Term
|
Definition
| Compliance with the directives or orders of an authority figure. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Middletown.
1924 vs. 1978 Participants were asked to rate The value of strict obedience in children decreased and the value of independence increased. |
|
|
Term
| Film Milgram Replication finding |
|
Definition
| Extreme obedience still exists. e.g. McDonalds incident. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequence. e.g. Zimbardo (Prison Study) & Rosenhan (Being Same in an Insane Place) |
|
|
Term
| The Power of the Situation |
|
Definition
Situational factors play a strong role in determining behavior.
We tend to underestimate the power of the situation because of the Fundamental Attribution Error. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A set of expectations for appropriate behavior associated with a social position in a group.
People tend to conform to roles.
- Roles involve strong expectations of role consistent behavior
- Not taking your role creates dissonance in the self and others |
|
|
Term
| On Being Sane in an Insane Place |
|
Definition
Rosenhan, 1971
BASICS: 8 sane people (psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, etc.) made appointments at 12 hospitals reporting to hear voices, but otherwise represented themselves truthfully. All were admitted to the institution diagnosed with schizophrenia. From there on they acted normal until they would be diagnosed as normal and released. (7-52 days, 19 on average)
FINDINGS: The situation construed their behavior has crazy. Staff interpreted their behavior as insane. Patients were nervous and freaked out, self-fulfilling prophecy. The insane suspected they were sane.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatry is an inexact science.
Situations carry with them expectations that can become self-fulfilling prophecies. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Personal identities (personality) - Approaches to interpersonal behavior (introverted, polite, etc.) & Emotional or psychological traits (optimistic, moody, etc.)
• Role identities (roles) - Positions in groups
(student, friend, mother, etc.)
• Social identities (groups) - Self-meanings in terms of groups to which one belongs (nationality, race/ethnicity, political party, etc.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
When two roles are present in a situation we experience dissonance and frustration.
(Rosenhan = Role expectations affect how you are perceived)
(Zimbardo = Roles constrain and direct behavior) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
"Dramaturgical Analysis" - life as theater:
People play parts or roles.
People develop a shared definition of the situation. (This shared understanding of the situation includes expectations for appropriate role behavior. Everyone participates in maintaining the fluidity of situations. When people screw up roles, other players try to help them recover)
Front stage (???) vs. Back stage (the things we do not share with others) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The things we do not share with others. |
|
|
Term
| Tactical Impression Management |
|
Definition
(Goffman)
When we try to present ourselves in a false, exaggerated, or misleading way in order to:
• Get others to like us or feel sorry for us
• Gain control over valued resources or achieve material goals
METHODS: Ingratiation – use of deception to increase a target’s liking for us:
- Opinion Conformity (strategically agree with others)
- Other enhancement (outright flattery)
- Self presentation (exaggerate qualities or be modest)
- Supplication (convince others you are deserving) |
|
|
Term
| Consequences of group identification |
|
Definition
Out-group animosity (perception that they are evil)
In-group favoritism (greater liking, perceived competence, and feelings of solidarity) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Reduces within-group identification and inter-group hostilities.
Can occur: By having a common enemy, By seeing some significant similarity, By having and working towards some common goal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
People perceive greater similarity within sets (of objects) and less similarity between sets.
Categorization of people generates the accentuation effect.
Accentuation effect is part of the cognitive basis of out-group stereotypes. |
|
|
Term
| "Minimal group" Experiment |
|
Definition
Called “Minimal group” because they found the minimal basis for creating in-group favoritism.
Participants were put into 3-person groups.
2 other group members differentiated on a trivial criterion (painting preference).
Participants distributed money to self and others (known only by group membership) according to one of three payment schemes: Maximum Joint Profit (MJP), Maximum Profit for the Ingroup (MIP), Maximum Difference (between in and out groups) (MD)
RESULTS:
Everyone would be best off with MJP
But participants favored MIP
MIP > MD > MJP
People were willing to forgo profits to deprive the out-group in favoring MD over MJP. |
|
|
Term
| "Robber's Cave" Experiment |
|
Definition
22 twelve-year-old white, middle class boys.
Separate --> Compete --> Integrate
CONCLUSIONS: Separation and competition can generate inter-group conflict, But cooperative pursuit of common goals (and shared success) can foster solidarity, cohesion, and liking |
|
|
Term
| The Grand Illusion Lecture |
|
Definition
Prisoner-Prison guard (Prison guards are actually kind to the prisoners)
Jew-Gentile (1910’S Europe is tremendously anti-semitic, yet Boeldieu and Rosenthal are friends)
Nobility-Peasants (Rauffenstein simply asks for Boeldieu’s word when searching his room, But Boeldieu disagrees and sacrifices himself for “peasants”)
French-German (Rauffenstein sees greater similarity to Boeldieu than to his own me. Also, Swiss-French border at end is an unmarked field of snow)
Rich-Poor (Rosenthal shares his wealth with other prisoners, Boeldieu sacrifices himself for Marechal) |
|
|
Term
| Southern Culture of Honor |
|
Definition
The South is more violent than the rest of the country (the only difference is that white males there are more violent than elsewhere).
In cultures of honor, violence is used to defend one’s own and family honor.
South has different/more lenient attitudes towards violence. |
|
|
Term
| SCoH #1: The Asshole Study |
|
Definition
Participants given questionnaire and asked to go down long, narrow hallway. Confed at file cabinet let P pass. When P finished survey and came back down hall, Confed a) bumped into him and called him an “asshole” or b) not bumped
Two planted witnesses coded P’s response
P’s were then given a story scenario to complete wherein a someone hits on a man’s girlfriend at a party
RESULTS: Southerners showed less amusement and more anger upon being bumped. Southerners were more likely to complete story with violence after being bumped.
REDO: +Saliva samples before and after bump to measure…
Bumped Southerners showed DOUBLE the cortisol (stress) levels of umbumped Southerners, or either bumped or unbumped Northerners
Bumped Southerners showed almost TRIPLE the testosterone (preparedness for aggression) levels of umbumped Southerners, or either bumped or unbumped Northerners
REDO: Chicken Game. Bumped southerners budged way later and gave firmer handshakes. They were evaluated as domineering. They thought the evaluator who witnessed bump would view them as less manly. |
|
|
Term
| SCoH #2: Job Applications |
|
Definition
Mailed 912 letters requesting applications around the country. Half of the letters had manslaughter saying they accidentally killed to defend their pride. The other half mentioned grand theft auto (control).
RESULTS: 112 responses where Southern employers more likely to send honor killer an application than Northerner employers. Southern employers actually more likely to send application to honor killer than to auto thief. Warmth of responses higher among Southerner employers. |
|
|
Term
| SCoH #3: The Effects of Politeness |
|
Definition
Perhaps in the North people give you signs that a conflict is brewing but in the South politeness prevents these (very useful) warnings.
Study 1: Southern and Northern subjects participated in “relaxed drawing” with an annoying confederate bothering them. They were video taped, with blind coders making ratings of anger/amusement and risk of verbal and physical confrontations.
RESULTS: For first few annoyances Southerners didn’t react much, but Northerners showed agitation and anger. Northerners stayed about the same in level of anger, but Southerners spiked way upward. Southerners generally showed bigger anger spikes.
After the study, Confeds reconciled with participants. Measured forgiveness via willingness to shake hand, and memory of Confed by mailing them pictures 6 months later. Southerners who blew up were more forgiving and didn’t remember the Confed later. But those who didn’t blow up were less forgiving and did remember. Northerners had the opposite pattern.
(Thus, Southerners got more and more angry and either blew up or continued to stew. Northerners either got angry or didn’t.)
Study 2: Southerners and Northerners were shown tapes of some of the most and least peeved participants, but cut them off before blow-ups. Southerners were not as good at predicting blow-up’s ahead of time
Study 3:Investigated relationship between city politeness and homicide rates. In the North, the more polite the city, the less the murder. In the South, no relationship, but slight trend towards more politeness correlating with more murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
An individual's relative standing in a groups hierarchy based on prestige, honor, and respect.
Group tends to divide into relative hierarchies based on status. |
|
|
Term
| Bases of status differentiation |
|
Definition
Discriminatory: Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Wealth, Power, Attractiveness
Merit: Education, Skills, Intelligence, Generosity, Honesty
Status hierarchies are based on both fair and unfair criteria. They have both good (streamline interaction and help groups coordinate action) and bad effects (discrimination) |
|
|
Term
| Effects of status/What does status do? |
|
Definition
Higher Status standing leads to…
- Greater respect from others
- Greater influence
- More opportunities to speak
- Ideas/thoughts more positively evaluated
- Higher perceived competence
- Higher perceived honesty and integrity
- Better pay
- More lenient standards of evaluation --> Making it hard to lose status |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Status hierarchies are relative. You are “ranked” relative to others around you or in your group. (status changes as you move between settings/groups)
Bases of status are culturally determined: Different cultures and historical periods develop different criteria for status stratification. e.g. Romans (might, power, competence, excellence) vs. Christians (generosity, honesty, self-sacrifice)
Research shows that even those unfairly disadvantaged by status beliefs tend to hold them. e.g. Goldberg 1968 (M&F rated text authored by M > F), Kenneth and Mamie Clark doll experiments |
|
|
Term
| (Status Characteristics Theory) |
|
Definition
Asserts that observable characteristics that differentiate group members (e.g., age, gender, & race) are:
- Differentially valued in a culture
- Generate differential competency expectations for group members
- And consequently lead to a hierarchical distribution of participation & influence across members of the group
Lovaglia L/R-hand study:
If status differences are made salient, low status individuals should perform worse than high status individuals on tests. Found a significant testing gap created purely by the stigmatization of a category previously unrelated to status, and totally unrelated to ability on the test. |
|
|
Term
| Two types of Status Characteristics |
|
Definition
Diffuse - Attributes that are believed to provide an indirect indication of a member’s level of ability on the group’s task (e.g. race, gender)
Specific -Attributes that more directly and precisely indicate someone’s level of ability on the group’s task (e.g. knowledge of history or cars)
--> May be relevant or non-relevant to the task |
|
|
Term
| "Motherhood Wage Penalty" |
|
Definition
Mothers tend to make less money relative to women without children, fathers.
In a resume evaluation study, they manipulated whether men/women were parents or not and found that mothers were assigned lower wages, and had a lower likelihood of promotion even if their qualifications were the same. But fathers received a boost. Mothers were seen as less competent and committed.
In an audit study, mothers got fewer call backs. No effect for men. |
|
|
Term
| Racial Discrimination Experiments (Pager) |
|
Definition
Pager has conducted several “audit” studies. Experimental studies where confederates actually apply for jobs to study discrimination.
Pager had confederates apply for real (low wage) jobs in NYC, reported identical qualifications, applied to exact same employers, but varied applicants by ethnicity/race.
Study A:
White, black, and Latino confederates applied for jobs.
Looked at rate of positive responses.
Being offered job, called back for a second interview.
Results:
Whites: 23% positive response rate
Latinos: 19%
Blacks: 13%
Study B:
How extreme is the race/ethnicity penalty? Does it compare to the penalty for being a felon?
Black, Latino, and white with a past felony confederates applied for jobs.
Results:
White felons: 13% positive response rate
Latinos: 14%
Blacks: 10%
CONCLUSIONS:
• Several examples of employers channeling black/Latino applicants into lower status jobs and whites into higher status jobs.
• Being black in the low-wage labor market was about as difficult an impediment to employment as being fresh out of prison.
• Latinos faced less discrimination than blacks, but were still disadvantaged relative to whites despite identical qualifications
And did not receive much better job prospects than a white felon. |
|
|
Term
| The "Collective Action Problem" |
|
Definition
| The problem of how it is that groups are able to mobilize individuals to make contributions to the group. If everyone yields to the temptation to be selfish then collective action fails. |
|
|
Term
| Collective Action & Status (Willer) |
|
Definition
Collective action/group task situation where everyone could contribute resources into a pool that would benefit the whole group, or they could keep their resources and “free ride” on others’ contributions.
Results: Those who gave more…
- Were seen as higher status
- Had more influence in a subsequent task
- Were given more resources in an altruism opportunity
- Were cooperated with more often
REDO + feedback:
When participants got feedback indicating the others respected them, they…
- Tended to give even more after that
- Identified more with the group
- Saw the group as having greater solidarity and cohesion |
|
|
