Psychology

- Defined a preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members
- Based on what
- Not the same as a stereotype

Origins and Upkeep of Prejudice
many many different perspectives
1.learning-group polarization
2.psychodynamic-displaced aggression
3.cognitive-outgroup homogeneity effect
4.social identity theory
5.realistic group conflict and dissonance theory

Implications of prejudice
affective negative emotions
cognitive biased beliefs
behavioral discriminatory treatment

Functions of prejudice
- helps us predict the world (sometimes)
1.the power of intermittent reinforcement
2.the value of heuristics (even if they are wrong)
- makes use feel good
1.group serving biases
2.stereotype lift
3.Evolutionary sources

Measuring covert racism
- behaviors vs. statements
1.helping that wrong number
2.resume study
3.distance measures
- the implicit attitudes test

Implications for the target

Stereotype threat
So what do we do about it

Week7 217
Early research on persuasion
persuasion is any action designed to change someones attitudes.
Most research has focused on persuasive communication
The early research was conducted at Yale in the 1940s

The Yale Approach to Persuasion
- present a communication to two randomly assigned groups
- measure between-group differences, or pretestpost-test differences
- manipulate one aspect of the communication WHO says WHAT to WHOM

Speaker Effects
- The JeffersonLenin quote
- Expertise
- Trustworthiness
1.self-interest
2.similarity and attractiveness
- which is better similarity or expertise

Why does credibility lead to attitude change
- dissonance theory
- transfer of affect
- heuristics

Message Effects
- discrepancy
- fear appeals
- two-sided appeals
- primacy and recency

Audience Effects
- mood the peanuts and Pepsi study
- Distraction when does it help When does it hurt

Week7 219
Old and New Theories of Persuasion
Persuasion- trying to change someones mind through communication- in social life we encounter messages that are designed to change our minds about something- eg. Advertisements, communication with parents persuade you to act a certain way- Classic research on persuasion-

- The Yale approach to attitude change focuses on cues in the speaker, the message, and the environment.

- Yale approach which can be summarized as who said what to whom- if you want to persuade someone you can change the speaker, the nature of the message or the mood of the person- by changing the environment people react without thinking too much. If someone thinks that a movie you like sucks and you want to change their mind which aspects of the Yale approach would you use Like any educated person you would bank on your argumentation skills to win the debate rather than offer them coke or peanuts or claim that an expert in the field holds the same view as you- this kind of technique is not included in the Yale approach- that is the big contrast between old and new theories of persuasion- the old, although not wrong, overlook the argument itself- this may depend on the environment within which the classic research was conducted.

- What about the quality of the arguments
Eg. The Yale study was conducted at Yale and was meant to pertain to governmental messages that are handed down to the masses- Hovland, though a great researcher, didnt know much about the masses he was trying to persuade- it didnt occur to him that they might be thinking about the arguments- or that they have the capacity to differentiate between a good and bad argument.
People are always thinking and evaluating the truth of their environment- we therefore must consider the quality of the argument being put forth

Two routes to attitude change
- Central processing Focusing on the content of the communication and evaluating the arguments.
the modern approach to persuasion fills this gap with a premise which states that there are actually two ways in which people can change their attitude- the central processing route or central route processing- focuses on the content of the communication and evaluates the argument- pertains more to educated people- this kind of argument convinces people from time to time by offering what appears to be a better argument to the person being persuaded- it is called central route processing because you are thinking directly about the problem or topic- something central to the issue.

- Peripheral processing Being persuaded by cues and heuristics that are logically unrelated to the issues.
The second way is called peripheral route processing- being persuaded by cues and heuristics- they are logically unrelated to the issues at hand- eg. Empire strikes back is the best of the Star Wars movies because I am a doctor- although he is a doctor of social studies, he appeals to his authority as a professor to convince the students- the information that is being processed is not central, its peripheral- it is not related to the quality of Empire Strikes Back as a film- a central route processing approach would argue the point from the angle of the plot line, dialogues, direction etc- basically things that are directly related to the quality of the film- The Yale approach only takes into consideration peripheral route processing- modern theories acknowledge both routes- which bring us to one question- if there are two ways to persuade someone when do we use one and the other Its an important question because focuses on the mindset of the listener- this a very important tool in advertising- the kind of argument that is put forth is modeled on the consumer and hisher way of processing information (peripheral or central)- peripheral processing works better when one is in a hurry and thus does not have much time to think about it centrally- or when there is a lot of pressure to conform- another important factor is ones involvement with the topic- if you care about it, you are more likely to engage in central route processing- if you are not interested in it you will engage in peripheral route processing- if your audience is incapable of using central processing you should use peripheral arguments- if you cant think of a central route argument, then one uses the peripheral route argument. There is a model that puts all these factors together.

The Elaboration-Likelihood Model (1986)
Argument quality matters when people are able and willing to use central processing.
Peripheral cues are persuasive when people are uninterested or distracted.
The elaboration likelihood model- created in 1986 by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo- The ELM attempts to predict the circumstances under which people are likely to engage in central route processing versus peripheral route processing- argument quality matters when people are able and willing to use the central route- although ability is necessary it is not sufficient- you must motivated to evaluate the argument- it means that peripheral cues are most influential when people are either unable to understand central arguments or are disinterested in the argument- being distracted also makes one switch to peripheral route processing- a lot of things have to go right for central route processing to occur.

Petty and Cacioppos kept their research clean by using topics that the studies group did not have an opinion on- the classic topic is should college students have to take a final exam to get their degree- ones gut instinct might be to side with the no exam side of the debate. In order to even this out Petty and Cacioppo put forward a bunch of arguments both pro and con about it and then asked people to evaluate them- by doing so they were able to generate a list of strong pro and con arguments and weak pro and con arguments- they then brought people into the lab and gave them messages- they manipulated a couple of things- they manipulated the arguments on both sides- some people got strong pro arguments and weak con arguments- some got vice versa- this manipulation is a central processing cue- it is directly pertinent to the debate. The other thing they manipulated the source of the arguments- sometimes they were said to have been written by someone of authority (Education Minister) and other times they were said to be written by the head of the trust club or some much less trustworthy authority- the manipulation of the source is a peripheral cue.

The third manipulation centered on manipulating the motive of the group- half the people were told that the issue being considered was going to be adopted five years from then- enough time for all the students (that made up the study group) to have graduated- thus the change will not affect them. The other half was told that the exam policy was going to be implanted that year itself- thus affecting the students directly. The question that they sought to answer was- what kind of argument affects the people interested in the topic and what kind of argument affects those who are not interested in the topic Based on the ELM, the people who care a lot were concerned with the quality of the argument regardless of which whether it was pro or con- they ignored the source of the arguments. The people who didnt care were persuaded more by the source of the argument- for them it didnt matter if the strong arguments were on the pro or con side- these results are constant even if you dont manipulate motive but manipulate ability instead by distracting one group- such as giving them something else to think about while evaluating the argument.

(What does one mean by being able to evaluate an argument- things like having time- being educated etc.- they (Petty and Cahioppo) thought about it broadly- they did not get into what makes an argument strong or weak but banked on the consensus on the quality o the arguments.)

If youre trying to design a persuasive message using the ELM, it entails predicting the reaction of your audience- you use either central or peripheral accordingly- you can look at advertisements and see what they think of you, the consumer- eg. Old commercials for computers when they were not so common- a studious white male with glasses would be sitting at the desk saying that IBM computers are better than any other because they have this much ram and this much rom and so forth- they imagined that if you are a computer buyer you are able and willing to use central processing- it also assumes that you are some kind of a geek. Nowadays however, everyone has computers.  A modern computer ad would tend to be gimmicky (buy our computer, it comes in pink) or fashionable rather than informative. The idea is totally peripheral- they are making an assumption about you, the consumer- you will use peripheral cues to buy a computer. Similarly car makers design their ads according to the buyers- hybrid cars play up their mileage (central cue) and target the middle class people while say a BMW ad will play up the design and status of the car (peripheral cue) thus targeting the rich. Brands may also use different approaches to selling their product- eg. Nike may use the logic that cool athletes wear Nike so you should wear it too (peripheral processing)- Mercedes on the other hand appeals to quality (central processing) by saying that they make the best cars.

Resisting Persuasion
Forewarning People who expect to be targets of persuasion are less persuaded. ( Why
Implications of the persuasion model- it can be used to help people resist persuasion- parents want their children to resist persuasion sometimes- eg. Against doing drugs or alcohol- if your child wants Coco Puffs for breakfast everyday and you want to change this- the ELM states that if you want someone to question the message, they must be likely to evaluate it- ability and motivation must be urged- people who are warned that they will be persuaded are less likely to actually get persuaded- forewarning leads to resistance- research confirms this.

Attitude inoculation
Why does this happen  two processes- one is attitude inoculation- of you are exposed to the weak form of an argument and you start arguing against it you will be better equipped to deal with stronger arguments on the same topic- this happens because you already have thought up your counter-arguments before hand- they are more accessible- this can be compared to a vaccine or inoculation- a dead virus injected into you creates the antibodies necessary to fight the actual virus. Another example is the anti-drugs campaign- Say NO to drugs- although this is simple enough it is not very effective. A more effective approach is the newer one which shows an ad on t.v- it shows it from the point of view of a drug peddler approaching a child and offering him drugs- the child in the ad refuses it and puts forth a number of arguments about why he is doing so- this acts as an attitude inoculation- watching the child on T.V resist the drugs is a weak form of the actual event (actually being offered drugs on the playground or at a party) but it generates the counter arguments in your head thus equipping you better to make a thought-out choice rather than an impulse one.
How this research is conducted- two groups- one group gets a weak form of the argument while the other gets nothing- both groups then get the strong one- the group that got nothing was more persuades- this has implications for parenting- keeping kids in a ideologically sheltered environment could actually work against equipping him or her to make the right choices when certain situations arise.

Across America, there are two kinds of parenting approaches being adopted- one that seeks to shelter the child from any kind of corrupting knowledge and thus not inoculating him for situations that he will face at some point and the other that openly discussing delicate issues like sex and drugs right from the teenage years and thus inoculates the child for responding to such situations. The former withholds sex ed, violent movies etc. while the latter makes sure the child understands the implications of it- the latter is better equipped to make sensible choices based on the models of the past- this is attitude inoculation. Research confirms this- it shows that kids who have been raised using the abstinence education models do that same things as teenagers but do so less wisely.

Reactance theory
Reactance theory- is not about ability but about motives- the basic premise is that people dont like to be told what to do- especially in western cultures- eg. A researcher had a triangle stuck to his door inscribed with the following words- Do Not Touch This Triangle- it was observed that everyone did exactly the opposite- this supports the theory. The reactance theory is more effective when the person has been forewarned- they are ready with the counter arguments and are motivated not to be persuaded (reacting against your challenge that they will be persuaded)- if this challenge is not made and they are not forewarned, they will be less able to react as they have not thought about counter arguments and will not have anything to react to since there was no challenge made in the first place. If you want people to resist persuasion forewarning is a good tool which capitalizes on what we know about evaluation likelihood. If you want to persuade somebody who you think could be willing and could be able to counter argue maybe its smarter to sneak the message in and give them no forewarning- eg. Conservative groups are very mad at the success of Avatar- because it the film that is packaged as an entertainment film sends out an anti-conservative message- that the good guys worship nature. Cameron sneaks this message in under the great visuals and plot line- it also distracts the audience from thinking about counter arguments- they come out of the theater thinking great film and I like nature too.

What about subliminal persuasion
- Persuasion vs. perception
Subliminal persuasion- sub means beneath and liminal means the limits of awareness- human beings can perceive a picture that is shown at a particular speed- if it is shown at a faster rate your brain picks it up but you dont actually observe the process- this is an example of subliminal stimulus- it could also be done with audio- eg. A faint message which you dont even know you heard.  eg. Participants are asked to stare at a blank screen and suddenly shown a short flash of an image- when asked, they say it did not register as it was too quick- they are then given four choices and asked to pick the one they saw- when they still claim that they have no idea they are asked to guess- studies show that the majority of them guess that right one at a rate much higher than chance would predict.

- Historic evidence The coke and popcorn studies.
Is subliminal messaging legal- James Vicary claimed to invent a machine that inserts frames into a video reel- a video reel shows 24 frames per second- one frame equals 124th of a second- too fast to perceive it consciously- but it still registers in the brain. If it says Go Buy Coke, it will register- you will go buy Coke. Vicary got a lot of attention from press- they claimed that it was a form of mind-control and manipulative- Congress had hearings about it- at the same time a guy named Brian Wilson Keys wrote a book named Subliminal Seduction- he said that advertisers learnt about the subliminal method and were trying the put subliminal sex messages in their ads- to arouse you without you knowing it- eg. A picture of vodka on the rocks- you look at the pattern of the ice cubes and realize that its in the shape of a penis- Ritz Crackers with salt crystals on them are shown- the crystals clearly spell out the word sex- Keys point was that this is the opposite of forewarning- like Avatar, its sneaking the message in- so you cant counter argue.

- Pratkanis, 1992, on self-help tapes.
Is there any evidence that subliminal persuasion works (No)- Weight loss tapes and memory building tapes were switched and handed out to the study group. The tapes sounded like white noise but there were subliminal messages under it. It was seen that neither the ones with the right tape nor the ones with the labels switched were successful in building their memory of losing weight- but they believed that they had. Both Keys and Vicary were later uncovered to be frauds who manipulated data to sell their products. Subliminal persuasion doesnt work- subliminal persuasion does work however.
What if someone tries to persuade you about something that you have an intense belief about- like abortion or God the ELM model says it will be hard- because if I tell you that im going to try and change your mind, you will be highly motivated to engage in central route processing and to criticize the arguments. Based on ability and motivation, the ELM explains why people dont always change their minds.

Week9 33
What is Aggression
- Defined Aggression is any behavior intended to hurt someone.
There are very few people that are pro-aggression- most religions preach loving your fellow man- non-violence- this is also true of your parents- all authority figures preach non-violence- yet human beings treat each other in the most awful ways- aggression does not refer to neglecting someone in need- it refers to going up to someone with the intent of causing them harm- people do this for thrill, profit and so on- why they do this is a puzzle because right from an early age, we are taught not to be violent. Aggression has a lot of different meanings- it is not necessarily a bad thing according to the English language- eg. Thats an aggressive skier hockey player- but this is not how the word is used in social terms- aggression is defined as behavior that is intended to hurt someone-
- Examples

What counts as aggressive behavior Eg. The young girl in San Diego was killed by total strangers while jogging- that is an aggressive act- is an aggressive tackle in a game of football considered an aggressive act- its not quite the same thing because hurting the person is not the only goal. Is graffiti an aggressive act- is verbal aggression considered as an aggressive act- is neglect an aggressive act- it is after all intended to hurt- we see that the scope of what counts as an aggressive act in very complex- eg. If I walk up to a vending machine and put in a dollar- I punch for the soda and it only comes out half way through and gets stuck- I kick the machine again and again- and start shouting at the machine- is that aggression - I am embodying the machine in my head as a living thing and intending to hurt it- it is therefore an act of aggression- eg. Kids scolding their toys or biting a toy that frustrates them- the same logic applies- the kids consider their toys as living things and intend to hurt them. We see therefore, that aggression manifests itself in many forms.
- Hostile vs. Instrumental aggression

Researchers have identified two main kinds of aggression- hostile and instrumental aggression- hostile aggression is behavior to hurt someone with no other intent- there is no additional goal- instrumental aggression is aggressive behavior intended to hurt someone as a means to an end- war is a frequent example of instrumental aggression- war is engaged in to get territory- but in order to achieve this hostile aggressive acts are required from the soldiers- its a part of war but in recent times the U.S. military has not opted for this instilling of aggression- they ask the soldiers not to hate the Iraqis- win the war but dont hate the civilians- they focus on the instrumental aggression- that being said, hostile aggression cannot be removed completely. Eg. Dick Cheney claimed on national T.V. that he was in favor of water boarding possible terrorists who have been incarcerated- is that aggression- it is instrumental aggression because the goal is to protect the United States- what about capital punishment Is it instrumental or hostile- its instrumental on behalf of the state for deterring future crimes- empirically however, research has shown that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent- but that is independent of the kind of aggression it is- the intent of capital punishment is still to deter crime, regardless of whether or not it is effective- One may argue that the state is committing hostile aggressive acts which are veiled as instrumental acts- they may claim that it is undertaken to deter crime but might actually do it for other reasons like- to avoid paying for their incarceration- or to satisfy their own sense of retribution. Thus we see that the distinction between the two kinds of aggression is difficult to make sometimes- hostile aggression for one person may be instrumental aggression for another- society as a rule does not frown on instrumental aggression- both capital punishment and war are legal- many people support Dick Cheney in torturing people- its ok to hurt somebody if the goal is socially sanctioned. The poignant puzzle however is hostile aggression- because its not socially sanctioned. One last eg. Spanking your child- what kind of aggression is it- is there much difference between punishment and discipline Is slapping a grown person that same as slapping the child- can we pass it off as an attempt to discipline in both cases- the same slap will be perceived by different parents in different contexts as either instrumental or hostile- and the kid might perceive it as hostile while the parent might consider it instrumental.- hostile aggression tends to be emotional while instrumental tends to be rational- but these lines also blur.  

Sources of Aggression  Biological Views
Is the amygdala the source of aggressive impulses
Aggression is inherent in the human species- studies claim that an area in the brain controls aggression- weve evolved to be aggressive- this part of the brain is called the amygdala which is located in the central, most primitive part of the brain- research in which wires were inserted into peoples brains (while they were undergoing brain surgery) found that when you stimulate the amygdale, you can control aggressive behavior- shouting, anger, etc- it was concluded that we are aggressive because this part of the brain is often stimulated by our experiences- the problem with this research is that brain stimulation research is limited- not a lot of people volunteer for it.

Studies of humans.  
research in which wires were inserted into peoples brains (while they were undergoing brain surgery) found that when you stimulate the amygdale, you can control aggressive behavior- shouting, anger, etc- it was concluded that we are aggressive because this part of the brain is often stimulated by our experiences- the problem with this research is that brain stimulation research is limited- not a lot of people volunteer for it.

Studies of monkeys.
No consent was needed when studying monkeys- research on monkeys has shown that the implications of stimulating the amygdala are more complex than what the initial studies on humans showed- the effects of the stimulation largely depended on the context of the monkey- two different conditions were setup- a monkey in a group of other monkeys that are smaller than it- the same monkey in a group of monkeys that are bigger than it- in both cases, the amygdala was stimulated- in the first case (other monkeys were smaller) the stimulation led to aggressive behavior- in the second case however (other monkeys were bigger) a different effect was observed- the monkey ran away. In one condition it leads to fight while in the other it leads to flight- thus the amygdala controls not merely aggression but a fight or flight response- which then raises the question- under which circumstances does one fight and under which circumstances does one run away-

Is testosterone the source of aggressive impulses
Some research on human beings has talked about the role of testosterone on aggression- people who have a high level of the hormone are more aggressive- theres a lot of evidence that seems consistent with this theory-

Men do have higher rates of physical violence.
the evidence shows that men who have higher levels of testosterone are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior- more men are arrested for violent crimes than women- criminals that are incarcerated have higher levels of testosterone than people who have not been incarcerated- thus it follows the ones with higher levels of testosterone commit violent crimes- theres even some evidence that people who are one steroids (this experiencing higher bodily levels of testosterone) respond more aggressively to stimuli- thus it shows that a high level of the hormone may make you susceptible to aggressive behavior- but even here, the evidence is not clear cut.

Hormones may be a symptom, not a cause.
First of all, all the research is correlational- and we know that correlational research does not imply causation- Testosterone is not necessarily the cause of aggressive behavior- eg. If you measure the testosterone levels of people before they are sent to prison and then- it is seen that being in prison raises their testosterone level- this might imply that its not testosterone that makes you violent but that violent behavior raises mens testosterone levels- testosterone might be a symptom and not a cause.

Cultural differences argue against this view.
The situational factors play a big, sometimes underestimated role in provoking aggressive behavior- this is evident in cultural differences- and the different rates of criminal violence across the globe- people across the planet do not differ that much in their testosterone levels- the incidents of violence however, are very inconsistent across the globe- eg. England, Greece and Japan have much lower levels of violence that say, the United States- (statistics are however, a crude way of comparing crime rates as the methods of reporting and collecting data are not consistent across countries)- the countries with the highest reported violence are U.S.A, Mexico and Brazil- cultures differ in how violent they are- some promote violence while other inhibit it- the brings us to a question- what kinds of environments give rise to aggressive behavior
Sources of Aggression  Psychological Views

The FrustrationAggression Hypothesis (Dollard, 1939)
A class psychological theory is the frustrationaggression hypothesis- he said all aggression comes from being frustrated- aggression is a natural response to an impulse being repressed- he claimed that human beings are dynamic systems- when you push down somewhere, something else has to go up- the frustration built up has to be expressed somehow. Eg. A guy gets yelled at at work- he comes home and yells at his wife- his wife yells at their kid- the kid kicks the dog.- the aggressive behavior triggered by frustration does not always have to be directed at the source of the frustration.
The classic study of children and toys.

Dollard carried out this research on little kids- he got a room full of really attractive toys- he randomly assigned the kids into two groups- one group was told that they go into the room and do whatever they liked- the second group had to wait behind a gate while the first group ran in and played with the toys- after a while the gate was opened and the kids were allowed to go into the room- the question was- how did the outside observers rate the aggression levels of the two groups of kids- they found that the group that was allowed in immediately were co-operative and willing to share- the group that was frustrated for having to wait so long- were more aggressive towards the other kids.

Limits of the FrustrationAggression Hypothesis
Dollards claim was that in order to engage in an aggressive act, there must be some kind of frustration to which the person is responding- this made the theory hard to test because if no source of present frustration could be find, Dollard would presume that the persons actions are a response to some source of frustration in the past- there were also incidences of highly frustrated people who simply bore it without engaging in aggressive acts- like people who are chronically poor- they are not aggressive all the time even though they dont get what they want- or someone who is disabled.

What is frustration anyway
Dollard define frustration as not getting what you want- but it turns out thats not enough to make you frustrated- under what circumstances does one get frustrated- unfairness- I shouldve gotten what I want- (vending machine example- I shouldve got my Coke)- expectancy- I expected to get that Coke- similarly the kids behind the gate expected to get to play and thus were frustrated- eg. Right now in the U.S, same sex couples are extremely frustrated because although they enjoy a much higher level of tolerance now, there is a controversy surrounding whether same sex couples should be allowed to marry- 30 years ago, however, same sex couples were less frustrated because they did not expect acceptance or equal status- not getting you expect leads to frustration- that being said, a lot of research shows that some highly frustrated people do not respond aggressively- Dollard predicted that they would be aggressive at some later point- but scientists wanted a theory that could predict when a person would respond aggressively in a more accurate way.

Aggression in Context
- The insights of Leonard Berkowitz
Berkowitz understood Dollards work and once his theory was developed further it showed that its claims were by and large true- frustration leads to aggression- Berkowitz added two more insights to this theory

1. Frustration is not the only thing that leads to aggression.
a) Anything that puts you in a bad mood makes aggression more likely.
First- frustration is not the only thing that leads to aggression- Berkowitz coming after Milgram did a lot of his research using the Milgram style Teacher-Learner Shock paradigm- you fake assign someone to be a teacher who can shock a learner- the teacher can give as much or as little shock as he wants to- the amount of shock the teacher subjects the innocent learner in the other room to is the independent variable- he found that anything that put people in a bad mood led to them administering higher levels of shock- eg. He tried putting people in a room that was too hot or too cold- both led to higher levels of shock- when they were put in an uncomfortable chair or frustrated in some way, they gave higher levels of shock- frustration was one of the causes of aggression but not the only thing-

2. Arousal can lead to aggression, regardless of mood.
b) The Anger and Exercise study
The other insight that Berkowitz added was that it doesnt even have to be a negative thing to make
You aggressive- any kind of physical arousal, whether pleasant or unpleasant makes you aggressive- When studying this, he used the same teacher learner setup but had two conditions- one manipulation make the teacher angry- eg. Shows up late and doesnt apologize for making people wait- in the other group, the confederate doesnt do anything to anger the others- for the second manipulation, a simple arousal tool was used- one group was asked to do 20 jumping jacks before starting the test and were thus physically aroused- the other group were not made to exercise in any way- Berkowitz found that there was a main affect of both manipulations- angry people gave higher shocks that the ones that were not angry- the ones that had exercised also gave higher shock levels than the group that had not exercised- furthermore, the anger manipulation had a stronger effect on those who had exercised- thus Berkowitzs theories broadened Dollards initial theory.

The Cognitive-Neoassociation Model
In order to put all the factors associated with aggression- Berkowitz came up with a model- one that is similar to the model of helping discussed last week- it too followed the concept of going through a number of stages before acting in a helpful way- a breaking down during any one of the stages led to inaction- Berkowitz came up with the cognitive-neoassociation model-

People occasionally have unpleasant experiences.
These produce some kind of arousal. (for whatever reason, because you expect something or are in a bad mood and so on) Berkowitzs question was that what do we do with this arousal His answer was that the environment determines how we respond to arousal-

External factors modify interpretations of arousal.
Rewards and costs can then be weighed.- once were done assessing the situation, rewards and costs can be weighed- we then decide to either fight or run.

Conclusion  Fight or flight
His biggest contribution through this theory was this- it stems from a classic 1962 study conducted by Schacter and Singer- (audio cuts off here)

The Effects of Context on Interpreting Arousal
- Schacter and Singer (1962)
When we are aroused, our physiological arousal doesnt have any meaning, we assign meaning to it through the use of cues. They brought people into a lab, they gave them an injection of a drug- something like caffeine- half the people were told that this drug will make you physiologically aroused- something that stimulates the effects of exercise- the rest were not told anything like- the two groups were then asked to wait with a confederate who was asked to behave in an anger-provoking way- all the participants were then asked to report their emotions- it was found that the group who were not told anything about the drug got more irritated with the confederate- the other group put their irritation aside as an effect of the drug rather than the behavior of the confederate.- the ones that didnt know that the drug was a stimulant couldnt assign their arousal to anything and thus explained it to themselves as being anger directed towards the irritating confederate- Berkowitz developed this point- we are frequently aroused, but cues from the environment help us to interpret and meaning of the arousal.

- Weapons as cues for aggression.
You are in a small room, you are the teacher- you can shock the other person- on the wall are two hooks- heres the manipulation- for half the people, badminton rackets hung on the hooks- for the other half- a gun hung on the hooks- the presence of a weapon in the room lead to higher levels of aggression.

- Social learning.
I walk in and see a racket- you think of badminton-sports-sophisticated-a game of refinement- meant for country clubs- the rifle makes you think of shooting- killing and so on- classic Bandura Bobo-doll study is similar to this- the social environment gives us the cues as to how to behave in a situation.

- Reciprocation effects.
If you are in an environment in which you have been a victim of aggression- you are far more likely to act aggressively- humans have a tendency to react aggressively to aggression- a victim of aggression reciprocates with aggression

- Event-related information.
If we think that someone has been intentionally hostile towards us- there are higher chances of us responding aggressively than if we think the person did not intend to act aggressively- eg. The research did this- you asked your subject to go and ask the confederate a question- the confederate has been told to ignore the subject- after been called to repeatedly- the confederate turns around and replies with one of these two answers- yes or im sorry, I dont have my hearing aid on- the incidence of aggression is much higher in the first case (yes)- when you think the person has ignored you purposely.