# data[].attributes.body
Behavior Towards Others: Stereotypes can lead to biased treatment of others. For example, job applicants might be judged not just on their qualifications but also on stereotypes related to their gender, race, or age, which can lead to unfair hiring practices. Lululemon, the athletic apparel company, has faced criticism and controversy regarding its company culture and practices, although not all controversies are directly related to hiring practices. One notable incident that drew significant public attention involved comments made by the company's founder, Chip Wilson, in 2013. He suggested that some women's bodies were not right for Lululemon's yoga pants, implying that product issues like pilling were due to the thighs rubbing together for certain body types. These remarks were widely criticized for being insensitive and promoting body-shaming, which contradicted the inclusive and empowering image that many expect from fitness and wellness brands.

While this incident does not directly relate to biased treatment in hiring practices, it reflects broader issues of inclusivity and sensitivity within the company culture, which can indirectly influence hiring and workplace practices. In response to various criticisms over the years, Lululemon has taken steps to improve its brand image and company culture, focusing on inclusivity and diversity.

Regarding direct accusations of discriminatory hiring practices, it's essential to note that specific legal cases or public accusations against Lululemon for such practices are not widely reported as of my last update. Companies often face scrutiny from the public and legal systems to ensure fair and non-discriminatory practices, highlighting the importance of ongoing efforts to foster an inclusive and equitable work environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Each of the following studies is an attempt to explain the origins of stereotyping. For each study, identify the theory that is being used to explain the origins of stereotyping. Then identify at least one limitation of the study

# data[].attributes.body
You may refer to the YT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqNDUba4QxE

# data[].attributes.headline
SIT-Tajfel and Turner theory with evaluation and heuristic validity (applications)

# data[].attributes.subject
SIT-Tajfel and Turner theory with evaluation and heuristic validity (applications)

# data[].attributes.headline
Emotions and social connections-a food for our behaviour

# data[].attributes.subject
Emotions and social connections-a food for our behaviour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dr. Kay Tye: The Biology of Social Interactions and Emotions

# data[].attributes.headline
In-group bias-Study 1. Schaller (1991) Origin of Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.subject
In-group bias-Study 1. Schaller (1991) Origin of Stereotypes

# data[].attributes.body
As in Tajfel and Turner’s class study, participants were randomly assigned to be members of a group. They were then presented with a series of statements that described members in both the group to which they had been assigned and the group that was not their group. The statements described both desirable and undesirable behaviours. Results showed that when participants were asked about their own group, they recalled stereotyping statements that favoured their own group, indicating an in-group bias. They also recalled better the negative stereotypes of the out-group, focusing on the more negative aspects of behaviour, rather than the positive behaviours.

# data[].attributes.body
Solomon Asch- Individual and group. How group influence and its aspects work on individual behaviour

# data[].attributes.body
Social norms may play either a positive or negative role in the likelihood of an individual helping. Studies of heroic helpers - such as committed civil-rights workers in the segregated Southern US in the 1960s, or Christians who sheltered Jews from the Nazis during the Third Reich - have found that they often identify strongly with a parent who exemplified norms of concern for others (Oliner and Oliner, 1988).

Cross-cultural research on pro-social behavior has shown that culture plays a role in one’s likelihood to help in some situations.

# data[].attributes.headline
The arousal–cost–reward model of pro-social behavior

# data[].attributes.subject
The arousal–cost–reward model of pro-social behavior

# data[].attributes.body
Psychologists argue that when it comes to deciding whether to help or not, we tend to weigh the costs (for example, humiliation, pain, financial loss) against the benefits (for example, financial reward, esteem, affection, avoidance of failure or humiliation). This is the basis for social exchange theory, which claims that human relationships are based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis - that is, it is rational. We are more likely to help when we feel that the benefits of helping outweigh the potential costs.

Piliavin and his colleagues have proposed the more complex arousal–cost–reward model (1969). The model says that arousal is a motivational factor because it is unpleasant and the bystander is motivated to reduce it.  However, before helping, the individual will assess possible costs and rewards associated with helping, or not helping.

Do the study on Piliavin

# data[].attributes.body
Research into prosocial behavior began after an incident in 1964 when a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer. The murder took place over a period of about half an hour, during which the victim was screaming for help. The press reported that 38 of her neighbors watched from their windows as she attempted to escape her murderer, and they did not even call the police to assist her. How could this happen? The US researchers Latané and Darley carried out a number of experiments in order to find an answer.

Latané and Darley suggested a term for not helping someone in need of help: bystanderism. They suggested that the reason for not helping Kitty Genovese was that the witnesses assumed that others were watching the incident, so they thought that other people would call for help. The presence of others seems to determine whether or not people will intervene.
When several people watch an incident like the Kitty Genovese murder, they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. This is known as the diffusion of responsibility. This could explain why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer assistance. Darley and Latane (1968) did a laboratory experiment in which they told student participants that they were going to be interviewed about the kind of personal problems faced by students when they first move to university. They were told that in order to preserve anonymity they would be interviewed over an intercom. Some of the students were told there were five other people in the discussion group; some were told that there were only two other students, and some were told that there was only one other student taking part in the study. All the comments they heard from other group members were actually pre-recorded. At a certain point, one of the voices cried for help and made sounds of severe choking, as if the person was having an epileptic seizure. When the students thought they were the only person there, 85 percent rushed to help. When they thought there was one other person, this dropped to 65 percent. And when they thought there were four other people, the figure dropped again, to 31 percent. This study shows that believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.
When in a group, people often look to others to know how to react - this is called informational social influence. If people see that others do not react to what seems to be an emergency, then they will not react either - even though there may be a problem like in the Kitty Genovese case. This is termed pluralistic ignorance. This was tested by Latané and Rodin (1969). They asked participants to sit in a waiting room before participating in an experiment. Here the participants heard the female experimenter fall and cry out in the next room. The participants reacted more often and more quickly when they were alone than when they were sitting with a confederate who showed no reaction to the noise and did not offer assistance. The researchers concluded that in order for people to help, they need to understand clearly that help is needed. During post-experimental interviews, the participants revealed that they had felt anxious when they heard the experimenter fall, but since the others in the waiting room appeared calm, they concluded that there was no emergency. Actually, participants were experiencing a conflict between two social rules: "You must help somebody in need" and "You should do what everybody does.” Since often when an emergency happens there is some confusion as to what is actually happening, we look to others to figure out what is the most appropriate response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Kitty Genovese Case: The Bystander Effect + The TRUTH

# data[].attributes.headline
Biological explanations of helping behavior

# data[].attributes.subject
Biological explanations of helping behavior

# data[].attributes.body
Altruism is a rather puzzling behavior. It does not appear to make much sense that an individual would risk his or her life for a stranger. There are biological arguments for the origins of altruism, but there are also arguments that altruism is a behavior that results from emotional and cognitive processes. Psychologists argue that there are two types of altruism: biological altruism, which is based on evolutionary explanations, and psychological altruism, which is based more on cognitive psychology.
Darwin suggested that the evolution of altruism should be seen in relation to what could be advantageous to the group a person belongs to, and not what could be advantageous to the individual alone.

Kin selection theory predicts that the degree of altruism depends on the genetic similarity of individuals in a group. The closer the genetic relationship between the helper and those needing help, the greater the chance for altruistic behavior. This has been supported by a number of empirical studies with animals. Altruistic behavior could appear to be unselfish but some argue that it should, in fact, be seen as selfish. Dawkins (1976) proposed “the selfish gene theory”, arguing that there is an innate drive for the survival and propagation of one’s own genes. It is not the individuals or the species, but rather the genes that compete for survival.  Any organism will try to maximize its “inclusive fitness”- that is, the number of copies of its genes passed on globally, not necessarily by a particular individual. Since animals living in social groups share many genes, altruistic behavior is seen as a way to guarantee that one’s own genes will be passed on to future generations. Seen from this perspective, it becomes clear why individuals are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the lives of their kin.

Although this theory is supported by extensive observations and documentation of altruistic occurrences in the animal kingdom, it does not explain why a smaller number of people, like Wesley Autrey, help complete strangers. As with all evolutionary theory, it is difficult - if not impossible - to test under controlled conditions.  The Selfish Gene makes it sound like our genes can somehow identify similar genes in a group.  This appears far-fetched.  But the evolutionary psychologists argue that it is a question of proximity – those that are physically close to us are most likely to be most closely related to us.  Even though in modern society this may no longer be true, it would make sense from an evolutionary perspective that this would be the reason for such behavior.

Most of the “research” on human beings and altruism is based on anecdotal data – stories like the one above about Wesley Autrey or tales of the horrors of war where one person sacrifices his or her life for another. These stories are told by those who witnessed the event and often even by the altruist. However, asking someone “What were you thinking” after the fact leads to problems of both memory distortion and demand characteristics.

# data[].attributes.body
Prosocial behavior can be defined as behavior that benefits another person or has positive social consequences (Staub 1978). Prosocial behavior is seen as behavior that is intended to help or benefit another person, a group of persons, or even society as a whole. In other words, prosocial behavior is often planned with the goal of “making a difference”. Going to a hospital to assist at a children’s clinic or donating money to charity are examples of prosocial behaviors. Prosocial behavior can be motivated by empathy or concern about the welfare and rights of other people. It is also possible that more egoistic motives are behind prosocial behavior. It could be that a person is more focused on his or her social reputation than the welfare of others. It could also be that prosocial behavior is motivated by the wish to reduce one's own negative feelings.  Another possibility is that people expect something in return. No matter the reasons for prosocial behavior, Helliwell and Putnam (2004) have found that engaging in prosocial behavior - both individually and with others - is robustly related to happiness and life satisfaction.

Altruism is when one helps another person for no reward, and perhaps even at some cost to oneself. Altruism is thus seen as an unselfish interest in helping another person. Wesly Autry’s courageous act of saving the young art student is clearly an act of altruism. He put himself at risk in order to save the life of a stranger. This is also the case of heroic helpers who willingly risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.  You might argue that the purest form of prosocial behavior is motivated by altruism. In the following chapter, you will investigate how psychologists attempt to explain this behavior.