people’s original expectations, making the expectations come true.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Rosenthal and Jacobson’s (1968) study:**
|
||||
Gave IQ test to all students in an elementary school in San Francisco
|
||||
Told the teachers that some of the students scored very high in an IQ test and were promising.
|
||||
They predicted that this information would activate the schemas (expectations) towards these students and thus their behavior toward them.
|
||||
In fact, the names of those “good” students were chosen randomly; all other students had become the control group.
|
||||
Result?
|
||||
Those “high” IQ students shown a larger improvement in another IQ test 8 months later compared with the control group.
|
||||
|
||||
Further research (Rosenthal, 1994) indicated that teachers gave the bloomers more attention, more challenging tasks, more and better feedback, and more opportunities to respond in class
|
||||
|
||||
In other words, their expectation, which has no grounds, has come true.
|
||||
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when we act on our impressions of others
|
||||
|
||||
On the contrary, teachers’ lower expectancies for success for minority students or females often undermined the confidence of these groups and actually contributed to poorer performance by them (e.g., Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
|
||||
|
||||
Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977) gave male students a photograph of either an attractive or unattractive woman whom they were talking with over the phone for 10 minutes.
|
||||
In fact, the photos were fake and were randomly assigned to women regardless of their true looks.
|
||||
Men who believed they were talking to a more attractive woman behaved more warmly. The woman in turn seemed more sociable, friendly, and likeable.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Belief perseverance (perseverance effect)
|
||||
|
||||
*Schemas remain unchanged even in face of contradictory information (e.g. Kunda & Oleson, 1995).*
|
||||
e.g. 20 years ago, we found it hard to believe a priest or a teacher would molest children.
|
||||
It is very difficult to demolish a belief once we have established a rationale of the belief.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Affect and cognition
|
||||
|
||||
*When we are in good mood, we tend to perceive everything in positive manner (people, the world, ideas…). *
|
||||
Mood congruence effects,Mood dependent memory.
|
||||
|
||||
- Creativity - Positive mood increase creativity
|
||||
- The use of heuristic processing – positive mood people use more heuristic processing in dealing with problems
|
||||
- The interpretation of others’ motives – positive mood tends to promote attributions of positive motives, vice versa
|
||||
|
||||
Affect influences what specific information is retrieved from memory.
|
||||
Current memory becomes a retrieval cue.
|
||||
163
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/04.md
Normal file
163
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/04.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
|
||||
# 4. Attitudes
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
*Our <u>evaluations</u> of any aspects of the social world (including people, objects and ideas).*
|
||||
Feelings, often influenced by our beliefs, that predispose us to respond favorably or unfavorably to objects, people, and events
|
||||
|
||||
## 4.1 Attitudes
|
||||
|
||||
**Three components of attitude:**
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1.1 Affectively Based Attitude
|
||||
|
||||
*An attitude based more on people’s feelings and values.*
|
||||
Regarding the positive and negative feelings regarding the stimulus.
|
||||
People vote more with their hearts than their minds.
|
||||
|
||||
We feel strongly attracted to something (or a person), despite the negative belief about him/her (e.g. knowing that the person is a “bad influence”).
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1.2 Behaviorally Based Attitude
|
||||
|
||||
*An attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an object.*
|
||||
Based on observations of how one behaviors toward an object.
|
||||
|
||||
Do you like Apple products? If you use many Apple products, you may think you really like this brand.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1.3 Cognitively Based Attitude
|
||||
|
||||
*An attitude based on people’s beliefs about the properties of an attitude object.*
|
||||
|
||||
Implicit attitudes are rooted in people’s childhood experiences, while explicit attitudes are formed in recent experiences (Rudman, Phelan & Heppen, 2007).
|
||||
|
||||
- **Explicit attitudes**
|
||||
Consciously endorse and easily to report
|
||||
E.g. I dislike people who are always late
|
||||
- **Implicit attitudes**
|
||||
Exist outside of conscious awareness
|
||||
Test by Implicit Association Test (IAT)
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.1.4 Attitudes influence Cognitions
|
||||
|
||||
IAT: a test that measures the speed with which people can pair a target face (e.g. Black/White, old/young; Asian/White) with positive or negative stimuli (e.g. the words honest or evil) reflecting unconscious (implicit) prejudices.
|
||||
People respond more quickly when white faces are paired with positive words and vice versa.
|
||||
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/education.html
|
||||
|
||||
## 4.2 Attitudes formation
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2.1 Social learning
|
||||
|
||||
*The process that we acquire new information, forms of behavior, or attitudes from other people.*
|
||||
i.e. by interacting with others, or observing others’ behaviors (imitation)
|
||||
|
||||
Social learning occurs in three processes:
|
||||
|
||||
- Classical conditioning (learning based on association)
|
||||
- Instrumental/operant conditioning (rewards)
|
||||
- Observational learning
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2.2 Classical conditioning
|
||||
|
||||
*A basic form of learning in which one stimulus, initially neutral, acquires the capacity to evoke reactions through repeated pairing with another stimulus.*
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2.3 Instrumental/operant conditioning
|
||||
|
||||
*A form of learning whereby a behavior followed by a positive response is more likely to be repeated.*
|
||||
|
||||
E.g. Insko (1965) showed that participants’ responses to an attitude survey were influenced by positive feedback on the responses they gave a week earlier.
|
||||
Reinforcing one’s attitudes with positive feedback means that the attitudes are more likely to survive and be expressed on other occasions.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.2.4 Observational learning
|
||||
|
||||
*A basic form of learning in which individuals acquire new forms of behavior as a result of observing others.*
|
||||
|
||||
## 4.3 Attitudes predict deliberative behavior
|
||||
### 4.3.1 Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)
|
||||
|
||||
Several factors, including subjective norms, attitudes towards the behavior and perceived behavioral control, determine behavioral intentions concerning the behavior, and, in turn, intentions strongly determine whether the behavior is performed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
## 4.4 Why does action/behaviour affect our attitude?
|
||||
### 4.4.1 Cognitive dissonance
|
||||
|
||||
*The discomfort that is caused when two cognitions conflict, or when our behavior conflicts with our attitudes.*
|
||||
Dissonance is most painful, and we are most motivated to reduce it, when one of the dissonant cognitions challenge our self-esteem (Aronson, 1969)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Three ways to reduce dissonance:
|
||||
|
||||
- Changing our behavior to make it consistent with the cognition/attitude.
|
||||
- Attempting to justify our behavior through changing one of the dissonant cognition/attitude.
|
||||
- Attempting to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Less-leads-to-more effect
|
||||
|
||||
*Less reasons or rewards for an action often leads to greater attitude change.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Festinger and Carlsmith’s (1959) experiment: **
|
||||
Performing a dull task for an hour: turning wooden knobs.
|
||||
Effect of preconceptions on performance.
|
||||
Manipulation: \$1, \$20 or no lie.
|
||||
Results?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Insufficient Justification
|
||||
*The less incentive one has for performing a counter-attitudinal behavior, the more dissonance is experienced.*
|
||||
Needs to reduce the dissonance internally Vs Overjustification effect.
|
||||
|
||||
The effect of promising a reward for doing what one already likes to do
|
||||
the person may now see the reward, rather than intrinsic interest, as the motivation for performing the task.
|
||||
Children promised a reward for playing an interesting puzzle or toy
|
||||
|
||||
**Four conditions to produce dissonance:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. The person has to realize that the *inconsistency has negative consequences* – e.g. the smokers realize smoking causes ill health
|
||||
2. The person has to *take responsibility* for the action – e.g. smokers are freely responsible for the decision to smoke
|
||||
3. The person has to *experience physiological arousal* – e.g. smoking causes anxiety as it could cause ill health
|
||||
4. The person has to *attribute the feeling of physiological arousal to the action itself* - e.g. smokers need to be able to link the feeling and the behaviour
|
||||
|
||||
#### Alternative strategies to resolve/reduce dissonance
|
||||
|
||||
- Change the behaviour to more consistent with our attitude.
|
||||
E.g. smoking fathers quit smoking.
|
||||
- Acquiring new information to support our behaviour.
|
||||
E.g. finding evidence that smoking away from the children would do no harm.
|
||||
- Deciding that the dissonance is not important.
|
||||
Smoking in the presence of children is not important.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Indirect methods to reduce dissonance
|
||||
|
||||
**To restore positive self-evaluations:**
|
||||
*Self-affirmation – restoring positive self-evaluations that are threatened by the dissonance.*
|
||||
E.g. Smoking father does not focus on his smoking behavior; but a responsible father as he earns the living.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Dissonance can be a tool for beneficial changes in behavior
|
||||
|
||||
*Hypocrisy induction – The arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviors and then reminding them of the inconsistency between what they advocated and their behavior.*
|
||||
The purpose is to lead individuals to more responsible behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
Aronson, Fried, & Stone (1991); Stone et al. (1994)
|
||||
|
||||
Asking college students to compose a speech describing the dangers of AIDS, advocating the use of condoms (safe sex)
|
||||
Group 1: students merely composed the arguments
|
||||
Group 2: after composing the arguments, the students were to recite them in front of a video camera and were told that the audience were high school students
|
||||
Highest dissonance: Group 2
|
||||
|
||||
### 4.4.2 Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972)
|
||||
|
||||
*When we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer our attitudes from our behavior and the circumstances in which this behavior occurs.*
|
||||
e.g. You choose to eat oranges from a basket of seven kinds of fruit and somebody asks you how you feel about oranges.
|
||||
|
||||
For 10 years the Cognitive dissonance theory was the only theoretical interpretation of effects of behaviors on attitude change.
|
||||
|
||||
Self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory make similar predictions but for different reasons.
|
||||
Same prediction on Festinger and Carlsmith’s (1957) experiment.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Why the actions affect the attitudes?
|
||||
|
||||
- Cognitive dissonance theory – we justify our behavior to reduce the internal discomfort
|
||||
- Self-perception theory – we observe the behavior and make reasonable inferences about our attitude
|
||||
|
||||
#### Both theories may be correct:
|
||||
|
||||
- Self-perception theory seems more applicable when people are unfamiliar with the issues or the issues are vague, minor, or uninvolving
|
||||
- Cognitive dissonance theory seems more applicable to explaining people’s behavior concerning controversial, engaging, and enduring issues
|
||||
206
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/05.md
Normal file
206
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/05.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
|
||||
# 5. Prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 5.1 Stereotype, prejudice and discrimination
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.1.1 Examples of Prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
- **Sex: Also known as sexism**.
|
||||
Women face discrimination in work settings, higher education and government (e.g. Fisher, 1992).
|
||||
- **Sexual orientation: Sometimes called heterosexism**.
|
||||
Most adult in the US hold negative attitudes toward homosexual behavior, regarding it as wrong and unnatural (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Yang, 1997).
|
||||
- **Age**:
|
||||
Elderly people are often assumed to be less capable physically and mentally (Levy & Langer, 1994)
|
||||
- **Weight: Sometimes called “size discrimination”.**
|
||||
Overweight people are perceived as less attractive, less intelligent, less happy, less self-disciplined, and less successful (Hebl & Heatherton, 1998).
|
||||
- **Physical attractiveness: Also known as appearance prejudice.**
|
||||
Physically attractive people receive more lenient punishments (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994).
|
||||
|
||||
## 5.2 Components of Group Antagonism
|
||||
|
||||
- Stereotypes (cognitive)
|
||||
A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people
|
||||
Can be overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information
|
||||
- Prejudice (attitudinal)
|
||||
A negative prejudgment/emotional responses of a group and its individual members
|
||||
- Discrimination (behavioral)
|
||||
Unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group or its members
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2.1 Stereotypes
|
||||
|
||||
*A generalization about a group of people in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members.*
|
||||
|
||||
- **Based on experience and accurately identifies certain attributes of a group overall.**
|
||||
Adaptive, shortcuts to deal with complex situations.
|
||||
- **May have a “grain of truth”**
|
||||
e.g. crime and welfare rates are in fact relatively higher for African Americans.
|
||||
- But some do not…
|
||||
- **Over-generalized**
|
||||
e.g. all men are aggressive.
|
||||
- **Overemphasize negative attributes**
|
||||
e.g. women are emotional; men are emotionally heartless.
|
||||
|
||||
*Stereotypes exert strong effects on how we process social information.*
|
||||
|
||||
**Perception:**
|
||||
|
||||
> Sagar and Schofield (1980) showed sixth graders drawing between 2 children whose races were systematically varied.
|
||||
> They described the behavior as more mean and threatening when black children were involved than white children.
|
||||
|
||||
Information relevant to an activated stereotype is often processed more quickly, and remembered better, than information unrelated to it (Macrae et al., 1997).
|
||||
Inconsistent information may be refuted or changed in subtle ways to make it consistent (Kunda & Oleson, 1995)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2.2 Prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
*The evaluation (usually negative) of a group or an individual based mainly on group membership.*
|
||||
|
||||
- **A kind of prejudgment.**
|
||||
e.g. Alice is not a competent manager because she is a woman (before you try to understand her ability).
|
||||
- **Can contain a negative affect/emotion**
|
||||
e.g. strongly upset as Alice is the manager.
|
||||
|
||||
In the real world, prejudice and stereotyping tend to go together.
|
||||
e.g. those who are prejudiced against gay people are likely to have a stereotype of gay such as immoral or low self-esteem.
|
||||
|
||||
We see only the information that confirms how right we are about “those people” and dismiss information that might require us to change our minds
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.2.3 Discrimination
|
||||
|
||||
*Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group solely because of his/her membership in that group.*
|
||||
Negative actions toward the objects of racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice have decreased somewhat in recent years in the US and many other countries.
|
||||
|
||||
In fact, “old-fashioned” racism, for instance, is simply replaced by modern racism (more subtle) (Swim et al., 1995).
|
||||
Involves concealing prejudice from others in public settings, but expressed bigoted attitudes when it is safe to do so.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5.3 The causes of prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
Perceived threat to a valued group
|
||||
|
||||
- Conformity – living in a society where stereotypical information abounds and where discriminatory behavior is the norm
|
||||
- Realistic group conflict theory
|
||||
- Social identity theory – Feeling Superior to Others
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3.1 Intergroup competition
|
||||
|
||||
**Realistic group conflict theory:**
|
||||
*The idea that limited resources lead to conflict between groups and result in increased prejudice and discrimination (Jackson, 1993).*
|
||||
|
||||
- Stem from competition among social groups over valued commodities or opportunities.
|
||||
- Competition intensifies conflict (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1961).
|
||||
- The competition may finally develop into full scale, emotion-laden prejudice.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3.2 Social identity theory
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Assumptions of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **We categorize:** We find it useful to put people, ourselves included, into categories.
|
||||
2. **We identify:** We associate ourselves with certain groups (ingroups) and gain self-esteem by doing so.
|
||||
3. **We compare:** we contrast our groups with other groups (outgroups), with a favorable bias toward our own group.
|
||||
|
||||
#### The act of categorization can group people as “us” (an ingroup) or “them” (an outgroup)
|
||||
|
||||
The part of a person’s self-concept that is based on his/her identification with a nation, religious or political group, occupation, or other social affiliation.
|
||||
|
||||
- **In-group favoritism effect/In-group bias (Tajfel et al., 1971)**:
|
||||
The positive feeling and special treatment we give to people we have defined as being part of our in-group (leads to unfair treatment of others merely because we defined them as being in the out-group).
|
||||
- **group-serving biases**:
|
||||
Explaining away outgroup members positive behaviors; also attributing negative behaviors to their dispositions (while excusing such behavior by one’s own group).
|
||||
E.g. A donating behavior: In-group members: She donated because she has a good heart; Out-group members: She donated to gain favor.
|
||||
- **The assumed-similarity effect**:
|
||||
Other in-group members are seen as more similar to the self than out-group members.
|
||||
Allen and Wilder (1979) made students believe that they were grouped accordingly to artistic preference (in fact, randomly) and found that students assumed other ingroup members were more similar to them than outgroup members even on matters unrelated to art.
|
||||
- **The outgroup homogeneity effect**:
|
||||
Perceptions of outgroup members are more similar to one another than are ingroup members.
|
||||
“They are all alike, while we are diverse.”
|
||||
The greater our familiarity with a social group, the more we see its diversity; The less our familiarity, the more we stereotype (Brown & Wootton-Millward, 1993).
|
||||
E.g. Many non-Europeans see the Swiss as a fairly homogeneous people; but to the people of the Switzerland, the Swiss are diverse, encompassing French-, German-, Italian-, and Romansh-speaking groups
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3.3 Social learning
|
||||
|
||||
*We acquire negative attitudes towards other social groups by hearing such views expressed by significant others.*
|
||||
There are directly rewards for adopting the same views (e.g. love, approval).
|
||||
|
||||
#### Socialization
|
||||
*A process by which children learn the conventional social norms from family
|
||||
Our families and cultures pass on all kinds of information.* (e.g. finding mates, whom to trust and dislike).
|
||||
|
||||
> Swedish teens display increasing anti-immigrant prejudice over time if their parents voice such prejudice (Miklikowska, 2017).
|
||||
> Parental attitudes assessed shortly after their babies are born predict their children attitudes 17 years later (Fraley et al., 2012).
|
||||
|
||||
#### The Media
|
||||
|
||||
*Media coverage reflects and reinforces stereotypes.*
|
||||
e.g. Gilens (1999) found that the media presents an inaccurate picture of people on welfare, showing them as much more likely to be black and unemployed than is the case in reality
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.3.4 Cognitive Bases of Prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
Cognitive biases occur because we need to simplify a complex world. These biases can produce stereotypes and prejudice even in the absence of socialization or competition between groups.
|
||||
|
||||
- We have a natural tendency to categorize in order to simplify our environment.
|
||||
- People categorize others into groups on the basis of perceptually salient characteristics .
|
||||
race, gender, language, or even accent
|
||||
Taylor et al. (1978) asked subjects to view different people making different statements. They often forgot who said what, yet they remembered the race of the person who made each statement
|
||||
- Social norms provide a basis for categorization based on other attributes.
|
||||
e.g. social class
|
||||
|
||||
## 5.4 Reducing prejudice
|
||||
### 5.4.1 Socialization
|
||||
|
||||
*Much change is happening spontaneously as target groups change and levels of education rise.*
|
||||
|
||||
More education people have, the less prejudiced they are likely to be (esp. for people with college degrees) (Schuman et al., 1997).
|
||||
Simple media persuasion seems not effective (see Hovland, 1959)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.4.2 Intergroup contact
|
||||
|
||||
*Contact hypothesis: The view that social interactions between social groups would reduce prejudice.*
|
||||
|
||||
Blacks and whites are still quite segregated in the U.S.
|
||||
Half the white population live in neighborhoods that have no African Americans within half a mile
|
||||
Only 1/5 of whites have at least one black friend (e.g. Jackman & Crane, 1986)
|
||||
Most white soldiers initially opposed desegregation reduced opposition after it (Pettigrew, 1958)
|
||||
Several surveys in Europe found that having more friends in minority groups was associated with less prejudice (Pettigrew, 1997)
|
||||
|
||||
**Gordon Allport’s (1954) contact theory:**
|
||||
|
||||
- **Equality of status**: the groups must have roughly equal status in the situation.
|
||||
- **Common goals**: the people in the situation should be working towards a goal that both groups share.
|
||||
- **Intergroup cooperation**: the two groups’ pursuit of common goals should be based on cooperation, rather than competition, between their members.
|
||||
- **Institutional support**: legitimacy on the contact situation, and establishes that acceptance between groups is the norm.
|
||||
|
||||
Intergroup contact is likely to decrease prejudice only if the conditions of Allport’s theory are met.
|
||||
e.g. merely putting students of different groups together in a class does not work
|
||||
|
||||
However, many efforts at intergroup contact do not meet the conditions.
|
||||
Even in desegregated schools, children tend to associate more with their own race (Schofield, 1978)
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.4.3 Recategorization
|
||||
|
||||
*A shift in the boundary between the in-group (us) and some out-group (them).*
|
||||
|
||||
Gaertner et al. (1990) suggest helping people to experience working together cooperatively can induce people belonging to different groups to perceive each other as members of a single group.
|
||||
e.g., your identity changes from Psychology major students in CIE to HKBU student.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5.5 The case of HK
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.5.1 Minority Groups in HK
|
||||
|
||||
- Mentally retarded
|
||||
Chronically ill patients
|
||||
- Autistic
|
||||
New immigrants
|
||||
- Physically handicapped
|
||||
Blind, Deaf, Limps
|
||||
- Indian/Pakistani/Filipino
|
||||
- Sex workers & HIV infected
|
||||
|
||||
### 5.5.2 Work of EOC in Hong Kong
|
||||
|
||||
The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is a statutory body set up in 1996 to implement the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (SDO) 《性別歧視條例》, the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) 《殘疾歧視條例》and the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance (FSDO) 《家庭崗位歧視條例》
|
||||
|
||||
The Commission works towards the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy, disability and family status
|
||||
127
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/06.md
Normal file
127
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/06.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
|
||||
# 6. Persuasion
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 6.1 What is persuasion?
|
||||
|
||||
Effect to change others’ attitudes through the use of various kinds of messages.
|
||||
|
||||
A symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviours regarding an issue through the transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free choice. (Perloff, 2010).
|
||||
|
||||
The process by which a message induces a change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours (Myers, 2005).
|
||||
|
||||
## 6.2 Cognitive Theory of Persuation
|
||||
|
||||
*Elaboration LIkeihood Model (“ELM”) by Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986).*
|
||||
|
||||
Aims to tell when people should be likely to elaborate, or not, on persuasive messages.
|
||||
People can be simple as an information-processor or detailed, deep thinkers.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Elaboration** – the extent to which the individual thinks about or mentally modifies arguments contained in the communication.
|
||||
- **Likelihood** – the probability that an event will occur.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### Systematic processing (central route to persuasion)
|
||||
|
||||
- The case in which people have the ability and the motivation to elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the arguments presented
|
||||
- Involves considerable cognitive elaboration
|
||||
- Requires effort and absorbs much of our information-processing capacity
|
||||
|
||||
### Heuristic processing (peripheral route to persuasion)
|
||||
|
||||
- The case in which people do not elaborate on the arguments in a persuasive communication but are instead swayed by more superficial cues
|
||||
- Examine the message quickly and use of mental shortcuts
|
||||
- Requires less effort
|
||||
|
||||
## 6.3 Elements of persuasion
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3.1 The communicator (Who says)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Credibility
|
||||
|
||||
*A credible communicator is perceived as both an expert and trustworthy.*
|
||||
|
||||
- **Perceived expertise**: knowledgeable on the topic
|
||||
- **Speaking style**: speak confidently and fluently
|
||||
- **Perceived trustworthiness**
|
||||
Believing that the communicator is not trying to persuade (Hatfield & Festinger, 1962) – If you want to persuade someone, start with information, not arguments
|
||||
|
||||
#### Attractiveness
|
||||
|
||||
- **Attractiveness**
|
||||
Emotional arguments are often more influential when they come from people we consider beautiful.
|
||||
Matter most when people are making superficial judgments.
|
||||
- **Similarity**
|
||||
We tend to like people who are like us.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3.2 The message content (What is said)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Reason vs Emotion
|
||||
*Well-educated or analytical audience: rational appeals (Cacioppo et al., 1983, 1996).*
|
||||
|
||||
- **The effect of good feelings**: more persuasive when there is an association between the messages and good feelings.
|
||||
Receiving money or free samples induces people to donate money or buy something.
|
||||
- **Mood-congruent effects**: people tend to perceive everything positive when they are in a good mood.
|
||||
Make faster, more impulsive decisions and rely more on peripheral cues.
|
||||
|
||||
*The effect of arousing fear– messages that evoke negative emotions in the recipient.*
|
||||
Fear appeals – a persuasive communication that tries to scare people into changing attitudes by conjuring up negative consequences that will occur if they do not comply with the message recommendations (the more frightened and vulnerable people feel, the more they respond).
|
||||
|
||||
#### Discrepancy
|
||||
*Cognitive dissonance – internal conflict between the attitudes and the behaviours that prompts people to change their attitudes/opinions.*
|
||||
|
||||
#### One-sided vs two-sided appeals
|
||||
*The message looks fairer and more disarming if it recognizes the opposition’s arguments (Werner, 2002).*
|
||||
|
||||
‘No aluminium cans please!’ vs ‘It may be inconvenient, but it is important!!!!!!’
|
||||
Which do you think is more persuasive?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Primacy vs Recency
|
||||
|
||||
- Primacy effect – information presented first usually has the most influence
|
||||
- Recency effect – information presented last sometimes has the most influence but less common than the primacy effect
|
||||
|
||||
Carney & Banaji (2008)
|
||||
Participants were presented two similar-looking pieces of bubble gum.
|
||||
One placed after the other on a white clipboard.
|
||||
62% chose the first-presented choice.
|
||||
“First is best.”
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3.3 The channel of communication (How is it said)
|
||||
|
||||
*Persuasive speaker must deliver a message that can get attention, understandable, convincing, memorable and compelling.*
|
||||
|
||||
The major influence on us is not the media but our CONTACT with people.
|
||||
Media influence: Two-step flow – the process by which media influence occurs through opinion leaders (experts), who in turn influence others.
|
||||
e.g. a father wants to evaluate a new mobile phone, he may consult his son, who get many ideas from what they read online.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.3.4 The audience (To whom is it said)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Age
|
||||
|
||||
Generational explanation – the attitudes the elderly adopted when they were young persists and this makes a big difference from those being adopted by young people nowadays.
|
||||
|
||||
#### The cognition of the audiences
|
||||
|
||||
- Forewarned is forearmed – prepare the counterarguments if the audience is forewarned (e.g. mock interview/examination).
|
||||
- Distraction – distracting the attention can stop counterarguing.
|
||||
- Uninvolved audiences use peripheral cues.
|
||||
|
||||
## 6.4 How to resist persuasion?
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.4.1 Strengthening personal commitment - Reactance
|
||||
*A negative reaction to an influence attempt that threatens personal freedom .
|
||||
|
||||
We will feel annoyed and resentful when confronted with a persistent influence attempt.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.4.2 Forewarning
|
||||
*Advance knowledge that one is about to become the target of an attempt at persuasion.
|
||||
|
||||
As it activates several cognitive processes that are important for persuasion.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6.4.3 Selective avoidance
|
||||
*People’s tendency to filter out information that is inconsistent with their pre-existing attitudes.*
|
||||
|
||||
Direct our attention away from information that challenges our existing attitudes.
|
||||
E.g. mute the commercials, cognitively ‘tune-out’ when confronted with information that is opposite to our attitudes
|
||||
186
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/07.md
Normal file
186
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/07.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
|
||||
# 7. Conformity and compliance
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 7.1 Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.1.1 What is compliance (遵守)?
|
||||
|
||||
*Compliance increased even though the explanation provided no logical justification.*
|
||||
|
||||
“Mindless conformity”.
|
||||
The response is made almost without thinking.
|
||||
We spare the mental effort of thinking and simply comply with the situation.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Underlying Principles (Cialdini, 1994)
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Friendship/liking** – we are willing to comply with requests from friends and from people we like.
|
||||
2. **Commitment/consistency** - once committed to a position/action, more willing to comply with requests for behaviors that are consistent with the position/action.
|
||||
3. **Reciprocity** - we feel compelled to pay back ; we are more likely to comply with a request from someone who has previously helped us.
|
||||
4. **Scarcity** – we comply with requests that are scarce or decreasing in availability.
|
||||
5. **Authority** – we comply with requests that are from someone who holds legitimate authority (obedience).
|
||||
6. **Social validation** - We want to be correct: we act or think like others (conformity).
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.1.2 Compliance techniques?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Technique based on liking Ingratiation
|
||||
|
||||
A persuasive technique that involves making the persuasive target like you in order to persuade them by
|
||||
|
||||
- Agreeing with them
|
||||
- Flattering them
|
||||
- Being nice to them
|
||||
- But may backfire if the ingratiation is too obvious
|
||||
|
||||
#### Techniques based on commitment or consistency
|
||||
|
||||
##### Foot-in-the-Door Technique
|
||||
*First make a small request (usually so trivial that it is hard to refuse, e.g. free sample) and then follow with a larger request.*
|
||||
It may not work if the first request is too small and the second request is too large
|
||||
|
||||
- Self-perception theory – the individual’s self-image changes (e.g. they are agreeable person) as a result of the initial act of compliance.
|
||||
- Desire to be consistent – especially for those who express a strong personal preference for consistency.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Door-in-the-Face Technique
|
||||
*First make a large and unrealistic request before making a smaller, more realistic request.*
|
||||
|
||||
> Cialdini et al. (1975) stopped college students on the street and asked them to serve as unpaid counselors for juvenile delinquents 2 hours a week for 2 years (83% said no)
|
||||
> Scaled down to a 2-hour trip to the zoo with a group of such adolescent (50% agreed!)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Techniques based on reciprocity
|
||||
##### That’s-Not-All Technique
|
||||
*First make a large request, then throwing in some ‘added extras’ to pressure the target to reciprocate (e.g. discount, bonus).*
|
||||
|
||||
> Burger’s (1986) tried to sell one cupcake and two cookies for 75 cents to students on campus
|
||||
> Control: a prepackaged (1 cupcake & 2 cookies) set for 75 cents
|
||||
> Experimental: 75 cents for the cupcake and then 2 FREE cookies!
|
||||
> Results: 40% Vs. 73%.
|
||||
|
||||
Persons on the receiving end view the “extra” as an added concession, and feel obligated to make a concession themselves.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Playing Hard to Get Technique
|
||||
*Suggesting a person or object is scarce and hard to obtain.*
|
||||
|
||||
Commonly observed in the area of romance.
|
||||
Shown to be effective in job hunting (William et al., 1993).
|
||||
|
||||
##### Deadline Technique
|
||||
*Targets are told that they have only limited time to take advantage of some offer or to obtain some items.*
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.1.3 How to resist compliance?
|
||||
|
||||
**Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966):**
|
||||
*A negative reaction to an influence attempt that threatens personal freedom*
|
||||
*Bensley and Wu (1991).*
|
||||
|
||||
studied anti-drinking messages of 2 intensities:
|
||||
|
||||
- Strong: there is “conclusive evidence” of the harm of drinking and that “any reasonable person must acknowledge these conclusions”.
|
||||
- Mild: there is “good evidence” and “you may wish to carefully consider” these findings.
|
||||
|
||||
In a first study, average students reported that they intended to drink less in the coming few days after reading the mild message
|
||||
In a second study, fairly heavy alcohol drinkers (college students) actually consumed more beer after reading the strong message
|
||||
|
||||
## 7.2 Obedience
|
||||
### 7.2.1 What is obedience?
|
||||
|
||||
*An extreme form of social influence involved changing your opinions, judgments, or actions because someone in a position of authority told you to.*
|
||||
Obedience is based on the belief that authorities have the right to make requests.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.2.2 Milgram’s experiment
|
||||
|
||||
Milgram was interested in the point at which people would disobey the experimenter in the face of the learner’s protests.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Method
|
||||
|
||||
- The learner mentions that he has a slightly weak heart
|
||||
- You control an electric shock machine
|
||||
- When he is wrong, you have to punish him: first by “15 Volts - Slight Shock” and in the end, “450 Volts - XXX”
|
||||
|
||||
Sample of the learner’s schedule of protests (recording)
|
||||
|
||||
- 75V: Ugh!
|
||||
- 165V: Ugh! Let me out! (Shouting)
|
||||
- 270V: (Screaming) Let me out of here (3 times). Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here.
|
||||
- 285V: (Screaming)
|
||||
- 315V: (Intense screaming) I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this experiment.
|
||||
- (No more sound in the end)
|
||||
|
||||
The experiment’s script
|
||||
|
||||
- Please continue.
|
||||
- The experiment requires that you continue.
|
||||
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
|
||||
- You have no other choice; you MUST go on.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Disscussion
|
||||
|
||||
- imagine you are in Yale Univ. Psy. Dept.
|
||||
- the experiment is about the effect of punishment on learning
|
||||
- You and another person are teacher and learner
|
||||
- You have to read aloud pairs of words that the learner has to memorize
|
||||
|
||||
The Milgram experiments illustrate what he called the “normality thesis”.
|
||||
The idea that evil acts are not necessarily performed by abnormal or “crazy” people.
|
||||
He also succeeded in illustrating the power of social situations to influence human behavior.
|
||||
His findings were replicated in different countries (e.g., Jordan, Germany, Australia) and with children as well as adults (e.g. Shanab & Yahya, 1977).
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.2.3 Determinants of obedience
|
||||
|
||||
#### Emotional distance of the victim
|
||||
When the victim is remote and the ‘teachers’ heard no complaints, all teachers obeyed calmly to the end.
|
||||
But when the learner was in the same room, ”only” 40% obeyed to 450 volts.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Closeness and legitimacy of the authority
|
||||
When the experimenter is physically close to the ‘teachers’, the compliance increases (if by phone, only 21% fully obeyed).
|
||||
Given that the experimenter must be perceived as the authority or legitimate.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Institutional authority
|
||||
The reputation/prestige leads to the obedience.
|
||||
#### The liberating effects of group influence
|
||||
Milgram placed two confederates to help to conduct the experiment.
|
||||
Both confederates defied the experimenter.
|
||||
The real participant did not continue the experiment.
|
||||
|
||||
## 7.3 Conformity
|
||||
### 7.3.1 What is conformity?
|
||||
|
||||
*The desire to be accepted and to avoid rejection from others leads us to conform.*
|
||||
Conformity due to normative influence generally changes public behavior but not private beliefs.
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. speak politely in front of me but swear among the classmates/friends
|
||||
However, through dissonance reduction, a behavioral change can lead to a change in beliefs
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.3.2 Asch’s experiment?
|
||||
|
||||
> Subjects’ task was to pick the line on the left that best matched the target line on the right in length.
|
||||
> Alone, people virtually never erred. But when four or five others before them gave the wrong answer, people erred about 35% of the time. 75% of subjects conformed at least once.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.3.3 Why conform?
|
||||
|
||||
*Others’ behavior often provides useful information.*
|
||||
|
||||
- Trust in the group affects conformity
|
||||
- Task difficulty affects conformity
|
||||
|
||||
**Informational Influence**: The Desire to Be Right
|
||||
|
||||
**Normative Influence**:
|
||||
|
||||
- **The Desire to Be Liked**
|
||||
- **Norm**: an understood rule for accepted and expected behavior; prescribes “proper” behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7.3.4 When conform?
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Group Size**
|
||||
The larger the group, the more conformity—to a point (beyond 5 would diminish returns).
|
||||
Gerard et al. (1968) found that 3-5 people elicit more conformity than just 1-2 people.
|
||||
2. **Group Unanimity**
|
||||
Even one dissenter dramatically drops conformity (Allen & Levine, 1969).
|
||||
3. **Status**
|
||||
People of lower status accepted the experimenter’s commands more readily than people of higher status.
|
||||
4. **Cohesion **
|
||||
A “we feeling”.
|
||||
The more cohesive group is, the more power it gains over its members.
|
||||
5. **Public response**
|
||||
People conform more when they must respond in front of others rather than writing their answers privately.
|
||||
123
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/08.md
Normal file
123
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/08.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
|
||||
# 8. Behaviors in Group
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 8.1 What is group?
|
||||
|
||||
*Two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other.*
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.1.1 Why do people join groups?
|
||||
|
||||
- Allow us to accomplish objectives that would be more difficult to meet individually.
|
||||
- A substantial survival advantage to establishing bond with other people.
|
||||
- Help us define who we are (i.e. identity).
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.1.2 Behaviour in the Presence of others
|
||||
|
||||
- Any differences of your behavior when you are doing it alone and performing in front of others? (Singing in the bathroom Vs singing in public?).
|
||||
- The presence of others sometimes enhances and sometimes impairs an individual’s performance
|
||||
|
||||
In summary: whether social facilitation or social loafing occurs depends on
|
||||
|
||||
- Whether individuals are identifiable.
|
||||
- Task complexity.
|
||||
- How much participants care about the outcome.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8.2 Social Facilitation
|
||||
|
||||
*When people are in the presence of others and their individual performances can be evaluated, the tendency to perform better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks.*
|
||||
|
||||
> **Michaels et al. (1982)**
|
||||
> Studied pool players in a college student union building.
|
||||
> Pairs of players who were above or below average were identified and scores were secretly recorded.
|
||||
> Teams of 4 confederates approached the players.
|
||||
> Poor players: accuracy dropped from 36 to 25%.
|
||||
> Good players: accuracy rose from 71 to 80%.
|
||||
|
||||
> **Michaels et al. (1982)**
|
||||
> Studied pool players in a college student union building.
|
||||
> Pairs of players who were above or below average were identified and scores were secretly recorded.
|
||||
> Teams of 4 confederates approached the players.
|
||||
> Poor players: accuracy dropped from 36 to 25%.
|
||||
> Good players: accuracy rose from 71 to 80%.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.2.1 Drive Theory of Social Facilitation/Inhibition (ZAJONC ET AL., 1969)
|
||||
|
||||
- **Mere presence:**
|
||||
The presence of others make us more alert. The alertness causes mild arousal.
|
||||
- **Evaluation Apprehension**: (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak & Rittle, 1968)
|
||||
You feel as if the other people are evaluating you.
|
||||
- **Distraction**: (Baron, 1986)
|
||||
The conflict produced when an individual attempts to pay attention to the other people present and to the task being performed.
|
||||
It is difficult to pay attention to two things at the same time as the divided attention produces arousal.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Social facilitation and social inhibition occur when a person’s performance can be evaluated both by the individual and by observers.
|
||||
What would happen if the contributions of each member of a group could not be evaluated individually?
|
||||
|
||||
## 8.3 Social Loafing
|
||||
|
||||
*When people are in the presence of others and their individual performances cannot be evaluated, the tendency to perform worse on simple or unimportant tasks but better on complex or important tasks.*
|
||||
|
||||
When an individual’s contribution to a collective activity cannot be evaluated, individuals often work less hard than they would alone.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3.1 Collective Effort Model (CEM) (Karau and Williams; 1993, 1995)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Social loafing depends on
|
||||
|
||||
- How important the person believes his/her contribution is to group success.
|
||||
- How likely that better performance will be recognized and rewarded.
|
||||
- How much the person values group success.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Social loafing will be weakest when
|
||||
|
||||
- they expect their coworkers to perform poorly.
|
||||
- individuals work in small rather than big groups.
|
||||
- they perceive that their contributions to the group product are unique and important.
|
||||
- they work on tasks that are intrinsically interesting.
|
||||
- when they work with respected others, e.g. friends.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3.2 Reducing Social Loafing
|
||||
- Make each person’s contribution identifiable.
|
||||
- Provide rewards for high group productivity.
|
||||
- Make task meaningful, complex, or interesting.
|
||||
- A strong commitment to the ‘team’.
|
||||
- Keep work groups small.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3.3 Social compensation
|
||||
|
||||
*Occurs when a person expends great effort to compensate for others in the group.*
|
||||
When others are performing inadequately, and the person cares about the quality of the group product.
|
||||
|
||||
### 8.3.4 Other Factors
|
||||
|
||||
#### Gender
|
||||
|
||||
- Stronger in men than in women (Karau & Williams, 1993)
|
||||
|
||||
- Women tend to be higher in relational interdependence, i.e. focus on and care about personal relationships
|
||||
|
||||
#### Cultures
|
||||
- Stronger in Western cultures than Asian cultures (Karau & Williams, 1993).
|
||||
- Social loafing has been found in India, Thailand, Japan, Malaysia and China.
|
||||
- People in collectivistic culture value group achievement more.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8.4 Deindividuation
|
||||
|
||||
*The loosening of normal constraints on behavior when people can’t be identified (such as when they are in crowd).*
|
||||
|
||||
> **Diener et al. (1976)**
|
||||
> Researchers stationed at 27 homes waiting for children who were trick-or-treating on Halloween.
|
||||
> IV1: anonymous (no name asked) or identified (names asked).
|
||||
> IV2*: alone or in groups.
|
||||
> Children were given an opportunity to steal extra candy when the adult was not present.
|
||||
> Those children who have been asked names (identified) were less likely to steal.
|
||||
|
||||
*Deindividuation increases when individuals are anonymous and as group size increases*.
|
||||
Make people feel less accountable for their actions when they recognize there is a reduced likelihood that they can be singled out and blamed for their behavior (Zimbardo, 1970).
|
||||
Increases obedience to group norms (Postmes & Spears, 1998).
|
||||
|
||||
Does not always lead to aggressive or antisocial behavior, it depends on what the group norm is.
|
||||
|
||||
Deindividuation online: People feel less inhibited about what they write because of their anonymity.
|
||||
176
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/09.md
Normal file
176
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/09.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
|
||||
# 9. Interpersonal Attraction
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
*Why people like or dislike each other.*
|
||||
|
||||
Human beings have the need for affiliation (i.e. association with others).
|
||||
The motivation to interact with others in a cooperative way.
|
||||
We want to have close ties to people who care about us.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.0.1 Attraction: Basic Principles
|
||||
|
||||
- We like people **who like us**: self-esteem
|
||||
- We like people **who satisfy our needs**: love, safety, money, sex…
|
||||
- We like people **when the rewards they provide outweigh the costs** (social exchange theory)
|
||||
- The analysis of relationships in terms of rewards and costs people exchange with each other
|
||||
- We also make judgments, assessing the profits we get from one person against from another
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.0. 2 Sex Differences in Mate Selection
|
||||
|
||||
- For both sexes, characteristics such as kindness and intelligence are necessities
|
||||
|
||||
- Men rank physical attractiveness higher (Feingold, 1990; Jackson, 1992)
|
||||
Women were more willing than men to marry someone who was NOT “good-looking” (Sprecher et al., 1994)
|
||||
|
||||
- Women places financial resources higher
|
||||
- Men prefer younger partners, while women prefer older partners
|
||||
- Applicable to many other cultures (Buss, 1989)
|
||||
- Evolutionary explanation
|
||||
Young and physically attractive are cues to women’s health and fertility (Johnson & Franklin, 1993)
|
||||
- Social cultural explanation
|
||||
Traditional distinct social roles: Men as the bread-winners; Women were economically dependent and poorly educated than men
|
||||
|
||||
## 9.1 Proximity
|
||||
|
||||
*The best single predictor of whether two people will be friends is how far apart they live.*
|
||||
|
||||
> **Back et al. (2008)**
|
||||
> Randomly assigned students to seats at their first-class meeting.
|
||||
> Each student made a brief self-introduction to class.
|
||||
> One year after this one-time seating assignment…
|
||||
> Students reported greater friendship with those who happened to be seated next to or near them during the first-class meeting.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1.1 Why does proximity have an effect?
|
||||
|
||||
- Availability: more chances to know someone nearby
|
||||
- Anticipation of interaction:
|
||||
We prefer the person we expected to meet
|
||||
Anticipatory liking (expecting that someone will be pleasant and compatible) increases the chance of forming a rewarding relationship
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1.2 The mere (repeated) exposure effect
|
||||
|
||||
*Simply being exposed to a person (or other stimulus) tends to increase liking for it.*
|
||||
|
||||
> **Moreland & Beach (1992)**
|
||||
> 4 equally attractive assistants silently attended a large Social Psychology lecture for 0, 5, 10 or 15 times.
|
||||
> Students were asked to rate these assistants.
|
||||
> Results?.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.1.3 Limits to Mere Exposure
|
||||
|
||||
- Most effective if stimulus is initially viewed as positive or neutral.
|
||||
- Pre-existing conflicts between people will get intensified, not decrease, with exposure.
|
||||
- There is an optimal level of exposure: too much can lead to boredom and satiation (Bornstein et al., 1990).
|
||||
|
||||
## 9.2 Similarity
|
||||
|
||||
We like others who are similar to us in attitudes, interests, values, background & personality.
|
||||
Applicable to friendship, dating and marriage.
|
||||
|
||||
In romantic relationships, the tendency to choose similar others is called the matching phenomenon.
|
||||
|
||||
People tend to match their partners on a wide variety of attributes .
|
||||
Intelligence level, popularity, self-worth, attractiveness (McClintock, 2014; Taylor et al., 2011).
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.2.1 Why do people prefer similar others?
|
||||
|
||||
- Similar others are **more rewarding**.
|
||||
e.g. agree more with our ideas or share activities
|
||||
- Interacting with similar others minimizes the **possibility of cognitive dissonance**.
|
||||
To like someone and disagree with that person is psychologically uncomfortable.
|
||||
- We expect to **be more successful with similar others**.
|
||||
Even we all like to date someone who is attractive, rich, and nice…
|
||||
But having a similar partner provides basis for relationships that have higher chance to survive and mutually desired.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.2.2 Limits to Similarity
|
||||
|
||||
- Differences can be rewarding.
|
||||
|
||||
- Differences allow people to pool-shared knowledge and skills to mutual benefit.
|
||||
e.g. a Social Psy group project
|
||||
|
||||
Similarity vs. Complementarity (Does opposite attract?).
|
||||
People are more prone to like and marry those whose needs, attitudes, and personalities are similar (Botwin et al., 1997; Rammstedt &Schupp, 2008).
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.2.3 Reasons or Results?
|
||||
|
||||
Proximity causes liking: Once we like someone, we take steps to be close
|
||||
|
||||
Similarity causes liking and liking increases similarity
|
||||
|
||||
Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) followed married couples over a 21-year period.
|
||||
Spouses were similar in age, education, and mental abilities at the initial testing.
|
||||
Over time, they actually became more similar on several measures of mental abilities.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9.3 Desirable personal attributes
|
||||
|
||||
There are large individual and cross-cultural differences in the characteristics that are preferred.
|
||||
Within the U.S., the most-liked characteristics are those related to *trustworthiness*
|
||||
*Including sincerity, honesty, loyalty and dependability*.
|
||||
Two other much-liked attributes are personal warmth and competence *(Anderson, 1968)*.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.3.1 Warmth
|
||||
*People appear warm when they have a positive attitude and express liking, praise, and approval (Folkes & Sears, 1977).*
|
||||
|
||||
Nonverbal behaviors such as smiling, watching attentively, and expressing emotions also contribute to perceptions of warmth (Friedman, Riggio, & Casella, 1988)
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.3.2 Competence
|
||||
*We like people who are socially skilled, intelligent, and competent.
|
||||
|
||||
The type of competence that matters most depends on the nature of the relationship.
|
||||
e.g. social skills for friends, knowledge for professors
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.3.3 “Fatal Attractions”
|
||||
|
||||
*The personal qualities that initially attract us to someone can sometimes turn out to be fatal flaws to a relationship.*
|
||||
|
||||
- e.g. the “fun-loving” boyfriend who is later dismissed as “immature”.
|
||||
- e.g. the professional success and self-confidence boyfriend who is later dismissed because he is a “workaholic”.
|
||||
- About 30% of breakups fit this description (Felmlee, 1995, 1998).
|
||||
- It is also found that “fatal attractions” are more common when an individual is attracted to a partner by a quality that is unique, extreme, or different from his or her own.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9.4 Physical attractiveness
|
||||
|
||||
*Other things being equal, we tend to like attractive people more (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986).*
|
||||
|
||||
> A meta-analysis found that although both men and women value attractiveness, men value a bit more **(Feingold, 1990)**.
|
||||
> Gender difference was greater when men’s and women’s attitudes were being measured than when their actual behavior was being measured.
|
||||
> Men are more likely than women to say that physical attractiveness is important.
|
||||
> For actual behavior, men and women are fairly similar in how they respond to physical attractiveness.
|
||||
|
||||
*One reason we like more attractive people is that they are believed to possess good qualities.*
|
||||
|
||||
Physically attractive people do not differ from others in basic personality traits, e.g. agreeableness, extraversion, or emotional stability (Segal-Caspi et al., 2012).
|
||||
Attractive children and young adults are somewhat more relaxed, outgoing, and socially polished (Feingold, 1992).
|
||||
Self-fulfilling prophecy – Attractive people are valued and favored, so many develop more social self-confidence .
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.4.1 “Benefits” of Attractiveness
|
||||
Physically attractive people are more likely to
|
||||
|
||||
- People of above-average looks tend to earn 10% to 15% more than those of below-average appearance (Judge, Hurst, & Simon, 2009).
|
||||
- College professors perceived as attractive receive higher student evaluation ratings (Rinolo et al., 2006).
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.4.2 Who is Attractive?
|
||||
|
||||
*Culture plays a large role in standards of attractiveness.*
|
||||
However, people do tend to agree on some features that are seen as more attractive: (Cunningham, 1986).
|
||||
|
||||
- **Childlike features**: large, widely spaced eyes and a small nose and chin - “cute”.
|
||||
- **Mature features** with prominent cheekbones, high eyebrows, large pupils, and a big smile.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.4.3 Good news for the plain people
|
||||
To be really attractive, to be perfectly average (Rhodes, 2006): Statistically “average” faces are seen as more attractive (Langlois and Roggman, 1990).
|
||||
|
||||
We not only perceive attractive people as likable, we also perceive likable people as attractive.
|
||||
Gross and Crofton (1977) found that after reading description of people portrayed as warm, helpful, and considerate, these people looked more attractive.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9.4.4 Why does attractiveness matter?
|
||||
- Biological disposition
|
||||
- Year-old infants prefer attractive adults, and they spend more time playing with attractive dolls than with unattractive dolls (Langlois et al., 1991).
|
||||
- According to evolutionary theory, attractiveness may provide a clue to health and reproductive fitness (e.g. Kalick et al., 1998).
|
||||
- Psychological schema
|
||||
- People believe attractiveness is correlated with other positive characteristics.
|
||||
- Social psychological influence
|
||||
- Being associated with an attractive other leads a person to be seen as more attractive him or herself.
|
||||
- “radiating effect of beauty”
|
||||
248
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/10.md
Normal file
248
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/10.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
|
||||
# 10. Altruism
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 10.1. Definitions
|
||||
|
||||
***Prosocial Behavior**: Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person*.
|
||||
|
||||
***Altruism**: The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper*.
|
||||
|
||||
## 10.3 Why do we help?
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.3.1 A decision-making perspective (Latané & Darley, 1970)
|
||||
|
||||
*People decide whether or not to offer assistance based on a variety of perceptions and evaluations.*
|
||||
Help is offered only if a person answers “yes” at each step.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#### Notice the event
|
||||
|
||||
When we are distracted or in a hurry, we don’t help.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Correctly interpreting an event as an emergency
|
||||
|
||||
*Cues that lead us to perceive an event as an emergency (Shotland & Huston, 1979).*
|
||||
|
||||
- Event is sudden & unexpected
|
||||
- Clear threat of harm to a victim
|
||||
- Harm will increase unless someone intervenes
|
||||
- Victim needs outside assistance
|
||||
- Effective intervention is possible
|
||||
|
||||
> **Clark and Word (1972)**
|
||||
> Heard maintenance man fell off a ladder and cried out.
|
||||
> Alternative condition: without verbal cues that the victim was injured
|
||||
> Help was offered only about 30% of the time.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Deciding that it is your responsibility to help
|
||||
|
||||
*Being given responsibility increases helping.*
|
||||
|
||||
> **Moriarity (1975)**
|
||||
> Radio at the beach
|
||||
> Control: 20%
|
||||
> Experimental: 95%
|
||||
|
||||
#### Deciding that you have the knowledge or skills to act
|
||||
|
||||
In emergencies, decisions are made under high stress and sometimes even personal danger.
|
||||
Well-intentioned helpers may not be able to give assistance or may mistakenly do the wrong thing.
|
||||
|
||||
> Crammer et al. (1988)
|
||||
> When there is an accident and possible: injury, a registered nurse is more likely to help than non-medical people.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Weighing the Costs and Benefits
|
||||
|
||||
At least in some situations, people weigh the costs and benefits of helping
|
||||
People sometimes consider the consequences of NOT helping.
|
||||
However, in other cases, helping may be impulsive and determined by basic emotions and values rather than by expected profits.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.3.2 A sociocultural perspective
|
||||
|
||||
*Human societies have gradually evolved beliefs or social norms that promote the welfare of the group.*
|
||||
|
||||
- **Norm of Social Responsibility**
|
||||
Help those who depend on us.
|
||||
e.g. parents, teachers, doctors.
|
||||
- **Norm of Reciprocity**
|
||||
Help those who help us (Gouldner, 1960).
|
||||
- **Norm of Social Justice**
|
||||
Maintain equitable distribution of rewards.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.3.3 A learning perspective
|
||||
|
||||
#### We learn to be helpful through reinforcement.
|
||||
|
||||
Children help and share more when they are reinforced for their helpful behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
> **Fischer (1963)**
|
||||
> 4-year-olds more likely to share marbles with another child when they were rewarded with bubble gum for their generosity.
|
||||
> (Dispositional praise) ‘You are a very nice and helpful person’ vs. (Global praise)‘That was a nice and helpful thing to do’.
|
||||
> Dispositional praise appears to be more effective than global praise.
|
||||
|
||||
#### We learn to be helpful through observation.
|
||||
|
||||
Children and adults exposed to helpful models are more helpful.
|
||||
For children, helping may depend largely on reinforcement and modeling to shape behavior, but as they get older, helping may be internalized as a value, independent of external incentives.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.3.4 Attribution
|
||||
|
||||
*We are more likely to be empathetic and to perceive someone as deserving help if we believe that the cause of the problem is outside the person’s control.*
|
||||
|
||||
> Myer & Mulherin (1980)
|
||||
> College students would be more willing to lend rent money to an acquaintance if the need arose due to illness rather than laziness.
|
||||
|
||||
## 10.4 Who helps?
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.4.1 Mood and Helping
|
||||
|
||||
*People are more willing to help when they are in a good mood.*
|
||||
|
||||
- Money: found coins in a pay-phone (Isen & Simmonds, 1978)
|
||||
- Gift: been given a free cookie at the college library (Isen & Levin, 1972)
|
||||
- Music: have listened to soothing music (Fried & Berkowitz, 1979)
|
||||
- Odor: smelled cookies or coffee (Baron, 1997)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Mood-maintenance hypothesis
|
||||
|
||||
*“Doing good” enables us to continue to feel good.*
|
||||
|
||||
- Good moods increase positive thought
|
||||
|
||||
- Limitation of the effect of good mood
|
||||
“Feel good” effect is short-lived
|
||||
|
||||
> Only 20 minutes in one study (Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Negative moods sometimes lead to more helping
|
||||
|
||||
***Negative-state relief model** suggests that people may help as a way to make themselves feel better (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, 1973).*
|
||||
Helping made college students feel more cheerful and feel better about themselves (Williamson & Clark, 1989).
|
||||
When people feel guilty, they are more willing to help (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994).
|
||||
Helping others may reduce their guilty feelings.
|
||||
|
||||
***More valid for adults** (e.g. Aderman & Berkowitz, 1970) and **less valid for children** (e.g. Isen et al., 1973).*
|
||||
Less likely to occur if a person is focused on themselves and their own needs
|
||||
e.g. during profound grief (e.g. Aderman & Berkowitz, 1983).
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.4.2 Empathy
|
||||
|
||||
*Empathy refers to feelings of sympathy and caring for others.*
|
||||
|
||||
The emotional reactions that are focused on or oriented toward other people and include feelings of compassion, sympathy and concern.
|
||||
Occurs when we focus on the needs and the emotions of the victim.
|
||||
Fosters altruistic helping.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.4.3 Personality Characteristics
|
||||
|
||||
There is no single type of “helpful person”.
|
||||
The effect of personality on altruism
|
||||
|
||||
- Individual differences in helpfulness persist over time
|
||||
- People high in positive emotionality, empathy, and self-efficacy are most likely to be helpful
|
||||
- Influences how people react to particular situations, i.e. people who are more sympathetic to the victim in emergency situations respond faster
|
||||
|
||||
## 10.5 Whom do we help?
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.5.1 Gender
|
||||
|
||||
- Men are more likely to provide help to women in distress (e.g. Latané & Dabbs, 1975), especially when there is an audience.
|
||||
- Men offered more help to women while women are equally helpful to both sexes (Eagly & Crowley, 1986).
|
||||
|
||||
- Women are more likely to offer personal favors for friends and to provide advice on personal problems (Eagly & Crowley, 1986).
|
||||
- Women provide more social support to others (Shumaker & Hill, 1991).
|
||||
However, men more readily help attractive than unattractive women (e.g Mims et al., 1975).
|
||||
|
||||
*Motivation may be romantic or sexual.*
|
||||
|
||||
> Przybyla (1985)
|
||||
> Undergraduate men watched video
|
||||
> Experimental: erotic/Control: nonsexual
|
||||
> Situation: a female research assistant “accidentally” knocked over a stack of papers
|
||||
> Experimental group more helpful than control
|
||||
> 6 minutes compared with control with male (30 seconds)
|
||||
> Female participants
|
||||
> No difference between experimental and control
|
||||
> No difference between male or female research assistant
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.5.2 Physically attractive
|
||||
|
||||
> Benson, Karabenick, and Lerner (1976).
|
||||
> Subjects found a completed and ready-to-mail application to graduate school in a telephone booth at the airport
|
||||
> Sample: 442 males and 162 females
|
||||
> IV: photo attached belongs to an attractive or unattractive male/female
|
||||
> DV: will they mail it for him/her?
|
||||
> Results?
|
||||
> Attractive: 47%
|
||||
> Unattractive: 35%
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.5.3 Similarity
|
||||
|
||||
> Emswiller, Deaux, and Willits (1971)
|
||||
> Confederates dressed as a ‘hippie’ or ‘conservative’
|
||||
> Approached both ‘hippie’ and ‘conservative’ students to borrow a dime for phone call
|
||||
> Results
|
||||
> Fewer than half the students did the favor for those dressed differently from themselves
|
||||
> Two-thirds helped those dressed similarly
|
||||
|
||||
## 10.6 When do we help?
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.6.1 Bystander effect
|
||||
|
||||
*The presence of other people makes it less likely that anyone will help a stranger in distress.*
|
||||
|
||||
> Kitty Genovese murder sparked research of Darley and Latané (1968)
|
||||
> Male students in a study of “campus life”
|
||||
> Sat alone and talked to another student through intercom
|
||||
> Emergency: this fellow student said he sometimes had seizures and he soon began to choke, had difficulty speaking, and said he was going to die and needed help. Then, no more sound
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
> Darley and Latané (1968)
|
||||
> IV: number of bystanders: 1, 2, 5
|
||||
> Some students believed that they were the only person aware of the emergency
|
||||
> In fact, he heard a recording and there was no bystander
|
||||
> Only the way to help was to leave the lab and sought for that fellow student
|
||||
> DV1: % of students left and helped
|
||||
> DV2: time they waited before acting
|
||||
|
||||
#### Why does the bystander effect occur?
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Diffusion of responsibility **
|
||||
*The presence of other people makes each individual feel less personally responsible.*
|
||||
If only bystander, bear the guilt or blame for nonintervention
|
||||
Assume the others ‘will do it’.
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Pluralistic ignorance **
|
||||
*Bystanders’ false assumption that nothing is wrong in an emergency because of others.*
|
||||
|
||||
3. **Evaluation apprehension**
|
||||
Concern about how others are evaluating us
|
||||
We try not to appear silly/cowardly in reacting to ambiguous situation (e.g. smoke filled room)
|
||||
|
||||
> Latané and Darley (1968) pumped smoke into a research room where participants were doing questionnaire
|
||||
> IV: alone in the room or with 2 confederates
|
||||
> DV: the duration of leaving the room and reporting
|
||||
> Result
|
||||
> Alone: 1st minute: about 35% stopped and went out to report; 6th minute: 75%
|
||||
> Group: 1st minute: 10%; 6th minute: 38%
|
||||
> The behavior of other bystanders can influence how we define the situation and react to it
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.6.2 Environmental Conditions
|
||||
People are more helpful to strangers when it’s pleasantly warm and sunny (Ahmed, 1979).
|
||||
|
||||
People are more likely to help strangers in small towns & cities than in big cities (Levine et al., 1994).
|
||||
What matters is current environmental setting, not the size of the hometown in which the person grew up.
|
||||
|
||||
### 10.6.3 Time pressure
|
||||
|
||||
> Darley & Batson, 1973
|
||||
> Participants were students studying religion and were asked to give a short talk
|
||||
> IV1: Some were told to hurry, others to take their time
|
||||
> IV2: assigned topic was either the Bible story or future job opportunities
|
||||
> Results
|
||||
> IV1: 63% of those not in a hurry vs. 10% in a hurry helped a coughing and groaning stranger they passed
|
||||
> IV2: no difference
|
||||
> Time pressure particularly caused students to overlook the needs of the victim.
|
||||
153
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/11.md
Normal file
153
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/11.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
|
||||
# 11. Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.0 Definition of Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
*Aggression is defined as intentional behavior aimed at causing either physical or psychological pain.*
|
||||
|
||||
Aggression is a behavior and should be distinguished from feelings of anger.
|
||||
|
||||
- Hostile aggression: stemming from feelings of anger with the goal of inflicting pain or injury
|
||||
- Instrumental aggression: a means to achieve some goal other than causing pain
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.1 Roots of Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
- **Biology** plays a role in human aggression.
|
||||
People injected testosterone become more aggressive (Moyer, 1983)
|
||||
reducing ability to control impulses.
|
||||
- **Family environment** also greatly influences the expression of aggression (Miles & Carey, 1997).
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.1.1 Social-cognitive learning theory
|
||||
|
||||
- A main mechanism that determines aggression is past learning (Miles & Carey, 1997)
|
||||
- As with other learned behaviors, aggression is influenced by both imitation and reinforcement
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.1.2 Freud
|
||||
|
||||
*Freud suggested that we have an instinct (thanatos) to aggress.*
|
||||
|
||||
Evolutionary psychologists argue that physical aggression is genetically programmed into men:
|
||||
To establish dominance over other males and secure the highest possible status.
|
||||
Aggress out of sexual jealousy to ensure that their mate is not having sex with other men, thereby ensuring their own paternity (Buss, 2004, 2005)
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.2 Social Determinants of Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2.1 Provocation (挑衅)
|
||||
|
||||
*Actions by others that tend to trigger aggression in the recipient, often because they are perceived as stemming from malicious intent.*
|
||||
|
||||
Can be verbal or physical attack.
|
||||
An “eye for an eye” reaction.
|
||||
We tend to reciprocate, especially if we are certain that the other person meant to harm us.
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2.2 Frustration (挫折)
|
||||
|
||||
*Anything that block the goal attainment.*
|
||||
|
||||
Berkowitz (1989, 1993) proposed a revised version:
|
||||
|
||||
- Frustration is an unpleasant experience.
|
||||
- The experience leads to negative feelings.
|
||||
- The negative feelings lead to aggressive behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
*Frustration only produces anger or annoyance and a readiness to aggress if other things about the situation are conducive to aggressive behavior.*
|
||||
|
||||
Includes family conflicts, job and money problems.
|
||||
Dollard et al. (1939) proposed the famous frustration-aggression hypothesis
|
||||
The theory that frustration triggers a readiness to aggress.
|
||||
Now we know aggression is definitely NOT an automatic response to frustration.
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2.3 Displaced Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
*When aggressive feelings cannot be expressed against the cause of the anger, we may engage in displaced aggression against a substitute target (Dollard et al., 1939).*
|
||||
|
||||
The more similar a target is to the original source, the stronger the aggressive impulse, but also the greater the anxiety that is felt about aggressing.
|
||||
Displaced aggression is most likely to be directed towards targets that are weaker & less dangerous.
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2.4 Norms
|
||||
|
||||
*Social Norms are crucial in determining what aggressive habits are learned.*
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. norms for children of two sexes.
|
||||
e.g. wars, sports.
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.2.5 Media
|
||||
|
||||
*Various kinds of evidence are able to link media violence to aggressive behavior.*
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Modeling **
|
||||
2. **Desensitization effect**
|
||||
As a result of exposure to large amounts of violent content in TV programs, films, games, individuals become less sensitive to violence and its consequences (Anderson et al., 2003)
|
||||
3. **Priming **
|
||||
Hostile thoughts come to mind more readily, and this in turn, can increase the likelihood that a person will engage in overt aggression (Anderson, 1997)
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.3 Cognitive Determinants of Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.3.1 Schema
|
||||
|
||||
*Reinforcement, imitation, and assumptions about others’ motives may all combine to produce a schema for aggression.*
|
||||
|
||||
When the schemas for aggression combine with the biological processes (e.g. physiological arousal), there is a high likelihood for aggressive behavior.
|
||||
Media may contribute to the development and maintenance of these schemas (Huesmann, Moise, & Podolski, 1997)
|
||||
|
||||
e.g. scripts for aggression
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.3.2 Attribution
|
||||
|
||||
For an attack or frustration to produce anger and aggression, it must be perceived as intended to harm.
|
||||
|
||||
Attributions of controllability affect this assessment.
|
||||
Imagine someone steps on your heel and when you look back you see…
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.4 Situational Determinants of Aggression
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.4.1 Heat
|
||||
|
||||
*Psychologists now believe that heat does increase aggression, but only up to a point (Bell, 1980; Rule & others, 1987). *
|
||||
When people get hot, they become irritable and may be more likely to lash out at others (especially when they have been provoked).
|
||||
|
||||
*Beyond a certain level, aggression may actually decline as temperatures rise.*
|
||||
People may become so uncomfortable and fatigued that they are actually less likely to engage in overt aggression.
|
||||
|
||||
## 11.5 Reducing Aggressive Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.5.1 Catharsis
|
||||
|
||||
*Catharsis refers to Freud’s idea that the release of anger would reduce subsequent aggression.*
|
||||
|
||||
- Sports and shouting can reduce emotional arousal stemming from frustration (Zillmann, 1979).
|
||||
- Watching violent media cannot (Geen, 1998).
|
||||
- Attacking inanimate objects cannot (Bushman et al., 1999).
|
||||
- Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts and behaviors (Anderson & Dill, 2000).
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.5.2 Punishment
|
||||
|
||||
Fear of punishment reduces aggression only when the punishment is:
|
||||
|
||||
- Prompt – follow the aggressive behavior as soon as possible.
|
||||
|
||||
- Certain / Consistent – the probability that it will follow aggression must be very high
|
||||
|
||||
- Strong – strong enough to be highly unpleasant to the recipients
|
||||
|
||||
- Justified / Deserved
|
||||
|
||||
Problems
|
||||
|
||||
- Suppress, not remove
|
||||
- Generate anger and aggression (Sears et al., 1957)
|
||||
- Spark counter-aggression or revenge
|
||||
|
||||
### 11.5.3 Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
- **Exposure to non-aggressive models **
|
||||
“Unlearn” aggressive behavior.
|
||||
- **Training in social skills/anger management **
|
||||
Some aggressive people don’t know how to respond to provocations from others.
|
||||
- **Incompatible responses **
|
||||
If individuals are exposed to events or stimuli that cause them to experience affective states incompatible with anger or aggression, these reactions are reduced.
|
||||
Pain cues – concerning the victims’ reactions.
|
||||
- **Distraction**
|
||||
Distract ourselves to something else.
|
||||
Less likely to feed aggressive behavior, but not always work (Bushman, 2002).
|
||||
82
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/12.md
Normal file
82
PSYG2504 Social Psychology/12.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
|
||||
# 12. Chinese Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
> PSYG2504 Social Psychology
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.1 Lian Vs. Mianzi
|
||||
|
||||
Hu (1944) proposed that there are 2 basic categories of face in Chinese culture:
|
||||
Lian (臉) and mianzi (面子).
|
||||
|
||||
### 12.1.1 Lian
|
||||
|
||||
*An individual’s lian can be preserved by faithful compliance with ritual or social norms.*
|
||||
|
||||
Having lian “represents the confidence of society in the integrity of ego’s moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly in the community”.
|
||||
Both a social sanction for enforcing moral standards and an internalized sanction.
|
||||
|
||||
- Bu yao lian (‘doesn’t want face’; 不要臉) means that he or she is nasty, shameless, and immoral: A great insult to his or her moral character.
|
||||
- Diulian (shame; 丟臉) is a result of wrong-doing regardless of the presence of an audience.
|
||||
|
||||
### 12.1.2 Mianzi
|
||||
|
||||
*Mianzi stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in a particular place*
|
||||
*Similar to the western face concept.*
|
||||
|
||||
Mianzi stands for the kind of prestige that is emphasized in a particular place
|
||||
Similar to the western face concept: Chinese – with hierarchical structure of society with its permanency of statues.
|
||||
|
||||
- A reputation achieved through success, e.g. career or interpersonal relationship.
|
||||
- Lian has no relationship with successFace behavior
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.2 Enhancing one’s own face
|
||||
|
||||
Knowing what kind of qualities are most appreciated by others in one’s social network, a person may deliberately do face-work to enhance one’s social or positional status by showing off these most appreciated qualities.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.3 Enhancing others’ face
|
||||
|
||||
A person may adopt some tactics of ingratiation to enhance the resource allocators’s face so that the latter might reciprocate by allocating the resources in a way to benefits the ingratiator.
|
||||
|
||||
Tactics include presenting compliments of sufficient credibility, conforming with his/her opinions and behavior, giving gifts or doing other pleasant and rewarding things for others
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.4 Losing one’s own face
|
||||
|
||||
The losing of face may bring serious consequences for an individual, especially when he/she loses the so-called ‘moral face’.
|
||||
|
||||
‘Not-wanting face’ (pu-yao lien) or ‘having no face’ (mei-yu lien) implying the actor has **lost all claims to being a person**.
|
||||
|
||||
Losing face for someone or some group with whom he/she is closely connected
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.5 Hurting others’ face
|
||||
|
||||
When a man wants to ask for a favor from a resource allocator of some prestige, he first assesses his position relative to the allocator and the likelihood that he may be successful.
|
||||
|
||||
If the request is accepted, then the allocator ‘gave him mianzi’ and his face is increased.
|
||||
|
||||
If the request is rejected, the allocator does not give him ‘mianzi’, which then reflects badly on his own mianzi and blame the allocator, especially when the allocator occupies a lower social status.
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.6 Saving one’s own face
|
||||
|
||||
Losing face may cause embarrassment, shame or shyness
|
||||
|
||||
Possible reactions:
|
||||
|
||||
- Compensatory actions: terminating the face-losing behavior, reinterpreting the situation, apologizing, working hard to enhance the social status
|
||||
- Retaliatory actions: express dissatisfaction in a subtle and indirect way
|
||||
- Self-defensive reactions: devalue the opponent, deemphasize the seriousness of the face-losing event and pretend nothing happened
|
||||
|
||||
## 12.7 Saving others’ face
|
||||
|
||||
Bond and Lee (1978) studied the face-saving behavior of 100 CUHK students.
|
||||
|
||||
> Participants were told the study was about public speaking.
|
||||
> 1 participant in a group of 5 students was chosen to give a 3-minute talk.
|
||||
|
||||
**Four experimental conditions:**
|
||||
|
||||
1. Speaker uninformed condition: comments and ratings would be seen only by the experimenter
|
||||
2. Informed anonymous condition: speakers would read the evaluations later alone
|
||||
3. Informed face-to-face condition: they would read their comments and their ratings to the speaker privately
|
||||
4. Informed-audience condition: they would read their comments and ratings to the speaker in the presence of the next group of 5 students
|
||||
|
||||
ANOVA revealed significant difference across all experimental conditions
|
||||
Subsequent test revealed more negative ratings in condition 1 (speaker uninformed condition) than in condition 4 (informed audience condition).
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user