Personal and Social Psychology Case Studies

Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998) Dimensional Model of Adult Attachment

found that the attachment types, including a fourth (unresolved) can be described in a dimensional space, defined by AVOIDANCE DIMENSION and ANXIOUS DIMENSION. 1) Avoidance refers to emotional and behavioural strategies for creating interpersonal distance. 2) Anxiety refers to negative affective states experienced in the context of relationships. 3) Individual are approximately normally distributed in the 2-dimensional space. secure = low anxitey, low avoidance avoidant = low anxitey, high avoidance anxious-ambivalent = low avoidance, high anxitey UNRESOLVED = high avoidance, high anxitey

Eaton and Funder (2003) Reciprocal Effects of Traits and Social Environments

One way that the social context could influence the structure of our personality is that there is an interplay between the two. 1. Personality has an impact on the way you behave in social situations 2. Behavior has an impact on other people's impressions on you 3. That other people's impressions could be impacted upon by their own personality Their impressions of you + their own personality may impact on how they behave towards you A partial Test: pairs of P interact for 5 mins. videotaped, coded, personality assessment (self and other), reputation ratings collected.

Trivers (1972) Parental Investment Theory

the sex that invests most in the offspring (usually the female) will be more selective. Females: at least 9 months of investment (costly in terms of energy, time, resources and foreclosed mating opportunities)

Milgram (1963, 1974) Stanley Milgram Experiment

Three individuals were involved: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment (a volunteer), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer. These three people fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher). The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition. At some point prior to the actual test, the "teacher" was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment would feel like. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs that he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which played prerecorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage-level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease. At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order: 1. Please continue. 2. The experiment requires that you continue. 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue. 4. You have no other choice, you must go on. If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. The experimenter also gave special prods if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on." If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter replied, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on." If the teacher asks who is responsible for any negative effects, the experimenter replied, "I will take responsibility."

Wolf et al. (2007) Simulation Study: Exploration Intensity

i) environmental resources vary widely in quality ii) thorough exploring increases likelihood of finding high quality resources, but delays reproduction iii) evolution of individual differences in exploration intensity organisms would develop different strategies to either explore thorough or more superficially. iv) exploring has the benefit of finding resources but the cost is delaying reproduction v) superficial exploration has immediate benefits of reproduction but costs of finding adequate resources • Thorough foragers have more to lose - expectations of future reproduction is high • Superficial foragers have more to gain - expectations of high quality resources are low. As might be expected, superficial foragers are more aggressive (start fight) and bold (fight back)

Cosmides and Tooby (1992) Social Contract Theory

if reciprocal altruism is to come at a later date, how do we know who to trust? Reciprocal altruism can evolve if it is protected from cheaters. EVOLVED CHEATER DETECTION SYSTEMS: recognition of individuals, memory for interaction histories, communication of one's values, model others' values, represent costs and benefits. *we should be good at reasoning what involves in the detection of cheating i.e. detecting those who break a social contract.

Shepher (1971) Co-Residence and Incest Aversion

in Kibbutz: people had an aversion to marrying people that they grew up with, even though they know that they are not related to them.

Chartrand and Bargh (1999) Non-Conscious Mimicry

individual --> non-verbal --> behavior (NON-CONSCIOUS MIMICRY) STUDY: participants interacted with face-rubbing or foot shaking confederates FINDINGS: participants tend to non-consciously mimic the behavior of the confederates 1) Participant is likely to rub their face more when the confederate is a face-rubber rather than a foot-shaker. 2) Participants is likely to shake their foot more when the confederate is a foot-shaker rather than a face-rubber.

Festigner (1954) Social Comparison Theory

when we learn that someone has the same attitudes and beliefs as us, it feels good as it suggests we have sound judgment. Shared attitudes suggest mutual attraction. If I like someone and they like the same things as me, I can infer that they will like me too.

Sherif et al. (1961) Robber's Cave

• Summer camp • Formed into two groups; come up with names for groups (Eagles and Rattlers); design flags and t-shirts: in attempts to form in-group identities • In phase 2: groups brought together to compete with one-another (inter-group conflict): tug-of-war, games etc. • Tried to get them to play nice, encouraged positive contact: nothing worked • Only thing that overcame inter-group conflict: Forcing them to solve cooperative problems together: cooperative interaction Subordinate goals: shared goals that can be achieved only if groups work together

Lieberman et al. (2003) Co-Residence and Incest Aversion. Does this Aversion Translate into Moral Norms?

Yes. people who were raised with oppostie sex siblings thought 3rd party incest was more morally wrong than people who were not raised with opposite sex siblings. this was even true for people raised with opposite-sex-STEP siblings.

Wolfe (1995) Infant Brides: Co-Residence and Incest Aversion

Young girls are given off to families of their future husband and raised with them. RESULTS: marriages that come out of this pattern have a 31% lower fertility rate, and 3 x higher divorce rate.

Pettigrew (1979) Ultimate Attribution Error

1) ingroup positive behaviors: disposition 2) outgroup positive behaviors: situation 3) ingroup negative behaviors: situation 4) outgroup negative behaviors: disposition

Essock-Vitale & McGurie (1985) LA Women: Altruistic Act

STUDY: 300 women from LA: asked to report on the characteristics of times they'd received help. RESULTS: people were more likely to receive help from those who were more closely related to them (in terms of genetic relatedness) than those more distantly related.

Sternberg's (1986) Model of Love

LOVE HAS 3 COMPONENTS: INTIMACY: feeling close, connected and bounded PASSION: romance, physical and sexual attraction. COMMITMENT: deciding about and maintaining love. from this model, 8 kinds of loves are possible: non-love liking infatuation empty romantic companionate fatuous consummate

Van Baaren et al. (2003) Verbal Study

1) Condition 1: Control/No Instruction/Baseline Experimenters observed what waitress/waiters did naturally when interacting with customers. They were interested in the way that waiters interact with customers when taking an order; and what tips do they get as a function of the kind of interaction. 2) Condition 2: Clarification of Understanding Make an effort to try to clarify when taking an order that you understand what the customers are saying. Saying words like "okay", "I understand" or "coming right up" to clarify what the customers are saying. 3) Condition 3 : Instruction to Verbally Mimic Customers Subtly repeat back order. "I want the duck risotto"..."so the duck risotto". RESULTS: MIMICRY GETS MOST TIPS (MORE THAN BASELINE) NON-MIMICRY GETS WORST (LESS THAN BASELINE)

Shweder (1975) Validity of Personality Measures: The Conceptual Similarity Critique

1) Critique of the validity of personality questionnaires often: the problem of "how to classify people" becomes mistaken with "how people classify" 2) if so, then personality (discovered by trait analysis) simply reflect judgements of conceptual similarity FOR EXAMPLE: ample, large and bulky go together NOT because they similarly describe a target but because they similarly describe a CONCEPT SUPPORTIVE DATA: i) ratings of boys' behavior at a summer camp using items based on an extraversion scale. e.g. takes initiative in organising games, speaks with confidence in his own abilities. These items were used for 3 assessments: - observer =FREQUENCY COUNTS o - camp leaders = overall personality assessment (LIKERT SCALE) - ten students then made a CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY RATINGS of the items from the personality test (LIKERT SCALE) PREDICTIONS: the ratings of personality are going to be related more closely to ratings of conceptual similarity than the trait-relevant behavior that the boys were engaging in at the beginning of the camp. KEY FINDINGS: - item correlations for trait ratings were more similar to ratings of conceptual similarity (r=.83) than to frequency counts (r=.47). THE CONCEPTUAL SIMILARITY CRITIQUE: study had a methodological confound!!!!!!! - behavior ratings: frequency counts - trait and conceptual ratings: Likert scale (1-5: agree/disagree) !!!!! problem of COMMON METHOD VARIANCE!!!!!! - things related on the same scale will be more closely related than those measured on different scales ROMER AND REVELLE (1984) using Shweder's (1975) methods --> close replication !!!!! but when ALL ratings used likert scales, item correlations for trait ratings were more similar to ratings of actual behavior ratings (r=.91) than tho conceptual similarity ratings. !!!! MORE PROBLEMS!! KENDRICK AND FUNDER (1995) -judgements of 'conceptual similarity' are RELEVANT to trait assessment when rating someone (or yourself) as 'sociable' and 'talkative' you must decide how (conceptually) similar each is to the target behavior. but if trait measures ONLY reflect conceptual similarity, how to explain: 1) different trait ratings for different people? 2) covering trait ratings for the same person?

Greene et al. (2001, 2004) Reason vs. Emotion

1) Deontological response driven by gut-reactions, emotion, intuition 2) Utilitarian response driven by controlled, effortful reasoning processes 3) Now, because the footbridge involves direct contact with another in order to kill (personal), sacrificing this one person is more emotionally aversive, and thus the deontological response is more potent. SWITCH: impersonal (no direct contact) - less emotion - utilitarian. FOOTBRIDGE: personal (direct contact) - more emotion - deontological The Moral Brain Greene et al. (2001) looks at personal vs. impersonal dilemmas, and argues that personal dilemmas recruit emotional processing. Manipulating Emotion If one reduces negative emotion during dilemma processing, one should see more utilitarian responding. VALDESOLO AND DESTENO (2006): EXPERIMENT: half people watched Saturday Night Live or documentary, and then conducted Footbridge experiment. i) control: 8% pushed guy in Footbridge, vs. positive: 24%. SNL was used to induce laughter and a positive emotional feeling. Participants who viewed the clip were more likely to report a more positive affect and then select the appropriate (i.e. utilitarian) response.

Simpson, Fletcher and Campbell (2001) Ideal Standards Model

1) ISM is an extension of interdependence theory and self-discrepancy theory 2) partner and relationship ideals are chronically-accessibly knowledge structures that influence relationship judgements 3) these standards have 3 functions: EVALUATION, EXPLANATION, REGULATION. larger discrepancies between perceptions of a partner or the relationships with these standards results in lower evaluations of the partner and the relationship.

Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel and Molden (2003) Value from Regulatory Fit

1) Participants who were either chronically promotion- or prevention-focused, were asked to choose between the pen and the mug using either eager or vigilant means (so that half of the promotion-focused participants used eager means and half used vigilant means, and half of the prevention-focused participants used eager means and half used vigilant means). 2) Eager means involved considering all that they would gain from choosing the mug and the pen. 3) Vigilant means involved considering all that they would lose from not choosing the mug and the pen. • 4) Participants then all chose the mug (those who chose the pen were eliminated from the study as the pen was much cheaper than the mug!) • 5) They were then asked, "If the pen costs $3, what is the price of the mug?" (Study 1) OR they were then given $5 and could use this money, plus any other money they had with them, to buy the mug if they wished (Study 2). Results from Study 1: promotion focused people who used eager means offered much more than people who used vigilance means. for prevention focused, those who used vigilance means said that the mug was worth $3 more than those who used eagerness means. The value that they assigned to the same coffee mug was much higher. Results from Study 2: exactly the same results.

STEPHAN AND STEPHAN (1985) Integrated Threat Theory

1) Realistic Threat: threats to the material well-being of the ingroup, such as their economic benefits, political power, and health. 2) Symbolic Threat: threats to the ingroups systems of values. 3) Intergroup Anxitey: feelings of anxitey people experience during intergroup interactions associated with negative outcomes for the self (embarrassed, rejected, ridiculed) THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE FOR ITT THAT THE THREE THREATS DESCRIBED ARE STRONGLY RELATED TO NEGATIVE OUTGROUP ATTITUDES. E.G. REALISTIC THREAT. when you average across 38 studies that look at realisitc threat: total of 37, 516 pariticpants in them you find a correlation of .42 between realistic threat and negative attitudes between outgroups

Higgins (1997) Regulatory Focus Theory

1) Two self-regulatory systems co-exist within individuals - the promotion and prevention systems. 2) The promotion system is concerned with gain vs. non-gain (i.e., the presence and absence of positive outcomes). 3) The prevention system is concerned with loss vs. non-loss (i.e., the presence and absence of negative outcomes). 4) Any goal can be framed in terms of either promotion or prevention. 5) For a promotion-framed goal, success is experienced as achieving a desired end-state and failure is experienced as a failure to achieve it. 6) In terms of a prevention-framed goal, success is viewed as the avoidance of an undesired end-state) and failure is experienced when one does not avoid it. WHEN PROMOTION FOCUSED: the self-guide is construed as hopes, wishes and aspirations - and ideal for the self. WHEN PREVENTION FOCUSED: the self-guide is construed as necessities and obligations - an ought to the self. i) Compared to promotion-focused individuals, prevention-focused individuals are less likely to change tasks and less likely to exchange currently- or previously-owned objects ii) Prevention-focused individuals emphasize the maintenance of a desired state whereas promotion-focused individuals emphasize attainment of a desired STATE iii) In recognition memory tasks, promotion-focused individuals are more likely to respond "yes" (i.e., are riskier) whereas prevention-focused individuals are more likely to respond "no" (i.e., are more conservative) iv) Promotion-focused individuals are more creative and generate more hypotheses. This riskiness extends to economic decisions.

Sherman (1977, 1981) Belding's Ground Squirrels

1) alarm calls in response to predators 2) ALTRUISTIC ACT because of B (benefits to other squirrels) and C (cost to self: emitting alarm call localises the self, and tells the predator where you are). more likely to call in the presence of sisters, aunts and nieces. Higher r (degree of genetic relatedness), the more likely the calls are to be generated.

Rudoplh et al. (2009) Evidence that Implicit and Explicit Attitudes are Differently Associated with Different Behaviours.

1) examined the unique associations of explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem with spontaneous and controlled behaviours. 2) Spontaneous behaviours were: experimenter-rated anxiety, linguistic aspects of anxiety, & spontaneous self-confident behaviours. 3) Controlled behaviours were: self-rated anxiety, self-rated nervousness, anxiety, controlled self-confident behaviours. 4) Implicit self-esteem predicted the three spontaneous behaviours with negative relations with the two anxiety measures and positive relations with self-confident behaviours. Explicit self-esteem predicted the three controlled behaviours with negative relations with the two anxiety measures and positive relations with self-confident behaviours.

Carver and Scheier Self-Regulation: Regulatory Reference

1) individuals are motivated to approach desired alternative self-states and to avoid undesired alternative self-states. 2) self-regulation involves engaging in behavior that move the current self closer to a positive alternative self-state (anticipated pleasure): approach behavior. 3) self-regulation involves engaging in behavior that move the current self further away from negative alternative self-states (anticipated pain): avoidance behavior. 4) individuals compare the current self to the appropriate alternative self-state to determine their progress towards (or away) from it.

Higgins (1997) Self-Regulation: Regulatory Focus

1) it is possible to construe desired AND undesired reference values for the self in terms of the attainment of positive outcomes OR the prevention of negative outcomes. e.g. achieving an A can be construed as either attaining the positive outcomes associated with congruence with this desired reference value or preventing the negative outcomes associated with no congruence.

Schnall et al. (2008) Moral Judgements Affected By Disgust

1) moral judgements about permissibility of cousin marriage, sex etc. 2) one group had bin sprayed with ammonium sulfide solution when making moral judgement decision 3) disgust amplifies condemnation

Duncan (1976) Stereotypes

1) stereotypes bias judgements about individuals 2) changes the way that ambiguous behaviors is interpreted STUDY: participants witness an ambiguous shove (aggressive vs. playful) STUDY OBJECTIVE: to work out who shoved who. Stereotype of group to which shover belonged influenced interpretation. Participants were american. RESULTS: 1) when african american ambiguously shoved white: 75% said violent, 6% said playful 2) when white shoved african american: 17% said violent, 42% playful CONCLUSION: when people come into an ambiguous situation, they may use knowledge of a stereotype to interpret the ambiguous behaviors of a member of the social category.

Wason Card Selection and Social Contracts

A card with a vowel on one side always has an even number on the other (you can only see one side of the card). QUESTION: which card(s) would you have to turn over to determine whether the rule has been violated? | A | H | 4 | 7 | MOST PEOPLE turn A and 4 YOU SHOULD turn A and 7 A= affirming the antecedent 7 = denying the consequent WHY? the rules of selection are conditional. If P, then Q (if vowel, then number)

Emotional Dot-Probe Task

AIM: Used to assess selective attention to threatening stimuli in individuals diagnosed with anxiety disorders STUDY: During the dot-probe task, participants are situated in front of a computer screen with their chin securely placed on a chin rest. Participants are asked to stare at a fixation cross on the centre of the screen. Two stimuli, one of which is neutral and one of which is threatening, appear randomly on either side of the screen. The stimuli are presented for a predetermined length of time (most commonly 500ms), before a dot is presented in the location of one former stimulus. Participants are instructed to indicate the location of this dot as quickly as possible, either via keyboard or response box. Latency is measured automatically by the computer. The fixation cross appears again for several seconds and then the cycle is repeated. Quicker reaction time to the dot when it occurs in the previous location of a threatening stimulus is often interpreted as vigilance to threat. COGNITIVE MECHANISMS: extraversion/positive emotionality: predicts faster identification of probes replacing positive words. neuroticism/anxitey: predicts faster identification of probes replacing negative words. 1) it is possible to train a bias away from negative words = successfully used to treat anxitey 2) training a bias toward positive words: produces increases in positive emotionality

Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior

According to the theory, human social behavior is guided by three kinds of considerations: 1) BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS: beliefs about the behavior's likely positive and negative outcomes; 2) NORMATIVE BELIEFS: beliefs about the normative expectations of others; 3) CONTROL BELIEFS: beliefs about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior For example, people may believe that the behavior of exercising, among other things, improves physical fitness and is tiring (behavioral beliefs), that their family and friends think they should exercise (normative beliefs), and that time constraints make it difficult to exercise (control belief). Taken together, the total set of behavioral beliefs produces a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behavior; the total set of normative beliefs results in perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior, or subjective norm; and, in their totality, control beliefs give rise to a sense of self-efficacy or perceived control over the behavior. Attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control jointly lead to the formation of a behavioral INTENTION. The relative weight or importance of each of these determinants of intention can vary from behavior to behavior and from population to population. However, as a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm are, and the greater the perceived behavioral control is, the stronger is the person's intention to perform the behavior in question. Finally, people are expected to carry out their intentions when the appropriate opportunity arises. However, successful performance of a behavior depends not only on a favorable intention but also on a sufficient level of volitional control, that is, on possession of requisite skills, resources, opportunities, and the presence of other supportive conditions. Because many behaviors pose difficulties of execution, the TPB adds perceived behavioral control to the prediction of behavior. To the extent that perceived behavioral control is accurate, it can serve as a proxy of actual control and can, together with intention, be used to predict behavior. Beliefs play a central role in the TPB, especially those salient behavioral beliefs that are most readily accessible in memory. In applications of the theory, these salient beliefs are elicited in a free-response format by asking a representative sample of respondents to list the advantages and disadvantages of performing a behavior of interest (behavioral beliefs), to list the individuals or groups who approve or disapprove of performing the behavior (normative beliefs), and to list the factors that facilitate or inhibit performance of the behavior (control beliefs). The most frequently emitted behavioral, normative, and control beliefs are assumed to be the salient beliefs in the population and to determine prevailing attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control. These salient beliefs are focused on the particular behavior of interest, and they serve as the fundamental explanatory constructs in the theory. More general factors, such as personality traits, gender, education, intelligence, motivation, or broad values are assumed to influence behavior only indirectly by their effects on salient beliefs. Assume, for example, that women are found to drink less alcohol than men. The TPB would explain this gender effect by predicting that men hold more favorable behavioral, normative, or control beliefs about drinking than women do.

Asch (1951) Ostensible Perceptual Discrimination Experiment

Aim: To investigate whether perceived pressure by a majority can influence a minority in an experimental set-up that is not ambiguous. Procedure: Seven male college students were placed around two white cards. One had 3 lines (A, B, C) and another had one line. They had to say out loud which of the three lines on the right had the same length as the line on the left. There was one real participant in the experimental setup and six were confederates who were instructed to give unanimous wrong answers. This was done during 12 out of 18 trials in the experiment. Results: 75% conformed on at least 1 trial. 50% on 6 or more.

Hazan and Shaver (1987) Adult Attachment

Attachment Theory was extended to adult attachment relationships... 3 styles were identified (sample of 620 adults) 1) SECURE attachment style: 56% 2) AVOIDANT attachment style: 25% 3) ANXIOUS/AMBIVALENT attachment style: 19% of adults 1) Securely-attached participants reported that their experiences were happy, friendly, and trusting. They were able to accept and support their partner despite their faults. 2) Avoidantly-attached participants reported that their experiences were characterized by fear of intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy. -fear intimacy -maintain distance in close relationships - tend to use work to avoid social interaction - judged by peers as hostile 3) Anxiously-attached participants reported that their experiences involved obsession, desire for reciprocation and union, emotional highs and lows, and extreme sexual attraction and jealousy. -obsessive preoccupation -extreme jealously - easily fall in love - greater difficulty making new friends CONCERQUENCES OF ATTACHMENT STYLE FOR RELATIONSHIP LENGTH: 1) secure: 10 years 2) anxious: 5 years 3) ambivalent: 6 years

Schweder et al. (1997) Systematizing Variability in Moral Responses

Autonomy (harm/rights) [The ethics of Autonomy] Individual freedom/rights violation. In these cases an action is wrong because it directly hurts another person, or infringes upon his/her rights or freedoms as an individual. To decide if an action is wrong, you think about things like harm, rights, justice, fairness, individualism, and the importance of individual choice and liberty. Community (hierarchy) [The ethics of Community] Community/hierarchy violations. In these cases an action is wrong because a person fails to carry out his or her duties within a community, or to the social hierarchy within the community. To decide if an action is wrong, you think about things like duty, role-obligation, respect for authority, loyalty, group honor, interdependence, and the preservation of the community. Divinity (Purity) [The ethics of Divinity] Divinity/purity violations. In these cases a person disrespects the sacredness of God, or causes impurity or degradation to himself/herself, or to others. To decide if an action is wrong, you think about things like sin, the natural order of things, sanctity, and the protection of the soul or the world from degradation and spiritual defilement.

Buss and Schmitt (1993); Clark and Hatfield (1989) Are men less discriminating?

B&S (1993): determined females are more discriminating. While, on average, men want 20 sexual partners in their lifetime, women want 6-7. C&H (1989): men and female confederates went out on a university campus, and were asked to approach member of the opposite sex and ask them 1 of 3 questions, either: 1) would you go out with me tonight? 2) would you like to come back to my apartment tonight? 3) would you like to have sex with me tonight? RESULTS: 1) 50% said yes and no (both genders) 2) 70% of men said yes, 0% of women said yes 3) 75% of men said yes, 0% of women said yes

Cialdini et al. (1978) Does Commitment Increase Compliance

Commitment: people are required to honor their agreements and obligations Low-balling: secure a deal with a request, but then increase the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. STUDY: experimenters phoned students asking them to participate in a study. Some participants were told upfront: 7am start = 31% agreed. Other condition, low-balling condition: first commit, then 7am info = 56% agreed. Having made the commitment, they felt obliged to follow through despite the hidden cost.

John Bowlby (1969, 1972, 1980) Attachment Theory

DESCRIPTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. 1) Begins with the premise that infants have a need for a secure relationship with adult caregivers. 2) The relevant infant behaviour is primarily a process of seeking proximity with an identified attachment figure. 3) Infants become attached to adults who are consistent caregivers and who sensitive and responsive during the period from around 6 month to 2 years. Parental responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment which lead to internal working models of relationships.

Craik and Lockeart (1972) Depth of Processing Task

Deeper processing leads to stronger memory trace. STUDY: participants judged 40 adjectives for either: 1) STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCE: size of letters the same as target 2) PHONEMIC EQUIVALENCE: rhymes with the target 3) SEMANTIC EQUIVALENCE: synonymous with the target (means the same) 4) SELF-REFERENCE: self-descriptiveness of the target UNEXPECTED CALL OF ADJECTIVES: they were not asked to memorize the words, but after the task they were asked to unexpectedly recall of adjectives. RESULTS: MEAN RATING TIME (MSEC) - how long they took to respond to the words: 1) the more processing required, the more time is taking to respond (yes/no) MEAN RECALL TIME: deeper processing meant that more words were recalled. i.e. mean recall was highest for self-reference and lowest for semantic equivalence.

Emswiller et al. (1971) Dress and Dimes

Does Liking Increase Compliance? STUDY: Researchers had confederates dressed either as 1) hippies; or 2) businessmen, go to (interact) either hippies or squares (businessmen) on a university campus and ask them for dime for a phone call. 1) There are 2 cells of similarity: 1) hippies talking to hippies; or 2) squares talking to squares. And 2 cells of dissimilarity: 1) hippies talking to squares; or 2) squares talking to hippies. QUESTION: Does similarity, in terms of social category, influence compliance? FINDINGS: Similarity in social category increases compliance by 2/3rds. Whereas, dissimilarity is less than half.

Mealey (1995) Frequency Dependent Selection

Does frequency selection explain any personalty traits? agreeableness? - in a world of trusting, obliging people, it would be very easy to exploit people for your own gain - but if there were too many disagreeable people everyone would be exploiting everyone else - this logic has been suggested to explain the low (but universal) prevalence of psychopathy. Low levels of agreeableness = increased levels of psychopathy

Hedonic Principle Self-Regulation: Regulatory Anticipation

Hedonic Principle: people approach anticipated pleasure and avoid anticipated pain Evidence: biological models distinguish between appetitive systems that involve approach, and defensive or aversive systems that involve avoidance. Thorndikes (1911) law of effect, which states that pleasure stamps in, while pain stamps out.

Ozer and Benet-Martinez (2006) Predictive Power of Big Five

EXTRAVERSION: personal: health, happiness interpersonal: dating diversity institutional: leadership AGREEABLENESS personal: health, longevity interpersonal: friends, relationship satisfaction institutional: volunteering, less crime CONSCIENTIOUSNESS personal: less drug use, less risk taking, increased longevity interpersonal: satisfaction with relationship institutional: job performance NEUROTICISM personal: lower happiness, coping interpersonal: dissatisfaction, conflict, abuse institutional: criminality, poor financial well being OPENNESS personal: philosophical values interpersonal: ---- institutional: liberal politics, artistic/investigative purists

Nettle (2005, 2006) Big Five Trade Offs

EXTRAVERSION: 1) benefits: mating success, social allies, exploration of environment 2) cons: physical risks, family stability NEUROTICISM: 1) benefits: vigilance to dangers, striving and competitiveness 2) cons: stress and depression, with interpersonal and health concerquences OPENESS: 1) benefits: creativity, with effect on attractiveness 2) cons: unusual beliefs; psychosis CONSCIENTIOUSNESS: 1) benefits: attention to long-term fitness benefits; life expectancy and desirable social qualities 2) cons: missing of immediate fitness gains, obssessionality, rigidity AGREEABLENESS: 1) benefits: attention to mental states of others, harmonious interpersonal relationships, valued coalition partner 2) cons: subject to social cheating, failure to maximimise selfish advantage

Cattell (1943) Factor Analysis

FACTOR ANALYSIS: a statistical method that reduces several correlated variables to much fewer composite variables or factors. --> reduced Alport and Odbert's list through many and varied techniques, including factor analysis. eventual result: 16 FACTOR SOLUTION. CATTELL'S METHOD: 1) 18,000 descriptors --> 2) sorted into 160 clusters of synonyms/antonyms --> 3) discarding near-identical descriptors --> 4) final list of 171 descriptors --> 5) 100 participants rated 1-2 friends on the 171 descriptors--> 6) factor analysis --> 7) 16 personality traits PROBLEM WITH CATTELL'S 16 TRAITS: SUBJECTIVITY: different people reach a different reduced set of Allport and Odbert's descriptors. (POOR) REPLICABILITY/REPRODUCIBILITY: using Cattell's 171 personality descriptors, many people failed to obtain his same 16 factors REDUNDANCY: many of his factors correlated too highly for them to be really different traits e.g. dominance and social boldness

Taylor, Neter and Weymount (1995) Motives to the Self

FOUR MOTIVES TO THE SELF: SELF ASSESSMENT: desire to have accurate information about the self. elicited by circumstances involving both success and failure, especially when knowledge of one's ability is uncertain. SELF-ENHANCEMENT: desire to achieve and maintain a positive sense of the self. Elicited by circumstances involving both success and failure, especially when the particular self-view is important. SELF-VERIFICATION: desire for consistency in self-knowledge. elicited by circumstances which involve failure. SELF-IMPROVEMENT: desire to improve a particular aspect of the self. elicited by circumstances involve past threat or failure.

The Hawk-Dove Game

FREQUENCY DEPENDENT SELECTION: if all your neighbours are pursuing one strategy, it may pay to pursuer another. 1) hawks and doves compete for food resources 2) hawks compete aggressively 3) doves back down as soon as their opponent initiates any aggressive behavior 4) 2 doves share 2 HAWKS: they fight a war, each wins with probability of 1/2, and they pay a cost C > 0. 2 DOVES: split the goods 1 HAWK AND 1 DOVE: hawk takes the entire goods and the dove receives nothing. ANALYSIS: 1) hawks often win, but doves are never injured 2) in a population of many hawks, it pays to be a Dove (slowly acquiring calories but never loosing them) 3) in a population of many doves it pays to be a hawk (easy wins with no injuries) 4) neither represents an EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY: but each is adaptive in the context of the other.

Fiske (1991) Relational Models

Fiske proposed that there are four elementary cognitive models of relationships which differ in how we generate, represent, coordinate, and evaluate social relationships. These four models are: The COMMUNAL SHARING model which organizes relationships in terms of collective belonging or sharing. The AUTHORITY RANKING model organizes relationships in asymmetrical terms. Individuals are hierarchically organized with higher-ranked individuals having the authority to organize, dominate etc. The EQUALITY MATCHING model in which relationships are organized with reference to their degree of balance. The MARKET PRICING model in which relationships are organized to a common scale of ratio values such as money. According to Fiske, these models are pervasive (cover all domains and aspects of relationships), exhaustive (no other types exist) and generative (all relationships are constructed from them).

Haidt and Graham (2004, 2007) Moral Foundation Theory

HARRY FINDS ANAL IS PLEASURABLE 1) Harm/Care Representing concerns about violence and the suffering of others, including compassion and care 2)Fairness/Reciprocity Representing the norms of reciprocal relations, equality, rights and justice 3)Authority/Respect Representing moral obligations related to hierarchical relations, such as obedience, duty, respect for superiors, and protection of subordinates 4) Ingroup/Loyalty Covering moral obligations related to group membership, such as loyalty, betrayal, and expectations of preferential treatment for ingroup members relative to outgroup members. 5) Purity/Sanctity Representing the moral ideal of living n an elevated, noble, and less carnal way, based on institutions about divinity, feelings of moral disgust, and the purity of body, mind and soul.

Wright et al. (1997) Extended Contact

HYPOTHESIS: knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lad to more positive intergroup attitudes. STUDY: 1) Phase 1: two groups formed (on the basis of "personality": random) and labeled blue or green 2) Phase 2: one participant from each group (both actually confederates) chosen to interact - Told to interact either in: friendly, hostile or neutral manner 3) Phase 3: ingroup and outgroup evaluations on variety of dimensions - Traits (e.g. intelligence, confident, inflexible, indifferent) - Performance qualities (e.g. communicates effectively, effective problem solver) RESULTS: Hostile: In-group favoritism effect (prefer in-group to out-group): more than neutral Neutral: In-group favoritism effect (prefer in-group to out-group): less than hostile Friend: inter-group bias disappears when participants saw a friendly interaction between an in-group member and out-group member.

Karpinski (2004) Effect of the Concept Stimuli on IAT Measure

IMPLICIT-ASSOCIATION-TEST 1) compared IAT self-esteem estimates when the comparison other was unspecified or a friend (Study 1) or unspecified, Santa, or Hitler (Study 2) 2) index varied as a function the other. it was less positive when friend or santa was the "other" and more positive when Hitler was the "other" 3) suggests that choice of "other" is important

Rusbult (1980) Investment Model

INVESTMENT MODEL: is an extension of interdependence theory which includes relationship commitment and investments. COMMITMENT: is a function of high satisfaction, few alternatives, and high investment. SATISFACTION: is a function of rewards minus costs. ALTERNATIVES: are the perceived desirability of other relationships. INVESTMENT: reflects resources put into the relationship which would be lost if the relationship ended. These can be tangible or intangible things such as shared possessions and money or emotional energy.

Petty and Cacioppo (1984) Factors influencing Attitude Change: Central

In Central Route: what matters most is message content STUDY: 1) University students were presented with weak or strong arguments in favor of a comprehensive exam to be implemented at their university. The arguments were pre-tested to be weak or strong. The students read an essay by a facility member at the university arguing for implementing this comprehensive exam, where the essay is written with weak arguments or strong arguments. 2)Some participants were led to believe that the comprehensive exam was going to be implemented next year (so they would have to do it), others were led to believe that the comprehensive exam would not be implemented for another 10 years. Manipulation alters participants level of involvement and relevance: higher involvement = central route; less involvement = peripheral route. QUESTION: How does message content (strong vs. weak arguments) impact attitudes of those in the central route (highly involved) vs. those in the peripheral route (not involved) RESULTS: In the central route (highly involved), argument quality matters. For those in the peripheral route (not involved), argument quality does not matter.

McAdams (1993): Studying Life Narratives

Interview focusing on: 1) 8 key life events in your life (e.g. a high point, a low point, an important adolescent memory) 2) Significant people: characters in the story The future script: where your life is going Stresses and problems: current, ongoing Personal ideology: religious beliefs and political views Life themes: what is your life about FOCUS ON CONTENT ANALYSES: TONE: positive/optimistic/utopian, negative/pessimistic/dystopian THEMES: preoccupations with certain problems, goals etc. FORM: stability? Change? Slow vs. rapid progress? Inertia? COMMON LIFE NARRATIVES 1) Redemption Sequences --> Significant episodes whose form goes from worse to better 2) The Growth Story --> Personal development, or 'becoming' as a central theme

Rozin et al. (1999) CAD Triad Hypothesis

Is there any specificity in the evoked emotional reactions? 1) community violations = tended to evoke contempt 2) autonomy violations = tended to evoke anger 3) divinity violations = tended to evoke disgust

Allport and Odbert (1936) Lexical Hypothesis

LEXICAL HYPOTHESIS: important characteristics will, over human history, be coded in language. 1) collected an exhaustive list of personality descriptors - about 18,000 terms (e.g. sociable, aggressive...) PROBLEM: very unwieldy, more of a 'laundry list' than a SYSTEM.

Finlay and Stephan (2000) Empathy

Manipulation of Outgroup Empathy 1) Empathy manipulations decrease intergroup bias 2) 1 Group of Anglo-Americans: Asked to put themselves in the shoes of a mistreated African-American. 3) 1 Group of Anglo-Americans: Was not asked to emphasize. GALINSKY & MOSKOWITZ (2000): Similar Experiment. 1) Asked to adopt perspective (not to empathize: through emotions) of out-group member. But to 'walk in their shoes': perspective-taking. 2) Complete a computer-task with dots on the screen, participants have to estimate the number of dots. At the end of task, participants are told: over-estimator or under-estimator (not related to task performance: completely arbitrary) 3) 1 Group (Over-Estimators): does a perspective-taking task. Have to imagine what it would be like to go through the day as an under-estimator. 1 Group (Control): were not given these instructions. FINDINGS: 1) Control Condition: Inter-group bias. 2) Perspective Taking: The intergroup bias between the ingroup and outgroup disappears as participants put themselves in the shoes of an outgroup member. FESHBACH & FESHBACK (1982): Teaching empathy Decreased aggression towards people who were taught empathy and taught to perspective take compared to people who weren't.

Markus (1977) Impact of Self-Schema on Information Selection and Processing

Markus (1977) argued that: 1) behavioral evidence should be easily retrieved 2) individual differences in the form of self-schemata should be evident (some should be schematic and some not schematic) 3) information relevant to self-schemata should be processed with relative ease. 4) confident predictions made about future events. 5) counter-schematic information should be resisted. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP CONSTRUCTION: participants in a lab rated descriptiveness and importance of personality traits with how they saw themselves (11-point scales) RESULTS: consistent pattern found on independence-dependence INDEPENDENTS: rated descriptiveness and importance of independent traits high (8-11 on 2 out of 3) DEPENDENTS: rated descriptiveness and importance of dependent traits high (8-11 on 2 out of 3) ASCHEMATICS: rated descriptiveness and importance of independent and dependent low (1-4 on 2 out of 3) SELF-DESCRIPTIVE CONTENT AND LATENCY i) 3-4 weeks later participants completed a second task ii) 69 trait adjectives: iii) 30-schema related (15 independence, 15 dependence) iv) 30 non-schema related v) Remaining 9: 3 practice, 3 all rated self-descriptive, 3 not-self-descriptive. • Required to indicate "me" (self-descriptive) or "not me" (not self-descriptive) as fast as possible. • Provided reasons why 16 words were self-descriptive, including past behavior. Rated the likelihood of engaging in relevant behaviours.

Laham et al. (2005) Grandparental Investment

Mother's mother more liked than father's father. Mother's father was consistently liked more and invested more in his kid's than the father's mother. uncertainty from males. females more certain on genetic-relatedness (due to: carrying baby & giving birth) WHY? paternal grandmother (father's mother), might ALSO have daughter's who themselves have kids: so she might have more certain investment outlets. difference ONLY emerges when the paternal grandmother has more certain investment outlets (when grandmother has a daughter who has children). difference should not emerge when paternal grandmother does not have certain investment outlets.

Sherif (1936) Group Norms and Conformity

Muzafer Sherif conducted a classic study on conformity in 1936. Sherif put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved. Psychologists had previously discovered that a small, unmoving light in a dark room often appeared to be moving. This was labeled the autokinetic effect. The autokinetic effect is an illusion because the light does not actually move. However, people almost always believe that it does. Realizing that an experience that is completely "in people's heads" might be readily influenced by suggestion, Sherif decided to study how people were influenced by other people's opinions, in their perception of the autokinetic effect. First Sherif studied how subjects reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were in a room by themselves. He found that they soon established their own individual norms for the judgment—usually 2 to 6 inches. In other words, when given many opportunities (trials) to judge the movement of the light, they settled on a distance of 2-6 inches and became consistent in making this judgment from trial to trial. In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise. People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches soon made smaller judgments like 4 inches. Those who saw less movement, such as 2 inches, soon increased their judgments to about 4 inches. People changed to more resemble the others in the group. Sherif's subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects directly, "Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments," most denied it. However, when subjects were tested one at a time, later, most now conformed to the group judgment they recently made. A subject who previously settled on an estimate of 2 inches or 6 inches was more likely (after the group experience) to say the light was moving about 4 inches. These subjects had been changed by the group experience, whether they realized it or not. They had increased their conformity to group norms. Group norms are agreed-upon standards of behaviour. Sherif's experiment showed group norms are established through interaction of individuals and the levelling-off of extreme opinions. The result is a consensus agreement that tends to be a compromise...even if it is wrong.

Kolhberg (1963) Stage Theory of Moral Development

PRETTY IS RIGHT SARAH IS UGLY LEVEL 1: PRE-MORALITY STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE doing what is right because of fear of punishment STAGE 2: INDIVIDUALISM: doing what is right for personal gain, perhaps a reward LEVEL 2: CONVENTIONAL MORALITY STAGE 3: ROLES doing what is right according to the majority to be a good boy/girl STAGE 4: SOCIAL ORDERS: doing what is right because it is your duty and helps society. LEVEL 3: POST-CONVENTIONAL MORALITY STAGE 5: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS doing what is right, even if it against the law because the law is too restrictive STAGE 6: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES doing what is right because of our inner conscious which has absorbed the principles of justice and equality and sacredness of life.

Turiel et al. (1987) The Moral/Conventional Task

People were told violations of rules, and then asked a series of questions. Violations of Rule: 1) one child hits another 2) one child pushes another off a swing 3) a child wears a dress to school 4) a child talks out of turn in class and then Asked: 1) is the violation of the rule wrong/serious? 2) is it punishable? 3) is it authority dependent? (e.g. what if a teacher said that X was okay. Would it still be wrong?) 4) is it general in scope? or does it change temporally and geographically? 5) how is this wrongness explained? (rights, harm, justice) FINDINGS: showed 2 categories of responses! 1) the signature moral response (SMR) - serious, wrong, bad - punishable - authority independent - general in scope (universal - appeals to harm 2) the signature conventional response (SCR) - less serious, less wrong, less bad - less punishable - authority dependent - local in scope -no appeals to harm A CHALLANGE: 1) HAIDT, KOLLER, & DIAS (1993) -non-harm violations evoke the signature moral response however, some people judge actions as authority independent and general in scope. such as: cleaning toilet with national flag, eating dead dog on the side of the road or having sex with a dead chicken. 2) KELLEY, STICH, HALEY, ENG, & FESSLER (2007) not all harms evoke the signature moral response - authority dependence -local in scope ABUSE OF A TRAINEE: people's wrongness judgements are sensitive to authority. OK to abuse Trainees: 10%= prohibited by authority 55% = not prohibited by authority

Yarkoni (2010) Our Traits Colour Our Lives

Personality associated with physical appearance, contents of bedrooms and offices, Facebook and twitter posts, music preferences, size of social circle etc. Example: Personality and Blogging: YARKONI (2010) 1) 694 bloggers STUDY: Examined relations between personality and Blogging categories/topics (e.g. work, sexuality, emotions) E.g. extraversions blog about positive/fun and social topics; MEASURED Frequency of use of specific words.

Sherman et al. (2015) Samples of Behavior across Controlled Situations

STUDY: Experience Sampling Study (N=210) across 7 days i) compared traits and situations as predictors of behaviors and affects RESULTS: - state expressions (behavior/experience) vary widely between AND within participants - situations experienced/encountered vary widely between AND within participants - personality traits (modestly) predicted situational experience - personality and situations INDEPENDENTLY predict state expressions TO A SIMILAR EXTENT FINAL REMARKS: 1) global personality traits are useful for predicting state expressions (i.e., cognitions, emotions, and behaviors) across many situations 2) a SINGLE state expression by a given individual in a specific situations is substantially dependent on teh characteristics of his or her situation. PERSONALITY IS TO CLIMATE AS BEHAVIOR IS TO WEATHER.

Capsi, Roberts and Shinner (2005) The Power of Traits

Rank order stability: Maintenance of an individual position's within group Mean level stability: Constancy of level in population i) traits show RANK ORDER STABILITY over time. test-retest correlations over 20 years: r~.65 (if you have above average on a trait at the age of 30, you have a 83% chance of being above average at 50). 2) traits become MORE STABLE as we age: average test-retest: r~0.41 in childhood, 0.55 at age 30 and 0.70 between 50 and 70. rank order stability does not vary by trait (no trait is more stable than others) STABILITY: rank order stability vs. mean level stability 1) mean level stability is relatively low personality changes for everyone (development and maturation) --> more agreeable and conscientious from adolescence, --> less neurotic and open to experience throughout adulthood --> extraversion fairly stable (but slightly less in dominance) openness is more highly genetic than anything else.

Gaertner et al. (1989) Re-Categorisation and De-categorisation

Re-Categorisation: 'us' and 'them' becomes subordinate 'we' De-categorisation: 'they' becomes individuals STUDY: Participants form groups and interact within-groups 1) Phase 1: form a group identity i) working together on problems, ii) forming a group name 2) Phase 2: Manipulate the categorization structure 3) There are 3 conditions. All participants have interacted within their group, some participants (in the next phase) are told to stay within their groups but in this phase they will solve a problem together (but still basically two groups). 4) 1 group is Group A, 1 group is Group B. The 2 group condition retains the Group A and Group B structure: they are all working together on the same problem but the 2 group structure is maintained. 5) In another condition: de-categorization. Group A and Group B are encouraged to think about themselves as individuals. Groups are sitting around a table. 1 person from Group A sits next to 1 person from Group B etc. They are encouraged to think about nicknames for each other. Move from this A and B group structure in Part 1, to focusing on each individual. Spatial orientation around the table has broken up the group structure, and they have been asked to focus on the individual rather than the group (by choosing nicknames). 6) In re-categorization condition. Asked to sit in alternating fashion around the table, but instead of thinking about nicknames for each-other they asked to think about a new nickname for the whole group. ○ AAABBB vs. ABABAB (ind) vs. ABABAB (one group) FINDINGS: 1) In the two group condition (maintains the 2 group structure): judged on how likeable, honest, corporative and how valuable contributions the are, shows clear favoritism for ingroup over outgroup. 2) In the re-categorization condition (sitting in alternate fashion and asked to think for overarching group name): substantial and significant decrease in ingroup favoritism and found the same thing for de-categorization condition (focused on individual and came up with nicknames) □ Messing with the structure of the groups significantly decreases in-group biases

Regan (1971) Does Reciprocity increase Compliance?

Reciprocity: we are obligated to return to others the goods, services, and concessions they offer us (even if unsolicited). STUDY: participants making aesthetic judgements 1) Confederate asked to interact with participant in 1) friendly manner; or 2) rude manner. 2) Participants has a break. After break: confederates offers the participants a cola, or not. 3) At the end of the study, confederate approaches participant and says that they're involved in a raffle, and asks if they will buy a raffle ticket from them? FINDINGS: • People buy more raffle tickets from friendly vs. rude confederates. • However, that effect is smaller than the cola and no-cola condition. Participants are more likely to buy raffle tickets from the confederate who gave them a cola, than not (even if the confederate was rude to them). The norm of reciprocity expectation increases compliance (they feel the need to reciprocate the favor that the confederate has done for them)

Oskamp and Harty (1968) Group-Serving Biases

STUDY: Had U.S participants make judgements about a variety of military actions: country x moves their air-craft carriers into enemy waters. i) They were asked to judge how positive the action was when it was performed either by: the US (ingroup) or Soviet Union (outgroup) RESULTS: Participants found that the same actions were much more positive when performed by ingroup than outgroup.

Borkenau et al. (2004) Samples of Behavior across Controlled Situations

STUDY: - N= 600 twin pairs - self- and-peer reports of Big Five personality traits - 15 x videotaped behavior in different situations e.g. telling a joke to a confederate (1min 50 sec) setting up a model of a tower (5 min 25 sec) persuading an obstinate neighbour (a confederate) to turn down their music after 11pm (2min 25 sec) 120 judges provided ratings of personality based on the video footage. RESULTS: - stability of cross situational behavior increased as a function of aggregation - relations between personality and behavior increased as a function of aggregation

Lalljee et al. (2009)

STUDY: 1) Looked at participants (Hindus or Christens) in Calcutta, India 2) Asked to make a variety of judgements about Muslim outgroup including: attitudes towards them, how they would act towards them (positive or negative) 3) Measured on Respect for Persons, Empathy and Perspective Taking, and others. FINDINGS: 1) Respect for Persons: People high on RfP have positive attitudes towards outgroup; inclined to act positively towards outgroup members; positive association with RfP and positive action tendencies. 2) Negative correlation between RfP and negative action tendencies. People high on RfP are less inclined to act negatively towards outgroup members. Empathy and Perspective Taking: People higher in Empathy, have more positive outgroup attitudes. Higher empathy also results in higher positive action tendencies and fewer negative action tendencies.

Sibley and Liu (2006) Dimensional Attachment and Social Interactions

STUDY: 1) Measured the extent to which participants were anxiously- and avoidantly- attached using the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire. 2) Participants completed a diary of social interactions for 14 days. RESULTS: Anxiety and avoidance explained 27% of the variance in enjoyment in social interactions with a romantic partner. Their interaction explained an additional 1.4% of the variance. So...its worse if you're high on both. No effect of gender of participant or partner HIGHER ANXITEY AND AVOIDANCE, LOWER ENJOYMENT

Wagner et al. (2003) Inter-Group Contact

STUDY: 1) The more contact one has with an outgroup, the less prejudice one expresses ○ People who were brought up in former East Germany appeared to be more prejudice than those from former West Germany. Why? ○ Wagner proposed that people from the East had fewer opportunities to interact with foreigners than those in the West. As a result of those limited inter-group contact experiences, they are more prejudice. ○ Study: Asking people on the street i. How prejudice they feel towards a variety of foreigners ii. How many foreigners are in their neighborhood: opportunity for inter-group contact How many friends do they have who are foreigners FINDINGS: i. Have fewer foreigners in their neighborhood thus, fewer opportunities for inter-group contact ii. Less inter-group contact means less foreign friends Less foreign friends in neighborhood, the more anti-foreign prejudice felt

Petty and Cacioppo (1984) Factors influencing Attitude Change: Peripheral

STUDY: 1) University students were presented with weak or strong arguments in favor of a comprehensive exam to be implemented at their university. The arguments were pre-tested to be weak or strong. The students read an essay by a facility member at the university arguing for implementing this comprehensive exam, where the essay is written with weak arguments or strong arguments. 2)Some participants were led to believe that the comprehensive exam was going to be implemented next year (so they would have to do it), others were led to believe that the comprehensive exam would not be implemented for another 10 years. Manipulation alters participants level of involvement and relevance: higher involvement = central route; less involvement = peripheral route. QUESTION: How does message content (strong vs. weak arguments) impact attitudes of those in the central route (highly involved) vs. those in the peripheral route (not involved) SAME CONDITIONS OF EXPERIMENT BUT SOME PARTIICPAONTS WERE EXPOSED TO 9 ARGUMETNS OF THE EXAM AND IN SOME CONDITIONS PARTIICPANTS WERE EXPOSED TO 3. FINDINGS: The number of arguments is what really matters for people in the peripheral group (not really involved, not motivated by the content of the argument). Quantity does not matter for those in central route. Other Factors Influence Attitude Change in Peripheral Group: • Source expertise: only in peripheral group • Source attractiveness PALLAK (1983): females who read article in support of donations for the arts with a photo of an attractive male were more likely to be in favor of donation versus. with a photo that is blurred of same attractive man.

Doumas et al. (2008) Attachment and Violence

STUDY: Used the Relationship Questionnaire to examine the role of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. 1) Physical violence in interpersonal relationships was assessed using the Conflict Tactics Scale. • RESULTS: Data were collected from 70 heterosexual couples. 25% of men reported perpetuating violence, 30% of women reported being the recipient of violence, 36% of women reported perpetuating violence, 24% of men report being the recipient of violence. WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF VIOLENCE? 1) female attachment anxitey predicted violence 2) male violence predicted female violence 3) both male and female violence was highest in couples where a male partner had high attachment avoidance paired with a female partner with high attachment anxitey.

(Altered) Milgram (1974) Does Authority Increase Compliance?

STUDY: 1) Manipulated authority/status of source (experimenter) 2) Some people questioned whether it is just the status of the experimenter for driving the effect? MILGRAM (1974): Replicated the study (not on Yale Campus, but on downtown rundown office: no clear link between experimenter or university) FINDINGS: Original Study: At Yale, when experimenter was clearly aligned with the authority structure of prestigious University (authority status was high): where 65% of participants go to full voltage. Later Altered Study: In Downtown Office, only 50% go all the way to the end. More likely to go along with requests of authority that have high status/prestige. AUTHORITY MODERATES OTHER INFLUENCES TOO: BICKMAN (1974) STUDY: Confederate dressed as security guard or man on the street. Asks participants to do random tasks such as: "pick up litter" or "move bags". FINDINGS: When request comes from authority member, participants are more likely to comply. Almost everybody complied to security guard, >50% complied to street passerbyer. LEFKOWITZ ET AL. (1955) STUDY: Looked at the tendency to jaywalk, depending on who else was standing next to them/what they did/what they were wearing. FINDINGS: Participants standing next to someone in a suit vs. a person in construction-clothing, are 3.5% more likely to jaywalk if a person in a suit jaywalks first than if a person in construction-clothing walks first. CONCLUSION: Status conveyed through clothes can moderate the extent to which we are influenced by the behaviors of others.

Taylor and Moriarty (1987) Competition

STUDY: 1) Participants brought into laboratory and formed into two groups 2) In some sessions, participants were told that the structure of the problem solving task mean that: the best results from each group would be put together in some way. 3) Both groups would get rewards based on the best idea that comes out. Creates an interdependent structure: how well I (as an Individual) performs, is dependent on own group, but also other group. In other sessions, participants were told the ideas from each group will be judged and only the group with the best idea will get the reward. Competitive structure. RESULTS: At the End of the Study: Participants were asked how much they liked members of their own group and members of the out-group. Interdependent Condition: still find some evidence of ingroup favoritism, but that is significantly amplified in the competition condition. When a competition is set-up between one's in-group and one's out-group: you get an amplification of inter-group bias

Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakimoto and Kashima (2007) Culture and Regulatory Focus Strategy

STUDY: 1) in three studies, Ouschan, Boldero, Kashima, Wakimoto, and Kashima (2007) examined Western and Asian participants beliefs about the utility of promotion- and prevention-focused self-regulatory strategies for attaining success and preventing failure. STUDY 1: In Study 1, participants were 102 Euro-Australian University of Melbourne students and 40 Asian Australians or international students from East and South-east Asian countries. STUDY 2: In Study 2, participants were 133 University of Melbourne students, and 177 undergraduate students at a University in Tokyo. STUDY 3: In Study 3, participants were University of Melbourne students, 249 who were Euro-Australians and 104 who were born in East Asian or South-east Asian countries. RESULTS: 1) Prevention strategy endorsement was consistently stronger for Asian participants compared to Euro-Australian individuals, regardless of whether the Asian individuals are resident in Asia (i.e., Japan, Study 2) or in Australia (Studies 1 and 3). 2) Promotion strategy endorsement was only stronger for Euro-Australians compared to Asians when the latter were living in their home culture. 3) This failure to find cultural differences in promotion strategy endorsement for individuals living in Australia may be the result of acculturation or self-selection (individuals or their parents who choose to move to a different country may be more promotion-focused). The results suggest that Asian cultures have a strong cultural practice to use prevention-focused strategies.

Perdue et al. (1990) Ingroup Favouritism: Prejudice

STUDY: Asked to judge personality trait words that come onto a computer screen. Before each word appears on the screen; a prime word appears that is related to in-group codings (e.g. we or us) or outgroup codings (e.g. them or they). 1) prime ("us" or "them") 2) Judge target traits as positive or negative RESULTS: Judgement about a positive word: faster after having seen an ingroup prime than outgroup. Judgement about negative word: faster after having seen an outgroup prime than ingroup prime. Ingroup words like we and us are positive. When you see them it activates positive information in your head, and you are faster to respond to positive words.

Platz and Hosch (1988) Outgroup Homogeneity

STUDY: Set up situation in convenience stores around Texas targeting stores were clerks were either: Anglo-American, African-American or Mexican-American. 1) Confederates (Anglo-American, African-American or Mexican-American) entered store as customer. 2) A clerk (from one of these ethnic groups) interacting with a customer from: the same ethnic group, or a different ethnic group. 3) Identification of customers. RESULTS: i) Clerks were particularly good at identifying members of their in-group, but not god at recognizing members of outgroups. ii) E.g. Anglo-American clerks are better at identifying Anglo-American customers than members of the two outgroups etc.  iii) Consequence of category differentiation is that members of outgroups tend to resemble each other and it is hard to tell them apart. Requirement to have mixture of social categories in line-ups so they don't have these biasing effects occurring.

Gächter and Schulz (2016) Institutional Corruption

STUDY: attempts to look at the longitudinal effects of a cultural variable on personality formation. 'Intrinsic Honesty' assessed during the 'die in the cup paradigm' 1) Participants rolls dice twice 2) Reports first roll to experimenter 2) Higher numbers rolled earned the participant a larger bonus 4) Experimenter can not verify the honesty of the participant IN A NUTSHELL, HIGHER EXPOSURE TO RULE BREAKING INSTANCES INCLUDING CORRUPTION, TAX EVASION, AND FRAUD MAKES PEOPLE MORE LIKELY TO STRETCH THE TRUTH. THE ROLL DICE EXPERIMENT: The researchers carried an experiment that first involved creating an index of the prevalence of rule violations or PRV index by collecting data and information on corruption, tax evasion, and fraud recorded in 2003 from 159 countries. After data and information collection, the researchers performed a behavioural experiments between 2011 and 2015 that involved 2,500 participants with an average age of 22 from 23 countries with PRV scores. It is worth mentioning that these participants were still children in 2003. They were too young to have affected the kind of dishonesty measured by the PRV index. In the experiments, the researchers tested these participants to see how they honest would be in a situation in which they could lie without being found. The participants partake in a game in which each of them rolled a dice twice while seated in an isolated booth. They were then asked to report the first number that came out during their first roll. These participants knew that reports were unverifiable. Take note the participants were told that they would receive a cash incentive depending on the number that appeared from the first dice roll. For example, "five" would be incentivised with 5 money units and "two" would be incentivised with 2 money units. It was impossible to ascertain whether each participant reported the true result of his or her first dice roll. However, the rule of probability and statistics would tell the average claim of the entire participants should be 2.5. This was not the case. Gächter and Schulz also reiterated that it was impossible to tell apart different levels of dishonesty. If ever participants lied, everyone would have reported the highest number that appeared in the first dice roll. Rather than reporting the number they had not roll at all, the researchers believed that most participants reported the highest number that appeared between the first and the second dice roll. Gächter and Schulz called this behaviour a "justified dishonesty" in which the participants resorted to bending the rules in order to feel better. The results were not a form of blatant cheating or an outright dishonesty. There was a certain degree of truth to the claims. However, these results were anything but honest. The researchers noted that these dishonest individuals were not brazen liars but truth-stretchers. THE RESULTS!!!!!! Interpreting the results required the researchers to determine the different levels of justified dishonesty based on the country of origin of participants. Doing so involved grouping the participants and determining the average of money unit claims. In addition, this required referencing the level of prevalence of rule violations of the involved countries. Further results revealed that in countries with low PRV level, participants claimed 3.17 money units on average. On the other hand, in countries with high PRV level, participants claimed 3.5 money units on average—this placed them a bit beyond the justified dishonesty level according to the researchers. This also means that there was a correlation between the PRV level of a country and the amount of money claimed by its citizens. Examples of countries with low PRV level with participants that claimed lower money units on average were Austria, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Examples of countries with high PRV level with participants that claimed higher money units on average were Morocco and Tanzania. Remember that the participants were too young to have contributed to PRV index obtained from data and information in 2003. This means that the results of the study suggested that these participants have been exposed to the norms that affected how they behaved in situations that required either honesty or dishonesty. The same results also suggested that institutions and cultural values influence the prevalence of rule violations, which, through different theoretically predicted and experimentally tested pathways, influence the intrinsic honesty of people and rule following. In addition, people benchmark their justifiable dishonesty with the extent of dishonesty they see in their societal environment. In a nutshell, the results of the study suggested that higher exposure to rule breaking instances including corruption, tax evasion, and fraud makes people more likely to stretch the truth. The researchers concluded: "The results are consistent with theories of the cultural coevolution of institutions and values, and show that weak institutions and cultural legacies that generate rule violations not only have direct adverse economic consequences, but might also impair individual intrinsic honesty that is crucial for the smooth functioning of society."

Camperio et al. (2007) Balancing Selection

STUDY: family histories of Italians: island dwelling vs. coastal mainland dwelling and the Big Five Traits RESULTS: italian's whose families resided on islands for AT LEAST 20 GENERATIONS have lower extraversion and openness scores than both coastal mainland italians AND those whose families recently settled on the island more recently. FINDINGS: the differences in personality cannot be explained in terms of lifestyle preferences because the difference did not appear within people who had recently settled in those locations. it could not be explained by cultural variables because they were living within a very similar ethnogeographic area and they also controlled many demographic and cultural variables. PERHAPS INDICATIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL NICHES? e..g more physical territory to explore, many people to engage with and more complexity to deal with on the mainland.

Daly and Wilson (1988) How do Parents Treat Children?

STUDY: found that the single largest predictor of child abuse and homicide is the presence of a step-parent in the home. RESULTS: 40-100 times more likely to be abused/killed, if there's a step-parent in the household (vs. 2 genetically-related parents) WHAT ABOUT MUMS AND DADS? although offspring are theoretically r=o.5, there is a further complication of PARENTAL UNCERTAINTY. mothers are more certain that the child is theirs (mothers are nice), fathers are more uncertain about genetic relatedness.

Pendry and Carrick (2001) Beep Estimation Task

STUDY: participants were asked to listen to a number of beeps and estimate how many they heard. 1) Solo vs. Group: Participants either completed alone or in a group of some-kind (3 different groups: accountant, punk, or control). 2) Participants heard 100 beeps, but in the group conditions participants participated with confederates who all said 120-125 (establishing group norm that is higher than actual answer). Before this: some participants were primed with stereotype of accountant or stereotype of a punk. Accountant = conformative; Punk = rebellion. RESULTS: 1) alone = 103,58 2) accountant-primed condition: 113.67 (shift in group norm is exuberated but attenuated in the punk-primed condition) 3) punk-primed condition: 103.83 (even though participants in punk-primed condiiton were participants with confederates who said 120-125 beeps, those participants gave estimates the same as the SOLO condition. having a stereotype of the rebellious/punk activated during the situation were participants could have been influenced under a group norm resisted. behaved as if no group there) 4) control= 109.75

Keizer et al. (2008) Broken Window Theory

STUDY: testing the broken window theory in 2 conditions cross-norm inhibition: norm-adherence inhibited or undermined by violations of other norms. 2 conditions: 1) Order condition: sign says 'no graffiti on walls', no graffiti. behavior conforms to the norm. environment suggests order. 2) disorder condition: same sign, same injunctive norm. BUT, norm has been violated, evidence of graffiti. QUESTIONS: When participants come back to their bikes and see a flyer on their handle-bars. are they more likely to throw it on the ground in the disorder condition than the order condition? Does evidence of the violation of one norm (graffiti) translate into the violation of another norm (do not litter)? Do we have a spread of disorder from one norm to another? FINDINGS: Of the participants in the order (non-graffiti), 33% littered compared with 69% of participants in the disorder condition (graffiti on the walls). Evidence in the environment that norms are not confined to leads to the spread of disorder.

Tajfel et al. (1971) Us vs. Them Thinking

STUDY: us vs. them categorisation happens under minimal conditions and it has marked concerquences. 1) school children had to go through a series of paintings either by: Klee or Kandinsky 2) children just had to go through and say which ones they liked 3) after, children were RANDOMNLY told either: 'you happen to like Klee/or Kandinsky'. 4) children were assigned groups based on the paintings that they liked 5) in fact, the allocation to groups were not really done on preferences to paintings. The children were just told either 'you happen to like Klee or Kandinsky' 6) point allocation task RESULTS: intergroup discrimination: intergroup members gave their own group significantly more points than outgroup members. CONCLUSION: mere categorisation (based on minimal group conditions) elicted group favoritism. WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN???????? = social identity theory 1) peoplle prefer to have a positive self-concept 2) our selves are composed of personal and group-related identities 3) personal identity = attributes to you as individual 4) social identity = those parts of the self-concept derived from our knowledge and feelings about our ingroups. THEREFORE, we are motivated to increase the positivity of our own groups relative to outgroups. Thus, intergroup bias.

Markus (1977) Self-Schema

according to Markus self-schema: 1) are cognitive generalisations about the self 2) are derived from past experiences 3) organise and guide the processing of self-related information that are part of the individual's social experinece

Haidt, Koller and Dias (1993) Moral Dumbfounding

When the reasoning processes are not accessible (so are they even employed?): 'it is just wrong' (without being able to justify why If anything, people fumbled around for reasons in order to justify or rationalize their intuitions A brother and sister like to kiss each other on the mouth. When nobody is around, they find a secret hiding place and kiss each other on the mouth, passionately. Haidt argues that morality is by and large a function of affect-laden intuitive responses to stimuli, any reasoning that happens is post-hoc rationalization for our intuitions

Robins and Boldero (2003) Similarity Beyond the Actual Self

argued that relationship formation involves more than similarity in actual selves. 1) Individuals also compare their own and their partner's ideal and ought selves. 2) When one's own and a potential partner's actual selves are similar (or commensurable), we interpret this as "this person is like me". 3) When a potential partner is like one's ideal self, we interpret this as "this person is how I would like to be". 4) When a potential partner is like one's ought self, we interpret this as "this person is how I should to be". 5) Perceived similarity in one's actual self and the other's ideal and ought self-guides is an important factor in relationship formation because of these feelings.

Ajzen (1991) Attitude Measure

attitudes should be assessed by taking the product of two factors: behavioral beliefs and outcome evaluations. BEHAVIORAL BELIEFS: beliefs about the outcomes associated with the attitude object. OUTCOME ASSOCIATIONS: are the evaluations of the outcomes associated with the attitude object. Ajzen (1991) believes that attitudes are assessed by taking the product of each behavioral belief with it's associated outcome evaluation and taking the sum or mean of these products. Ajzen Example Behavioral Belief: Smoking helps me to relax (disagree àagree) Smoking makes me smell bad Smoking is antisocial Outcome Evaluation: Being relaxed is...(badàgood) Smelling bad is... Being antisocial is... Attitudes: Sum/mean of behavioral beliefs X Outcome evaluations.

Cialdini et al. (1990) Percieved Norms via Non-Verbal Cues in the Environment

group (imagined) --> non-verbal --> behavior STUDY: people were observed on a path after they had been handed a leaflet. The researchers varied the number of pieces of litter (0,1,2,4,8,16) already present and observed whether each person dropped their leaflet. FINDINGS: descriptive norm influenced behavior. people were more likely to litter when the environment suggested that most people were littering, behavior being examined: littering behavior being manipulated: littering

Goldstein et al. (2008) Hotels and Towel Re-Use

group (imagined) --> verbal --> behavior percieved group norm: in the absence of a currently observable group descriptive norm: leading people to believe that most people do this vs. appeal to principle. 2 different hangers were put inside guests' room. Appeal to Principle: 'the environment deserves our respect' hanger Descriptive Norm: 'join fellow guests in helping save the environment. almost 75% of guests who are asked to engage in new resource saving programme do help by using towels more than once. you can join your fellow guests in an attempt to help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay.' FINDINGS: descriptive norms increase towel re-use more so than does an appeal to moral principle. ~35% reusing after environmental message (standard appeal to principle) vs. ~45% after descriptive norm message. CONCLUSION: information about descriptive norm is more important than a basic appeal to principle.

Penke et al. (2007) Problems with Selective-Neutarlity

if genetic variations underlying personality are really fitness-neutral, then personality variation should not predict fitness-relevant outcomes. BUT THEY DO!!!!!!! REPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR: more likely with extraversion (more sexual partners, more children etc.) HEALTH: agreeableness: predicts lower instances of diseases. people high on agreeableness tend to respond less strongly (in terms of their sympathetic nervous response) to stress and frustration. high neuroticism: associated with higher levels of disease. LONGETIVITY: high conscientiousness increases life expectancy.

Sedikides (1993) Self-Verification or Self-Enhancement?

in 6 studies, participants selected questions varying in self-diagnosticity (i.e., how much information they provide the individual with about themselves) about central (central to self-definition and/or important) and peripheral (not central to self-definition and/or unimportant) traits that were either positive or negative. Self-verification QUESTION choice of diagnostic information about central AND negative traits. Self-verification predicts confirmation of information about central positive AND negative traits. Self-enhancement predicts choice of diagnostic information about ONLY central positive traits. self-enhancement predicts confirmation about oNLY central positive traits. RESULTS: questions for peripheral traits!!! no difference between positive and negative traits. both self-enhancement and self-verification would predict this. questions for central traits!!!!! questions relating to central-positive traits were much higher in diagnosticity than central-negative traits (people wanted more information about central-positive traits than central-negative triats) response type as a function of trait centrality and valence!!!!! 1) consistent with self-enhancment model, there was a preference for diagnostic information for positive central traits 2) suggests that self-enhancement is stronger than self-verification 3) however, there may be cultural differences in the strength of this motive.

The Forer Effect

is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them but are, in fact, vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. PROCEDURE: i) mock personality assessment ii) a single 'personality profile' was then returned to all iii) on a 1-5 accuracy scale the participants gave the feedback a mean rating of 4.26 (i.e. very accurate) HOW DOES IT WORK: descriptions are generalised and amenable to multiple interpretations ('one size fits all') ACCURACY RATINGS INCREASE AS A FUNCTION OF: 1) positivity of the description 2) belief in the authority of the source etc. THE LESSON: face validity is a poor guide to ACTUAL validity