Ch. 1 Free Response Rubric

1. Subjects are Hyperactive

2. Random Sample3. Independent Variable4. IV described (control

vs. experimental5. Dependent Variable6. Dependent Variable

described (how measured)

7. Placebo/Control8. Other controls (double

blind, random assignment)

9. Replication (validity, reliability)

10. Groups are compared (statistical significance)

Prejudice & Discrimination

Pro-Social & Anti-Social Behavior

In-Group / Out-Group Bias If we believe that someone

else is in a group to which we belong, we will have positive views of them and give them preferential treatment.

Why do we think and behave this way?

Example: Watch children in the school yard. Notice how they form groups and how they treat those not in their group.

A third grade girl feels upset and isolated because she is not able to play with the other children.

Prejudice & Discrimination Stereotypes: Overgeneralizations

Example: Gay men are all effeminate. We develop stereotypes when we are

unable or unwilling to obtain all of the information we would need to make fair judgments.

Stereotype threat is the fear that one's behavior will confirm an existing stereotype of a group with which one identifies. This fear can sometimes affect performance.

Prejudice: Unjustifiable beliefs; usually negative

Example: believing that sexual or gender orientation makes one group inferior

Discrimination: Action based on prejudice Example: Not hiring a gay man

because of his sexual orientation

A Girl Like Me Video Clip

Why do prejudices and acts of discrimination like the examples viewed in “A Girl Like Me” & “A Class Divided” continue to exist?

How can prejudice & discrimination be reduced?

What was the main theme of this short film?

How did you react to this film? (emotions, feelings)

What does this film suggest about our society?

Memorable moments/ quotes.

What will you take away from this film?

A Girl Like Me

Discussion Questions

Are the results from the “doll experiment” proof of internalized racism?

Pro-Social & Anti Social Behavior Pro-Social Behavior:

voluntary behavior intended to help others

Bystander Effect (Kitty Genovese) Diffusion of responsibility Why don’t people help?

Don’t Notice Interpretation Don’t know how to take

responsibility Jericho Experiment

Effects of timeKitty Genovese, picture from The New York Times article:

"Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police"

Kitty’s Apartment

Altruism

Selfless concern for the welfare of others.

Does altruism really exist?

Things to consider: Social Exchange Theory Norms of reciprocity-

expecting a favor in return.

Feel good-do good hypothesis

"Kind words can be short and easy to speak, but their echoes are truly endless."

- Mother Teresa

Antisocial Behavior Aggression-

Any act that is intended to hurt someone or something.

What are the possible causes of aggression? Biological serotonin testosterone Cultural differences Social Learning Theory-

Bandura & Bobo Doll Frustration Aggression

hypothesis Freud- Human Nature-

aggressive tendencies- displacement

Deindividuation: Loss of self to the group

Deindividuation occurs when group participation makes people feel aroused and anonymous.

Dodd’s Study (1985) Are college freshman or

prison inmates more susceptible to deindividuation?

Deindividuation Aggression Charity Academic Dishonesty Crime Escapism Political Activities Sexual Behavior Social Disruption Interpersonal Spying/Eves

dropping Travel Other

Social Desirability Scale Prosocial 9 % (intended to

help others) Antisocial 36% (behavior

intended to injure others or deprive them of their rights)

Nonnormative 19% (behavior that violates social norms and practices but does not specifically help or hurt others)

Neutral 36% (behaviors that do not meet the criteria for any of the first three categories)

Philip Zimbardo:Stanford Prison Experiment Recruitment and Methodology

Wanted to learn about behaviors and feelings of prisoners & guards

Set up a phony prison in a university building

Recruited male college students to participate

Randomly assigned 24 participants to role of either prisoner or guard

Stanford Prison Experiment: Methodology

Guards instructed to make prisoners feel frustrated and not in control

Prisoners arrested and booked as real prisoners Guards bullied the prisoners and began “counts”

Stanford Prison Experiment: Results

Prisoners staged a rebellion on the second day

Guards stepped up their harassment and treated rebellion “ringleaders” differently than the “good” prisoners

Prisoners told they couldn’t leave; many became anxious

Guards increased bullying tactics as they perceived prisoners to be a real threat

Zimbardo and his colleagues adapted to their roles

Stanford Prison Experiment: Results

Everyone took on the role to which they were assigned—the experiment became very realistic

Experiment ended after six days instead of two weeks

Prisoners had lost their identity