1. Pro-social Behavior
1.1. Studies
1.1.1. Bystander Effect: Latané & Darley
1.1.1.1. Diffusion of Responsibility
1.1.1.1.1. The idea that the amount of responsibility assumed by bystanders in an emergency is shared among them
1.1.1.2. Response to Seizure Emergency
1.1.1.2.1. Diffusion of Responsibility
1.1.1.2.2. IV
1.1.1.2.3. DV
1.1.1.2.4. Results
1.2. Key Concepts
1.3. Presentations
1.3.1. Modeling Pro-social Behavior: Picking up Litter
1.3.1.1. Hypothesis
1.3.1.2. Method
1.3.1.3. Results
1.3.1.4. Conclusion
1.3.2. Influence of Group Size on Pro-social Behavior
1.3.2.1. Hypothesis
1.3.2.2. Method
1.3.2.3. Results
1.3.2.4. Conclusion
1.4. Textbook
2. Prejudice
2.1. Studies
2.1.1. Claude Steele (1995)
2.1.1.1. Stereotype Vulnerability
2.1.1.1.1. What does it feel like to be a target of prejudice?
2.1.1.2. IV
2.1.1.2.1. i. Stereotype threat- Test of Intelligence
2.1.1.2.2. ii. Non-threat- Test of Problem Solving
2.1.1.3. IV
2.1.1.3.1. iii. Black participants
2.1.1.3.2. iv. White participants
2.1.1.4. DV
2.1.1.4.1. Test Performance (score)
2.1.1.5. Results
2.1.1.5.1. i. Black participants performed significantly worse when exposed to intelligence test than when exposed to the non-threat variable.
2.1.1.6. Conclusion
2.1.1.6.1. i. Fear of fulfilling the stereotype causing decreased performance
2.1.1.6.2. ii. When people who are target have a stereotype activated, performance is undermined due to anxiety.
2.1.2. Dasgupta & Greenwald
2.1.2.1. Implicit Attitudes
2.1.2.1.1. Can you manipulate IAT by exposing to pro-black or pro-white information?
2.1.2.2. IV
2.1.2.2.1. learned about…
2.1.2.2.2. i. Pro-black- admired black/disliked white
2.1.2.2.3. ii. Pro-white-admired white/disliked black
2.1.2.2.4. iii. Control- flowers/insects
2.1.2.3. DV
2.1.2.3.1. i. IAT score after the priming
2.1.2.3.2. ii. IAT score after 24 hours
2.1.2.4. Results
2.1.2.4.1. i. Exposure to positive role models reduces amount of racial prejudice
2.1.2.4.2. ii. Being exposed to pro-white/ant-black information raised prejudice
2.1.2.4.3. iii. After 24 hours, pro-black group remained low in prejudice. While, pro-white group decreased their prejudice to a comparable amount to the control group.
2.1.2.5. Conclusion
2.1.2.5.1. i. Since admired black men is shown less often than admired white men, maybe that’s why their results remained after 24 hours
2.1.3. Spencer & Steele (2002)
2.1.3.1. Women in Math
2.1.3.2. IV
2.1.3.2.1. i. Geometry M=F and Algebra M>F
2.1.3.2.2. ii. Geometry M>F and Algebra M=F
2.1.3.3. DV
2.1.3.3.1. Scores
2.1.3.4. Results
2.2. Key Concepts
2.2.1. Stereotype- Cognitive belief (not necessarily True) based on group membership
2.2.1.1. Ex: in-group: variety to out-group: homogeneous
2.2.2. Prejudice- Attitude (lasting evaluation) usually negative based on group membership
2.2.3. Discrimination- Action/Behavior based on group membership
2.2.4. Implicit Association
2.2.4.1. Unaware implicit attitudes – implicit measures of prejudice
2.2.4.2. Unconscious attitude- but not subliminal, not below level of perception – therefore, these are super-bliminal
2.3. Presentations
2.3.1. Race: Helping Behavior
2.3.1.1. Hypothesis
2.3.1.2. Method
2.3.1.3. Results
2.3.1.4. Conclusion
2.3.2. Gender: Door Holding Behavior
2.3.2.1. Hypothesis
2.3.2.2. Method
2.3.2.3. Results
2.3.2.4. Conclusion
2.4. Textbook
2.4.1. Glass Ceiling
2.4.2. Sexism
2.4.2.1. Benevolent
2.4.2.1.1. New node
2.4.2.2. Hostile
2.4.3. Shifting Standards
2.4.4. Prejudice
2.4.5. Realistic Conflict Theory
2.4.6. Social Identity Theory
2.4.6.1. Us Vs. Them
2.4.7. Ways to reduce prejudice
2.4.7.1. Contact hypothesis- Increased contact between members of various social groups can be effective in reducing prejudice among them
2.4.7.2. Recategorization- shifts in the boundaries between an individual's in-group and some out-group.
2.4.7.2.1. Common in-group identity model- A theory suggesting that to the extent to which individuals in different groups view themselves as members of a single social entity, ingroup bias will be reduced
2.4.7.3. Saying "no" to sterotypes
2.4.7.3.1. Kawakami et al. (2002)
2.5. Readings
2.5.1. De Angelis
2.5.1.1. Microaggressions
2.5.2. Strate
2.5.2.1. Beer Commercials
2.5.3. Objectification
3. Social Influence
3.1. Studies
3.1.1. Milgram (1963)
3.1.1.1. Obedience
3.1.1.2. IV
3.1.1.2.1. New node
3.1.1.3. Method
3.1.1.3.1. Each participant became a "teacher"
3.1.1.3.2. They were instructed to give increasing amounts of electric shock to the "learner" whenever he answered incorrectly (15 volts- 450 volts)
3.1.1.3.3. The "learner" answered many questions incorrectly
3.1.1.3.4. If the participant hesitated, the experimenter asked them to continue.
3.1.1.4. Results
3.1.1.4.1. 65% showed total obedience
3.1.1.5. Conclusion
3.1.1.5.1. This experiment showed that average people could be pressured to fo inhumane things if asked to do so by an authority figure.
3.1.2. Asch (1951)
3.1.2.1. Conformity
3.1.3. Sherif (1935)
3.1.3.1. Suggestibility: Dot on the wall
3.1.3.2. IV
3.1.3.3. DV
3.1.3.4. Results
3.1.3.5. Conclusion
3.1.4. Williams (2000)
3.1.4.1. Cyber Obstracism
3.1.4.1.1. Being ignored, or excluded, in a video game
3.1.4.2. Hypotheses
3.1.4.2.1. Accordingly, in Experiment 1, we hypothesize that targets of cyberostracism will report lower levels of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. As a consequence, they will report psychological discomfort.
3.1.4.2.2. In Experiment 2, we hypothesize that when targets of cyberostracism have the opportunity to cope with their psychological discomfort, they will be more likely to conform to others as a means to refortify their sense of belonging.
3.1.4.3. IV
3.1.4.3.1. i. Exclusion/Ostracism
3.1.4.3.2. ii. Inclusion
3.1.4.4. DV
3.1.4.4.1. Survey on Needs
3.1.4.5. Results
3.1.4.5.1. Study 1
3.1.4.5.2. Study 2
3.2. Key Concepts
3.2.1. Conformity
3.2.1.1. Normative
3.2.1.1.1. change behavior to fit in
3.2.1.1.2. Social influence based on the desire to be liked or accepted by other persons
3.2.1.2. Informational
3.2.1.2.1. A behavior assuming new information
3.2.1.2.2. Social Influence based on the desire to be correct
3.2.2. Obedience
3.3. Presentations
3.3.1. Conformity in Flag Quiz
3.4. Textbook
3.4.1. Baron, Vandello and Brunsman (1996) p. 253
3.4.2. Lowball- Burger and Cornelius (2003)
3.4.2.1. IV
3.4.2.1.1. Lowball
3.4.2.1.2. Control
3.4.2.1.3. Interrupt
3.4.2.2. DV
3.4.2.2.1. Whether the participant donated
3.4.2.3. Results
3.4.2.3.1. More persons in the lowball condition agreed to make a donation than in either of the other two conditions
3.4.2.4. Conclusion
3.4.2.4.1. Once people make a initial commitment, they feel compelled to stick with it, even though the conditions that led them to say "yes" in the first place, no longer exist.
3.4.3. Tactics to gain compliance
3.4.3.1. Foot-in-door technique
3.4.3.2. Lowball Procedure
3.4.3.3. Door-in-Face tech.
3.4.3.4. That's not all tech.
3.4.3.5. Playing hard to get
3.4.3.6. Deadline tech.
3.5. Readings
3.5.1. Zimbardo
3.5.1.1. Stanford Prison Experiment
3.5.1.1.1. Based on Stanley Milgram (1963)
3.5.1.2. Question
3.5.1.2.1. Would good men overcome or succumb to a bad situation?
3.5.1.3. IV
3.5.1.3.1. i. Prisoner
3.5.1.3.2. ii. Guard
3.5.1.4. DV
3.5.1.4.1. i. Behavior (Qualitative)
3.5.1.5. Results
3.5.1.5.1. The prisoners rebelled on the second day
3.5.1.5.2. The guards used progressively worst psychological tactics to display dominance over the prisoners
3.5.1.5.3. On Day 5, five students were released early for extreme stress
3.5.1.5.4. On Day 6, Zimbardo ended the experiment prematurely
3.5.1.5.5. Zimbardo realized he had become a pawn to the situation as well and was damaging the well-being of his subjects
3.5.1.6. Conclusion
3.5.1.6.1. Ordinary, or good, people are capable of committed inhumane and violent behavior towards others in certain scenarios. Under the right conditions, the environment caused the participants to act out of character, horrendously.
3.5.1.7. Reccomendation
3.5.1.7.1. Be aware of our vulnerability to situational forces, in order to be able to overcome them
3.5.1.7.2. The criminal justice system may be unproductive by holding prisoners in confinement for a long period of time.