Ilovepdf Merged

Because learning changes everything.
Module 17
Social Facilitation: The Mere
Presence of Others
Copyright ©2021 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Social Facilitation
• Original meaning: Tendency of people to perform simple or

well-learned tasks better when others are present.
• Current meaning: Strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely)
responses in the presence of others.
Co-actors are a passive audience
They are not competing, do not reward or punish,
do nothing except being present
© McGraw Hill 2
Developments in Socal Facilitation Theory
Early research done on animals, human beings

Contrasting outcomes were later on explained by Zajong (1965)
© McGraw Hill 3
Figure 17.1: The Effects of Social Arousal
© McGraw Hill 4
Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge & Threat Motivation
(Blascovic and Mendes, 2000)
My resources < my demands shame & anxiety increases,

self-esteem decreases (Threat) Novel
My resources > my demands pride & self-esteem increases

(Challenge) Well learned
© McGraw Hill 5
Crowding: The Presence of Many Others
Sometimes the arousal and self-conscious attention created by a large

audience interferes even with well-learned, automatic behaviors, such
as speaking.
The effect of other people increases with their number

- A large audience can interfere with well-learned, automatic behavior
(stutterers –kekeme- tend to stutter more)
- Being in a crowd intensifies positive or negative reactions-bicycle
racing
Being in a crowd intensifies positive or negative reactions.

• When they sit close together, friendly people are liked even more, and unfriendly
people are disliked even more.
Crowding enhances arousal, which facilitates dominant responses.
© McGraw Hill 6
Factors for Arousal in the Presence of Others
Evaluation apprehension.
Distraction. Mere presence.
© McGraw Hill 7
Evaluation Apprehension
• Individuals’ concern for how others are evaluating them.

• Enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think
they are being evaluated.
• People perform some well-learned behaviors best without overthinking
them.
• Self-consciousness decreases performance
© McGraw Hill 8
Driven by Distraction
When individuals wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is

reacting, they become distracted.
• Co-actors: Co-participants working individually on a noncompetitive
activity.
• This conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to
the task overloads the cognitive system, causing arousal.
© McGraw Hill 9
Mere Presence
Mere presence of others produces some arousal even without evaluation

apprehension or arousing distraction.
• Most runners are energized when running with someone else, even
one who neither competes nor evaluates.
© McGraw Hill 10
Implications of Social Facilitation Theory
An example of a good theory
• Help confirm and modify the theory

• Guide new exploration
• Suggest practical actions-educated guess
© McGraw Hill 11
Why people form and join groups?
• Functional perspective
• Interpersonal attraction
Two or more people who, for longer than a few moments,

interact with and influence one another and perceive one
another as ‘us.’
© McGraw Hill 12
Which one is a group?
Five people waiting at the same corner for a bus.

People attending a worship service.
The Spice Girls Fan Club.
The students in a seminar class.
The bus stop: This is a collection of individuals; they need not interact or
influence one another in any way.
Worship: Do the members interact? Are they interdependent? Do they
affect one another?
Fan club: If the members never see or interact with one another, then
they are not a group.
Seminar class: Assuming the students are not merely an audience to a
lecturer, this is a group.
© McGraw Hill 13
Shutz (1958)
• Inclusion (need for affiliation)

• Control (need for power)
• Affection (need to establish open/positive relations with others, being
liked)
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
© McGraw Hill 14
.
Hierarchy of
Maslow’s Needs
.
Self-
actualization
Esteem
Love, belongingness
SelfSafeSafety
Safety
Physiological
Semra F. Aşcıgil, 2018
© McGraw Hill 15
Because learning changes everything. ®
www.mheducation.com
Because learning changes everything.®
Module 18
Social Loafing: Many Hands
Make Diminished
Responsibility
GROUP ASSETS
• MORE KNOWLEDGE
• MULTIPLE APPROACHES
• ACCEPTANCE BY MEMBERS
• BETTER UNDERSTANDING
© McGraw Hill 2
GROUP LIABILITIES
• EXCESSIVE CONFORMITY
• AGREEMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN
ANSWER
• DOMINANT INDIVIDUAL CAN NEGATE
• EXCESSIVE COMMUNICATION-winning each
point more important
© McGraw Hill 3
Dominant Individuals tend to..
• Inhibit discussion
• Short-cut diagnosis
• Hinder disagreement
• Reduce creativity
• Curtail contributions of some members
© McGraw Hill 4
Individual vs. Group
Compared to individuals, groups tend to be..

• Slower than most individuals
• Less accurate than the best individual
• More accurate than most individuals
The best individuals are usually better than groups as to accuracy, speed
and efficiency
The average individual is faster than most groups, but makes more
errors
Groups are more accurate but slower than most individuals
© McGraw Hill 5
Many Hands Make Light Work
Social loafing.
• Tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts
toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable.
Free riders.
• People who benefit from the group but give little in return. In
economics, refers to someone who benefits from resources, goods, or
services without paying for the cost of the benefit.
© McGraw Hill 6
Nature of Task
A unitary task cannot be divided into separate subtasks—all members

work together doing the same thing and no division of labor is possible.
In an additive task, group success depends on the sum of the individual

efforts, rather than on the performance of any subset of members.
© McGraw Hill 7
Figure 18.1: Social Facilitation or Social Loafing?
Thinkstock Images/Getty Images
Access the text alternative for slide images.
© McGraw Hill 8
What makes people to loaf?
People expect each other to loaf. Whether consciously or

unconsciously people say to themselves: everyone else is going to slack
off a bit so I’ll slack off a bit as well because it’s not fair if I do more work
than the others.
Anonymity. When groups are larger the individuals become more
anonymous. Imagine you’re doing something on your own: if it goes well
you get all the glory, if it goes wrong you get all the blame. In a group
both blame and glory is spread, so there’s less carrot and less stick.
No standards. Often groups don’t have set standards so there’s no clear
ideal for which to aim.
© McGraw Hill 9
How to reduce loafing?
Task importance. Studies have shown that when people think the task is
important they do less loafing. Zacarro (1984) found that groups
constructing ‘moon tents’ (don’t ask me!) worked harder if they thought
the relevance of the task was high, thought they were in competition with
another group and were encouraged to think the task was attractive.
Group importance. When the group is important to its members they
work harder. Worchel et al. (1998) had people building paper chains in
two groups, one which had name tags, matching coats and a sense of
competition. Compared to a group given none of these, they produced 5
more paper chains.
Decreasing the ‘sucker effect’. The sucker effect is that feeling of being
duped when you think that other people in the group are slacking off.
Reducing or eliminating this perception is another key to a productive
group.
© McGraw Hill 10
Social Loafing in Everyday Life 1
• Social loafing is found in varied cultures and appears in donations of

money and time.
• People in groups loaf less when the task is challenging, appealing, or
involving.
• Groups loaf less when their members are friends or they feel identified
with or indispensable to their group.
© McGraw Hill 11
Social Loafing in Everyday Life 2
Group members work hard when they:
• Are given challenging objectives.
• Are rewarded for group success.
• Have a spirit of commitment to the team.
People in groups loaf less when…
• The task is challenging
• The task is appealing
• The task is involving
© McGraw Hill 12
www.mheducation.com
Accessibility Content: Text Alternatives for Images
© McGraw Hill
Figure 18.1: Social Facilitation or Social Loafing? - Text
Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
Others' presence leads to Individual efforts pooled and not evaluated

which results in no evaluation apprehension, and later in less arousal.
Others' presence also lead to Individual efforts evaluated which results in
evaluation apprehension and later in arousal.

© McGraw Hill
Module 19
Deindividuation: Doing
Together What We Would
Not Do Alone
Q
“If you could do anything humanly possible with

complete assurance that you would not be detected
or held responsible, what would you do?”
© McGraw Hill 2
David Dodd (1985)
Aggression, charity, academic dishonesty, crime,

escapism, political activities, sexual behavior, social
disruption (karmaşa), interpersonal spying and
eavesdropping (kulak misafiri olmak), travel, and a
miscellaneous category
Categories:
Prosocial (olumlu sosyal davranış),
Antisocial (antisosyal davranış),
nonnormative (violating social norms but without
specifically helping or hurting others-kural dışı, herkesle
ortak olmayan), and
neutral (meeting none of the other three categories)
© McGraw Hill 3
The most frequent responses were..
• Criminal acts (26%), sexual acts (11%), and spying

behaviors (11%). The most common single response was
“rob a bank”—it accounted for 15% of all responses.
• Findings indicated that 36% of the responses were
antisocial, 19% nonnormative, 36% neutral, and 9%
prosocial
© McGraw Hill 4
Understanding Deindividuation
Deindividuation: Loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension.

• Occurs in group situations that foster responsiveness to group norms,
good or bad.
When arousal and diffused responsibility combine, and normal inhibitions

diminish, the results may be startling.
Unrestrained behaviors are provoked by the power of being in a group.

• Groups can generate a sense of excitement, of being caught up in
something bigger than one’s self.
© McGraw Hill 5
Group Size
Group has the power not only to arouse its members but also to render
them unidentifiable.
• Snarling crowd hides the snarling basketball fan.
• Lynch mob enables its members to believe they will not be
prosecuted, and they perceive the action as the group’s.
• Looters, made faceless by the mob, are freed to loot.
© McGraw Hill 6
Anonymity
Being anonymous makes one:
• Less self-conscious.
• More group-conscious.
• More responsive to situational cues, whether negative or positive.
Anonymity feeds incivility.
© McGraw Hill 7
Figure 19.2: Transgression Rate of Children in Different
Situations
Source: Data from Diener et al., 1976.
© McGraw Hill 8
Anonymity on Internet
© McGraw Hill 9
You Don't Know Me!
As the word "anonymous" indicates, you can have no name -

at least not your real name. That anonymity fosters the
disinhibition effect.
When people have the opportunity to separate their actions

from their real world and identity, they feel less vulnerable
about opening up.
They don't have to own their behavior by acknowledging it
within the full context of who they "really" are. When acting
out hostile feelings, the person doesn't have to take
responsibility for those actions. In fact, people might even
convince themselves that those behaviors "aren't me at all."
In psychology this is called "dissociation."
© McGraw Hill 10
You Can't See Me! (invisibility)
Invisibility gives people the courage to go places and do

things that they otherwise wouldn't.
Seeing a frown, a shaking head, a sigh, a bored expression,
and many other subtle and not so subtle signs of disapproval
or indifference can slam the breaks on what people are
willing to express.
© McGraw Hill 11
See you later!
People don't interact with each other in real time. Others may
take minutes, hours, days, or even months to reply to
something you say. Not having to deal with someone's
immediate reaction can be disinhibiting.
© McGraw Hill 12
It's All in My Head!
Absent f2f cues combined with text communication can have

an interesting effect on people. Sometimes they feel that
their mind has merged with the mind of the online
companion.
Perhaps unconsciously, it feels as if «I am talking to/with

myself». When we talk to ourselves, we are willing to say all
sorts of things that we wouldn't say to others!
© McGraw Hill 13
We're Equals! (minimizing authority)
People are reluctant to say what they really think as they

stand before an authority figure. A fear of disapproval and
punishment curtails the spirit.
But online, in what feels like a peer relationship - with the

appearances of "authority" minimized - people are much
more willing to speak out or misbehave.
© McGraw Hill 14
Effects of Anonymity - Singer, Brush, and Lublin (1965)
Demonstrated the effects of anonymity by having their female

participants wear either old clothes or dresses in their study
To maximize their feelings of anonymity, those with old
clothes were given oversized white lab coats to wear
throughout the rest of the study
A: discuss the issue of pornography

B: the value of a liberal education
© McGraw Hill 15
Singer, Brush, and Lublin (1965)
A: In discussing pornography, those subjects in lab coats

used more obscenities (müstehcen davranış), were more
likely to interrupt one another, reported liking the group more,
and allowed fewer seconds of silence to pass during the
discussion than did the identifiable subjects
B: In contrast, no differences were found between the
subjects when neutral topics were discussed.
© McGraw Hill 16
Deindividuation
In certain situations, people…
- Abandon normal restraints
- Lose their sense of individual identity
- Become responsive to group or crowd norms
© McGraw Hill 17
What Elicits Deindividuation?
Group size (distraction)
Physical anonymity
Arousing and distracting activities

http://www.units.miamioh.edu/psybersite/fans/deindividuation.shtml
© McGraw Hill 18
Arousing and Distracting Activities
• Aggressive outbursts by large groups are often preceded by minor

actions that arouse and divert people’s attention.
• Group shouting, chanting, clapping, or dancing serve both to hype
people up and to reduce self-consciousness.
• Self-reinforcing pleasure exists in acting impulsively while seeing
others do likewise.
• Impulsive group action absorbs individuals’ attention.
© McGraw Hill 19
Diminished Self-Awareness 1
Group experiences that diminish self-consciousness tend to disconnect

behavior from attitudes.
Unself-conscious, deindividuated people are:
• Less restrained.
• Less self-regulated.
• More likely to act without thinking about their own values.
• More responsive to the situation.
© McGraw Hill 20
Diminished Self-Awareness 2
Self-awareness is the opposite of deindividuation.

• Self-awareness: Self-conscious state in which attention focuses on
oneself.
• Makes people more sensitive to their own attitudes and
dispositions.
© McGraw Hill 21
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 19.2: Transgression Rate of Children in Different
Situations - Text Alternative
The children when alone and identified, 8 percent transgression, and

when they are alone and anonymous, 22 percent of transgression. The
children when in groups and identified, 22 percent of transgression. and
58 percent of transgression when they are anonymous.

© McGraw Hill
Module 20
Group Polarization: How Do
Groups Intensify Decisions?
Group Polarization
• Group-produced enhancement of members’ preexisting tendencies.

• Strengthening of the members’ average tendency, not a split within the
group.
© McGraw Hill 2
Risky Shift
Occurs when a group decides by consensus.

• After a brief discussion, individuals will alter their decisions.
Not universal.
• People can become more cautious after discussion.
© McGraw Hill 3
Figure 20.1: Group Polarization
© McGraw Hill 4
Figure 20.2: Group Polarization in Racial Attitudes
Source: Data from Myers & Bishop, 1970.
© McGraw Hill 5
Group Polarization in Everyday Life 1
Schools.
• Initial differences among groups of college students become
accentuated.
Communities.
• During actual community conflicts, like-minded people associate
increasingly with one another, amplifying their shared tendencies.
• Gang delinquency emerges from a process of mutual reinforcement
within neighborhood gangs, whose members share attributes and
hostilities.
• People tending to believe in the inferiority of a certain racial group will
be entrenched in this belief as a result of discussion.
• A group of moderately pro-feminist women will become more strongly
pro-feminist after discussion.
© McGraw Hill 6
Politics.
• As more and more people view their political party as morally superior
and the opposition as corrupt, cooperation and shared goals get
replaced by gridlock.
• Those moderately critical of an ongoing war effort will, after
discussion, sharply oppose the war.
• After discussion, citizens of France become more critical of the United
States and its intentions with respect to world economy.
The Internet.
• Individuals embrace media feeds that support their views and slam
those they despise.
• Countless virtual groups enable individuals to isolate themselves with
like-minded others and find support for their shared concerns,
interests, and suspicions.
• More information deepens rather than moderates partisan divisions.
© McGraw Hill 7
Terrorist organizations.
• Terrorism arises among people whose shared grievances bring them
together and fan their fire.
• As they interact in isolation from moderating influences, they
become progressively more extreme.
• Massacres are group phenomena.
• Violence is enabled and escalated by the killers egging

(encouraging) one another on.
© McGraw Hill 8
Court Decisions
Main and Walker (1973) analysed the decisions of Federal district court
judges sitting either alone or in groups of three to see if group discussions
were a factor.
In the 1,500 cases where judges sat alone they took an extreme course
of action only 30% of the time. However when sitting in a group of 3 this
figure more than doubled to 65%. It seems even trained, professional
decision-makers are subject to the forces of group polarization.
© McGraw Hill 9
Explaining Group Polarization
Informational influence. Normative influence.
• Influence that results • Influence based on a

from accepting person’s desire to be
evidence about reality. accepted or admired by
others.
© McGraw Hill 10
Informational Influence
•Informational influence
- influence resulting from acceptance of an evidence about reality
Group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas, most of which favor the

dominant viewpoint.
• Some discussed ideas are common knowledge to group members.
• Other ideas may include persuasive arguments that some group
members had not previously considered.
© McGraw Hill 11
Normative Influence
•Normative influence
- Social comparison-reference groups
• Social comparison: Evaluating one’s opinions and abilities by

comparing oneself with others.
• People are most persuaded by other people in their reference groups.
• Individuals want other people to like them, so they may express
stronger opinions after discovering that others share their views.
© McGraw Hill 12
Groupthink
“The mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking

becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override
realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action.”—Irving Janis.
•Pearl Harbor (January 7, 1941)
• The Bay of Pigs Invasion (April 1961)
• The Vietnam War (1960,1961, US military involvement ended in August

15, 1973)
Conditions that breed groupthink.
• Amiable, cohesive group.
• Relative isolation of the group from dissenting viewpoints.
• Directive leader who signals what decision he or she favors.
© McGraw Hill 13
Symptoms of Groupthink
• Illusion of invulnerability.
• Unquestioned belief in the group’s morality.
• Rationalization.
• Stereotyped view of opponent.
• Conformity pressure.
• Self-censorship.
• Illusion of unanimity.
• Mindguards.
© McGraw Hill 14
.
© McGraw Hill 15
Results of Groupthink
• Illusion of invulnerability and unquestioned belief in the group’s

morality lead group members to overestimate their group’s might and
right.
• Group members become closed-minded as a result of rationalization
and stereotyped view of opponent.
• Group suffers from pressures toward uniformity because of conformity
pressure, self-censorship, an illusion of unanimity, and mindguards.
© McGraw Hill 16
Figure 20.4: Theoretical Analysis of Groupthink
Source: Adapted from Janis & Mann, 1977, p 132.
© McGraw Hill 17
Preventing Groupthink
• Be impartial.
• Encourage critical evaluation.
• Occasionally subdivide the group, then reunite to air differences.
• Welcome critiques from outside experts and associates.
• Before implementing, call a “second-chance” meeting to air any
lingering doubts.
© McGraw Hill 18
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 20.1: Group Polarization - Text Alternative
A group polarization hypothesis image shows polarization as oppose,

neutral, and favor. Group A favors the hypothesis before the discussion
and it increases after the discussion whereas group B was opposing the
hypothesis before the discussion and opposes it more strongly after the
discussion.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 20.2: Group Polarization in Racial Attitudes - Text
Alternative
A group polarization hypothesis image shows prejudice ranging from

negative 4 to 4. The high prejudice groups starts at 3 before the
discussion and increases to 3.5 by the end of it. The low prejudice groups
starts at negative 1.5 and decreases to negative 3 after the discussion.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 20.4: Theoretical Analysis of Groupthink - Text
Alternative
An image explains the Theoretical analysis of groupthink shows

Groupthink-breeding Situation with symptoms causing Defective decision
making while Seeking Concurrence. Three boxes represent
Groupthink-breeding Situation, Groupthink Symptoms and Defective
decision making. The Groupthink-breeding Situation contains Insulated
group, Cohesive group, No appraisal procedures, High stress or low
hope, and Autocratic leadership. The symptoms of Groupthink are
Feeling invulnerable, Belief in group’s morality, Shared rationalization,
Stereotyping outgroup, Self-censorship, Pressuring dissenters, Unanimity
illusion, and Mind guards. The Defective decision making involves
Objectives and alternatives not completely surveyed, Ignoring risks,
Meager information search, Biased information processing, Alternatives
not reappraised, and No contingency planning.

© McGraw Hill
Module 21
Power to the Person
Different perspectives on «Truth»
© McGraw Hill 2
Interacting Persons and Situations
•Social situations influence the individual
• Individuals influence social situations
- The two interact
© McGraw Hill 3
Reactance
Individuals value their sense of freedom and

independence. Knowing someone is trying to coerce or
force us often prompts us to react in the opposite
direction.
- Boomerang effect: When social pressure is too blatant

(obvious) there is often a “boomerang effect” and the
individual rebels against the pressure.
© McGraw Hill 4
Resisting Social Pressure
Reactance.
• Motive to protect or restore one’s sense of
freedom.
• Arises when someone threatens one’s freedom of
action.
© McGraw Hill 5
Reactance and Alcohol Consumption
© McGraw Hill 6
Reactance and Consumer Behavior
Reearch on the effects that product unavailability had on

product attractiveness:
Lessne (1987) investigated whether retail advertisements
which describe sales of limited duration (e.g. One Day
Only, Three Days Only) are capable of increasing
consumer demand.
One of the key findings of the study is that an
advertisement for a One Day Only sale results in greater
purchase likelihood than advertisements for a Three Day
Only sale, a Five Day Only sale and a sale of an unstated
duration.
e.g. Black Friday sales
© McGraw Hill 7
Lessne and Notarantonio (1988)
Lessne and Notarantonio (1988) investigated the

effect of limits in retail advertisements (e.g. limit 2
per customer, limit 4 per customer). A key finding is
that limits are capable of increasing attraction to the
advertised product (soda). Those in the limit 4
treatment group evidenced a greater intended
purchase quantity as well as a stronger belief that
"many will want to purchase this product after
seeing this ad" than those who were exposed to a
control ad which did not contain a limit statement.
© McGraw Hill 8
Asserting Uniqueness
Asserting uniqueness.
• People feel better when they see themselves as
moderately unique and act in ways that will assert
their individuality.
© McGraw Hill 9
People feel better when they see themselves as

moderately unique
People also feel defeated by appearing like

everyone else. When people are deprived of their
feeling of uniqueness, they are more likely to assert
their individuality by nonconformity.
“One is conscious of oneself insofar as, and in
the ways that, one is different.”
© McGraw Hill 10
“One is conscious of oneself insofar as, and in

the ways that, one is different.”
© McGraw Hill 11
Minority Influence
Individuals can influence their groups.. On December 1, 1955 in
Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks refused to obey bus driver James F.
Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger.
Parks' civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus
Boycott.
© McGraw Hill 12
Determinants of Minority Influence
Consistency.
• Minority that sticks to its position is influential.
Self-confidence.
• By being firm and forceful, the minority’s apparent self-assurance may
prompt the majority to reconsider its position.
Defections from the majority.

• When a minority consistently doubts the majority wisdom, majority
members become freer to express their own doubts and may even
switch to the minority position.
© McGraw Hill 13
Consistency
To influence the majority, the minority must be consistent.

«People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because
I was physically tired, the only tired I was, was tired of
giving in.» Rosa Parks
© McGraw Hill 14
.
Levine
Nonconformity is often difficult. People often attribute dissent to
psychological problems, such as dogmatism (tartışma kabul etmeme,
kestirip atma-tendency to force one’s opinions on others).
Dogma: established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any
kind of organization, it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or
diverged from.
Mucchi-Faina et al.
Dissenters often help a group make better decisions.
Nemeth
Dissenting members of a jury were often disliked even though the other
jury members acknowledged that the dissenters made them think deeply
about their positions.
© McGraw Hill 15
Self-confidence
Nemeth and Wachtler

Actions by a minority that indicate self-confidence— like
taking the head seat at a table—tend to raise self-doubt
among the majority.
© McGraw Hill 16
Defections from the Majority
Levine
A minority member who defects from the majority was more persuasive
than a consistent minority voice.
Defections from Minority-Moscovici
If a minority of Cs consistently says that a blue slide is green, members of
the majority will occasionally (ara sıra) agree. But if the minority wavers
(kararsızlık etmek, tereddüt etmek-hesitate), saying “blue” to one-third of
the slides and “green” to the rest, virtually no one in the majority will
agree.
Majority following minority tends to be genuine acceptance, not simple

social pressure. It is often likely to follow the central route.
© McGraw Hill 17
Leadership
Process by which certain group members motivate and guide the group.
• Some leaders are formally appointed or elected.
• Others emerge informally as the group interacts.
Styles.
• Task leadership.
• Social leadership.
• Transformational leadership.
© McGraw Hill 18
Leadership Styles 1
Task leadership.
• Organizing work, setting standards, and focusing on goal attainment.
• Directive style: Giving orders and keeping the group’s attention and
effort focused on its mission.
Social leadership.
• Building teamwork, mediating conflicts, and being supportive.
• Democratic style: Delegating authority, welcoming input from team
members, and helping to prevent groupthink.
© McGraw Hill 19
Leadership
The latest research tells us that good leaders are high in both task and
social concerns, and can shift and blend these styles as the situation
requires.
Person-high in consideration, keep harmony in the group
Task-high in initiating structure, problem solving
Good leaders also borrow from 3 styles:

Directive / autocratic—deciding themselves without consulting.
Democratic—letting the group decide, involve people in DM.
Laissez faire: No sharing or direction from leader, allow people to make
decisions with little guidance
© McGraw Hill 20
Leadership Styles 2
Transformational leadership.
• Leadership that, enabled by a leader’s vision and inspiration, exerts
significant influence.
• Articulating high standards, inspiring people to share their vision, and
offering personal attention.
© McGraw Hill 21
Effective Leaders
• Engender trust by consistently sticking to their goals.

• Exude a self-confident charisma that kindles the allegiance of their
followers.
• Have a compelling vision of some desired state of affairs, especially
during times of collective stress.
• Have an ability to communicate that vision to others in clear and
simple language.
• Have enough optimism and faith in their group to inspire others to
follow.
© McGraw Hill 22
. INTERDEPENDENCE
First try to Synergiz

. understand..
PUBLIC e
then try to be
understood VICTORY
Think
win-win
INDEPENDENCE
Put first
things Begin
first!
PRIVATE with
Be VICTORY the end
Proactiv in mind!
e
DEPENDENCE
PRINCIPLE CENTERED LEADERSHIP-COVEY

© McGraw Hill 23
www.mheducation.com
Module 22
The Reach of Prejudice
Understanding the Terms 1
Prejudice.
• Preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual
members.
Stereotype.
• Belief about the personal attributes of a group of people.
• Sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new
information (and sometimes accurate).
Discrimination.
• Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or its members.
© McGraw Hill 2
Understanding the Terms 2
Racism.
• Individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward
people of a given race, or institutional practices (even if not motivated
by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given race.
Sexism.
• Individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward
people of a given sex, or institutional practices (even if not motivated
by prejudice) that subordinate people of a given sex.
© McGraw Hill 3
.
Prejudice-attitudes (önyargı, peşin yargı)
Stereotypes-beliefs (kalıp yargı, sterotip)
Discrimination-behavior
© McGraw Hill 4
What are some stereotypes concerning..
Japanese
Africans
Colombians
French
Brazilians
Gays
Obese
© McGraw Hill 5
Stereotypes
To stereotype is to generalize about a group. We generalize about groups
frequently, in order to simplify the world. Some of our generalizations may be
true, at least in part.
☹ One problem is when stereotypes arise from overgeneralizations. Then
they can be applied to an individual from the stereotyped group with no
recognition of her or his individual differences.
☹ Another problem is when stereotypes are simply incorrect. Then, they can
be incorrectly applied to individuals or whole groups.
Martin’s survey:
Men do describe their individual traits as slightly more assertive and dominant
than do women.
Women do rate themselves as slightly more compassionate and tender than
men rate themselves.
But both men and women perceived men as 2X as likely as women to be
assertive and dominant.
Both men and women perceive women as 2X more compassionate as men.
The stereotypes held exaggerated the self-reports.
© McGraw Hill 6
5 Main Characteristics of Stereotypes - Fiske (1988), Hogg and
Vaughan (2010)
a) stereotypes are simplified images of members of a group, based most
often on the clearly visible differences between the groups (for instance,
the physical aspect), often being pejorative (aşağılayıcı) when applied to
the out-group;
b) stereotypes are adaptive cognitive shortcuts that enable quick impressions
about people, by which large groups of people are easily described using
little characteristics; also, stereotypes serve to give a meaning to some
particular relations between groups;
c) stereotypes are stable because of their function of cognitive adaptation,
and what we see when we notice their change is the result of adapting to
the great economic, political or social changes; however, the stereotypes of
a group can vary from a context to another as they are selected to fit the
situational requirements and own goals and motives of the person who
uses them;
d) stereotypes are acquired, some of them at a young age, and others
crystallize in childhood;
e) stereotypes become more acute and more hostile when social tensions
and conflicts appear between the groups, and when they are extremely
difficult to change
© McGraw Hill 7
What is prejudice?
A negative prejudgment of a group and its individual
members
Prejudice: an unjustified negative attitude toward a group and

its individual members.
Prejudice is prejudgment—it is bias against a person based
solely on identifying the person with a particular group.
Prejudice is an attitude—a distinct combination of feelings,
inclinations to act, and beliefs.
Prejudice can often lead to bullying and other forms of

discrimination.
© McGraw Hill 8
Prejudice: Implicit and Explicit
People can have different explicit (conscious) and implicit (automatic)

attitudes toward the same target.
• People may retain from childhood a habitual, automatic fear or dislike
of people for whom they now express respect and admiration.
• Although explicit attitudes may change dramatically with education,
implicit attitudes may linger, changing only as people form new habits
through practice.
Prejudiced and stereotypic evaluations can occur outside people’s

awareness.
© McGraw Hill 9
Prejudice
Prejudice is often unconscious..
Devine
Both low and high prejudice people often have similar responses in:
· Increased muscle tension
· Increased blood pressure
When 1st meeting a person of another race and ethnic group.
The difference is that “low prejudiced” people consciously suppress their

prejudicial thoughts and feelings.
© McGraw Hill 10
.
© McGraw Hill 11
Common Forms of Prejudice
Racial prejudice. Gender prejudice. LGBT prejudice.
© McGraw Hill 12
Racial Prejudice 1
Explicit prejudicial attitudes can change very quickly.
Modern prejudice appears subtly, in people’s preferences for what is familiar,

similar, and comfortable.
Techniques that are sensitive to subtle prejudice (ince/hemen göze

çarpmayan) still detect widespread bias!
Whites are equally helpful to any person in need, except when the person is
remote—for example a telephone caller with a Black accent who needs a
message given to another person (Gaertner and Dovidio).
Bias can be detected in behaviors.

• Employment discrimination.
• Favoritism.
• Patronization.
© McGraw Hill 13
Racial Prejudice 2
Many people display an automatic, unconscious tendency to associate White,

more than Black, with favorable words.
In some situations, automatic, implicit prejudice can have life or death
consequences.
• When people are fatigued or feeling threatened by a dangerous world, they
become even more likely to mistakenly shoot a minority person.
Duncan-White Ss observed a videotape of one man lightly shoving (itip kakma)

another during a brief argument.
·When a White man shoved a Black man:
o 13% of Ss rated this as “violent behavior.”
o The rest interpreted it as “playing around.”
·When a Black man shoved a White man:
o 73% said the act was “violent behavior.”
Most people in the US today deny being prejudiced—unless connected to a lie

detector.
© McGraw Hill 14
.
© McGraw Hill 15
Gender Prejudice 1
Strong gender stereotypes exist, and members of the stereotyped group

accept them.
Gender stereotypes have persisted across time and culture.
Gender attitudes frequently mix a benevolent sexism with hostile sexism.

• People respect the competence of those high in status and like those
who agreeably accept a lower status.
• Depending on the situation, individuals may seek to impress people

with either their competence or warmth.
© McGraw Hill 16
Figure 22.1: Changing Gender Attitudes from 1958 to
2012
Source: Data from Gallup Polls.
© McGraw Hill 17
Gender Prejudice
90% of those in the US now say they would vote for a woman
president—less than 20% said so in 1935.
Goldman
In 1968 gave Ss an article to evaluate. Both male and female Ss rated it
higher if they thought the author was a man.
Myers
In 1989, his review of 104 studies found no difference in how Ss
evaluated quality of work based on gender.
© McGraw Hill 18
Gender Prejudice 2
People may react when gender stereotypes are violated.
Around the world, people tend to prefer having baby boys.

• Female shortage contributes to increased violence, crime, prostitution, and
trafficking of women.
Subtle prejudice against people of color and against women is still widespread.
Ayres (1991)
In the experiment, Ayres had Cs visit 90 Chicago area car dealers and
negotiate a price on the same model car, using the same negotiation strategy:
White men got an average final price of about $11,000.

White women got an average final price of about $11,362.
Black men got an average final price of about $11,783.
Black women got an average final price of about $12,237.
© McGraw Hill 19
Gender bias often denied..
Crosby et al.
Most women admit that gender bias exists, but say that it has not been
directed against them. Discrimination is something other women face.
Taylor et al.
Similar denial of prejudice against one’s self personally while
acknowledging prejudice against one’s own group occurs for:
Black
Unemployed
Gays
© McGraw Hill 20
.
© McGraw Hill 21
Bank of America
Our policy is that workplace should be free of harassment.

Harassment includes such things as verbal harassment (e.g.
Deregatory comments, jokes, slurs); physical harassment
(e.g. Unwanted physical contact, assoult); visual harassment
(e.g. Deregatory posters, cartoons or drawings); or sexual
harassment (e.g. An unwanted or unwelcome sexual
advance which is verbal, physical, or creates an offensive or
hostile work environment).
© McGraw Hill 22
LGBT Prejudice 1
• Most of the world’s gay and lesbian people cannot comfortably

disclose who they are and whom they love.
• In many countries, same-sex relationships are a criminal offense.
• Antigay attitudes worldwide are strongest among those who are older,
less educated, and male.
• Heterosexual men who value masculinity express the most prejudice
against transgender individuals.
© McGraw Hill 23
LGBT Prejudice 2
LGBTQ community.
• Faces job discrimination, harassment, and rejection.
• Receives mixed gay marriage support.
Disparaging attitudes and discriminatory practices exist in states and

communities.
LGBT people:
• Are at increased risk of depression and suicide.

• Experience increased mood disorders, alcohol use, and anxiety
disorders.
© McGraw Hill 24
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 22.1: Changing Gender Attitudes from 1958 to
2012 - Text Alternative
The percent of people willing to vote for a women candidate rises from 30
in 1945 to 91 in 2015 with intermediate ups and downs. The percent of
people who are not ready to vote for a woman candidate falls from 65
percent in 1945 to 8 percent by 2015, with intermediate ups but a regular
fall in the percentage.

© McGraw Hill
Module 23
The Roots of Prejudice
Sources of Prejudice
Prejudice comes from different sources, and serves several functions.

Prejudice can be used to:
· Help define who we are

· Gain social acceptance
· May defend against insecurity
· May serve our economic advantage
Three Sources of Prejudice :

· Social
· Motivational
· Cognitive
© McGraw Hill 2
Social Sources of Prejudice 1
Socialization: Prejudice springs from unequal status and from other social
sources, including individuals’ acquired values and attitudes.
• Authoritarian personality: Disposed to favor obedience to authority and
intolerance of outgroups and those lower in status.
• Ethnocentric: Believing in the superiority of one’s own ethnic and

cultural group and having a corresponding disdain for all other groups.
Unequal social status breeds prejudice (prejudice justify the economic and
social superiority of those who have wealth and power)
Prejudice can help to rationalize:

· Gender & social roles
· Unequal wealth
· War
· Genocide
© McGraw Hill 3
Social Sources of Prejudice 2
Conformity.
• If prejudice is socially accepted, many people will follow the path of least
resistance and conform to the fashion. If prejudice is the norm, being
prejudiced conforms, and makes us more liked.
• Conformity maintains gender prejudice.
In the 1950s Southern US:

Those who conform most to other social norms were also most likely to
conform to prejudice.
Most ministers in Ankansas were silent in their more liberal attitudes
toward desegregation, fearing they would lose their church members
and their contributions.
Indiana and West Virginia unions voted to accept Black in the workplace.
But they lived in separate neighborhoods. They could set their own work
rules, but could not change other social norms.
© McGraw Hill 4
Discrimination and Its Impact
Prejudice affects its targets!
Two basic reactions to prejudice (Allport):
· Victims blame themselves (withdrawal, self-hate, aggression against

his/her own group).
·Victims blame external causes (fighting back, suspiciousness, increased

group pride).
© McGraw Hill 5
Social Stigma
Stigmatized individuals possess some attribute, or characteristics, that

conveys social identity that is devalued in a particular social context
(Crocker et al, 1998)
Visible stigma (race, gender, obesity) inescapable, people cannot use
concealment of stigma to cope with sterotypes, prejudices and
harrassment and thus stigma may trigger
Concealable stigma (homosexuality) or internalized stigma (Herek 2007)
where cost of concealment can be high-people have to be untrue to
themselves
© McGraw Hill 6
Stereotype Threat
Because stigmatized groups know exactly the negative stereotypes that

others have of them, they experience stereotype threat.
Stigmatized individuals are aware that others judge/treat them
stereotypically, their concerns not only increase anxiety but impair task
performance.
Thus, on tasks that really matter to them, they worry that through their
behavior they may confirm stereotypes-that their behavior will become a
self-fulfilling prophecy!
© McGraw Hill 7
Research Findings
Steele and Aronson (2002)
Black and white students anticipate taking a ‘very difficult’ test that was defined
as being ‘diagnostic of intellectual ability’ or as ‘just laboratory exercise’.
Then they complete a number of measures designed to assess awareness of
racial stereotypes i.e. they complete ambigious sentence fragments such as
___CE or ____ERIOR.
Black students were more likely to complete the fragments with race related
words (race; inferior)
Paul Davies et al. (2002,2005)
Women and men watch series of commercials told to be tested on memory of
details
Half of commercials contained neutral stimuli, the other half “airheaded-uçarı
women”
Women watching stereotyped images performed worse than men, reported less
interest in obtaining a math or science major/career
© McGraw Hill 8
Motivational Sources of Prejudice 1
Displaced aggression, or scapegoating.

• When the cause of individuals’ frustration is intimidating or unknown,
they redirect their hostility.
• Targets for displaced aggression vary.
• Realistic group conflict theory: Prejudice arises from competition
between groups for scarce resources.
© McGraw Hill 9
Motivational Sources of Prejudice
Frustration can cause aggression (Scapegoat Theory)
Lynching of Blacks were highest in the Southern US when the price of

cotton was lowest (displaced aggression).
The increased attack of Neo-Nazis to immigrants in the early 90s when

East and West Germany became united (the fall of the Berlin wall) and
the economy went bad.
Concern about immigrants taking jobs are greatest among lowest income
groups in US
Europeans who believe that immigrants have done economically

better than their own group are more prejudiced.
© McGraw Hill 10
Motivational Sources of Prejudice 2
Social identity theory (Turner & Tajfel): Feeling superior to others.

A definition and evaluation of who one is and a description and evaluation
of what this entails
Social identities not only describe attitudes but, very importantly, also
prescribe what one should think and how one should behave as a
member
• i.e. ’METU student’ means not only defining yourself or being defined
by others as student, but also thinking and behaving in
characteristically METU student ways
© McGraw Hill 11
Ingroup Bias
Social identity: “We” aspect of individuals’ self-concept. We categorize,

identify and compare
Part of the answer to “Who am I?” that comes from group memberships.
• Ingroup: “Us”—a group of people who share a sense of belonging, a
feeling of common identity.
• Outgroup: “Them”—a group that people perceive as distinctively
different from or apart from their ingroup.
• Tendency to favor one’s own group.

• Supports a positive self-concept.
• Feeds favoritism.
• Strengthens the need for status, self-regard, and belonging.
© McGraw Hill 12
Ingroup bias
❑ We are more prone to ingroup bias when our group is small, relative to the
outgroup
❑ When we are part of a small group surrounded by a larger group, we
are also more conscious of our group membership
❑ When our ingroup is the majority, we think less about it
❑ Ingroup bias supports a positive self-concept (we won-they lost) but
feeds favoritism
Deutsch
Groups randomly divided, but told they were divided on the basis of a “more
accurate estimate of a line,” attribute more positive attributes to their group,
more negative attributes to the other group.
Wilder (1981)
When allowed to divide money between 2 groups, Ss usually give:
· Two-thirds to their own group
· One-third to the other group
© McGraw Hill 13
Figure 23.1: Personal Identity and Social Identity Together Feed
Self-Esteem
Sam Edwards/OJO Images/AGE

Fotostock; Digital Vision/Getty Images
© McGraw Hill Access the text alternative for slide images. 14

Motivational Sources of Prejudice
Need for status

Status derives in part from comparison to others. Most of us have at
least on a few occasions taken satisfaction at seeing ourselves favorable
in comparison to others. Curving of grades often promotes this.
Cialdini and Richardson

Arizona State students told they scored low, or were not told how they did
on a “creativity test.”
Students then asked to rate traditional rival of their university, the
University of Arizona. Ss who were told they did low on “creativity test”
rated own university higher and rival university lower.
This experiment suggests that a greater need for status may come from
damaged self-esteem.
© McGraw Hill 15
..
Meindl and Lerner

Found that students who were embarrassed expressed more prejudice.
Amabile and Glazebrook

Ss made to feel insecure judged others’ work more harshly.
Greenberg et al.
Those asked to write about the emotions they feel when they think about
death (provoking insecurity) are likely to express higher evaluations of
their own group, and lower evaluations of other groups.
© McGraw Hill 16
Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
❑ Categorization
❑ Distinctive stimuli
❑ Attribution
© McGraw Hill 17
Cognitive Sources of Prejudice 1
Categorization: Classifying people into groups.

• Spontaneous categorization of people by race provides a foundation
for prejudice.
• When individuals assign people to groups, they are likely to
exaggerate the similarities within the groups and the differences
between them.
• Outgroup homogeneity effect: Perception of outgroup members
as more similar to one another than are ingroup members.
• Own-race bias: Tendency for people to more accurately recognize

faces of their own race.
© McGraw Hill 18
Outgroup Homogeneity Effect
We find members of outgroups harder to distinguish than members of

ingroups.
Whites find it harder to distinguish between photographs of Blacks than

they do photographs of other Whites.
Blacks find it harder to distinguish between photographs of Whites than

they do photographs of other Blacks.
The recognition from black to white increases from 0.75 to 0.85 with the
white subjects, and decreases from 0.85 to 0.72 with the black subjects.
© McGraw Hill 19
Figure 23.2: The Own-Race Bias
Source: Devine & Malpass, 1985.
The recognition from black to white increases from 0.75 to 0.85 with the white subjects, and
decreases from 0.85 to 0.72 with the black subjects.
.
© McGraw Hill 20
Distinctiveness: Perceiving people who stand out.

• Extra attention individuals pay to distinctive people creates an illusion
that those people differ from others more than they really do.
• Self-conscious interactions between a majority and a minority person
can feel tense even when both are well intentioned.
• Individuals’ minds use distinctive cases as a shortcut to judging
groups.
• Vivid instances, though more available in memory, seldom

represent the larger group.
• People’s attentiveness to unusual occurrences creates illusory
correlations.
© McGraw Hill 21
Distinctive People
One person from an outgroup, mixed with another group of otherwise

similar members :
▪ Will be more noticed by group members and observers.
▪ Others will exaggerate good and bad qualities.
▪ That person is seen as causing whatever out-of-line happens.
© McGraw Hill 22
Attribution: Is it a just world?

• Just-world phenomenon: Tendency of people to believe that the
world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and
deserve what they get.
• People are indifferent to social injustice not because they have no
concern for justice but because they see no injustice.
• Uncontrollable factors that can derail good efforts even by talented
people are discounted.
• People are led to justify their culture’s familiar social systems.
© McGraw Hill 23
Attribution
Lerner and Miller (1978)

Merely observing another innocent person being victimized is
enough to make the victim seem less worthy.Those who observed C
receive a shock whenever she performed a task incorrectly, tended to
degrade the victim.
Carli et al (1989,1999)
Ss read identical scenarios, except for the last 2 sentences:
Scenario 1 ended: Then he led me to the couch. He held my hand and
asked me to marry him.
Scenario 2 ended: But then he became very rough and pushed me onto
the couch. He held me down on the couch and raped me.
Ss reading scenario 2 see the attack as more inevitable and blame
the woman for behavior that is assigned no fault by Ss reading
scenario 1.
© McGraw Hill 24
Attribution
Borgida and Brekke (1985)

Found many people inclined to believe that abused women provoked the
beating.
Furnham and Gunter (1984)

Found many people inclined to believe that poor people deserve poverty.
Gruman and Sloan (1983)

Found many people inclined to believe that sick people are responsible
for their illness.
© McGraw Hill 25
Consequences of Prejudice
Self-perpetuating
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
prejudgments.
Stereotype threat.
© McGraw Hill 26
Prejudgments
Guide people’s attention and their memories and are self-perpetuating.

• Subtyping: Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s
stereotype by thinking of them as “exceptions to the rule.”
• Subgrouping: Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s
stereotype by forming a new stereotype about this subset of the group.
© McGraw Hill 27
Discrimination’s Impact: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
• Attitudes may coincide with the social hierarchy not only as a

rationalization for it but also because discrimination affects its victims.
• Reactions to victimization include blaming oneself and blaming
external causes.
• Social beliefs can be self-confirming.
© McGraw Hill 28
Discrimination and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
© McGraw Hill 29
Stereotype Threat
• Disruptive concern, when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be

evaluated based on a negative stereotype.
• Unlike self-fulfilling prophecies that hammer one’s reputation into one’s
self-concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects.
© McGraw Hill 30
Figure 23.3: Stereotype Threat
© McGraw Hill 31
Techniques for Reducing Prejudice
• If unequal status breeds prejudice, individuals can seek to create

cooperative, equal-status relationships.
• If prejudice rationalizes discriminatory behavior, people can mandate
nondiscrimination.
• If social institutions support prejudice, individuals can pull out those
supports.
• If outgroups seem more homogeneous than they really are, people
can make efforts to personalize their members.
• If individuals’ automatic prejudices lead them to feel guilt, they can use
that guilt to motivate themselves to break the prejudice habit.
However,
Social scientists have been more successful in explaining prejudice
than in alleviating it!
© McGraw Hill 32
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 23.1: Personal Identity and Social Identity
Together Feed Self-Esteem - Text Alternative
The Individual achievement, and Self-serving bias result in Personal

identity and pride which further leads to self esteem. Similarly the group
achievement, and In-group bias result in Social identity and pride which
further leads to Self-esteem.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 23.2: The Own-Race Bias - Text Alternative
The recognition from black to white increases from 0.75 to 0.85 with the
white subjects, and decreases from 0.85 to 0.72 with the black subjects.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 23.3: Stereotype Threat - Text Alternative
An image explains a negative cultural stereotype. A cultural stereotype

says the Women do not do well in math. It leads to a stereotype threat
that female student might fail a math test. This will result in either
performance deficits where female student does not do well on math test
or disidentification with stereotyped domain where Math isn't important for
my future work which are connected to each other.

© McGraw Hill
Module 24
The Nature and Nurture of
Aggression
Aggression
Physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone.

• Physical aggression: Hurting someone else’s body.
• Social aggression: Hurting someone else’s feelings or threatening
another’s relationships.
• Called relational aggression and includes cyberbullying and some
forms of in-person bullying.
• Cyberbullying: Bullying, harassing, or threatening someone using
electronic communication such as texting, online social networks, or
email.
© McGraw Hill 2
Is Aggression an Instinct?
Freud and Lorenz agreed that aggressive energy is instinctive (innate,

unlearned, and universal).
• If not discharged, it supposedly builds up until it explodes or until an
appropriate stimulus releases it.
Idea that aggression is an instinct collapsed as the list of supposed

human instincts grew to include nearly every conceivable human
behavior.
• Scientists became aware how much behavior varies from person to
person and culture to culture.
© McGraw Hill 3
Theories of Aggression
Neural influences. Genetic influences. Blood chemistry.
© McGraw Hill 4
Theories of Aggression
▪ Is aggression an instinct?
▪ Neural influences –prefrontal cortex
▪ Genetic influences
▪ Blood chemistry
The prefrontal cortex acts as mediator,

taking impulses from the amygdala and deciding
whether or not to act on them.
Studies have shown that persons with damage
to the frontal lobes are more likely to engage in
impulsive acts of aggression.
© McGraw Hill 5
Neural Influences
Researchers have found brain neural systems in both animals and

humans that facilitate aggression.
• Hostility increases when these brain areas are activated.
• Hostility decreases when these brain areas are deactivated.
• The amygdala is a section of the brain that is responsible for
detecting fear and preparing for emergency events.
Abnormal brains can contribute to abnormally aggressive behavior.
Link between violence and mental illness.

• People with mental illnesses are more likely to be the victims of
violence than be the perpetrators.
© McGraw Hill 6
Genetic Influences
Heredity influences the neural system’s sensitivity to aggressive cues.
Aggressiveness varies among individuals.

• Peoples’ temperaments are partly brought with them into the world,
influenced by their sympathetic nervous system’s reactivity.
• Person’s temperament, observed in infancy, usually endures.
© McGraw Hill 7
Blood Chemistry 1
Influences neural sensitivity to aggressive stimulation.

• Alcohol enhances aggressiveness by:
• Reducing people’s self-awareness.

• Focusing their attention on a provocation.
• People’s mentally associating alcohol with aggression.
• Alcohol deindividuates, and it disinhibits.
Alcohol myopia-it narrows our attention to provocative causes rather
than inhibitory ones
© McGraw Hill 8
Blood Chemistry 2
Testosterone level
• Human aggressiveness correlates with the male sex hormone
testosterone.
Poor diet
• Eating a diet high in omega-3 fatty acids, low in trans fat, and without
sweetened drinks lowers aggression.
© McGraw Hill 9
Psychological Influences on Aggression 1
Frustration-aggression theory.
• Frustration: Blocking of goal-directed behavior.
• Grows when people’s motivation to achieve a goal is very strong,

when they expected gratification, and when the blocking is
complete.
• Displacement: Redirection of aggression to a target other than the
source of the frustration.
• New target is a safer or more socially acceptable target.
© McGraw Hill 10
Psychological Influences on Aggression 2
Revised frustration-aggression theory.

• Frustration produces aggression only when people become upset.
• Cues associated with aggression amplify aggression.
• Weapons effect: Mere presence of weapons increases aggressive

thoughts and behaviors.
© McGraw Hill 11
.
© McGraw Hill 12
Learning of Aggression
• Aggression as revenge can feel satisfying.

People learn that aggression pays by experience and by observing
others.
• Rewards of aggression
• Observational learning
Social learning theory
• Social learning theory: Theory that individuals learn social behavior

by observing and imitating and by being rewarded and punished.
• Models: Punitive disciplinary style at home, social environment, and

culture.
© McGraw Hill 13
Social Learning Theory
© McGraw Hill 14
Learning Theories
© McGraw Hill 15
In Social Learning theory, individuals are both active and passive in the
developmental process. Individuals actively process the information they
receive but are, in part, passive subjects to what is being modeled and
observed.
• Learning by direct experience (rewards and punishment)
• Learning by vicarious experience (through modelling and imitation of
others)
© McGraw Hill 16
▪ "People are self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self

regulating" (Bussey & Bandura, 1999, p. 691).
▪ "...people are contributors to, rather than the sole determiners of,
what happens to them" (Bandura, 1997). This quote highlights the
importance of the environmental context in which all people live.
▪ Social learning theory does not have stages, or steps of development;

instead, change is qualitative and depends on learning, due to
interactions of the person, modeled behavior, and the social
environment.
© McGraw Hill 17
Environmental Influences on Aggression
• Pain.
• Heat.
• Attacks.
• Crowding: Subjective feeling that there is not enough space per
person.
© McGraw Hill 18
Reducing Aggression 1
Catharsis: Emotional release.
Although associated with Freud, it can be traced back to Aristotle and

ancient Greek tragedy
«By acting out their emotions, people can purify their feelings»
• Catharsis view of aggression is that aggressive drive is reduced when

one releases aggressive energy, either by acting aggressively or by
fantasizing aggression.
- Catharsis does not occur with violence
Assertive without being aggressive.
• People who reframe accusatory “you” messages as “I” messages
communicate their feelings in a way that better enables the other
person to make a positive response.
© McGraw Hill 19
Reducing Aggression 2
Social learning approach.

• Teaching nonaggressive conflict-resolution strategies, which include
problem-solving skills and emotion-control strategies.
• Focusing on teaching empathy and encouraging children not to ignore
bullying.
• Modeling and rewarding sensitivity and cooperation from an early age.
• Reducing brutal, dehumanizing portrayals in media.
• Children should not view violent television at least until they can
understand the difference between fiction and reality
• Listening to music that models the right attitude.
© McGraw Hill 20
Culture Change and World Violence
• All forms of violence—including wars, genocide, and murders—are

less common (?) in recent years than in past eras.
• Aggression has reduced because of institutions of civilization and
enlightenment.
© McGraw Hill 21
World’s top 10 arms exporters with their respective shares of
global exports between 2010 and 2014
(SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)
2010-2014 2016
United States: 31% United States $9.9 billion
Russia: 27% Russia $6.4
China: 5% Germany $2.8
Germany: 5% France $2.2
France: 5% China $2.1
U.K.: 4% U.K. $1.4
Spain: 3% Israel $1.3
Italy: 3% Italy $0.8
Ukraine: 3% South Korea $0.5
Israel: 2% Ukraine $0.5
© McGraw Hill 22
www.mheducation.com
Module 25
Does Media Use Influence
Social Behavior?
Pornography and Sexual Violence
Social psychologists report that viewing fictional scenes of a man

overpowering and arousing a woman can:
• Distort men’s (and possibly women’s) perceptions of how women

actually respond to sexual coercion.
• Increase men’s aggression against women.
© McGraw Hill 2
Distorted Perceptions of Sexual Reality
• Studies confirm that exposure to pornography increases acceptance

of the rape myth.
• Compared with men not exposed to sexually violent films, the men
who watch these films express less sympathy for domestic violence
victims and rate the victims’ injuries as less severe.
© McGraw Hill 3
Aggression against Women
• Teens and young adults who consume more sexually explicit and
sexually violent media are more likely to have been involved in dating
violence and sexual violence.
• People who watch pornography often are more likely to be sexually
aggressive, including both physical force and verbal coercion and
harassment.
• Exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward
women.
Sex offenders commonly acknowledge pornography use
© McGraw Hill 4
Violance Against Women
Turkish Law #6284 (March 2012)
• EU Laws will be taken as a base

• Provision of the support to the victims will be;
• sensitive to gender equality and basic human rights;
• in compliance with social welfare principles;
• just, effective and prompt;
• will respect human dignity.
© McGraw Hill 5
Media’s Effects on Behavior 1
Correlating media viewing and behavior.

• Heavy viewers are more violent because of their TV exposure.
• Exposure to violent media is a significant predictor of aggression even
after taking factors such as family troubles, gender, and being the
victim of someone else’s aggression into account.
• The Internet allows a variety of options for viewing violence, including
violent videos, violent pictures, and hate-group websites.
• Allows people to create and distribute violent media themselves

and to bully others through email, instant messaging, or social
networking websites.
© McGraw Hill 6
Figure 25.1: TV Viewing and Later Criminal Behavior
© McGraw Hill 7
Longitudinal Research
Psychologists L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D., Jessica Moise-Titus, Ph.D.,

Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, M.A., and Leonard D. Eron, Ph.D., of the
University of Michigan undertook the study as a follow-up of a 1977-1992
longitudinal study of 557 children, ages 6 - 10, growing up in the Chicago
area.
In that study, children identified with which violent TV shows they watched
most, whether they identified with the aggressive characters and whether
they thought the violent situations were realistic. Some examples of
shows rated as very violent were Starsky and Hutch, The Six Million
Dollar Man and Roadrunner cartoons.
Children's viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with

aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV
violence is realistic are all linked to later aggression as young adults,
for both males and females.
© McGraw Hill 8
.
The current study re-surveyed 329 of the original boys and girls, now in
their early 20s. The participants asked about their favorite TV programs
as adults and about their aggressive behaviors.
The participants' spouses or friends were also interviewed and were
asked to rate the participant's frequency of engaging in aggressive
behavior. The researchers also obtained data on the participants from
state archives, which included criminal conviction records and moving
traffic violations.
Results show that men who were high TV-violence viewers as children
were significantly more likely to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their
spouses, to have responded to an insult by shoving a person, to have
been convicted of a crime and to have committed a moving traffic
violation.
Such men, for example, had been convicted of crimes at over three times
the rate of other men.
© McGraw Hill 9
.
Women who were high TV-violence viewers as children were

more likely to have thrown something at their spouses, to have
responded to someone who made them mad by shoving,
punching, beating or choking the person, to have committed
some type of criminal act, and to have committed a moving traffic
violation.
Such women, for example, reported having punched, beaten or
choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women.
These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless
of the child's initial aggression levels, their intellectual
capabilities, their social status as measured by their parents'
education or occupation, their parents' aggressiveness, or the
mother's and father's parenting style.
© McGraw Hill 10
.
The conclusion of a 15-year longitudinal study of 329 youth was

published in the March issue of Developmental Psychology (2003), a
journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).
See:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.427&rep=r
ep1&type=pdf
© McGraw Hill 11
Media’s Effects on Behavior 2
Media-viewing experiments.
• Children and adults exposed to violent films and shows are more
aggressive toward others.
• Even reading about physical or relational aggression produces the
same results.
• Many studies have confirmed that viewing violence amplifies
aggression.
© McGraw Hill 12
Media Awareness Education
As an alternative to censorship, many psychologists favor “media

awareness training.”
Television:
Six in ten programs contain violence
By the end of elementary school, the average child views some 8,000
murders and 100,000 other violent acts
▪ Nine of ten criminals admit learning criminal tricks from television
▪ Four out of ten criminals attempt specific crimes seen on television
▪ The more violent the content of a child’s TV viewing, the more
aggressive the child
© McGraw Hill 13
Why Does Media Viewing Affect Behavior?
Viewing violence produces arousal and disinhibits.
Media portrayals evoke imitation.

• TV modeling of prosocial behavior is socially beneficial.
• Prosocial behavior: Positive, constructive, helpful social behavior.

• Opposite of antisocial behavior.
© McGraw Hill 14
Video Games 1
Concerns about violent video games heightened after teen assassins in

several mass shootings enacted the horrific violence they had played
onscreen.
Violent game playing might have a more toxic effect than watching violent
television as players:
• Identify with, and play the role of, a violent character.

• Actively rehearse violence, instead of passively watching it.
• Engage in the whole sequence of enacting violence.
• Engage with continual violence and threats of attack.
• Repeat violent behaviors over and over.
• Receive rewards for violent acts.
© McGraw Hill 15
Video Games 2
Effects of playing violent video games.

• Increase in aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings.
• Habituation in the brain.
• Greater likelihood of carrying a weapon.
• Decrease in self-control and increase in antisocial behavior.
• Decrease in helping others and in empathy for others.
• Desensitization to violence.
© McGraw Hill 16
Figure 25.2: Violent Video-Game Influences on
Aggressive Tendencies
Source: Adapted from Anderson and Bushman (2001).
© McGraw Hill 17
Video Games 3
Not all of them are violent, and even the violent games improve hand-eye
coordination, reaction time, spatial ability, and selective attention.
Game playing is focused fun that helps satisfy basic needs for a sense of
competence, control, and social connection.
Children and adults who play prosocial video games:
• Help others.
• Share.
• Cooperate more in real-life situations.
• Are less physically and socially aggressive toward someone who had
insulted them.
© McGraw Hill 18
Conclusion
• Educational games teach children reading and math, prosocial games

teach prosocial behavior, and violent games teach violence.
• Parents can oversee media consumption in their own home and
provide increased time for alternative activities.
• Networking with other parents can build a kid-friendly neighborhood.
• Schools can help by providing media-awareness education.
© McGraw Hill 19
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 25.1: TV Viewing and Later Criminal Behavior -
Text Alternative
The later criminal conviction percent for boys whose mean weekly
television viewing is less then 2 hours is 19 and for girls is 3 percent. The
later criminal conviction percent for boys whose mean weekly television
viewing is between 2 and 3 hours is 27 and for girls is 11 percent. The
later criminal conviction percent for boys whose mean weekly television
viewing is greater than 3 hours is 34 and for girls is 13 percent.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 25.2: Violent Video-Game Influences on
Aggressive Tendencies - Text Alternative
Repeated violent game playing leads to aggressive beliefs and attitudes,

aggressive perceptions, aggressive expectations, aggressive behavior
scripts, aggressive desensitization which finally result in the increase of
aggressive personality.

© McGraw Hill
Module 28
Causes of Conflict
GLOBALIZATION
CRIME AND CORRUPTION :

Corruption costs: $500 billion annually
(1% of global economy)
Transparency International CPI
Among 180 countries Turkey ranks:
61st in 2009, 56th in 2010, 61st in 2011,
54th in 2012 (out of 176),
64th in 2014 (out of 175),
66th in 2015, and 75th in 2016,
78th 2018 (out of 180)
91st in 2019 (out of 198)
© McGraw Hill 2
C-word
Corruption is the abuse of entrusted (emanet

edilmiş) power for private gain
(Transparency Int’l definition)
© McGraw Hill 3
GLOBALIZATION
• ECONOMIC POVERTY AND CHILD SLAVE LABOR
© McGraw Hill 4
GLOBALISATION
• DIGITAL DIVIDE
The sociological term 'digital divide' refers to unequal access to
information and communication technology based on social, economic,
cultural and political factors.
Examples are cost of technology, access for the disabled, lack of skills,
lack of education, lack of information, and lower-performance computers.
Developed: 50 phone lines per 100 people
Underdeveloped: 1.4 lines per 100, less than 5% of
computers connected to internet
Less than 1% on-line users in African population
https://sociologydictionary.org/digital-divide/
© McGraw Hill 5
GLOBALISATION
GAP IN PER CAPITA GDP btw RICH AND POOR is 140:1

Annual wage paid to children below 14 is $135-$165
UNICEF: 200 000 children are victim of trafficers worldwide
BUSINESS: 80% use profit as a measure of success
© McGraw Hill 6
GLOBALISATION
AFFLUENZA-AMERICANIZATION
IMPERIALISM- materialistic overconsumption
LOSS OF NATION STATE SOVEREIGNITY
Europe- Statist tradition
US- market tradition
© McGraw Hill 7
Conflict
Perceived incompatibility of actions or goals.
Elements.
• Social dilemmas.
• Competition.
• Perceived injustice.
• Misperception.
© McGraw Hill 8
Causes of Conflict: Social Dilemmas
Social dilemmas :
• are situations in which collective interests are at
odds with private interests
• are situations in which the rational behaviour of
an individual—defined in pure and simple
economic terms—leads to suboptimal
outcomes from the collective standpoint
© McGraw Hill 9
Social Dilemmas 1
Social trap: Situation in which the conflicting

parties, by each rationally pursuing its self-interest,
become caught in mutually destructive behavior.
© McGraw Hill 10
Prisoners’ Dilemma
Prisoner’s dilemma is framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher (RAND

1950)
Alfred W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence rewards and
named it Prisoners’ Dilemma
Shows why completely rational individuals might not cooperate even if it
appears in their best interests
• If an individual were to be imprisoned, unable to communicate with his

or her fellow prisoner, would he or she confess?
© McGraw Hill 11
Figure 28.1: The Classic Prisoner’s Dilemma
© McGraw Hill 12
Tragedy of Commons
Tragedy of the commons.

• Commons is any shared resource, including air, water, energy
sources, and food supplies.
• Tragedy occurs when individuals consume more than their share, with
the cost of their doing so dispersed among all, causing the ultimate
collapse of the commons.
© McGraw Hill 13
Tragedy of Commons
The choices that are individually rewarding become

collectively punishing!
Although each individual acts «rationally» harm can occur!
How can we reconcile individual self-interest with communal

well-being?
© McGraw Hill 14
Social Dilemmas 2
Similarities in the prisoner’s dilemma and the tragedy of the commons.

• People are tempted to explain their own behavior situationally and
their partners’ behavior dispositionally.
• Motives often change.
• Most real-life conflicts are non-zero-sum games.
• Non-zero-sum games: Games in which outcomes need not sum
to zero.
• With cooperation, both can win; with competition, both can lose.
• Called mixed-motive situations.
A zero-sum game may have as few as two players, or millions of
participants. Poker and gambling are popular examples of zero-sum
games since the sum of the amounts won by some players equals the
combined losses of the others.
Zero-sum games are strictly competitive
© McGraw Hill 15
Resolving Social Dilemmas
• Developing rules that regulate self-serving behavior.

• Keeping the group small.
• Enabling people to communicate.
• Changing payoffs to make cooperation more rewarding.
• Invoking compelling altruistic norms.
© McGraw Hill 16
Regulation
Exxon Valdez Disaster
•The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William

Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989. 11 million gallons of oil
spilled and EXXON MOBIL paid $6.1 +5.5 million penalty in
2005
•Regulations for fishing, hunting
© McGraw Hill 17
Regulation
BP Gulf of Mexico
Explosion on April 20th, 2010
Oil flowed for 87 days
The total estimated volume of leaked oil approximated 4.9
million barrels
In July 2015, BP agreed to pay $18.7 billion in fines, the
largest corporate settlement in U.S. history
As of February 2013, criminal and civil settlements and
payments to a trust fund had cost the company $42.2 billion
© McGraw Hill 18
Competition
When interests clash, conflict erupts.
Experiment on competition’s effect.

• Win-lose competition produces intense conflict, negative images of the
outgroup, and strong ingroup cohesiveness and pride.
• Group polarization exacerbates conflict.
• In competition-fostering situations, groups behave more competitively
than do individuals.
© McGraw Hill 19
Sources of Conflict: Competition
Does competition breed conflict?
Muzaffer Şerif’s main contribution is known as Realistic Conflict Theory,

and accounts for group conflict, negative prejudices, and stereotypes as
being the result of competition between groups for desired resources
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/
https://www.age-of-the sage.org/
psychology/social/sherif_robbers_cave_experiment.html
© McGraw Hill 20
Muzaffer Şerif Başoğlu
Born in July 29, 1906, in Ödemiş, İzmir – died on October 16, 1988,
in Fairbanks, Alaska. Şerif was one of the founders of social psychology.
Autokinetic effect experiment (1935)
(Ash Experiments conducted in 1950s)
Realistic Conflict Theory
• Robbers Cave experiment
© McGraw Hill 21
.
© McGraw Hill 22
Stage 1: “ingroup formation”
Three weeks camp in a 200 acre summer camp, in Robbers Cave State
Park, Oklohoma
22 eleven and twelve year old boys who had never previously met and
had comparable backgrounds
Upon arrival the boys were split into two approximately equal groups with
efforts being made to balance the physical, mental and social talents of
the groups
Each group was unaware of the other groups’ presence and lived
isolated.
© McGraw Hill 23
Stage 2: “friction phase”
Competitive games introduced: Contests such as tug-of war,

counsellor-judged events such as cabin inspections,
basketball
-The scoring was manipulated to keep the two teams close,
thereby heightening the sense of competition
Eagles vs. Rattlers
© McGraw Hill 24
Stage 2: “friction phase”
Result: Good sportsmanship quickly deteriorated to name-calling during

the first baseball game and then in the mess-hall. Following their first loss
the dejected Eagles burned the Rattlers' flag, with the group's leader
proclaiming 'you can tell those guys I did it ... I'll fight 'em'.
The Eagle flag was burned in retaliation the next day. Fighting erupted
and the counsellors intervened.
© McGraw Hill 25
Stage 3: “integration stage”
Stage 3 aimed at resolving the conflict. Initially,

non-competitive activities were attempted, such as watching
movies while eating together in the mess hall.
This contact failed. The two groups stayed separated, jeered

at each other or engaged in food fights.
© McGraw Hill 26
Stage 4:“integration stage”
To build peace, it was necessary to induce co-operation towards

shared goals. A series of urgent problems was devised, which the
boys could solve only by working together.
The camp's water was cut, for example, and staff announced a
possible leak in the supply pipe. The boys had to inspect the 1.6
km pipe, and finally discovered a clogged valve at the tank. They
rejoiced together when the problem had been fixed.
On another occasion, they had to join forces to start a truck which
had broken down. By the time the third stage had ended the boys
had become reconciled, and even asked to go back to the city on
the same bus.
Showing co-operation on shared goals is of vital importance in

resolving conflict peacefully!
© McGraw Hill 27
Perceived Injustice
People perceive justice as equity, which is the distribution of rewards in

proportion to individuals’ contributions.
• Equity = outcomes proportional to people’s contributions.
Who defines justice?

• Individuals with social power convince themselves and others that
they deserve what they are getting.
My Outcomes Your Outcomes

=
My Inputs Your Inputs
© McGraw Hill 28
Misperception
Many conflicts contain a small core of truly incompatible goals, and the
bigger problem is the misperceptions of the other’s motives and goals.
Types.
• Mirror-image perceptions.
• Shifting perceptions.
© McGraw Hill 29
Mirror-Image Perceptions
Reciprocal views of each other often held by parties in conflict.

• For example, each may view itself as moral and peace-loving and the
other as evil and aggressive.
Opposing sides in a conflict tend to exaggerate their differences and tend

to have a bias blind spot.
• People see their own understandings as not biased by their liking or
disliking for others, but those who disagree with them seem unfair and
biased.
Group conflicts are fueled by an illusion that the enemy’s top leaders are
evil but their people, though controlled and manipulated, are pro-us.
© McGraw Hill 30
Mirror-Image Perceptions
•Mirror-image perceptions
Palestinians vs Israelis- a two category world; good people like us and

bad people like them
Exaggeration of the other’s position arise culture wars
“Evil leader-good people”
© McGraw Hill 31
Reasons for Misperceptions
▪ Self-serving bias
▪ Tendency for self justification
▪ Fundamental attribution error
▪ Preconceptions
▪ Polarisation
▪ Groupthink
▪ Ingroup bias
▪ Stereotypes
© McGraw Hill 32
.
Fenerbahçe Galatasaray
© McGraw Hill 33
Shifting Perceptions
• Misperceptions appear and disappear as conflicts wax and wane.

• Extent of misperceptions during conflict provides a reminder that
people need not be insane or abnormally malicious to form distorted
images of their antagonists.
• When in conflict, it is good to share and compare perceptions,
assuming that the other person perceives the situation differently.
• Shifting perceptions- from enemy’s enemy is our friend (Iraq) to
“barbaric”
© McGraw Hill 34
.
teachers/
© McGraw Hill 35
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 28.1: The Classic Prisoner’s Dilemma - Text
Alternative
The options for prisoner A and B are to confess or not to confess. If both
of them confess it will add 5 years for both. If prisoner A didn’t confess
and B confessed, then A get 10 year more, and B doesn't get any. If A
confessed and B didn't, then B gets 10 years and A doesn't get any
punishment. If both didn't confess then both get 1 year more as
punishment.

© McGraw Hill
Module 29
Blessed Are the
Peacemakers
Why do we “need” an opponent?
Thinking in opposites such as “good” and “bad” are important for one’s
identity formation and decision-making processes
- Having an opponent strengthens a sense of belonging to a family/
group/ nation that distinguishes between “us and them” (ingroup and
outgroup)
© McGraw Hill 2
Influence of the media? “enemies” as shown in comics
© McGraw Hill 3
Projection, stereotypes and mirror imaging:
In projection, parties in dispute perceive the other (the outgroup) as

expressing unwanted and unconscious aspects of their own group (the
ingroup).
In a protracted (longlasting) conflict, parties to a dispute can develop
negative stereotypes of each other that are often mirror images, in which
elements of each side's perceptions of the other become very similar.
© McGraw Hill 4
Attribution of motive for action
IF YOU ARE: IF THE ENEMY IS:

acting selfishly, unsocial: acting selfishly, unsocial:
It’s the pressure of the situation. He shows his “real face”.
acting peacefully, cooperative: acting peacefully, cooperative:
“as always” It’s the pressure of the situation.
He had no other choice.
He has a hostile motive and wants
to trick you.
© McGraw Hill 5
According
. to Middens (1990),“The threat of enemies justifies actions
that might otherwise be unacceptable or illegal. Physical assault and
killing becomes justified in war…. Enemies serve as a focus for
aggression and as a means of diverting attention from complex and
pressing internal problems.... In addition, enemies provide a contrast
by which a person or nation can inflate their sense of superiority”
President G. W. Bush (2003)

“In America, we say, everybody is precious, everybody counts,
everybody is equal in the eyes of the Almighty. That’s not what the
enemy thinks. They don’t value innocent life. They’re nothing but a
bunch of cold blooded killers, and that’s the way we are going to treat
them.”
© McGraw Hill 6
Propaganda: The Language of War
“Human death” becomes “collateral damage” (unintentional

harm)
Percentage of a population one is willing to sacrifice in a war
is expressed as TLD (Tolerable Level of Destruction)
Bombing a city becomes “an operation with clinical precision”
© McGraw Hill 7
Pictures of civilian victims are avoided, because one might
question the necessity of violence
© McGraw Hill 8
Realistic Empathy
❑ humanizes the enemy

❑ identifies possible rational reasons for actions taken by the
enemy
❑ illuminates different aspects of the situation, which may be
affected by projection and mirror imaging
Realistic empathy does not mean sympathy,

but is simply an attempt to
“understand what is in the mind of others”.
© McGraw Hill 9
“The Program of Action on a Culture of Peace”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
© McGraw Hill 10
Declaration of Principles on Tolerance
Member States of UNESCO on 11/16/1995: From Article 1
1.1 Tolerance (...) is not only a moral duty, it is also a political

and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes
peace possible.
1.2 Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by

recognition of the universal human rights and fundamental
freedoms of others. (…) Tolerance is to be exercised by
individuals, groups and States.
© McGraw Hill 11
Four Cs of Peacemaking
Contact.
Cooperation.
Communication.
Conciliation.
© McGraw Hill 12
Contact 1
Increased contact predicts decreased prejudice.
Sometimes desegregation improves racial attitudes, and sometimes,

especially when there is anxiety or perceived threat, it does not.
Race influences contact.

• Self-resegregation: Whites have disproportionately associated with
Whites, Blacks with Blacks.
• Even within the same race, likes tend to self-segregate.
Many Whites and Blacks say they would like more contact but
misperceive that the other does not reciprocate their feelings.
© McGraw Hill 13
Contact 2
Intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and increase support for racial
equality by:
• Reducing anxiety.
• More contact brings greater comfort.

• Increasing empathy.
• Contact helps people put themselves in the others’ shoes.

• Humanizing others.
• Enabling people to discover their similarities.

• Decreasing perceived threats.
• Alleviating overblown fears and increasing trust.
© McGraw Hill 14
Equal-Status Contact
• Contact on an equal basis.

• Just as a relationship between people of unequal status
breeds attitudes consistent with their relationship, so do
relationships between those of equal status.
• Interracial contact should ideally be between persons
equal in status to reduce prejudice.
© McGraw Hill 15
Cooperation
Common external threats build cohesiveness.

Superordinate goals foster cooperation.
Superordinate goal.
• Shared goal that necessitates cooperative effort.
• Overrides people’s differences from one another.
Blake and Mouton (1979) in a series of two-week experiments involving
more than 1,000 executives in 150 different groups, re-created the
essential features of the situation experienced by the Rattlers and the
Eagles.
Each group first engaged in activities by itself, then competed with
another group, and then cooperated with the other group in working
toward jointly chosen superordinate goals. Their results provided
"unequivocal evidence that adult reactions parallel those of Sherif's
younger subjects."
Cooperative learning improves racial attitudes.
© McGraw Hill 16
Communication
Ways in which conflicting parties resolve their differences.

• Bargaining: Seeking an agreement to a conflict through direct
negotiation between parties.
• Mediation: Attempt by a neutral third party to resolve a conflict by
facilitating communication and offering suggestions.
• Integrative agreements: Win-win agreements that reconcile both
parties’ interests to their mutual benefit.
• Arbitration: Resolution of a conflict by a neutral third party who
studies both sides and imposes a settlement.
© McGraw Hill 17
Conciliation
GRIT : Strategy for establishing peace in international tensions

(Charles Osgood)
• Acronym for graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension
reduction.
• Strategy designed to de-escalate international tensions.
• Conciliatory yet strong enough to discourage exploitation.
Process: One side is required to initiate a few small de-escalatory

actions, after announcing a conciliatory intent.
• Initiator states its desire to reduce tension, declares each conciliatory
act before making it, and invites the adversary to reciprocate.
• Initiator establishes credibility and genuineness by carrying out,
exactly as announced, several verifiable conciliatory acts.
© McGraw Hill 18
GRIT 2
Negotiators need to be:
• Firm in resisting intimidation, exploitation, and dirty tricks.

• Fair in holding to one’s moral principles and not reciprocating the
other’s immoral behavior despite his or her provocations.
• Friendly in the sense that one is willing to initiate and reciprocate
cooperation.
© McGraw Hill 19
www.mheducation.com
Module 30
When Do People Help?
Good People
Where’d all the good people go?

I’ve been changing channels;
I don’t see them on the TV shows.
Where’d all the good people go?
We got heaps and heaps of what we sow.
Jack Johnson lyrics from ‘Good People’
© McGraw Hill 2
Altruism: Motive to increase another’s welfare without
conscious regard for one’s self-interests.
© McGraw Hill 3
Why Do People Help?
Social-exchange theory: Human interactions are transactions that aim

to maximize one’s rewards and minimize one’s costs.
Social norms motivate helping.

• Reciprocity norm: Expectation that people will help, not hurt, those
who have helped them.
• Social-responsibility norm: Expectation that people will help those
needing help.
© McGraw Hill 4
When Do People Help? 1
Helping increases among people who are:
• Feeling guilty, thus providing a way to relieve the guilt or restore

self-image.
• In a good mood.
• Deeply religious.
© McGraw Hill 5
When Do People Help? 2
Odds of helping someone increase when:
• People have just observed someone else helping.

• People are not in a hurry.
• Victim appears to need and deserve help.
• Victim is similar to them.
• People are in a small town or rural area.
• There are few other bystanders.
© McGraw Hill 6
Number of Bystanders
As the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely

to:
• Notice the incident.

• Interpret the incident as a problem or an emergency.
• Assume responsibility for taking action.
© McGraw Hill 7
Latané and Darley experiment (1970)
«where there is smoke there is fire»
Participants in the presence of two passive confederates were even less

likely to report the situation, taking action only 10% of the time
•Noticing (alone 5 sec vs. in group 20 sec)
• Interpreting as emergency (among 24 men in 8 groups one reported
within first 4 min)
“informational influence”
•Assuming responsibility
- Bystander effect
• Try to help
© McGraw Hill 8
Figure 30.1: Latané and Darley’s Decision Tree
Source: Adapted from Darley & Latané (1968).
© McGraw Hill 9
Figure 30.2: The Smoke-Filled-Room Experiment
Source: Adapted from Darley & Latané (1968).
© McGraw Hill 10
Bystander Effect
Finding that a person is less likely to provide help when there are other
bystanders.
Causes.
• Misinterpretation.
• Diffusion of responsibility for action.
© McGraw Hill 11
Models of Helping
(1) Who is responsible for the problem? and

(2) Who is responsible for the solution?
The answers to the above two questions form the basis for different
models of helping
Altruism always requires the ability to assess and influence others’

welfare.
Excessive personal or situational demands making these things difficult
will limit opportunities for altruism (e.g. Evans, 2005).
Less obviously, so will an excessive focus on means rather than ends; for
example, giving to charity rather than pursuing the charity’s goals
(Fishbach et al., 2006).
© McGraw Hill 12
Experiment Findings
How recipients respond to help is also influenced by their

present level of self-esteem.
Nadler, Altman, and Fisher (1979) manipulated subjects’
self-esteem by providing positive or negative evaluations of
their personalities.
Later, when the subjects performed poorly on a laboratory
task, their partners either provided help or did not. When the
recipients’ self-esteem was high, the aid made them feel
worse; in contrast, when their self-esteem was low, the aid
made them feel better, as if the support showed that others
care.
© McGraw Hill 13
Experiment Findings
Being tutored by a fellow student can be deflating, but being

tutored by an expert is not.
Fisher and Nadler (1974) found that when the donor is similar
to oneself, receiving aid is likely to reduce one’s self-esteem.
© McGraw Hill 14
Discussion Questions
What implications does this research have for the giving of international
government aid?
Does the research have implications for social welfare policies
established by the government?
Have you ever received a gift that made you feel uncomfortable? Are you
suspicious of businesses that offer free gifts?
Should helping be compelled through legislation?
Should a witness be penalized for an innocent mistake, and how can it be
distinguished from deliberate shirking (kaçınmak) of civil duty?
• Neighborhood watch
© McGraw Hill 15
© McGraw Hill 16
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 30.1: Latané and Darley’s Decision Tree - Text
Alternative
The first instance in the tree reads, notice an incident which has two
branches one, no, leading to no help and two, yes, leading to the second
instance that is: interpret as emergency. The second instance also has
two branches one, no, leading to no help and two, yes, leading to the
third instance that is: assume responsibility. The third instance has two
branches one, no, leading to no help and two, yes, leading to try to help.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 30.2: The Smoke-Filled-Room Experiment - Text
Alternative
A graph plots time from start of smoke infusion in minutes on the x axis
and percentage reporting smoke on the y axis. The graph plots two lines:
alone and a three person group. The line for alone rises from (0, 5) to (3,
62), and (3.5, 73) it stays constant at 72 from 4 minutes to 6 minutes. The
line for three person group rises from (0, 5) to (0.5, 12), it stays constant
at 11 from 0.5 minutes to 4 minutes. It then rises to (4.5, 24), (5, 24), (5.5,
28).

© McGraw Hill
Module 31
Social Psychology and the
Sustainable Future
Industrial Development
As a measure of economic health attention turned from...

how much the society produced to
how equitably it is consumed
Partha Dasgupta 2012 (Cambridge University)

Manufactured capital (roads, buildings, machinery and so on)
Human capital (people’s skills and health)
Natural Capital(including forests and fossil fuels)
Simon Kuznets, who is often credited with inventing GDP, said: “the
welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national
income.”
© McGraw Hill 2
To Cease Stealing from Our Inheritors…
•Increase technological and agricultural efficiency

• Reducing consumption
© McGraw Hill 3
Figure 31.1: A Synopsis of Scientific Indicators of Global
Climate Change
Sources: Adapted from Cook, J. (2010, December 30). The many lines of evidence for global warming in a single
graphic. www.Skeptical Science.com; American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2014). What
We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change. Washington, DC: AAAS Climate Science Panel.
© McGraw Hill 4
Psychology and Climate Change
Psychological science is studying:
• Effects of climate change on human behavior.

• Public opinion about climate change.
• Ways to modify the human sources of climate change.
© McGraw Hill 5
Self-esteem
What has been accomplished/What is possible and expected
Worker salary vs. CEO salary :

Japan 1/11
Germany 1/12
US 1/475
© McGraw Hill 6
Behavioral Outcomes
Type A Behavior:
I must constantly prove by my accomplishments that I am successful
(worth of esteem, love, approval)
Personal fears (fear of insufficient worth, of being considered
unsuccessful) fear of disapproval
• All resources are scarce, therefore, your win is my loss, and I must
strive against everyone to get what I need
• Fear of an insufficient supply of life’s necessities (e.g. time,
achievements, recognition)
© McGraw Hill 7
Behavioral Outcomes
Type B Behavior:
• patient, relaxed, easy-going, and
• at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency
• described as apathetic and disengaged by individuals with Type A
© McGraw Hill 8
What makes nations successful?
(Daron Acemoğlu, MIT)
• Equality of political power

• Equality of opportunity
• Equality of outcome
What makes individuals successful?
© McGraw Hill 9
Past symbols of success
• Being in Who-is-who
• Five figure salary
• College degree
• Splendid home
• Executive position
• Live-in servants
• New car every year
© McGraw Hill 10
Present symbols of success
• Unlisted phone number

• Swiss bank account
• Connections with celebrities
• Deskless office
• Second and third home
• Being a vice-president
• Being published
• Frequent world travel
© McGraw Hill 11
Future symbols of success
• Free time any time

• Recognition as a creative person
• Oneness of work and play
• Regarded less by money than by respect and affection
• Major societal commitments
• Easy laughter, unembarrassed tears
• Philosophical independence
• Loving and in touch with self
© McGraw Hill 12
Psychological Effects of Climate Change
If an extreme weather event or climate change disrupted individuals’ ties

to a place and its people, they could expect to feel grief, anxiety, and a
sense of loss.
When climate changes, agriculture suffers, leading to increased famine,

epidemics, and overall misery.
• When miserable, people become more prone to anger with their
governments and with one another, leading to war.
© McGraw Hill 13
Figure 31.4: Three Routes via Which Climate Change
May Increase Violence and Conflict
Source: From Miles-Novelo and Anderson (2019).
© McGraw Hill 14
Public Opinion about Climate Change 1
Personal experience overrides analysis.

• People confuse temporary local weather with long-term global climate
change.
• In studies in the United States and Australia, people have expressed
more belief in global warming, and more willingness to donate to a
global warming charity, on warmer-than-usual days than on
cooler-than-usual days.
© McGraw Hill 15
Resistance to climate science stems from simple misinformation and from

motivated reasoning.
• People may discount climate threat because they misinterpret
uncertainty about the extent of temperature and sea level rise as
uncertainty about the fact of climate change.
• Journalistic false balance can further distort public perceptions.
• Individuals’ natural confirmation bias may lead them to attend more to
data that confirms their preexisting views.
© McGraw Hill 16
Ways to overcome misinformation, motivated reasoning, and the human

tendency to consider personal experience before analysis.
• Connecting the message to the audience’s values.
• Using credible communicators.
• Thinking local.
• Making communications vivid and memorable.
• Nudging people by using green defaults.
• Framing the risks effectively.
• Framing energy savings in attention-getting ways.
© McGraw Hill 17
Enabling Sustainable Living
Increasing technological efficiency and

agricultural productivity.
Moderating consumption and

population.
© McGraw Hill 18
Plausible Future Technologies
• Diodes that emit light for 20 years.

• Ultrasound washing machines that consume no water, heat, or soap.
• Reusable and compostable plastics.
• Cars running on fuel cells that combine hydrogen and oxygen and
produce water exhaust.
• Lightweight materials stronger than steel.
• Roads that double as solar energy collectors.
• Heated and cooled chairs that provide personal comfort with less room
heating and cooling.
© McGraw Hill 19
Reducing Consumption 1
• Public policies that harness the motivating power of incentives are

needed.
• Power of immediate feedback to the consumer can be harnessed by
installing smart meters that provide a continuous readout of electricity
use and its cost.
• Individuals’ sense of who they are, their identity, has profound
implications for their climate-related behaviors.
© McGraw Hill 20
Reducing Consumption 2
Call for a new consciousness in which people:
• See humanity as part of nature.

• See nature as having intrinsic value that people must steward.
• Value the future and its inhabitants as well as the present.
• Appreciate human interdependence, by thinking “we” and not just
“me.”
• Define quality of life in relational and spiritual rather than materialistic
terms.
• Value equity, justice, and the human community.
© McGraw Hill 21
Promoting Personal Well-Being and Social Health
Social psychology can help by:
• Suggesting ways to reduce consumption.

• Tracking materialism and informing people that economic growth does
not automatically improve human morale.
• Helping people understand why materialism and money fail to satisfy.
• Encouraging alternative, intrinsic values.
© McGraw Hill 22
Social Psychology of Materialism and Wealth 1
Materialism undermines pro-environmental attitudes and erodes empathy

and inclines people to treat others as objects.
Some correlation between national wealth and well-being exists.

• But after nations reach above $20,000 GDP per person, higher levels
of national wealth are not predictive of increased life satisfaction.
In poor countries, being relatively well-off does predict greater well-being.
In affluent countries, where most can afford life’s necessities, affluence

still matters, partly because people with more money perceive more
control over their lives.
© McGraw Hill 23
Economic Growth and Human Morale
•Do rich nations have more satisfied people?

• In any given nation, are rich people happier?
•Affluenza (http://www.pbs.org/kcts/affluenza/diag/diag.html)
• Af-flu-en-za n. 1. The bloated (pumped), sluggish (passive/lazy) and
unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses.
2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused
by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. 3. An unsustainable (not
continuous) addiction to economic growth.
© McGraw Hill 24
Is being greedy good or bad?
Greed should be channeled to creativity not anti-social, selfish, socially

destructive direction!
• Materialistic people value acquisition and the means to acquire
possessions more highly than those low in materialism;
• Materialistic people are self-centered;
• Materialists will pursue a life of material complexity rather than
material simplicity; and
• Materialists tend to be less satisfied than others with their lot in life.
© McGraw Hill 25
Obesity
For the first time in human history, the number of overweight people
rivals the number of underweight people.… While the world’s underfed
population has declined slightly since 1980 to 1.1 billion, the number of
overweight people has surged to 1.1 billion.
2014 2.1 billion (30% of world’s population)
Far more people are affected by diet-related diseases such as
cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and nutritional deficiencies than
diarrheal diseases (ishalli hastalıklar-salmonella, campylobacter, etc) —
some 35% compared to 0.2%.
Obesity effects Poor as well as Rich:
Poor people are malnourished because they do not have enough to feed
themselves, and they are obese because they eat poorly, with an
important energy imbalance… The food they can afford is often cheap,
industrialized, mass produced, and inexpensive.”
© McGraw Hill 26
Obesity-Related with income levels
The obesity epidemic is really a class-based problem. It’s not an epidemic

(salgın).
The biggest predictor of obesity is income.
Overweight and obesity are advancing rapidly in the developing world as

well … [while] 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries
with food surpluses.
When looking at obesity alone, there are more obese adults living in
America today – 78 million – than in any other country in the world.
© McGraw Hill 27
Figure 31.5: Changing Materialism, from Annual Surveys
of More than 200,000 Entering U.S. Collegians
Source: From Miles-Novelo & Anderson (2019).
© McGraw Hill 28
Social Psychology of Materialism and Wealth 2
• After a comfortable income level is reached, more and more money

produces diminishing long-term returns.
• Economic growth has provided no apparent boost to human morale.
• Focusing on money makes people less attuned to others, less caring
and warm.
• Intrinsic values promote personal and social well-being and help
immunize people against materialistic values.
© McGraw Hill 29
Principles That Drive Psychology of Consumption
Ability to adapt.
• Adaptation-level phenomenon: Tendency to adapt to a given level of
stimulation and thus to notice and react to changes from that level.
Need to compare. (Social Comparison)

• Happiness is relative to individuals’ comparisons with others,
especially those within their own groups.
• Feeding individuals’ luxury fever is the tendency to compare upward.
• Years with more income inequality correlate with less happiness
among those with lower incomes.
• Informing people about the extent of income inequality increases their
concern for the growing gaps, though less so their support for income
redistribution.
© McGraw Hill 30
Toward Sustainability and Survival 1
Shift to postmaterialist values will gain momentum as people,

governments, and corporations take the following steps:
• Face the implications of population and consumption growth for

climate change and environmental destruction.
• Realize that extrinsic, materialist values make for less happy lives.
• Identify and promote the things in life that can enable sustainable
human flourishing.
© McGraw Hill 31
Social psychology’s contribution to a sustainable, flourishing future will

come partly through its consciousness-transforming insights into
adaptation and comparison.
• These insights also come from experiments that lower people’s
comparison standards and thereby cool luxury fever and renew
contentment.
• Downward social comparison facilitates contentment.
© McGraw Hill 32
Social psychology contributes to a sustainable and survivable future

through its explorations of the good life.
• Factors that enhance life quality.
• Close, supportive relationships.

• Voluntary organizations.
• Positive thinking habits.
• Experiencing nature.
• Flow, an optimal state in which, absorbed in an activity, people lose
consciousness of self and time.
© McGraw Hill 33
World Happiness Report 2016-2018
1. Finland (7.769)
2. Denmark (7.600)
3. Norway (7.554)
4. Iceland (7.494)
5. Netherlands (7.488)
6. Switzerland (7.480) 7. Sweden (7.343) 8. New Zealand
(7.307) 9. Canada (7.278) 10. Austria (7.246)
.
.
79. Turkey (5.373)
© McGraw Hill 34
Happiness Explained by:
GDP per capita

social support (TR 61)
healthy life expectancy (TR 69)
freedom to make life choices (TR 140)
generosity (TR 98)
perceptions of corruption (TR 50)
© McGraw Hill 35
.
Living in a way that is

outwardly simple
and
inwardly rich!
© McGraw Hill 36
.
How you spend your money

is how you vote on
what exists in the world
© McGraw Hill 37
Global Priority
$U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780
Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13
© McGraw Hill 38
www.mheducation.com
© McGraw Hill
Figure 31.1: A Synopsis of Scientific Indicators of Global
Climate Change - Text Alternative
An illustration shows the indicators of global climate change as the rise of

ocean heat content, Species migrating poleward and upward, ice sheets
decreases, sea ice decreases, sea level increases, spring coming earlier,
sea surface temperature increases, tree-lines shifting poleward and
upward, snow cover decreases, glaciers decreases, air temperature near
surface or troposphere increases, temperature over land increases,
temperature over oceans and humidity increases.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 31.4: Three Routes via Which Climate Change
May Increase Violence and Conflict - Text Alternative
A flowchart shows three routes via which climate change may increase
violence and conflict. The global warming leads to Increased heat,
drought, extreme weather, sea level rise, and flooding has two results.
The first one, direct heat effect for example irritability; and second one is
failed crops, natural disasters, economic instability, poverty,
eco-migration. The second result further leads to two results
Violence-prone adults: Prenatal and postnatal development problems;
and Intergroup conflict: Civic or political unrest, refugees and internally
displaced persons, and resource competition along with the direct heat
effect lead to Intergroup conflict: Crime, intergroup violence, civil war,
terrorism, and international war.

© McGraw Hill
Figure 31.5: Changing Materialism, from Annual Surveys of More
than 200,000 Entering U.S. Collegians - Text Alternative
The first is to be very well off financially and the second is develop a
meaningful philosophy of life. The percentage opting to develop a
meaningful philosophy of life falls from 83 at 1965 and to 48 by 2018. The
percentage who opt to be financial well off rises from 45 to 84 between
1965 to 2018.

© McGraw Hill
Ebru Ecem four observers came up to watch them play.
Module 17 : The Mere Presence of Others Poor shooters (who had previously 36%) did
even worse(25%) when closely observed.
* Are we affected by the mere presence of * Home teams win about 6 in 10 game.The
another person? “Mere presence” means home advantage, also stem from the
people are not competing, do not reward or players’ familiarity with their home
punish, and in fact do nothing except be environment, less travel fatigue, feelings of
present as a passive audience or as co- dominance derived from territorial control, or
actors. Would the mere presence of others increased team identity when cheered by
affect a person’s jogging, eating, typing, or fans.
exam performance?
Crowding:The Presence of Many Others
The Mere Presence of Others
* With others present, people perspire more,
* A psychologist interested in bicycle racing, breathe faster, tense their muscles more, and
noticed that cyclists’ times were faster when have higher blood pressure and a faster
they raced together than when each one heart rate.
raced alone against the clock. * The effect of others’ presence increases with
* Others’ presence improves the speed with their number
which people do simple multiplication * Being in a crowd also intensifies positive or
problems and cross out designated letters. negative reactions. When they sit close
Also improves accuracy with which people together, friendly people are liked even more,
perform simple motor tasks. and unfriendly people are disliked even more
* This social facilitation effect also occurs with
animals. In the presence of others of their Why are We Aroused in the Presence of
species, ants excavate more sand, chickens Others?
eat more grain, and sexually active rat pairs 1) Evaluation Apprehension(kaygı)
mate more often
* Other studies revealed that on some tasks * Observers make us apprehensive because
the presence of others hinders (aksatmak) we wonder how they are evaluating us.
performance.Others’ presence diminishes * Evaluation apprehension also helps explain;
efficiency at learning nonsense syllables, --why people perform best when their co-actor
completing a maze, and performing complex is slightly superior.
multiplication problems. --why arousal lessens(azalma) when a high-
* Zajong;Arousal enhances whatever response status group is diluted(seyrelme) by adding
tendency is dominant. Increased arousal people whose opinions don’t matter to us.
enhances performance on easy tasks for --why people who worry most about what
which the most likely—“dominant”—response others think are the ones most affected by
is correct. People solve easy anagrams, their presence.
fastest when they are aroused. On complex --why social facilitation effects are greatest
tasks, for which the correct answer is not when the others are unfamiliar and hard to
dominant, increased arousal promotes keep an eye on.
incorrect responding. On harder anagrams, * If self-conscious basketball players analyze
people do worse when anxious. their body movements while shooting critical
* If social arousal facilitates dominant free throws, they are more likely to miss.
responses, it should boost performance on
easy tasks and hurt performance on difficult 2) Driven by Distraction
tasks. learning new material
* The presence of others increased the * When we wonder how co-actors are doing or
number of incorrect responses on these how an audience is reacting, we become
tasks. distracted. This conflict between paying
* Students took less time to learn a simple attention to others and paying attention to
maze and more time to learn a complex one. the task overloads our cognitive system,
* Good pool players in a student union (71% of causing arousal.
their shots while being unobtrusively * This arousal comes not just from the
observed) did even better (80 percent) when presence of another person but even from a
nonhuman distraction, such as bursts of
light.
3) Mere Presence
* The mere presence of others produces some

arousal even without evaluation
apprehension or arousing distraction.
* Innate social arousal mechanism common in
animals.Animals probably are not
consciously worrying about how other
animals are evaluating them.) At the human
level, most runners are energized when
running with someone else, even one who
neither competes nor evaluates.
social facilitation: (1) Original meaning: the

tendency of people to perform simple or well-
learned tasks better when others are present.
(2) Current meaning: the strengthening of
dominant(prevalent, likely) responses in the
presence of others.
evaluation apprehension: Concern for how

others are evaluating us.
Ebru Ecem occurs; when being lost in a crowd
Module 18 : Many Hands Make decreases evaluation concerns, social
Diminished Responsibility loafing occurs.
* To motivate group members, one
*In a team tug-of-war(halat oyunu), will strategy is to make individual per-
eight people on a side exert(uğraşmak) as formance identifiable.
much force as the sum of their best efforts
in individual tugs-of-war? Social Loafing in Everyday Life
* Social facilitation usually occurs when
people work toward individual goals and * Social facilitation or social loafing? When
when their efforts, whether individuals cannot be evaluated or held
winding(dolama fishing reels(ip) or accountable, loafing becomes more
solving math problems, can be likely. An individual swimmer is evaluated
individually evaluated. But not those in on her ability to win the race. In tug-of-
which people pool their efforts toward a war, no single person on the team is held
common goal and where individuals are accountable, so any one member might
not accountable for their efforts. relax or loaf.
* Social loafing in varied cultures. Under
Many Hands Make Light Work communism, Russian peasants
(Bir elin nesi var, iki elin sesi var :) * Women tend to be less individualistic than
men— and to exhibit less social loafing.
* The collective effort of tug-of-war teams * When rewards are divided equally,
regardless of how much one contributes to
was but half the sum of the individual
the group, any individual gets more reward
efforts. Contrary to the presumption that “in per unit of effort by free- riding on the group.
unity there is strength,” this suggested that * But surely collective effort does not always
group members may actually be less lead to slacking off. Sometimes the goal is so
motivated when performing additive tasks. compelling and maximum output from
* Social loafing: The rope-pulling everyone is so essential that team spirit
apparatus. People in the first position maintains or intensifies effort. ex; Olympic
pulled less hard when they thought crew race
people behind them were also pulling. * People in groups loaf less when the task
* Social loafing: When the participants is challenging, appealing, or involving.
believed five others were also either * On challenging tasks, people may perceive
shouting or clapping, they produced one- their efforts as indispensable(mecburi).
third less noise than when they thought * Adding incentives(teşvik) or challenging a
themselves alone group to strive(çabalama) for certain
* In the social loafing experiments, standards also promotes collective effort.
* Groups also loaf less when their members
individuals believed they were evaluated
are friends or they feel identified with or
only when they acted alone. The group indispensable to their group. Even just
situation (rope pulling, shouting, and so expecting to interact with someone again
forth) decreased evaluation serves to increase effort on team projects
apprehension. When people are not * When groups are given challenging
accountable and cannot evaluate their objectives, when they are rewarded for group
own efforts, responsibility is diffused success, and when there is a spirit of
across all group members. commitment to the “team,” group members
* By contrast, the social facilitation work hard.Keeping work groups small can
experiments increased exposure to also help members believe their contributions
evaluation. When made the center of are indispensable.
attention, people self-consciously monitor * Although social loafing is common when
their behavior. group members work without individual
accountability, many hands need not always
* So, when being observed increases
make light work.
evaluation concerns, social facilitation
Ebru Ecem shock to helpless victims than did identifiable
Module 19 : Doing Together What We women. They pressed the shock button twice
Would Not Do Alone as long as did women who were
unconcealed(gizlenmemiş) and wearing
DEINDIVIDUATION large name tags.
* Internet offers similar anonymity.
* Social facilitation exp. show that groups can * Online communities “are like the crowd
arouse people, and social loafing outside the building with the guy on the
experiments show that groups can diffuse ledge(çıkıntı),” technology’s social effects
responsibility. When arousal and diffused Sometimes a caring person tried to talk the
responsibility combine and normal inhibitions person down, while others, in effect,
diminish. People may commit acts that range chanted(tezahürat), “Jump, jump.” “The
from a mild lessening of restraint (throwing anonymous nature of these communities
food in the dining hall, snarling-öfkeyle only emboldens(gaza getirme) the
konuşma at a referee-hakem, screaming meanness(rezillik) or callousness
during a rock concert) to impulsive self- (duyarsızlık) of the people on these sites”
gratification:kendi arzularının esiri olm (group * Testing deindividuation on the streets; A
vandalism, orgies:parti, thefts) to destructive confederate driver at a red light and wait for
social explosions (police brutality, 12 seconds, was followed by a
riots:ayaklanma, lynchings). convertible(üstü açılabilir) or a 4x4.
* Unrestrained(kontrolsüz) behaviors proved Compared with drivers of convertibles and 4
by the power of a group. Groups can 3 4s with the car tops down, those who were
generate a sense of excitement, of being relatively anonymous (with the tops up)
caught up in something(kendini kaptırmak) honked one-third sooner, twice as often, and
bigger than one’s self. for nearly twice as long.
* In group situations, people are more likely to * Effect both of being in a group and of being
abandon normal restraints(sınır)r, to lose physically anonymous. Halloween,1,352
their sense of individual identity, to become Seattle children trick-or-treating (şeker mi
responsive to group or crowd norms- şaka mı?). Either alone or in a group, invited
deindividuation. them to “take one of the candies,” and then
left the candy unattended(tek başına).
Group Size Hidden observers noted that children in
groups were more than twice as likely to take
* A group render(hale getirmek) its members extra candy as solo children. hildren who had
unidentifiable. crowd hides someone- they been asked their names and where they
perceive the action as the group’s. lived were less than half as likely to
* Looters(yağmacı), made faceless by the transgress(ihlal etme) as those who were left
mob(topluca saldırma), are freed to loot. anonymous.
* The bigger the mob, the more its members * Effect of wearing uniforms. Preparing for
lose self-awareness and become willing to battle, warriors in some tribal cultures (like
commit atrocities, such as burning, rabid fans of some sports teams)
lacerating(kırma), or dis- depersonalize themselves with body and
membering(organlarını ayrma) the victim. face paints or special masks. The cultures
* People’s attention is focused on the situation, with depersonalized warriors were also the
not on themselves. And because “everyone cultures that brutalized their enemies.
is doing it” all can attribute their behavior Compared with undis-guised attackers, these
to the situation rather than to their own anonymous attackers inflicted more serious
choices. injuries, attacked more people, and
committed more vandalism.
Physical Anonymity * Anonymous makes one less self-conscious,
more group-conscious, and more responsive
* Anonymity actually lessens inhibitions. to cues present in the situation, whether
* Lord of the Flies-William Golding- good boys negative (Klan uniforms) or positive (nurses’
become monsters after painting their feces. uniforms).
* In Philip Zimbardo’s deindividuation
research, anonymous women delivered more
Arousing and Distracting Activities
* Aggressive outbursts by large groups often

are preceded by minor actions that arouse
and divert(başka yöne çevirme) people’s
attention. Group shouting, chanting(slogan,
şarkı), clapping, or dancing serve both to
hype(uyuşturma) people up and to reduce
self-consciousness.
* Disinhibited behaviors. There is a self-
reinforcing pleasure in acting impulsively
while observing others doing likewise. When
we see others act as we are acting, we think
they feel as we do, which reinforces our own
feelings.
* Impulsive group action absorbs(yutmak) our
attention. When we yell at the referee, we
are not thinking about our values; we are
reacting to the immediate situation. Later,
when we stop to think about what we have
done or said, we sometimes feel
chagrined(üzgün).
DIMINISHED SELF-AWARENESS
* Group experiences that diminish self-

consciousness tend to disconnect behavior
from attitudes.
* *Unself-conscious, deindividuated people are
less restrained, less self-regulated, more
likely to act without thinking about their own
values, and more responsive to the
situation.-> self-awareness
* Self-awareness is the opposite of
deindividuation. Those made self-aware, by
acting in front of a mirror or a TV camera,
exhibit increased self-control, and their
actions more clearly reflect their attitudes.
* People made self-aware are also less likely
to cheat. People who are self-conscious, or
who are temporarily made so, exhibit greater
consistency between their words outside a
situation and their deeds(fiiliyat) in it.
* decrease self-awareness, increase
deindividuation: alcohol consumption
* increase self-awareness, decrease
deindividuation: mirrors and cameras, small
towns, bright lights, large name tags,
undistracted quiet, individual clothes and
houses.
deindividuation: Loss of self-awareness and

evaluation apprehension; occurs in group
situations that foster responsiveness to group
norms, good or bad.
Ebru Ecem * Groups of relatively prejudiced and
Module 20 : How Group Intensify unprejudiced high school students and asked
(pekiştirmek) Decisions them to respond—before and after
discussion—to issues involving racial
* Support-group leaders, management attitudes, such as property rights versus
consultants, and educational theorists open housing.Talking over racial issues
proclaim group interaction’s benefits, and increased prejudice in a high-prejudice group
social and religious movements urge their and decreased it in a low-prejudice group.
members to strengthen their identities by
fellowship with like-minded others. Group Polarization in Everyday Life
* Group discussion often strengthens
members’ initial inclinations(yatkınlık). The * In everyday life people associate mostly with
unfolding(yayılma) of this research on group others whose attitudes are similar to their
polarization illustrates the process of inquiry own. (Look at your own circle of friends.)
—how an interesting discovery often leads * Boys with boys become gradually more
researchers to hasty(aceleci) and erroneous competitive and action oriented in their play
(yalan yanlış) conclusions, which ultimately and fictional fare, and girls with girls become
are replaced with more accurate conclusions. more relationally oriented.
* Republican-appointed judges tend to vote
The Case of the “Risky Shift” like Republicans and Democratic-appointed
judges tend to vote like Democrats.
*Groups are more cautious than individuals.
He posed decision dilemmas in which the Group Polarization in Schools
participant’s task was to advise imagined
characters how much risk to take. * the “accentuation” effect: Over time, initial
* Helen book: To everyone’s amazement, the differences among groups of college
group decisions were usually riskier. These students become accentuated:vurgulanan,
revealed that risky shift occurs not only when üzerinde durulan.
a group decides by consensus; after a brief * X are initially more intellectual than the
discussion, individuals, too, will alter their students at college Y, that gap is likely to
decisions. increase by the time they graduate.
* The small risky shift effect was reliable, * Group members reinforcing shared
unexpected, and without any immediately inclinations(meyil).
obvious explanation.
* Risky shift was not universal. Decision Group Polarization in Communities
dilemmas on which people became more
cautious after discussion. * people self-segregate(kendini ayrı tutan)
* “Crunchy places . . . attract crunchy types
Do Group Intensify Opinions? and become crunchier”
* The discussions increased agreement within
*a tendency for group discussion to enhance small groups about global warming,
group members’ initial leanings. affirmative action, and same-sex unions.
*Group polarization: Discussions typically * On campuses, the clustering of students into
strengthens the average inclination of group mostly White sororities and fraternities and
members. into ethnic minority student organizations
tends to strengthen social identities and to
Group Polarization Experiments increase antagonisms among the social
groups.
* This new view of the changes induced by * During actual community conflicts, like-
group discussion prompted experimenters to minded people associate increasingly with
have people discuss attitude statements that one another, amplifying their shared
most of them favored or most of them tendencies.
opposed.
* French students’ initially positive attitude
toward their president and negative attitude
toward Americans.
Group Polarization on the Internet Informational Influence
* E-mail, blogs, and electronic chat rooms offer * Group discussion elicits a pooling of ideas,
a potential new medium for like-minded people most of which favor the dominant viewpoint.
to find one another and for group interaction. Some discussed ideas are common knowldge
* Internet’s countless virtual groups enable (herkesçe bilinen to group members.
peacemakers and neo-Nazis, geeks and * Other ideas may include persuasive
goths, conspiracy theorists and cancer arguments that some group members had
survivors to isolate themselves with not previously considered.
likeminded others and find support for their * When people hear relevant arguments
shared concerns, interests, and suspicions. without learning the specific stands other
* E-mail, Google, and chat rooms “make it people assume, they still shift their positions.
much easier for small groups to rally like-
minded people, crystallize diffuse hatreds Normative Influence
and mobilize lethal force,”
* They’re very effective, and they’ll reach their * explanation of polarization-comparison with
targeted audience much more efficiently via others
broadband.” Osama Bin Laden’s video * Leon Festinger; social comparison, we
humans want to evaluate our opinions and
Group Polarization in Terrorist abilities by comparing our views with others.
Organizations * We are most persuaded by people in our
“reference groups”—groups we identify with
* Terrorist organizations erupt(çıkmak) from * Moreover, wanting people to like us, we may
people’s shared grievances(dert), bring them express stronger opinions after discovering
together. that others share our views.
* The 9/11 terrorists were bred by a long * pluralistic ignorance(çoğulcu cehalet): They
process that engaged the polarizing effect of don’t realize how strongly others support the
interaction among the like-minded. socially preferred tendency (in this case,
* The process of becoming a terrorist, isolates writing the novel).
individuals from other belief systems, * When you and someone else wanted to go
dehumanizes potential targets, and tolerates out with each other but each of you feared to
no dissent(farklı görüş) make the first move, presuming the other
* categorize the world as “us” and “them” probably did not have a reciprocal(karşılıklı)
* creating a terrorist suicide is the group interest. Such pluralistic ignorance impedes
process “there has not been a single case (engellemek) the start-up of relationships
suicide terrorism which was done on a * You and others were guarded and reserved
personal in a group, until someone broke the ice and
* mutual emotional and social support, said, “Well, to be perfectly honest, I
development of a common identity-Muslim think. . . .” Soon you were all surprised to
* Massacres- The violence is enabled and discover strong support for your shared
escalated(kızıştırmak) by the killers egging views.
(gaz verme) one another on * When people learn others’ positions—without
prior commitment and without discussion or
EXPLAINING GROUP POLARIZATION sharing of arguments—they often adjust their
responses to maintain a socially favorable
* Theories of group polarization: One deals position.
with the arguments presented during a * In an experiment; 14,341 Internet participants
discussion, the other with how members of a in listening to and, if they wished,
group view themselves vis-à-vis(karşılıklı downloading previously unknown songs.
olarak) the other members. Randomly assigned some participants to a
* The first idea is an example of informational condition that disclosed previous
influence (influence that results from participants’ download choices. Popular
accepting evidence about reality). The songs became more popular and unpopular
second is an example of normative influence songs became less popular.
(influence based on a person’s desire to be * In group discussions, persuasive arguments
accepted or admired by others). predominate on issues that have a factual
element (“Is she guilty of the crime?”). Social + Group members also become closed-
comparisson sways responses on value- minded.
laden judgments (“How long a sentence • Rationalization: (explaining and justifying)
should she serve?”) The groups discount challenges by
* Discovering that others share one’s feelings collectively justifying their decisions.
(social comparison) unleashes:serbest • Stereotyped view of opponent: Participants
kalmak arguments (informational influence) in these groupthink tanks consider their
supporting what everyone secretly favors. enemies too evil to negotiate with or too
weak and unintelligent to defend themselves
GROUPTHINK against the planned initiative(girişim).
* The decision-making procedures that led to + The group suffers from pressures toward
several major fiascos: uniformity.
- Pearl Harbor:1941-WWII- information about • Conformity pressure: Group members
Japan’s preparations for an attack on the rebuffed(geri çevirmek) those who raised
United States somewhere in the Pacific. doubts about the group’s assumption and
- The Bay of Pigs Invasion: information about plans, at times not by argument but by
Japan’s preparations for an attack on the personal sarcasm:dokundurma,iğneleme.
United States somewhere in the Pacific. • Self-censorship: Since disagreements
- The Vietnam war: 1964-1967 President were often uncomfortable and the groups
Lyndon Johnson- escalated the war- disaster seemed in consensus, members withheld
cost- fuel inflation in the 1970s (alıkoyulmuş) or discounted(önemsenmemiş)
their misgivings (kuşku).
* Those blunders(hata) were bred by the • Illusion of unanimity(oy birliği): Self-
tendency of decision-making groups to censorship and pressure not to puncture
suppress dissent (farklı görüşte olan) in the (delik açmak) the consensus create an
interests of group harmony, a phenomenon illusion of unanimity. What is more, the
called groupthink. apparent consensus confirms the group’s
* In work groups, camaraderie(yoldaşlık) decision. Pressure to conform suppressed all
boosts productivity. Team spirit is good for deviation(sapma). The absence of dissent
morale. created an illusion of unanimity.
* The soil from which groupthink • Mindguards:akıl bekçisi: Some members
sprouts(filizlenmek) includes; protect the group from information that would
- an amiable(sıcak kanlı),cohesive:bağlı group call into question the effectiveness or morality
- relative isolation of the group from of its decisions. Protecting president from
dissenting viewpoints disagreeable facts.
- a directive leader who signals what decision
he or she favors Groupthink in Action
SYMPTOMS OF GROUPTHINK * Groupthink symptoms can produce a failure

to seek and discuss contrary information and
* 8 groupthink symptoms. These symptoms alternative possibilities. When a leader
are a collective form of dissonance promotes an idea and when a group
(uyumsuzluk) reduction that surface as group insulates (tecrit etmek) itself from dissenting
members try to maintain their positive group views, groupthink may produce defective
feeling when facing a threat. (kusurlu) decisions.
+ The first two groupthink symptoms lead * Iraq war: Saddam Hussein and George W.
group members to overestimate their Bush- like-minded advisers and intimidated
group’s might and right. (gözünü korkutmak) opposing voices into
• An illusion of invulnerability(zarar silence. They each received filtered
görmezlik). An excessive optimism that information that mostly supported their
blinded them to warnings of danger. assumptions.
• Unquestioned belief in the group’s
morality. Group members assume the
inherent(fıtri) morality of their group and
ignore ethical and moral issues.
PREVENTING GROUPTHINK appraisal(değer biçme) of alternative courses
of action”
* Flawed(çatlamış) group dynamics help
explain many failed decisions.
* Given open leadership, a cohesive team
spirit can improve decisions.
* for preventing groupthink incorporate many
of the effective group procedures used in
both cases:
- Be impartial(tarafsız)—do not endorse(tasdik)
any position.
- Encourage critical evaluation; assign a
“devil’s advocate.” Better yet , welcome the
input of a genuine dissenter, which does even
more to stimulate original thinking and to open
a group to opposing views.
- Occasionally(ara sıra) subdivide(yeniden
bölmek) the group, then reunite to air
differences.
- Welcome critiques from outside experts and
associates.
- Before implementing, call a “second-chance”
meeting to air any lingering(geçmek bilmeyen)
doubts.
**with those steps group decisions less
defective and more effective.
group polarization: Group-produced

enhancement of members’ pre-existing
tendencies; a strengthening of the members’
average tendency, not a split within the group.
social comparison: Evaluating one’s opinions

and abilities by comparing oneself to others.
groupthink: The mode of thinking that

persons engage in when concurrence-seeking
becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group
that it tends to override(baskın) realistic
Ebru Ecem versus “Black” with “good.”
Module 22 : The Reach of Prejudice * Although explicit attitudes may change
dramatically with education, implicit attitudes
* Prejudice for our own group and against may linger, changing only as we form new
some other group. Examples; habits through practice
* Religion: after 9/11, Iraq war * Prejudiced and stereotypic evaluations can
* Obesity: occur outside people’s awareness. Without
* Sexual orientation: gay and lesbians their awareness, the participants’ activated
* Age: older people stereotypes may then bias their behavior.
* Immigrants:
Racial Prejudice
WHAT IS PREJUDICE? Is Racial Prejudice Disappearing?
* Explicit prejudicial attitudes can change very
* Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, quickly.
racism, sexism—the terms often * African American children a choice between
overlap. Black dolls and White dolls, most chose the
* The essence of prejudice: a White.
preconceived(önyargılı) negative judgment of * In studies from the 1950s through the 1970s,
a group and its individual Black children were increasingly likely to prefer
members. Black dolls. And adult Blacks came to view
* Prejudice is an attitude, which is a distinct Blacks and Whites as similar in traits such as
combination of feelings, intelligence, laziness, and dependability
inclinations(eğilim) to act, and beliefs.
* A prejudiced person may dislike those Subtle Prejudice
different from self and behave in a * Prejudice in subtle forms is even more
discriminatory manner, believing them widespread.
ignorant and dangerous. * Blatant(bariz) prejudice is being replaced by
* The negative evaluations that mark prejudice subtle prejudice (exaggerating(abartmak)
often are supported by negative beliefs, ethnic differences, feeling less admiration
called stereotypes. To stereotype is to and affection(eğilim) for immigrant minorities,
generalize. Ex; The British are reserved. rejecting them for supposedly nonracial
Americans are outgoing. reasons. Some researchers call such subtle
* Such generalizations can be more or less prejudice “modern racism” or “cultural
true (and are not always negative). ‘may be racism.”
positive or negative, accurate or inaccurate’ * I also appears as patronization. poorly
* The problem with stereotypes arises when written essay to evaluate white students
they are overgeneralized or just plain wrong.
* Prejudice is a negative attitude; Automatic Prejudice
discrimination is negative behavior. * 9 in 10 White people took longer to identify
Discriminatory behavior often has its source pleas- ant words (such as peace and
in prejudicial attitudes paradise) as “good” when associated with
* Racism and sexism are institutional Black rather than White faces.
practices that discriminate, even when there * Critics note that unconscious associations
is no prejudicial intent. may only indicate cultural assumptions,
perhaps without prejudice (which involves
Prejudice: Subtle and Overt negative feelings and action tendencies).
* In some situations, automatic, implicit
* Prejudice provides one of the best examples prejudice can have life or death
of our dual attitude system. We can have consequences. People to press buttons
different explicit (conscious) and implicit quickly to “shoot” or “not shoot” men who
(automatic) attitudes toward the same target. suddenly appeared on-screen holding either
* “Implicit Association Test” “implicit a gun or a harm- less object such as a
cognition”—what you know without knowing flashlight or a bottle. Whites participants
that you know. It does so by measuring mistakenly shot Blacks.
people’s speed of associations. How
speedily we associate “White” with “good”
* If we implicitly associate a particular ethnic * We typically respect the competence of
group with danger, then faces from that those high in status and like those who
group will tend to capture our attention and agreeably accept a lower status.
trigger arousal.
* Exposing people to weapons makes them Gender Discrimination
pay more attention to faces of African * Men are three times more likely to commit
Americans and even makes police officers suicide and be murdered. They die five years
more likely to judge stereotypical-looking sooner. Majority with mental retardation or
African Americans as criminals. autism.
* It also appears that different brain regions * Subtle bias lives: birth announcements- boys
are involved in automatic and consciously with more pride. 2/3 of the world’s
controlled stereotyping. Pictures of outgroups unschooled children are girls.
that elicit the most disgust (such as drug * Some countries discrimination extends to
addicts and the homeless) elicit brain activity violence
in areas associated with disgust and * Around the world, people tend to prefer
avoidance having baby boys. U.S 1941, 38% preferred
a baby boy, 28% preferred baby girl, 23%
Gender Prejudice had no preference.
* Such unbalanced sex ratios historically have
* Gender-role norms—people’s ideas about had social consequences, with a male
how women and men ought to behave. Here excess (as in frontier towns, immigrant
we consider gender stereotypes—people’s ghettos, and mining camps) predicting more
beliefs about how women and men do traditional gender roles and higher violence
behave. rates
* Norms are prescriptive(kural koyucu); prejudice: A preconceived negative judgment
stereotypes are descriptive(betimsel). of a group and its individual members.
stereotype: A belief about the personal
Gender Stereotypes attributes of a group of people. Stereotypes
* Remember that stereotypes are are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate,
generalizations about a group of people and and resistant to new information.
may be true, false, or overgeneralized from a discrimination Unjustified negative behavior
kernel(çekirdek) of truth. toward a group or its members.
* The persistence and omnipresence(her racism (1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes
yerde bulunma) of gender stereotypes leads and discriminatory behavior toward people of a
some evolutionary psychologists to believe given race, or (2) institutional practices (even if
they reflect innate, stable reality. not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate
* Stereotypes (beliefs) are not prejudices people of a given race.
(attitudes). Stereotypes may support sexism (1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes
prejudice. and discriminatory behavior toward people of a
given sex, or
Sexism: Benevolent(hayırsever) and (2) institutional practices (even if not motivated
Hostile by prejudice) that subordinate people of a
* They perceive women as more under- given sex.
standing, kind, and helpful. A favorable
stereotype, which Eagly (1994) dubs the
women-are-wonderful effect, results in a
favorable attitude.
* They frequently mix a benevolent sexism
(“Women have a superior moral sensibility”)
with hostile sexism (“Once a man commits,
she puts him on a tight leash”).
* The distinction between “hostile” and
“benevolent” sexism extends to other
prejudices. We see other groups as
competent or as likable, but often not as
both.
Ebru Ecem express more prejudice than those
Module 23: The Roots of Prejudice professing more progressive beliefs.
* Among church members, faithful church
* It may arise from differences in social attenders were, in 24 out of 26
status and people’s desires to justify and comparisons, less prejudiced than
maintain those differences. It may also be occasional attenders.
learned from our parents as we are * If we define religiousness as church
socialized about what differences matter membership or willingness to agree at
between people. Our social institutions, least superficially with traditional beliefs,
then the more religious people are the
A. SOCIAL SOURCES OF PREJUDICE more racially prejudiced. Bigots often
Unequal Status rationalize bigotry with religion.
* Love your neighbor as yourself.
* Unequal status breeds prejudice. successful campaign to end the British
(economic relationship between two Empire’s slave trade and the practice of
groups) slavery.
* Blacks were “inferior”; women were * The role of religion is paradoxical. It
“weak.” makes prejudice and it unmakes
* powerful men who stereotype their prejudice
female subordinates give them plenty of
praise, but fewer resources, thus 3.Conformity:
undermining their performance. * If prejudice is socially accepted, many
people will follow the path of least
Socialization resistance and conform to the fashion.
Even children’s implicit racial attitudes * people become more likely to favor (or
reflect their parents’ explicit prejudice. oppose) discrimination after hearing
Our families and cultures pass on all kinds someone else do so, and they are less
of information— how to find mates, drive supportive of women after hearing sexist
cars, and divide the household labors, and humor
whom to distrust and dislike.
B. MOTIVATIONAL SOURCES OF
1.The Authoritarian Personality: PREJUDICE
* hostility toward Jews often coexisted with Frustration and Aggression: The
hostility toward other minorities. In those Scapegoat Theory
who were strongly prejudiced, prejudice * Frustration (the blocking of a goal) often
appeared to be not specific to one group evokes hostility. redirect our hostility is
but an entire way of thinking about those ‘displayed aggression’
who are “different.” * when living standards are rising,
* these judgmental, ethnocentric people societies tend to be more open to
shared certain tendencies: an intolerance diversity and to the passage and
for weakness, a punitive(ceza) attitude, enforcement of antidiscrimination laws.
and a submissive(itaat) respect for their Ethnic peace is easier to maintain during
ingroup’s authorities “ Obedience and prosperous(refah) times.
respect for authority are the most * In our time, it was those Americans who
important virtues children should learn.” felt more anger than fear after the 9/11
attack who expressed greater intolerance
2.Religion and Prejudice: toward immigrants and Middle
* 1)Church members express more racial Easterners. Passions provoke prejudice.
prejudice than nonmembers, and (2) * Competition is an important source of
those professing(iddia etme) traditional frustration that can fuel prejudice.
or fundamentalist Christian beliefs * Realistic group conflict theory
suggests that prejudice arises when
groups compete for scarce(kıt) * Lacking a positive personal identity,
resources. people often seek self-esteem by
* When interests clash, prejudice may be identifying with a group.
the result.
Ingroup Bias:
Social Identity Theory: Feeling Superior * The circle that includes “us” (the ingroup)
to Others excludes “them” (the outgroup).
* The mere experience of being formed
* Humans are a group-bound species. into groups may promote ingroup bias.
* We also define ourselves by our groups. * For adults, the closer to home, the better
* Self-concept—our sense of who we are things seem.
—contains not just a personal identity
(our sense of our personal attributes and * Ingroup Bias Supports a Positive Self-
attitudes) but also a social identity Concept: When our group has been
1. We categorize: We find it useful to put successful, we can make ourselves feel
people, ourselves included, into better by identifying more strongly with it.
categories. To label someone as a Hindu, * “We won”, “They lost”
a Scot, or a bus driver is a shorthand way * Ingroup Bias Feeds Favoritism: We are
of saying some other things about the so group-conscious that, given any
person. excuse to think of ourselves as a group,
2. We identify: We associate ourselves we will do so—and we will then exhibit
with certain groups (our ingroups), and ingroup bias.
gain self-esteem by doing so. * “We” are better than “they,” even when
3. We compare: We contrast our groups “we” and “they” are defined randomly!
with other groups (outgroups), with a * how little it takes to provoke favoritism
favorable bias toward our own group. toward us and unfairness toward them.
* We are more prone to ingroup bias when
our group is small and lower in status
relative to the outgroup
* Minority groups( foreign, gender) at some
social gathering is to feel one’s social
identity more keenly and to react
accordingly.
Need for Status, Self-Regard, and

Belonging
* In one study, members of lower-status
sororities were more disparaging of other
sororities than were members of higher-
status sororities. Perhaps people whose
status is secure have less need to feel
superior.
* We evaluate ourselves partly by our * thinking about your own mortality—by
group memberships. Having a sense of writing a short essay on dying and the
“we-ness” strengthens our self-concepts. emotions aroused by thinking about death
It feels good. We seek not only respect —provokes enough insecurity to intensify
for ourselves but also pride in our ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice
groups. * With death on their minds, people exhibit
* Seeing our groups as superior helps us terror management. They shield(örtmek
feel even better.“I am an X [group]. X is themselves from the threat of their own
good. Therefore, I am good.” death by derogating(küçültücü) those
who further arouse their anxiety by the similarities within the groups and the
challenging their worldviews. differences between them
* Thinking about death can also, lead * * Mere division into groups can create an
people to pursue communal feelings outgroup homogeneity effect—a sense
such as togetherness and altruism. that they are “all alike” and different from
* Before the 2004 presidential election, “us” and “our” group
giving people cues related to death- 9/11 * As we generally like people we perceive
attack increased support for G. Bush. as similar to us and dislike those we
* Despised outgroups can also serve to perceive as different, the result is a
strengthen the ingroup. Perception of tendency toward ingroup bias
common enemy unites a group. * When the group is our own, we are more
* To solidify the Nazi hold over Germany, likely to see diversity.
Hitler used the “Jewish menace.” * They—the members of any racial group
other than your own—even look alike.
C. COGNITIVE SOURCES OF * people of other races do in fact seem to
PREJUDICE look more alike than do people of one’s
* Stereotyped beliefs and prejudiced own race.
attitudes exist not only because of social * The own-race bias. White subjects more
conditioning and because they enable accurately recognize the faces of Whites
people to displace hostilities, but also as than of Blacks; Black subjects more
by-products of normal thinking accurately recognize the faces of Blacks
processes. than of Whites.
* stereotypes can be by-products of how * own-age bias: People more accurately
we simplify our complex worlds. recognize people similar to their own age
* When looking at a face from another
1. Categorization: Classifying People racial group we often attend, first, to
into Groups group (“that man is Black”) rather than to
*clustering objects into groups individual features. When viewing some-
* if a group share some similarities one of our own group, we are less
* Stereotypes represent cognitive attentive to the race category and more
efficiency. They are energy-saving attentive to individual details.
schemes for making speedy judgments
and predicting how others will think and 2. Distinctiveness: Perceiving People
act. Who Stand Out(dikkat çekmek)
Distinctive people and vivid or extreme
Spontaneous Categorization: Ethnicity occurrences often capture attention and
and sex distort(bozmak) judgments.
* what we perceive as distinct colors such
as red, blue, and green, so we cannot Distinctive People: your difference from
resist categorizing people into groups. We the others probably made you more
label people of widely varying noticeable and the object of more
* By itself, such categorization is not attention.
prejudice, but it does provide a foundation * People also take note of those who
for prejudice. violate expectations.
* The extra attention we pay to distinctive
Perceived Similarities and Differences: people creates an illusion that they differ
There is a strong tendency to see objects from others more than they really do.
within a group as being * Distinctiveness Feeds Self-
more uniform than they really are. Consciousness: When surrounded by
* Once we assign people to groups— Whites, Blacks sometimes detect people
athletes, drama majors, math professors reacting to their distinctiveness. Many
—we are likely to exaggerate(abartmak) report being stared or glared at, being
subject to insensitive comments, and * merely observing another innocent
receiving bad service. person being victimized is enough to
* Compared with women who were led to make the victim seem less worthy.
believe their conversational partners * just-world phenomenon: We have a
merely thought they had an allergy, the tendency to believe that the world is just
“disfigured” women became acutely and that people get what they deserve.
sensitive to how their partners were * colors our impressions of rape victims.
looking at them. They rated their partners * Two scenario: women and her boss in his
as more tense, distant, and patronizing. home. 1. marry me 2. rape -> Given this
* Self-conscious interactions between a ending, people see the rape as inevitable
majority and a minority person can and blame the woman for provocative
therefore feel tense even when both are behavior that seems faultless in the first
well intentioned.(gay example) scenario.
* The wealthy and healthy can see their
Vivid Cases: Our minds also use own good fortune, and others’
distinctive cases as a shortcut to judging misfortune, as justly deserved.
groups. Are the Japanese good baseball * But the just- world assumption discounts
players? the uncontrollable factors that can
* Such generalizing from a single case can derail(raydan çıkma) good efforts even
cause problems. by talented people.
* Those in a numerical minority, being
more distinctive, also may be numerically THE CONSEQUENCES OF PREJUDICE
overestimated by the majority.
* Stereotypes can be self-perpetuating—
Distinctive Events: Stereotypes assume their existence can prevent their change.
a correlation between group membership * Stereotypes can also create their own
and individuals’ presumed characteristics reality. Even if they are initially untrue,
(“Italians are emotional,” “Jews are their existence can make them become
shrewd,” “Accountants are perfectionists”). true.
* When a self-described homosexual
person murders or sexually abuses Self-Perpetuating(kendi içinde varlığını
someone, homosexuality is often sürdüren) Stereotypes
mentioned. When a heterosexual does the * Prejudice is preconceived(önyargılı)
same, the person’s sexual orientation is judgment.
seldom mentioned. Such reporting adds to * Prejudgments guide our attention and
the illusion of a large correlation between our memories. People who accept
(1) violent tendencies and (2) gender stereotypes often misrecall their
homosexuality. own school grades in stereotype-
consistent ways. For example, women
3. Attribution: Is it a just World? often recall receiving worse math grades
and better arts grades than were actually
* We attribute others’ behavior so much to the case
their inner dispositions that we discount
important situational forces. The error Prejudgements are Self-Perpetuating
occurs partly because our attention * Whenever a member of a group behaves
focuses on the person, not on the as expected, we duly(beklendiği gibi)
situation. A person’s race or sex is vivid note the fact; our prior belief is
and gets attention; the situational forces confirmed. When a member of a group
working on that person are usually less behaves inconsistently with our
visible. expectation, we may interpret or explain
away the behavior as due to special
circumstances.
* The contrast to a stereotype can also be evaluated based on a negative
make someone seem exceptional.(Maria stereotype
played basketball) * EXP; gave a very difficult math test to
* Stereotypes therefore influence how we men and women students who had
construe(anlam çıkarmak) someone’s similar math backgrounds. told that there
behavior. were no gender differences on the test
* We do notice information that is strikingly and no evaluation of any group
inconsistent with a stereotype, but even stereotype. Consistently equaled. Told
that information has less impact than that there was a gender difference, the
might be expected. women dramatically confirmed the
* subtyping—seeing people who deviate stereotype.
(sapmak) as exceptions—helps maintain * The media can provoke stereotype
the stereotype that police officers are threat. The memory of details of adds
unfriendly and dangerous. * stereotype threat affects athletic
* This subgrouping—forming a subgroup performance, too. Blacks did worse than
stereotype— tends to lead to modest usual when a golf task was framed as a
change in the stereotype as the test of “sports intelligence,” and Whites
stereotype becomes more differentiated did worse when it was a test of “natural
(ayırt edilen) athletic ability.”
* Subtypes are exceptions to the group; * Threat from facing a negative stereotype
subgroups are acknowledged(tanınan) can produce performance deficits and
as a part of the overall group. disidentification.
* tell the student risk of failure: It may
Discrimination’s Impact: The Self- cause them to “disidentify” with school
Fulfilling Prophecy and seek self-esteem elsewhere
* Attitudes may coincide with the social realistic group conflict theory The
hierarchy not only as a rationalization for theory that prejudice arises from
it but also because discrimination affects competition between groups for scarce
its victims. resources.
* The Nature of Prejudice, Allport, possible social identity The “we” aspect of our
effects of victimization. 1. blaming self-concept; the part of our answer to
oneself (withdrawal, self-hate, “Who am I?” that comes from our group
aggression against one’s own group) and memberships.
2. those that involve blaming external terror management According to “terror
causes (fighting back, suspiciousness, management theory,” people’s self-
increased group pride). protective emotional and cognitive
* social beliefs can be self-confirming, job responses (including adhering more
application, interviewing. strongly to their cultural worldviews and
* Prejudice affects its targets. prejudices) when confronted with remind-
ers of their mortality.
Stereotype Threat subtyping Accommodating individuals
who deviate from one’s stereotype by
* Just being sensitive to prejudice is thinking of them as “exceptions to the
enough to make us self-conscious when rule.”
living as a numerical minority. subgrouping Accommodating individuals
* Placed in a situation where others expect who deviate from one’s stereotype by
you to perform poorly, your anxiety may forming
also cause you to confirm the belief. a new stereotype about this subset of the
* stereotype threat—a self-confirming group.
apprehension(endişe, kaygı) that one will

Ilovepdf Merged

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ilovepdf Merged

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Because learning changes everything.

• Original meaning: Tendency of people to perform simple or

Co-actors are a passive audience

They are not competing, do not reward or punish,

do nothing except being present

Early research done on animals, human beings

My resources < my demands shame & anxiety increases,

My resources > my demands pride & self-esteem increases

Sometimes the arousal and self-conscious attention created by a large

The effect of other people increases with their number

Being in a crowd intensifies positive or negative reactions.

Crowding enhances arousal, which facilitates dominant responses.

Distraction. Mere presence.

• Individuals’ concern for how others are evaluating them.

When individuals wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is

Mere presence of others produces some arousal even without evaluation

An example of a good theory

• Help confirm and modify the theory

Two or more people who, for longer than a few moments,

Five people waiting at the same corner for a bus.

• Inclusion (need for affiliation)

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Compared to individuals, groups tend to be..

A unitary task cannot be divided into separate subtasks—all members

In an additive task, group success depends on the sum of the individual

Thinkstock Images/Getty Images

Access the text alternative for slide images.

People expect each other to loaf. Whether consciously or

• Social loafing is found in varied cultures and appears in donations of

People in groups loaf less when…

• The task is challenging

• The task is appealing

• The task is involving

Others' presence leads to Individual efforts pooled and not evaluated

Return to parent-slide containing images.

“If you could do anything humanly possible with

Aggression, charity, academic dishonesty, crime,

• Criminal acts (26%), sexual acts (11%), and spying

Deindividuation: Loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension.

When arousal and diffused responsibility combine, and normal inhibitions

Unrestrained behaviors are provoked by the power of being in a group.

Being anonymous makes one:

Anonymity feeds incivility.

Source: Data from Diener et al., 1976.

Access the text alternative for slide images.

As the word "anonymous" indicates, you can have no name -

When people have the opportunity to separate their actions

Invisibility gives people the courage to go places and do

Absent f2f cues combined with text communication can have

Perhaps unconsciously, it feels as if «I am talking to/with

People are reluctant to say what they really think as they

But online, in what feels like a peer relationship - with the

Demonstrated the effects of anonymity by having their female

A: discuss the issue of pornography

A: In discussing pornography, those subjects in lab coats

In certain situations, people…

- Abandon normal restraints

- Lose their sense of individual identity

- Become responsive to group or crowd norms

Group size (distraction)

Arousing and distracting activities

• Aggressive outbursts by large groups are often preceded by minor

Group experiences that diminish self-consciousness tend to disconnect