Social Psychology Exam 3

Kurt Lewin

"There is nothing so practical as a good theory" How can the theories and findings from social psychology help us understand and address the deep social problems and issues in our world?

Determinants of Prosocial Behavior

Social Exchange theory - Rewards and costs When they are happy or sad?

Tied to our screens

The average person spends 11 hours a day looking at a screen and only 39 minutes socializing. This a stark difference. And considering the importance of our social relationships for our well-being, this difference might have some serious negative consequences.

Realistic Group Conflict theory

o Hostilities often arise when groups compete for scarce jobs, housing, or resources. When interests clash, conflict erupts. o Not only do perceived threats feed prejudice and conflict, prejudice - in a vicious cycle - also amplifies the perception of a threat. o To experiment on competition's effect, we could randomly divide people into two groups, have the groups compete for a scarce resource, and note what happens. That is precisely what Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues did in a famous series of experiments with typical 11 and 12 year old boys. The inspiration for those experiments dated back to sherif's witnessing, as a teenager, Greek troops invading his Turkish proving in 1919. o After studying the social roots of savagery, Sherif introduced the seeming essentials into several three week summer camping expreinces. In one study, he divided 22 unacquainted Oklahoma City boys into two groups, took them to a Boy Scout camp in separate buses, and settled them in bunkhouses about a half mile apart at Oklahoma's robber's Cave State Park. For most of the first week, each group was unaware of the other's existence. By cooperating in various activities - preparing meals, camping out, fixing up a swimming hole, building a rope bridge - each group soon became close knit. They gave themselves names: "Rattlers" and "Eagles". Typifying the good feeling, a sign appeared in one cabin "Home Sweet Home". o Group identity thus established, the stage was set for the conflict. Near the first week's end, the Rattlers discovered the Eagles "On 'our' baseball field." When the camp staff then proposed a tournament of competitive activities between the two groups (baseball games, tug of war, cabin inspections, treasure hunts, and so forth), both groups resopnded enthusiastically. This was win-lose competiotn. The rewards would all go to the tournament victor. o The result? The camp degenerated into open warfare. The conflict began with each side calling the other names during the competitive activities. Soon it escalated to dining hall "garbage wars," flag burnings, cabin ransackings, even fistfights. Asked to describe the other group, the boys said they were "sneaky," "smart alecks," "stinkers," but referring to their own group as "brave," "tough," "friendly." It was a tough experience, driving some of the boys to bedwetting, running away, homesickness, and later recollections of an unhappy experience. o The win-lose competition had produced intense conflict, negative images of the out-group, and strong in-group cohesiveness and pride. Group polarization no doubt exacerbated the conflict. In competition fostering situations, groups behave more competitively than do individuals. Even after hearing tolerance advocating messages, in-group discussion often exacerbates dislike of the conflicting group. o All this occurred without any cultural, physical, or economic differences between the two groups, and with boys who were their communities' "cream of the crop". Actually, their evil behavior was triggered by an evil situation. Fortunately, as we will see, Sherif not only made strangers into enemies; he then also made the enemies into friends.

Know how to help?

o If there is someone having a seizure on the bus I am going to wait to see if someone who actually knows how the handle the situation helps first

GRIT

o Sometimes tension and suspicion run so high that even communication, let alone resolution, becomes all but impossible. Each party may threaten, coerce, or retaliate against the other. Unfortunately, such acts tend to be reciprocated, escalating the conflict. So, would a strategy of appeasing the other party by being unconditionally cooperative produce a satisfying result? Often not. In lab games, those who are 100% cooperative often are exploited. Politically, a one sided pacifism is usually out of the question. o Social psychologist Charles Osgood advocated a third alternative, one that is conciliatory yet strong enough to discourage exploitation. Osgood called it "graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension reduction." He nicknames it GRIT, a label that suggests the determination it requires. GRIT aims to reverse the "conflict spiral" by triggering reciprocal de-escalation. To do so, it draws upon social psychologists concepts, such as the norm of reciprocity and the attribution of motives. o GRIT requires one side to initiate a few small de-escalatory actions, after announcing a conciliatory intent. The initiator states its desire to reduce tension, declares each conciliatory act before making it, and invites the adversary to reciprocate. Such announcements create a framework that helps the adversary correctly interpret what otherwise might be seen as weak or tricky actions. They also bring public pressure to bear on the adversary to follow the reciprocity norm. o Next, the initiator establishes credibility and genuineness by carrying out, exactly as announced, several verifiable conciliatory acts. This intensifies the pressure to reciprocate. Making conciliatory acts diverse - perhaps offering medial help, closing a military base, and lifting a trade ban - keeps the initiator from making a significant sacrifice in any one area and leaves the adversary freer to choose its own means of reciprocation. If the adversary reciprocates voluntarily, its own conciliatory behavior may soften its attitudes. o GRIT is conciliatory. But it is not "surrender on the installment plan". The remaining aspects of the plan protect each side's self interest by maintaining retaliatory capability. The initial conciliatory steps entail some small risk but do not jeopardize either one's security; rather, they are calculated to being edging both sides down the tension ladder. If one side takes an aggressive action, the other side reciprocates in kind, making clear it will not tolerate exploitation. Yet the reciprocal act is not an overrepsonse that would re-escalate the conflict. If the adversary offers its own conciliatory acts, these too, are matched or even slightly exceeded. "Morton Deutsch (1993) captured the spirit of GRIT in advising negotiators to be "'firm, fair, and friendly': firm in resisting intimidation, exploitation, and dirty tricks; fair in holding to one's moral principles and not reciprocating the other's immoral behavior despite his or her provocations; and friendly in the sense that one is willing to initiate and reciprocate cooperation." o Does GRIT really work? In a lengthy series of experiments at Ohio University, Svenn and his associates found "strong support for the various steps in the GRIT proposal." In lab games, announcing cooperative intent does boost cooperation. Repeated conciliatory or generous acts do breed greater trust. Maintaining an equality of power does protect against exploitation. Svenn was not contending that the world of the lab experiment mirrors the more complex world of everyday life. Rather, experiments enable us to formulate and verify powerful theoretical principles, such as the reciprocity norm and the self serving bias.

Novel, arousing activities and relationship quality (Reissman, Aron, & Bergen, 1993)

o The role of novel, arousing activities o "Exciting" activities (vs. pleasant but unexciting or control) increase in relationship quality over 10 weeks - Avoid habituation - Expand the self (broadened sense of self/ perspectives) o Self expanding activities resulted in increased sexual desire and more relationship satisfaction o

Altruism vs. Egoism (Batson et al., 1981 challenged by Cialdini et al., 1987) ADD MORE TO THIS FROM MY NOTES OR AT ELAST JUST DO THE SPECIFIC STUDIES LATER ON

o To sperleate egoistic distress reduction from empathy based altruism, Batson's research group conducted studies that aroused empathy. Then the researchers noted whether the aroused people would reduce their own distress by escaping the situation, or whether they would go out of their way to aid the person. The results were consistent: With their empathy aroused, people usually helped. o In one of these experiments, Batson and associates (1981) had University of Kansas women observe a young woman suffering while she supposedly received electric shocks. During a pause in the experiment, the obviously upset victim explained to the experimenter that a childhood fall against an electric fence left her acutely sensitive to shocks. The experimenter suggested that perhaps the observer (the actual participant in this experiment) might trade places and take the remaining shocks for her. Previously, half of these actual participants had been led to believe the suffering person was similar to them in values and interests (thus arousing their empathy). Some also were told to believe that their part in the experiment was completed, so that in any case they were done observing the woman's suffering. Nevertheless, their empathy aroused, virtually all willingly offered to substitute for the victim. o Is this genuine altruism? Mark Schaller and Robert Cialdini (1988) doubted it. Feeling empathy for a sufferer makes one sad, they noted. In one of their experiments, they led people to believe that their sadness was going to be relieved by a different sort of mood boosting experience - listening to a comedy tape. Under such conditions, people who felt empathy were not especially helpful. Schaller and Cialdini concluded that if we feel empathy but know that something else will make us feel better, we aren't as likely to help. o But other findings suggest that genuine altruism does exist: with their empathy aroused, people will help even when they believe no one will know about their helping. Their concern continues until someone has been helped. If their efforts to help are unsuccessful, they feel bas even if the failure is not their fault. And people will sometimes persist in wanting to help a suffering person even when they believe their own distressed mood arises from a "mood-fixing" drug. o After 25 such experiments testing egoism versus altruistic empathy, Batson and others believe that sometimes people do focus on others' welfare, not on their own. o Batson believes genuine "empathy induced altruism is part of human nature". And that, says Batson, raises the hope - confirmed by research - that inducing empathy might improve attitudes toward stigmatized people: people with AIDS, the homeless, the imprisoned, and other minorities. o Egoism is not the whole story of helping, he believes; there is also a genuine altruism rooted in empathy, in feelings of sympathy and compassion for others' welfare.

Naïve Realism

Naïve Realism (Ross & Ward, 1996) I believe I see objective reality Other rational people would believe the same things if they knew what I knew Disagreement must be from Different information Lazy, irrational others Other people being biased

Important Findings

People overestimate the experience of social media and texting. People enjoyed talking with a stranger more than the other activities. Screen time is more enjoyable and less lonely than being alone. Screen time is less enjoyable and more lonely than talking to a stranger.

Sternberg's Triangular Theory

Sternberg (1998) views love as a triangle consisting of three components: passion, intimacy, and commitment. Some elements of love are common to all loving relationships: mutual understanding, giving and receiving support, enjoying the loved one's company. Some elements are distinctive. If we experience passionate love, we express it physically, we expect the relationship to be exclusive, and we are intensely fascinated with our partner. You can see it in our eyes. o The three points of the triangle are - Intimacy (emotional investment) - Passion (motivational involvement) - Commitment (cognitive decision) o When there is intimacy and commitment there is companionate love o When there is commitment and passion it is fatuous love - very sexual and committed to them but don't always like them? o when there is passion and intimacy it is romantic love - drawn to them. Want to be with them emotionally and sexually but don't have long term commitment. o When it is just passion it is just infatuation o When it is just intimacy it is just liking o When it is just commitment it is just empty love o Having all three (passion, intimacy, and commitment) is called consummate love o Outside of circle is non love o Intimacy is how much you really enjoy being around the person o Commitment is the cognitive decision to stay with someone and maintain that relationship. Not driven by desire. o Passion is motivation involvement. lustful. Does not have to be casual sex. Can be long term yearning.

Attachment Style: Caveats

o Attachment styles can predict important relationship cognitions and behavior o But... o Particularly influential during distress/ threat o Partners can buffer o Can change over time within a relationship o Can differ across relationships

How Choosing Screen Time Affects Well-Being and Social Isolation: People Feel More Isolated Than Ever Before

o Loneliness has doubled in the last 50 years o Nearly half of adults sometimes or always feel alone, o Nearly one fifth of adults have meaningful face to face social interactions as little as monthly (8%), bimonthly or less (8%), or never (2%) o Those who never have meaningful social interactions are the most lonely. o "Loneliness epidemic" o This increase in loneliness is so profound that researchers now suggest that the U.S. is experiencing a loneliness epidemic. If action is not taken, loneliness has been predicted to reach epidemic proportions by 2030, and has even been compared to progression of the obesity epidemic. o With this dramatic increase in loneliness, it is important to note that people not only feel more isolated, but they are also becoming more isolated.

Intervening in an Emergency

o Notice the event o Interpret as emergency o assume responsibility o Know how to help o Decide to help

Interpret it as an Emergency? pluralistic ignorance

o Once we notice an ambiguous event, we must interpret it. Put yourself in the room filling with smoke. Though worried, you don't want to embarrass yourself by appearing flustered. you glance at the others. They look calm, indifferent. Assuming everything must be okay, you shrug it off and go back to work. Then one of the others notices the smoke and, noting your apparent concern, reacts similarly. This is yet another example of informational influence. Each person uses others' behavior as clues to reality. Such misinterpretations can contribute to a delayed response to actual fees in offices, restaurants, and other places. o The misinterpretations are fed by an illusion of transparency - a tendency to overestimate others' ability to "read" our internal states. In their experiments, people facing an emergency presumed their concern was more visible than it was. Keenly aware of out emotions, we presume they leak out and that others see right through us. Sometimes others do do read our emotions, but often we effectively keep our cool. The result is "pluralistic ignorance"- ignorance that others are thinking and feeling what we are. In emergencies, each person may think, "I'm vey concerned," but perceive others as calm - "so maybe it's not an emergency". o SO it happened in Latane and Darley's experiment. When those working alone noticed the smoke, they usually hesitated a moment, then got up, walked over to the ent, felt, sniffed, and waved at the smoke, hesitated again, and then went to report it. In dramatic contrast, those in groups of 3 did not move. Among the 24 men in eight groups, only 1 person reported the smoke within the first 4 minutes. by the end of the 6 minute experiment, the smoke was so thick it was obscuring the men's vision and they were rubbing their eyes and coughing o Equally interesting, the group's passivity affected its members' interpretations. What caused the smoke? "A leak in the air conditioning." "Chemistry labs in the building." "Steam pipes." "Truth gas." Not one said, "Fire." The group members, by serving as non responsive models, influenced one another's interpretations of the situation. o The experimental dilemma parallels real life dilemmas we all face. Are the shreiks outside merely playful antics or the desperate screams of someone being assaulted? o Latane and Rodin staged an experiment around a woman in distress. A female researcher set Columbia University men to work on a questionnaire and then left through a curtained doorway to work in an adjacent office. Four minutes later, she could be heard (from a tape recorder) climbing on a chair to reach some papers. This was followed by a scream and a loud crash as the chair collapsed and she feel to the floor. "oh, my God, my foot... I ... I ... can't move it," she sobbed. "Ph... my ankle.... I ... can't get this... thing... off me." Only after 2 minutes of moaning did she manage to make it out her office door. 70% of those who were alone when they overhead the "accident" came into the room or called out to offer help. Among pairs pf strangers confronting the emergency, only 40% of the time did either person offer help. Those who did nothing apparently interpreted the situation as a nonemergency.

Physical Attractiveness and Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Why? and Are beautiful people really so great? and the physical attractiveness stereotype and beautiful is good stereotype and the matching phenomenon/ hypothesis

o The belief that looks are unimportant may be another instance of how we deny real influences upon us, for there is nor a file cabinet full of research studies showing that appearance matters. The consistency and pervasiveness of this effect is astonishing. Attractiveness and dating o Like it or not, a young woman's physical attractiveness is a moderately good predictor of how frequently she dates, and a young man's attractiveness is a modestly good predictor of how frequently he dates. o However, women more than men say would prefer a mate who's homely and warm over one who's attractive and cold. o In a longitudinal study following heterosexual married couples for four years, the wife's physical attractiveness predicted the husband's marital satisfaction better than the husband's physical attractiveness predicted the wife's satisfaction. o In one classic study, Elaine Hatfield and co-workers (1966) matched 752 University of Minnesota first year students for a "Welcome Week" matching dance. The researchers gave each student personality and aptitude tests but then matched the couple's randomly. On the night of the dance, the couples danced and talked for 2 1/2 hours and then evaluation their dates. How well did the personality aptitude tests predict attraction? Did people like someone better who was high in self esteem, or low in anxiety, or different from themselves in outgoingness? The researchers examined a long list of possibilities. But so far as they could determine, only one thing mattered: how physically attractive the person was (as previously rated by the researchers). The more attractive a woman was, the more the man liked her and wanted to date her again. And the more attractive the man was, the more the woman liked him and wanted to date him again. o A recent meta analysis of 97 studies found that men and women placed about the same, fairly high importance on physical attractiveness and about the same, lower importance on earning prospects. However, once people have gotten to know each other over months or years through jobs or friendships, they focus more on each person's unique qualities rather than their physical attractiveness and status. THE MATCHING PHENOMENON o Not everyone can end up paired with someone stunningly attractive. SO how do people pair off? They pair off with people who are about as attractive as they are. People tend to select as friends, and especially to marry, those who are a "good match" not only to heir level of intelligence, popularity, and self worth but also to their level of attractiveness. o Experiments confirm this matching phenomenon. When choosing whom to approach, knowing the other is free to say yes or no, people often approach and invest more in pursuing someone whose attractiveness roughly matches their own. They seek out someone who is desirable, but they are mindful of the limits of their own desirability. When couples are instead dissimilar in attractiveness, they are more likely to consider leaving the relationship for someone else. o Perhaps this research prompts you to think of happy couples who differ in perceived "hotness". In such cases, the less attractive person often has compensating qualities. Each partner brings assets to the social marketplace, and the value if the respective assets creates an equitable match. The physical attractiveness stereotype o Those seeing photos of facially disfigured people judged them as less intelligent, emotionally stable, and trustworthy than did those seeing photos of those same people after plastic surgery. o moreover, much as adults are biased toward attractive adults, young children are biased toward attractive children. Judging by how long they gaze at someone, even 3 month old infants prefer attractive faces. o Adults show a similar bias when judging children. Missouri fifth grade teachers were given identical information about a boy or a girl but with the photograph of an attractive or an unattractive child attached. The teachers' perceived that attractiveness child as more intelligent and successful in school. The sad truth is that most of us assume that homely children are less able and socially competent than their beautiful peers. o What is more, we assume that beautiful people possess certain desirable traits. Other things being equal, we guess beautiful people are happier, sexually warmer, and more outgoing, intelligent, and successful - although not more honest. o We are more eager to bond with attractive people, which motivates our projecting desirable attributes such as kindness and reciprocal interest into them. o Added together, the findings define a PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE: What is beautiful is good. Children learn the stereotype quite early - often through stories told to them by adults. First Impressions o TO say that attractiveness is important, other things being equal, is not to say that physical appearance always outranks other qualities. Some people more than others judge people by their looks. Moreover, attractiveness most affects first impressions. But first impressions are important. o Though interviewers may deny it, attractiveness and grooming affect first impressions in job interviews. o People rate new products more favorable when they are associated with attractive inventors. o moreover, when categorizing subsequent words as either good or bad, an attractive face predisposes people to categorize good words faster. Pretty is perceived promptly and primes positive processing. Is the "Beautiful is Good" Stereotype accurate? o Despite others perceptions, physically abreactive people do not differ from other in basic personality traits such as agreeableness, openness, extraversion, ambition, or emotional stability. However, there is some truth to the stereotype. Attractive children and young adults are somewhat more relaxed, outgoing, and socially polished. o In one study, 60 University of Georgia men called and talked for 5 minutes with each of three women students. Afterward, the men and women rated their telephone partners on social skill and likability.Those who were attractive (even though unseen) were rated higher. The same is true online: Even when they hadn't seen the men's photos, women rated the test of attractive men's dating website profiles as more desirable and confident. What is beautiful is good, even online. Physically attractive individuals tend also to be more popular, more outgoing, and more gender typed - more traditionally masculine if male, more feminine if female. These small average differences between attractive and unattractive people probably result from self fulfilling prophecies. Attractive people are values and favored, so man develop more social self confidence.

Decide to help?

o We still might not help - Maybe it is too dangerous - fear of embarrassment - maybe there really isn't an emergency. Maybe they will reject your help. And there's a lot of time pressures in emergencies.

Applying the investment model

o Why doe people stay in unhappy or abusive relationships? - Relationship stability is typically good, but it can be dangerous ???? - Women's decisions to return to their abusive partners was drive by strong investments (e.g., kids) and poor economic alternatives (e.g. no driver's license).

Altruistic Personality

o individual differences in personality are not sufficient to predict helping behavior

Musical Tapping Study

Any volunteers? Tapper: tap the song Listeners: write down your guesses Tapper: write down what % of the class will correctly guess the song you tapped? Listeners: how many guessed correctly? "Tappers" and "Listeners" Tap one of 25 well-known songs Guess how likely listener would be to guess it Could tappers separate their "private embellishment" from the impoverished stimulus? No! Tappers guessed 50% of listeners would guess song correctly. Actual success rate of listeners: 2.5%! Not just because you are the one tapping and are therefore optimistic: Even pre-informed listeners overestimate other listeners' performance Highlights the importance of subjective perception

Autonomy

Desire to be a casual agent of one's own life, to act in ways that reflect oneself, make choices help them make it feel like it was voluntary. Feel better when they feel its their choice rather than you should really do this. o How can we encourage people to give in a way that makes them feel like they are casual agents in their own lives? o Daily diary evidence: whether or not actions were self chosen matters! o Soliciting donations with "It is entirely your choice to help out or not" vs. "I really think you should help out"

Are beautiful people really so great? (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977)

o Are beautiful people really so great? o Hypothesis: treatment by others affects social skill - Beautiful-is-good stereotype: influences expectations about attractive people o Hypothesis: treatment by others affects social skill o Pairs of men and women interact over phone o Physical attractiveness was manipulated - Men were shown a false picture - 1/2 more attractive woman - 1/2 less attractive woman - Conversations tape recorded and analyzed Results: o More attractive photo condition: Women were more friendly and sociable o Less attractive photo condition: Women were cold and boring o Why? Men's treatment - men were more sociable, warm, humorous, outgoing when believed woman was attractive o This process = behavioral confirmation o Develop social skill over time - self fulfilling prophecy: men expect beautiful woman to be sociable --> treat her warmly --> she develops warm behavior. o It is not that they are actually better, but the way they are treated makes them act a certain way. Reinforces stereotype o Pairs of men and women talk over the phone. They told half of male participants person was attractive while other less attractive o Women in attractive thing ended up being more sociable because how sociable the men were depended on attractiveness o When males thought they were talking to attractive females they were more flirty and sociable and so the women are too. o Behavioral confirmation kind of self fulfilling prophecy

Epigentics

o One study of New Zealand young adults revealed a gene variation that put people ar risk for depression, but only if they had also experienced major life stresses such as their parents' divorce. Neither the stress nor the gene alone produced depression, but the two interacting did. Such findings have spawned the science of epigenetic, which considers how environments modify gene expression.

Superordinate goals

o Closely related to the unifying power of an external threat is the unifying power of superordinate goals, goals that unite all in a group and require cooperative effort. To promote harmony among his warring campers, Sherif introduced such goals. He created a problem with the camp water supply, necessitating both groups' cooperation to restore the water. o After working together to achieve such superordinate goals, the boys ate together and enjoyed themselves around a campfire.

Assuming responsibility for helping (Latane & Rodin, 1969)

o Completing questionnaire when hear crash and woman in next room scream "My ankle! I can't get this thing off me!" o Independent Variable: Other present in the room o Dependent Variable: Helping o When alone about 70% helped o When with one person 40% of people helped o With confederate about 10% of people helped o Had participants complete questionnaire then they hear a crash in another room and the woman says help my ankle get this off of me. o If with a friend there was more helping activity than with a stranger but most likely to help when alone. o We diffuse responsibility --- o Latane and Rodin staged an experiment around a woman in distress. A female researcher set Columbia University men to work on a questionnaire and then left through a curtained doorway to work in an adjacent office. Four minutes later, she could be heard (from a tape recorder) climbing on a chair to reach some papers. This was followed by a scream and a loud crash as the chair collapsed and she feel to the floor. "oh, my God, my foot... I ... I ... can't move it," she sobbed. "Ph... my ankle.... I ... can't get this... thing... off me." Only after 2 minutes of moaning did she manage to make it out her office door. 70% of those who were alone when they overhead the "accident" came into the room or called out to offer help. Among pairs pf strangers confronting the emergency, only 40% of the time did either person offer help. Those who did nothing apparently interpreted the situation as a nonemergency.

Creating and spreading peace and prosocial behavior: What can be done?

o Contact o Cooperation and subordinate goals o Communication o What can be done about social traps, like the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the common?

Role of genes in behavior/ phenotypes

o Men are more self-assertive, achievement-oriented, and dominant o Women are more socially responsive, passive, and dependent o On average, men have more independent self-construals than women; women have more interdependent self-construals than men

Androgynous

o having both male and female characteristics

Self-expansion and sexual desire (Muise et al., 2018)

- Avoid habituation - Expand the self (broadened sense of self/ perspectives) o Self expanding activities resulted in increased sexual desire and more relationship satisfaction o Can lead to increase in relationship quality. Muise had people do novel activities and others do something not novel and other couple had better marriage or whatever. Exciting activities result in increased sexual desire and more relationship satisfaction.

The smoke-filled room experiment (Darley & Latane, 1968)

In the steps of intervening in an emergency this is Interpret as Emergency? o Smoke pouring in from testing room more likely to be reported by individuals working alone than in groups o Independent variable: alone or in groups o Dependent variable: reporting smoke o Alone, hesitated only a moment o In groups of 3, only 1 person in 8 groups reported smoke in first 4 minutes. ----- o To find out Latane and Darley had Columbia university men will out a questionnaire in a room, either by themselves or with two strangers. While they were working (and being observed through a one way mirror), there was as tased emergency: Smoke poured into the room through a wall vent. Solitary students, who often glanced idly about the room while working, noticed the smoke almost immediately - usually in less than 5 seconds. Those in groups kept their eyes other work. it typically took them about 20 seconds to notice the smoke.

What Influences attraction and why? What leads to friendship and attraction?

Proximity Physical attractiveness Similarity Reciprocity Environmental factors

Culture and self-concept; individualism and collectivism; independence/interdependence (and associated outcomes)

Self as Individual - Independent: o Abstract o Stable o can exist by itself o Characteristics of ourselves that can exist without others - Smart, athletic, etc, motivated, can be self contained. o How we are unique o I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards o I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects Self as interdependent with others o Relationships with others o Specific roles o Membership in group o It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group o I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments Situation Variability o Independence/ interdependence lies along a continuum - Each person views themselves in both ways - Each person behaves in both ways - Situations can elicit one response more than the other Culture and Self Concept o Western Cultures - Predominantly individual attributes o Nonwestern cultures - Asian, South American, African - Predominately social roles Outcomes of Individualism and collectivism where collectivism = high interdependence. o Collectivists value equality (equal reward regardless of performance); Individualists value equity (reward based on performance) o Collectivists also value reward based on need o Collectivists tend to work harder in groups o Collectivists are more harmonious with in-group members; but have more conflict with out-group o Collectivists make more situational attributions

Christina's studies on screentime vs. talking to a stranger vs. being alone (general findings - do not need to know every specific finding from studies)

This research has important implication for some negative societal trends. Loneliness Epidemic: For instance, if people mistakenly seek social connection form their smartphones rather than engaging in social interaction with others, they may in fact become more lonely. Thus, this research has strong implication for the loneliness epidemic that I discussed earlier. Sexual recession (people are defining sex differently): Research reported in an Atlantic article suggests that people in are having less sexual intercourse on average. Further research needs to be conducted to determine if people are having less sexual intercourse overall because its is being replaced by other sexual or non-sexual activities, such as screen time. However, If people are in fact having less sex because they are engaging in fewer in-person social interactions, it may be due to people mistakenly seeking screen time. Generation Me/iGen: Furthermore, research by Jean Twenge and colleagues suggest that the coming of the internet, social media, and smartphones has resulted in generational changes. Her research suggests that these developments have lead to Millenials—"Generation Me"— becoming the most narcissistic generation, and Generation Y—iGen—to be the safest generation, as well as growing up more slowly. However, this research is generational, so causal evidence is needed to show that these developments do in fact have these consequences. People overestimate the experience of social media and texting. People enjoyed talking with a stranger more than the other activities. Screen time is more enjoyable and less lonely than being alone. Screen time is less enjoyable and more lonely than talking to a stranger.

Competence

desire to control outcomes and experience a sense of mastery People are more likely to donate to charities when it gives them a sense of competence we don't really know what UNICEF is but spread the net tells us. SO strong sense of if I do this I will be able to help in this specific way

Impact of proximity on attraction/liking (MIT housing complex study; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950)

o 270 MIT students randomly assigned to apartments within 17 - building married student housing complex o Question: how are relationships formed? o Asked to name 3 closest friends within the complex o 65% of friends mentioned were from same building o Out of students living on the same floor - 1 door away = 41% of friend choices - 2 doors away = 22% of friend choices - 3 doors away = 16% of friend choices - 4 doors away = 10% of friend choices o In 1950. 270 MIT students put into housing complex. Asked after a certain amount of time who there closest friends were. 65% of friends mentioned were from same building. IF they were only one door away they were 41% likely to say they were a close friend.

Integrative agreements

o A classic win win story concerns two sisters who quarreled over an orange. Finally they compromised and split the orange in half, whereupon one sister squeezed her half for juice while the other used the peel on her half to make a cake. if the sisters had each explained why they wanted the orange, they very likely would have agreed to share it, giving one sister all the juice and the other all the peel. This is an example of an integrative agreement. Compared with compromises, in which each party sacrifices something important, integrative agreements are more enduring. because they are mutually rewarding, they also lead to better ongoing relationships. - When the two parties mistrust each other and communicate unproductively, a third party mediator - a marriage counselor, a labor mediator, a diplomat - sometimes helps. Often the mediator is someone trusted by both sides. - After coaxing the conflicting parties to rethink their perceived win-lose conflict, the mediator often has each party identify and rank its goals. When goals are compatible, the ranking procedure makes it easier for each to concede on less important goals so that both achieve their chief goals. - The mediator will often structure the encounter to help each party understand and feel understood by the other. The mediator may ask the conflicting parties to restrict their arguments to statements of fact, including statements of how they feel and how they respond when the other acts in a given way. To increase empathy, the mediator may ask people to reverse roles and argue the other's position or to imagine and explain what the other person is experiencing. The mediator may have them restate one another's positions before replying with their own. - Neutral third parties may also suggest mutually agreeable proposals that would be dismissed - "reactively devalued" - if offered by either side. o Arbitration - Some conflicts are so intractable, the underlying interests so divergent, that a mutually satisfactory resolution us unattainable. In a divorce dispute over custody of a child, both parents cannot enjoy full custody. In such cases, a third part mediator may- or may not- help resolve the conflict. - If not, the parties may turn to arbitration by having the mediator or another third party impose a settlement. Disputants usually prefer to settle their differences without arbitration so that they retain control over the outcome. Disputants usually prefer to settle their differences without arbitration so that they retain control over the outcome. Researcher and other observed this preference in an experiment involving disputants coming to a dispute settlement center. When people knew they would face an arbitrated settlement if mediation failed, they tried harder to resolve the problem, exhibited less hostility, and thus were more likely to reach agreement.

Culture

o A lot of things are common across cultures. o Sleep, waking, hunger, thirst. development of language through identical mechanisms, morality, conversing, arguing, laughing, crying, feating, dancing, singing, worshipping. o Ironically, our shared human biology enables our cultural diversity. It enables those in one culture to value promptness, welcome frankness, or accept premarital sex, whereas those in another culture do not. o It's important to understand that biology and culture are not two completely separate influences. More often than not, they interact to produce the diversity of behavior you see around you. Genes are not fixed blueprints; their expression depends on the environment, much as the taste of tea is not "expressed" until meeting a hot water environment.

Cultural differences in cognitive dissonance (Hoshino-Browne et al., 2005)

o An examination of cognitive dissonance - Participants rate 10 CDs - Choose between two they rated as equally good - After choice, rate them again - How is dissonance involved here? ----- o Wanted to seem something as basic as cognitive dissonance and wanted to see if it differed in cultures o Participants rated the 10 CDs and then had to choose 2 as equally good. now choose between Cds to have. This will make them uncomfortable because they just said they were equal. So what we do to resolve dissonance we rate the one we chose higher after and the one we didn't choose lower. o Does this happen across cultures? - Collectivist cultures don't have this result? Does cognitive dissonance not happen in these cultures? No it does, but for different things. o SO they rated food on menu. Chose 2 as equal. When we make decision for friend not for yourself which would be individualistic. You rate choices. And then choose for friend. European (collectivist culture) did not show as much spread of alternatives when making choice for self. Non westerns show same cognitive dissonance resolution but only when making collectivist decision for friend. o They didn't increase the rating of the one and decrease the rate of the other one as much.

Social Traps

o A situation when conflicting parties are caught in mutually destructive behavior o Individual incentive, bad fro the group o Prisoner's Dilemma - The prisoner's dilemma originated from a story about two suspects questioned separately by the district attorney (DA), the lawyer who can bring charges against suspects. The DA knows they are jointly guilty but has only enough evidence to convict them of a lesser offense. So the DA creates an incentive for each one to confess privately: - IF prisoner A confessed and Prisoner B doesn't, the DA will grant immunity to A and will use A's confession to convict B of a maximum offense (and vice versos if B confesses and A doesn't). - If both confess, each will receive a moderate sentence - If neither prisoner confesses, each will be convicted of a lesser crime and receive a light sentence. - IF you were a prisoner faced with such a dilemma, with no chance to talk to the other prisoner, would you confess? - Many people say they would confess, even though mutual non confession elicits lighter sentences than mutual confession. Perhaps this is because no matter what the other prisoner decides, each is better off confessing than being convicted individually. o The Tragedy of the Commons - Many social dilemmas involve more than two parties. Climate change stems from deforestation and from the carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles, furnaces, and coal fired power plants. Each car contributes infinitesimally to the problem, and the harm is diffused over many people. - A metaphor for the insidious nature of social dilemmas is what ecologist Garret Hardin called the Tragedy pf the Commons. He derived the name from the centrally located grassy pasture in old English towns. Imagine 100 farmers surrounding a commons capable of sustaining 100 cows. When each grazes one cow, the common feeding ground is optimally used. But then a farmer reasons, "If I put a second cow in the pasture, I'll double my output, minus the mere 1% overgrazing" and adds a second cow. SO does each of the other farmers. The inevitable result? The Tragedy of the Commons - a mud field and famished cows. - In today's world the "commons" can be air, water, fish, cookies, or any shared and limited resource. If all use the source in moderation, it may replenish itself as rapidly as it's harvested. If not, there occurs a tragedy of the commons. - Likewise, environmental pollution is the sum of many minor pollutions, each of which benefits the individual polluters much more than they could benefit themselves (and the environment) if they stopped polluting. o When resources are not partitioned, people often consume more than they realize. As a bowl of mashed potatoes is passed around a table of 10, the first few diners are more likely to scoop out a disproportionate share than when a platter of 10 chicken drumsticks is passed.

Secure Attachment

o Approximately 7 in 10 infants, and nearly that many adults, exhibit secure attachment. When placed as infants in a strange situation (usually a laboratory playroom), they play comfortably int their mother's presence, happily exploring this strange environment. If she leaves, they become distressed; when she returns, they run to her, hold her. then relax and return to exploring and playing. This trusting attachment style, many researchers believe, forms a working model of intimacy - a blue print for one's adult intimate relationships, in which underlying trust sustains relationships through times of conflict. Securely attached adults find it easy to get close to others and don't fret about getting too dependent or being abandoned. As lovers, they enjoy sexuality within the context of a secure, committed relationship. And their relationships tend to be satisfying and enduring. o Secure when you have a positive model of self and when you have a positive model of others o and when you have low anxiety and low avoidance o Secure, self, comfortable with intimacy and autonomy, trusting, constructive attributions and behavior.

Bargaining, meditation, arbitration

o Conflicting parties have other ways to resolve their differences. When husband and wife, or labor and management, or nation X and nation Y disagree, they can bargain with each other directly. They can ask a third party to mediate by making suggestions and facilitating their negotiations. Or they can arbitrate by submitting their disagreement to someone who will study the issues and impose a settlement. o Bargaining - If you want to buy or sell a new car, are you better off adopting a tough bargaining stance - opening with an extreme offer so that splitting the difference will yield a favorable result? Or are you better off beginning with a sincere "good-faith" offer? Experiments suggest no simple answer. On the one hand, those who demand more will often get more. Robert Cialdini, Leonard Bickman, and John Cacioppo provide a typical result: In a contra condition, they approached various Chevrolet dealers and asked the price of a new Monte Carlo sports coupe. In an experimental condition, they approached other dealers and first struck a tougher bargaining stance, asking for and rejecting a price on a different car. When they then asked the price of the Monte Carlo, exactly as in the control condition, they received offers that averaged some $200 lower. - Tough bargaining may lower the other party's expectations, making the other side willing to settle for less. But toughness cam sometimes backfire. Being tough is a potential lose-lose scenario. If the other party responds with an equally tough stance, both may be locked into positions from which neither can back down without losing face. o Mediation - A third party mediator may offer suggestions that enable conflicting parties to make concessions and still save face. If my concession can be attributed to a mediator, who is gaining an equal concession from my antagonist, neither of us will be viewed as weakly caving in. - Turning win lose into win win: - Mediators also help resolve conflicts by facilitating constructive communication. Their first task is to help the parties rethink the conflict and gain information about the others' interests. Typically, people on both sides have a competitive "win-lose" orientation: They are successful if their opponent is unhappy with the result, and unsuccessful if their opponent is pleased. The mediator aims to replace this win lose orientation with a cooperate win win orientation, by prodding both sides to set aside their conflicting demands and instead to think about each other's underlying needs, interests, and goals.

Effects of mood on helping (Manucia, Baumann, & Cialdini, 1984)

o Effects of mood on helping o Independent variable 1: Participants put in happy, sad, or neutral mood. o Independent variable 2: Half led to believe moods were temporarily fixed, other half led to believe moods were changeable ("labile" condition) o Dependent Variable: Number of phone calls made to help confederate. Results o When they were sad: - When they thought their mood was changeable they helped 60% of them time - When they thought their mood was fixed they helped 40% of the time o When they were in a neutral mood state: - When they thought their mood was changeable they helped a little over 30% of the time - When they thought their mood was fixed they helped 40% of the time o When they were happy: - They helped an equal percent (about 58% of the time) whether they thought their mood was fixed or not. o Sad people help to feel better. Happy people help because they are happy --- o Put people in happy, sad, or neutral mood. By making people think of a specific memory (happy, sad, etc). Half of participants were led to believe mood could not change and half were told mood could change. Then given drug and told them drug makes you stay in mood for 30 minutes no matter what happens mood will not change. Others told mood could still fluctuate. o A confederate came in and said we are trying to increase participation in blood drive how many calls would you be willing to make. o When in sad mood you want to help to get out of sad mood compared to neutral mood but this would not happen if you thought your mood couldn't change? o When they thought mood could change both sad and happy o People in fixed sad group were like the neutral people while the happy people helped more

The Good Samaritan study (Darley & Batson, 1973)

o Good Samaritan study o Theological seminary students going to give talk about "Good Samaritan" o Independent variable: manipulation of time pressure o On the way, pass a "victim" slumped in doorway o Dependent variable: do they stop to help? results o When they were in no rush 60% of people stopped to help o when they were told they should probably get going and don't delay - only 41% of people stopped to help o When they were told they were already late only like 10% or something stopped to help ---- o Had people give a talk on being a good Samaritan o and told some people take your time getting there, get going, you're late. o when no rush 2/3 helped person o Less than 10% helped if told they were already late - this might just be because they are in hurry o With all of these studies the exact step that is causing the problem is not clear In the steps of intervening in an emergency this is Notice the Event? ---- Time Pressures o After collecting their thoughts before recording a brief extemporaneous talk (which, for half the participants, was actually about the Good Samaritan parable), Princeton theological seminary students were directed to a recording studio in an adjacent building. En route, they passed a man sitting slumped in a doorway, head down, coughing and groaning. Some of the students had been sent off nonchalantly: "It will be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well head on over." Of those, almost two-thirds stopped to offer help. Others were told, "Oh, you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago... so you'd better hurry." Of these, only 10% offered help. o Reflecting on these findings, Darley and Batson noted that the hurried participants passed on by the person in distress even when en route "to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan, thus inadvertently confirming the point of the parable. (Indeed, on several occasions, a seminary student going to give his talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over the victim as he hurried on his way!)" o Are we being unfair to the seminary students, who were, after all, hurrying to help the experimenter? Perhaps they keenly felt the social responsibility norm but found it pulling them two ways - toward the experimenter and toward the victim. o In another enactment of the Good Samaritan situation, Batson and associates directed 40 University of Kansas students to an experiment in another building. Half were told they were late, half that they had plenty of time. Half of each of these groups thought their participation was vitally important to the experimenter, half thought it was not essential. The results: those leisurely on their way to an unimportant appointment usually stopped to help. But people seldom stopped to help if they were late for a very important date.

Attachment over time (Zayas et al., 2011)

o How we are treated as a child predicts our adult relationships behavior/ quality o Longitudinal study o Predictor: maternal caregiving at 18 months - sensitive - controlling o Dependent Variable: attachment at age 22 - Avoidance and anxiety dimensions - Friends, parents, romantic partner Results: o More sensitive, less controlling maternal caregiving at 18 months resulted in less avoidant, less anxious attachment at 22 Years o Not equal for all partners o Mother's caregiving during infancy does not predict child attachment to mother at 22 years o Our attachment as children predict our attachment later in life o They looked at maternal caregiving at 18 months and classified mothers as sensitive or controlling then looked at their attachment at 22. And looked at different relationship types. o For moms who were sensitive, these individuals grew up to be less anxious and avoidant but only for friends and significant others but not for parents because at this age those are the people they are using for attachment o We tend to have continuity in attachment style all the time and attachments style we have can vary over different relationships.

Power and perspective-taking (Galinsky et al., 2006; 2014)

o Increases in power lead to decreases in perspective taking - Participants brought into the lab for a group study - Independent Variable: Write about incident where you had poor or no power - Dependent variable: Write and E on your forehead from own perspective - High power: 33% wrote it for themselves - Low power: 12% wrote it for others --- o Power reduces our ability to see the perspective of others o Participants had to write about a time when they had power or no power o then asked to write an E on their forehead. DO they write it so other people can view it or if they write an E for themselves - not taking perspective of others

Contact

o Might putting two conflicting individuals or groups into close contact enabled hem to know and like each other? Perhaps not: We have seen how negative expectations can bias judgements and create self fulfilling prophecies. When tensions run high, contact may fuel a fight. o But we have also seen that proximity - and the accompanying interaction, anticipation of interaction, and mere exposure - boosts liking. And we noted how blatant racial prejudice declined following desegregation, showing that attitudes follow behavior. o Does contact predict attitudes? - In general, contact predicts tolerance. In a painstaking analysis, researchers assembled data from 516 studies of 250,555 people in 38 nations. In 94% of studies, increased contact predicted decreased prejudice. This is especially so for majority group attitudes toward minorities.

natural selection and sexual selection and evolutionary psychology

o Natural selection enables evolution o The ideas, simplified, is this: - Organisms have many and varied offspring - Those offspring compete for survival in their environment - Certain biological and behavioral variations increase their chances of survival and reproduction in that environment. - Those offspring that do survive and reproduce are more likely to pass their genes to ensuring generations - Thus, over time, population characteristics may change. o Natural selection implies that certain genes - those that predisposed traits that increased the odds of surviving long enough to reproduce and nurture descendants- became more abundant. o Natural selection, long an organizing principle of biology, is now an important principle for psychology as well. Evolutionary psychology studies how natural selection also predisposes psychological traits and social behaviors that enhance the preservation and spread one's genes. We humans are the way we are, say evolutionary psychologists, because nature selected those who had advantageous traits - those who, for example, preferred the sweet taste of nutritious, energy providing foods and who disliked the bitter or sour flavors of toxic foods. Those laking such preferences were less likely to survive to contribute their genes to posterity. o The evolutionary perspective highlights our universe human nature. We not only share certain food preferences, but we also share answers to social questions, Whom should I trust? Whom should I help? When, and with whom, should I mate? etc. Evolutionary psychologists contend that our emotional and behavioral answers to those questions are the same answers that worked for our ancestors. o Little of this process is conscious. Few people in the throes of passion stop to think, "I want to give my genes to posterity." Rather, say evolutionary psychologists, our natural yearnings are our genes' ways of making more genes. Emotions execute evolution's dispositions, much as hunger executes the body's need for nutrients.

Empathy and helping (trading places studies; Batson et al., 1981; Cialdini et al., 1987)

o Participant asked if she would trade places with distressed confederate oIndependent variables: Empathy manipulation - previously told that confederate shared many similar attitudes and values o Escape manipulation- whether or not participant had to continue watching confederate receive shocks if they did not trade places with her (study almost done vs. a long way to go) o Dependent variable: trading places o When it was a hard escape - High empathy people helped 80% of the time. - low empathy people helped 60% of the time o When it was an easy escape - High empathy people helped maybe 83% of the time - Low empathy people helped less than 20% of the time o People with low empathy help if it means less personal distress, but not otherwise! then he added a third thing o When it was an easy escape and people were told that their mood was fixed - Both low and high empathy people only helped 20% of the time ---- o Studying role of empathy in helping o Empathy condition: made to believe they shared values o And attitudes with confederates - makes you feel more connected to the person. Others thought they didn't have similar values o They were told the confederate is very uncomfortable receiving shocks because of an incident with an electric fence as a kid. They were asked if they would trade places with the person. If you don't trade places you will have to see them get 10 shocks for the hard escape option. o Most people wether low or high empathy switched roles when escape is hard o When escape is easy and you only have to watch them get 2 shocks low empathy people tend to get out but high empathy people tend to watch all shocks or switch places. o When escape was hard and they were going to have to watch them get 10 shocks both low and high empathy people helped. o What happens if they think they won't receive an emotional benefit? o Sad people only helped when they thought their mood could change in the other study. o In this study they did same drug thing. They thought even high empathy did not help when they could escape when they thought there was no emotional benefit. o You help to relieve their pain to relieve your pain watching. o The escapes were whether they wanted to trade places with the person. Hard escape = they'd have to watch 10 shocks. o There is some reward in helping o TO feel empathy is to share the peoples emotions with them and feel what they feel and feel compassionate. o These findings suggest that they are helping because they want to but also to relieve their own pain.

Personal Space

o Personal space is a sort of portable bubble or buffer zone that we like to maintain between ourselves and others. As he situation changes, the bubble varies in size. With strangers, most Americans maintain a fairly large personal space, keeping 4 feet or more between us. On uncrowded buses, or in restrooms or libraries, we protect our space and respect others' space. We let friends come closer. o Individuals differ: Some people prefer more personal space than others. Groups differ, too: Adults maintain more distance than do children. Men keep more distance from one another than women do. For reasons unknown, cultures near the equator prefer less space and more touching and hugging.

Tall, dark and stable (physical instability and mate preferences; Kille, Forest, & Wood, 2013)

o Physical instability is another environmental factor o Could one's physical environment effect what you want in a partner? o If you are in an environment of physical stability you look for someone who will provide stability (reliable, trust worthy, psychologically stable) and stay away from unstable people. o Based on body connection o Ex: holding a warm versus cold cup of coffee and then asked to describe person. We rate people better when holding warm. o Study design : o Single participants randomly assigned. Some participants sat on normal chair and table o Other participants got chair with 2 shortened legs and table with pebble under leg o They then had to fill out a number of questions on what they want in a partner o High score = less risky partner and more trustworthy o Found what they predicted ----- o Could one's physical environment affect what traits people find desirable in a potential mate? o Prediction: physical instability will motivate people to seek partners who provide a sense of psychological stability (e.g., reliable partners), and to avoid partners who provide a lack of psychological stability (e.g., spontaneous partners) Basis for prediction: o Embodied cognition research and theory suggests that there exists a mind-body connection. - Bodily states can cause cognitions (and vice versa) Study Design o Single participants randomly assigned to condition: - stable [] normal chair and table - Unstable [] chair with 2 shortened legs and table with pebble under one leg o then they had to rate the desirability of each trait in a romantic partner: 1 = Not at all desirable, 7 = Extremely desirable Funny Good with money Adventurous (R) Reliable Loving Supportive Trustworthy Spontaneous (R) Results: Higher scores = greater desire for stability promoting traits in a future mate The score was higher in the physically unstable condition than in the physically stable condition

Derogation of alternatives (Simpson, Lerma, & Gangestad, 1990--plus Johnson & Rusbult, 1989)

o Procedure: o View advertisements; some depict young, opposite sex models o Rate physical and sexual attractiveness of the models o Report own dating status o When the men were dating they rated the woman as less attractive than men who were not dating o Same idea for women but both of their bars were higher than the mans bars. o DO people in committed relationships engage in behaviors to help their relationship. Seeing other things as less attractive alternative. o Thought they would see people in committed relationships would ay people were less attractive because they were committed to their relationship and this is what happened. But people only do this if it was someone they could actually be with (opposite sex, same age). One of the ways to keep our relationship is to downplay others attractiveness. ---- o do people in committed relationships engage in behaviors to there their relationship. Seeing other things as less attractive alternative. o Thought they would see people in committed relationship would say people were less attractive because they were committed to their relationships and this is what happened. But people only do this if this was someone they could actually be with. Opposite sex. One of ways to keep our relationship is to downplay others attractiveness. Procedure: o View advertisements; some depict young, opposite sex models o Rate physical and sexual attractiveness of he models o Report own dating status Results: o Men not dating rated women as more attractive than men dating and same for women.

Misunderstanding others' values (Chambers et al., 2006)

o Selected college students who said whether they were pro choice or pro life. These were students preexisting values. Then they looked at their values compared to others? o Values participants rated. They rated them for themselves and for people with other views. o Pro life and pro choice people rated their own differently than each other. SO there is an actual difference in value. But that gap was smaller than the gap they perceived. Which can intensify conflict and make it worse. o Misunderstanding other's values -e.g. Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to undermine family values, while Democrats view Republicans as wanting to deprive poor of rights o Example of partisan conflict: Abortion debate - Idenpendent variable: College students strongly for and against abortion o Dependent variable: Rated values for self, and guessed values for out group member (opposite side of debate) o Values participants rated: Women's reproductive rights Freedom from interference Value of human life Moral code of sexual conduct o Results: Pro-life and pro-choice people did rate the values differently - but they greatly exaggerated the extent to which there was disagreement on the values critical to their cause.

When will prosocial spending increase happiness? and self determination theory

o Self determination theory: human well being depends satisfying three basic needs: - relatedness - competence - autonomy

Gender, Gender role

o Sex refers to males and females as two biological categories based on chromosomes, genitals, and secondary sex characteristics such as greater male muscle mass and female breasts. o Gender instead refers to the characteristics people associate with males and females that can be rooted in biology, culture, or both, such as wearing dresses, liking sports, etc. o We can see the shaping power of culture in ideas about how men and women should behave. And we ca see culture in the disapproval men and women endure when they violate those expectations. Gender socialization, it has been said, gives girls "roots" and boys "wings." Such behavior expectations for males and females - of who should cook, wash dishes, hunt game, and lead companies and countries - define gender roles o The variety of gender roles across cultures and over time shows that culture indeed helps construct our gender roles. o Culture often reinforces gender roles that may have originated with biological demands. o In the past half century gender roles have changed dramatically. The Female Stereotype in Western Cultures: Nurturance Affectionate Caring Deferent The Male stereotype in Western Cultures Dominance Autonomy Aggression Achievement

Computer Dance Study (Hatfield et al., 1966)

o Students complete questionnaire (personality measures) and are rated on physical attractiveness. o Paired them randomly as dates for a dance o Measured attraction to date at end of dance o What predicted attraction/liking? o 700 freshman. Out down an ad for getting to know people at a dance. Had them complete a personality questionnaire. They had panel rate people on their attractiveness o If you had a mid level of attractiveness you will be attracted to mid level attractive people o Paired randomly. Was it attractiveness or just a match? not just matching people with equal attractive. They liked more attractive people. o In one classic study, Elaine Hatfield and co-workers (1966) matched 752 University of Minnesota first year students for a "Welcome Week" matching dance. The researchers gave each student personality and aptitude tests but then matched the couple's randomly. On the night of the dance, the couples danced and talked for 2 1/2 hours and then evaluation their dates. How well did the personality aptitude tests predict attraction? Did people like someone better who was high in self esteem, or low in anxiety, or different from themselves in outgoingness? The researchers examined a long list of possibilities. But so far as they could determine, only one thing mattered: how physically attractive the person was (as previously rated by the researchers). The more attractive a woman was, the more the man liked her and wanted to date her again. And the more attractive the man was, the more the woman liked him and wanted to date him again. -------------------------- o Randomly assigned to dance party. o They were rated by others on their physical attractiveness. o What predicts liking? o They measured out o Came down to physical attractiveness. People liked more visibly attractive people. o But it does not contradict the matching phenomenon because - there is no future relationship after word in computers thing it is just who are you attracted to basically. - In matching phenomenon it is who you actually get into a relationship with

Shaky bridge study (arousal and attraction; Dutton & Aron, 1974)

o Suspension bridge: high up, shaky. SO they will feel arousal o Control bridge: study, low to the ground. They will not be aroused o Gloria asks them to look at a picture and write about it then gives them her number and says call if you want to talk more about this o 1 way they measure the men's attraction to Gloria: Trying to get at implicit stuff through picture. If they saw it sexual or not. o 2nd way: If they called Gloria. o Thematic Appreciation test Results: o People who were on the suspension bridge saw the picture as more sexual at 2.57 o The people who were on the sturdy bridge only saw the pic as 1.41 sexual. o 50% of men on the suspension bridge called Gloria o Only 13% of men on the sturdy bridge called Gloria. o This looked at how environmental effects on arousal affected liking o So there is this long high kind of shaky bridge and a small steady bridge not high up o Research assistant "Gloria" approached men on each bridge - asked for help with project 5: sexual intercourse 4: lover 3: kiss 2: girlfriend 1: no sexual content Thematic Apperception Test Experimenter "Gloria" ----- o According to this theory, being aroused by any source should intensify passionate feelings - provided that the mind is free to attribute some of the arousal to a romantic stimulus. In a dramatic and famous demonstration of this phenomenon, Dutton and Aron (1974) had an attractive young woman approach individual young men as they crossed a narrow, wobbly, 450 foot long suspension walkway hanging 230 feet about British Columbia's rocky Capilano River. The woman asked each man to help her fill out a class questionnaire. When he had finished, she scribbled her name and phone number an invited hum to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. Most accepted the phone number, and half who did so called. By contrast, men approached by the woman on a low, solid bridge rarely called. Once again, physical arousal accentuated romantic responses.

Equal Status Contact

o The social psychologists who advocated desegregation never claimed the all contact would improve attitudes. Much as positive contact boosts liking, negative contact increases disliking. Positive contact is more commonplace, but negative experiences have greater effect. o Social psychologists have expected poor results when contacts were competitive, unsupported by authorities, and unequal. Before 1953 many prejudiced Whites had frequent contacts with Blacks - as shoeshine men and domestic workers. As we have seen, such unequal contacts breed attitudes that merely justify the continuation of inequality. So it's important that the contact be equal status contact.

Musical tapping study/in-class demonstration (Newton, 1990)

o This is an example of naive realism o LJ tapped out happy birthday o Typically fewer than 10% guess the song o Tapper guesses 50% will know what they are tapping o Observer usually guesses a lower number than the tapper but it is usually still inflated o Usually only like 2% actually know what the Sogn is o We usually have discrepancies because we have preexisting knowledge. What we think other people hear affects our thoughts o Niave realism - we think that our view is absolute so anyone who does not see the world the way we see it is stupid, ignorant, lazy, irrational, biased, etc. ----- o Tapper; Tap the song o Listeners: Write down your guesses o Tapper: Wrote down what % of the class will correctly guess the song you tapped. o Listeners: how many guessed correctly. o "Tappers" and "Listeners" o Tap one of 25 well known songs o Guess how likely listener would be to guess it o Could tappers separate their "private embellishment" from the impoverished stimulus? o No! Tappers guessed 50% of listeners would guess song correctly o Actual success rate of listeners: 2.5% o Not just because you are the one tapping and are therefore optimistic: Even pre informed listeners overestimate other listeners' performance. o Highlights the importance of subjective perception

"Warrior gene" study

o Thought to be predisposition to violent behavior. But not all of the time. Depends on upbringing. If you carry this gene and are erased in an abusive home you will likely be aggressive but not if you had a nice secure childhood. o Happens during formative years "In a study examining 12.5 million residents of Sweden, those with a genetic sibling convicted of a violent crime were 4 times as likely to be convicted themselves. Rates were much lower for adopted siblings, suggesting a strong genetic component and a more modest environmental influence (Frisell et al., 2011). Recent research has identified a specific gene (MAOA-L) linked to aggression; some even call it the "warrior gene" or the "violence gene." Among 900 criminals in Finland, those with the gene were 13 times more likely to have repeatedly committed violent crimes, explaining up to 10% of severe violent crime in the country (Tiihonen et al., 2015). In several lab studies, people with the gene were more likely to act aggressively when provoked (Ficks & Waldman, 2014; McDermott et al., 2009). Long-term studies following several hundred New Zealand children reveal that a recipe for aggressive behavior combines the MAOA-L gene with childhood maltreatment (Caspi et al., 2002; Moffitt et al., 2003). Neither "bad" genes nor a "bad" environment alone predispose later aggressiveness and antisocial behavior; rather, genes predispose some children to be more sensitive and responsive to maltreatment. Nature and nurture interact."

Liking others who like us (reciprocity; Curtis & Miller, 1986)

o We like people who like us! Why? o Paris of students, 5 min. conversation in lab o Manipulates A's beliefs - Person B likes you - Person B dislikes you o 10 min discussion o measure liking for each other o B's liking for A - why? - Behavioral confirmation/ self fulfilling prophecy A's liking for B o when told person B likes you their liking was about 51/2 out of 7 I guess? o when told person B dislikes you their liking of person B was almost 4 B's liking for A o When person A was told person B likes you person B liked A at about 5 1/2 o When person A was told person B dislikes you, person B liked person A at about 4 So B didn't like A when A was told that person B did not like them because A would then would act hostile and would make B not like A o Pairs of students. 5 minute conversation in a lab. Told one person (A) after that person B either likes you or they don't. They then came back together for 10 minutes discussion then rated their liking for the other person. person B liking mirrors person As. As thinks B does not like them so they will act cold and that is reflected in B's liking for A.

How important is the need to belong?

o When we do belong - when we feel supported by close, intimate relationships - we tend to be healthier and happier. o Social psychologist Kipling Williams has expired what happens when our need to belong is thwarted by ostracism (acts of excluding to ignoring). Humans in all cultures, whether in schools, workplaces, or homes, use ostracism to regulate social behavior. Ostracism hurts, and the social pain is keenly felt - more than those who are not ostracized ever know. o In one study, children who were ostracized but not bullied felt worse than those who were bullied but no ostracized. o Sometimes deflation turns nasty, as when people lash out at the very people whose acceptance they desire or engage in self deflating behavior and may be less able to regulate their behavior. o People who were socially rejected by those close them subsequently drank more alcohol. o Such overeating and alcohol use might result from a self control breakdown: Ostracized people show deficits in brain mechanisms that inhibit unwanted behavior. o Outside of the laboratory, rejected children were, two years later, more likely to have self regulation issues, such as not finishing tasks and not listening to directions and were more likely to act aggressively. In lab experiments, socially rejected people also became more likely to disparage or blast unpleasant noise at someone who had insulted them, were less likely to help others, and were more likely to cheat and steal. o Even "cyber ostracism" by faceless people whom one will never meet still takes a toll. o the researchers had more than 5,000 participants from dozens of countries play a web based game of throwing a ball with two others. Those ostracized by the other players experienced poorer moods and became more likely to conform to others' wrong judgements on a subsequent perceptual task. o Ostracized people exhibit heightened activity in a brain cortex area that also activates in response to physical pain. Ostracism's social pain, much like physical pain, increases aggression. Hurt feelings are also embodied in a depressed heart rate. o Asked to recall a time when they were socially excluded - perhaps left alone in the dorm when others went out - people in one experiment even perceived the room temperature as five degrees colder than did those asked to recall a social acceptance experience. o The effect moves the other way as well; Students who were ordered to ostracism others were just as distressed as those who were ostracized and felt less human. o Baumeister finds a silver lining in the rejection research. When recently excluded people experience a safe opportunity to make a new friend, they "seem willing and even eager to take it." They become more attentive to smiling, accepting faces. An exclusion experience also triggers increased mimicry of others' behavior in an unconscious attempt to build rapport.

Money and happiness (prosocial spending demonstration and studies—including in different countries and with children: Aknin et al., 2012; 2013; Dunn, Aknin & Norton, 2008)

o Yellow: spending money on someone else o Blue: Spending money on yourself o Money and happiness o They measured mood and then gave participants money ($5 or $20) then given instructions to spend their money on yourself or on some else. o The measured mood that evening o Those who spent for others reported greater happiness than people who spent money on themselves <-- not true ?????? o Also extends outside of US (place where people make excess money) o In 120 out of 136 (ranging in factors including socioeconomic statuses) there was a positive correlation between prosocial giving and happiness o They also looked at this in a subset of countries and gave people option to buy goodie bad and it was either for themselves or sick kids. and those giving to sick kids were happier even if they did not have money to provide for themselves. o If universal we might see it in children o 2 year old and puppet o Gave child snacks and asked would you like to give a goldfish to the puppet o They measured happiness by facial expressions by coders o Something about giving your own thing. Even more happiness than with researchers goldfish.

Conclusion

o People mistakenly seek screen time instead of social interaction o People don't like to sit alone with their thoughts. Therefore, people may seek screen time because they want to avoid sitting alone. However, in doing so, they may inconsequently miss out on the enjoyable experience of talking to a stranger o Thus, people may mistakenly seek screen time instead of social interaction.

Companionate Love

Although passionate love burns hot, like a relationship booster rocket, it eventually simmers does once the relationship reaches a stable orbit. The high of romance may be sustained for a few months, even a couple of years. But no high lasts forever. After 2 years of marriage, spouses express affection about half as often as when they were newlyweds. About 4 years after marriage, the divorce rate peaks in cultures worldwide. If a close relationship is to endure, it will settle to a steadier but still warm afterglow called companionate love. The passion facilitating hormones (testosterone, dopamine, adrenaline) subside, while the hormone oxytocin supports feelings of attachment and trust. o Unlike the wild emotions of passionate love, companionate love is lower key; it's a deep, affectionate attachment. It activates different parts of the brain. And it just as real. o The flow and ebb of romantic love follows the pattern of addictions to caffeine, alcohol, and other drugs. At first, a drug gives a big kick, a high. With repetition, opponent emotions gain strength and tolerance develops. An amount that once was highly stimulating no longer gives a thrill. Stopping the substance, however, does not return you to where you started. Rather, it triggers withdrawal symptoms -- malaise, depression, the blahs. The same often happens in love. The passionate high is fated to become lukewarm. The no longer romantic relationship becomes taken for granted - until it ends. Then the jilted lover, the widower, the divorce, are surprised at how empty life now seems without the person they long ago stopped feeling passionately attached to. Having focused on what was not working, they stopped noticing what was. The cooling of passionate love over time and the growing importance of other factors, such as shared values, can be seen in the feelings of those who enter arranged versus love based marriages in India. Those who married for love reported diminishing feelings of love after a 5 year newlywed period. By contrast, those in arranged marriages reported more love after 5 years. o Th cooling of intense romantic love often triggers a period of disillusion, especially among those who believe that romantic love is essential both for a marriage and for its continuation. o The decline in intense mutual fascination may be natural and adaptive for species survival. The result of passionate love is often children, whose survival is aided by the parents; waning obsession with each other. nevertheless, for those married more than 20 years, some of the lost romantic feeling is often renewed as the family nest empties and the parents are once again free to focus their afternoon on each other.

Anxious Attachment

Approximately 1 in 10 infants and adults exhibit the anxiousness and ambivalence that mark anxious attachment, the second type of insecure attachment. In the strange situation, infants are more likely to cling anxiously to their mother. If she leaves, they cry; when she returns, they may be indifferent or hostile. As adults, insecure individuals are less trusting, more fearful of a partner's becoming interested in someone else, and thereof more possessive and jealous. They break up repeatedly with the same person. When discussing conflicts, they get emotional and often angry, and their self esteem fluctuates more based on feedback from others, especially romantic partners. Their eagerness to form relationships can hamper their efforts because others perceive their anxiety and the interaction becomes awkward. Anxiously attached people can even transfer their anxious attachment style to their smartphones, causing them to rely on their phones more and check their phones more often - even while driving. o Anxious aka Preoccupied - High anxiety and low avoidance - negative model of self and positive view of others - preoccupied with relationships (ruminates), overly seeks intimacy, jealous, clingy, break - ups O What attachment matters: Anxiety - controlling, intrusive caregiving - sexual activity to avoid rejection or feel loved - Perceiving partners as inattentive, reluctant to commit - Over-perceiving conflict in relationship

Implications

Are increases in screen time and decreases in socializing leading to societal changes? "Loneliness Epidemic" "Sexual Recession" "Generation Me" and "iGen" Loneliness Epidemic: For instance, if people mistakenly seek social connection form their smartphones rather than engaging in social interaction with others, they may in fact become more lonely. Thus, this research has strong implication for the loneliness epidemic that I discussed earlier. Sexual recession (people are defining sex differently): Research reported in an Atlantic article suggests that people in are having less sexual intercourse on average. Further research needs to be conducted to determine if people are having less sexual intercourse overall because its is being replaced by other sexual or non-sexual activities, such as screen time. However, If people are in fact having less sex because they are engaging in fewer in-person social interactions, it may be due to people mistakenly seeking screen time. Generation Me/iGen: Furthermore, research by Jean Twenge and colleagues suggest that the coming of the internet, social media, and smartphones has resulted in generational changes. Her research suggests that these developments have lead to Millenials—"Generation Me"— becoming the most narcissistic generation, and Generation Y—iGen—to be the safest generation, as well as growing up more slowly. However, this research is generational, so causal evidence is needed to show that these developments do in fact have these consequences.

Smartphones Disrupt Social Experiences

First Example: o They reduce interactions with strangers o They put participants into pairs who did not know each other and had them sit in a waiting room for 10 minutes o Researchers randomly assigned them to either have their phones or to not have their phones. o they observed the participants on a camera and looked for interactions and smiles. o The found participants with their phone were less likely to initiate interaction and exhibited fewer smiles compared to participants who did not have their phone 2nd example: o Participants were asked to find an unfamiliar building on campus o They were randomly assigned if they could have their phone or not. o Randomly assigned participants to a condition in which they could rely on their phones (phone condition) or a condition in which they could not rely on their phones (phoneless condition). o Those who had phone asked fewer people for directions and were less socially connected. o Participants who used their phones talked to fewer people to obtain directions and felt less socially connected than those who left their phone in the lab 3rd example: o Reduces enjoyment of interactions o Participants shared a meal with friends and family - a typically social event o They were randomly assigned to have their phone or to not have their phone while dining o participants in the phone condition reported significantly lower interest and enjoyment, and higher distraction than those in the phoneless condition. o At the end of meal they filled out a survey and if they had their phone they reported lower interest, lower enjoyment, and higher distraction. 4th example: o They recruited parents attending a science museum with their children to participate in a field experiment o They randomly assigned parents to use their phones as much or as little as possible. o Parents who were asked to use their phone a lot reported lower subjective attention quality and lower social connection than parents asked to barely use their phone.

Similarity

Likeness Begets Liking o Over and over in experiments, they found that the more similar someone's attitudes are to your own, the more you will like the person. o Recent studies have replicated these effects, finding that students like others with similar attitudes. Dissimilarity breeds dislike o We have a bias - the false consensus bias- towards assuming that others share our attitudes. We also tend to see those we like as being like us. Getting to know someone- and discovering that the person is actually dissimilar - tends to decrease liking. If those dissimilar attitudes pertain to our strong moral convictions, we dislike and distance ourselves from them all the more. o In general, dissimilar attitudes depress liking more than similar attitudes enhance it. Within their own groups, where they expect similarity, people find it especially difficult to like someone with dissimilar views. o Whether people perceive those of another race as similar or dissimilar influences their racial attitudes. Whenever one group regards another as "other" - as creatures that speak differently, live differently, think differently - the potential for conflict is high. DO opposites attract? o Are we not also attracted to people who in some ways differ from ourselves? we are physically attracted to people whose scent suggests dissimilar enough genes to prevent imbreeding. But what about attitudes and behavioral traits? o Some complementarity may evolve as a relationship progresses. yet people seem slightly more prone to like and to marry those whose needs, attitudes, and personalities are similar. o But as a general rule, opposites do not attract.

Money and Happiness study

Yellow: Spending money on someone else Blue: Spending money on yourself o Money and happiness o They measured mood and then gave participants ($5 or $20) then given instructions to spend their money on their self or someone else o Then measured mood that evening o Those who spent for others reported greater happiness than people who spent money on themselves <-- they became less happy. Those who spent on others were more happy and it was the same for $5 or $20 and people thought they would be happier if they spent $20 <-- not true. o Also extends outside of u.s. <-- places where people have excess money. o in 120 out of 136 (ranging in factors including socioeconomic statuses) there was positive correlation between prosocial giving and happiness. o They also looked at this in a subset of countries and gave people the option to buy a goody-bag and it was either for themselves or sick child and those giving to the sick child were happier even if they did not have money to provide for themselves. o If universal we might see it in children o 2 year old and puppet o Gave child snacks and asked would you like to give goldfish to the puppet. o They measured happiness by facial expressions by coders o Something about giving your own thing makes you even more happier than giving the experimenters goldfish.

Study 2

o 107 participants o They wanted to know if their forecast would match their actual feelings after o This time instead of imagining, the participants actually engaged in each of the 5 activities for 7 minutes and received the same instructions as participants who imagined and forecasted their experiences. o They completed the same positive affect and negative affect measures and ranked their preferences for the activities. Actual affect o Participants experienced talking to a stranger to be the most enjoyable (most positive affects and least negative affects - although this negative affect did not significantly differ from TV), followed by watching TV, social media, and texting. o They also experienced sitting alone to be the last enjoyable (least positive affects and most negative affects). Actual Rank Order Preferences o Next participants rated watching TV and texting to be the most preferred activities, even over having a conversation with a stranger. o This is especially surprising since having a conversation was the most enjoyable experience o However. consistent with forecasts from the last study and their actual experiences, participants ranked sitting alone as being the least enjoyable activity. o Thus, from these two studies we can begin to see that people may be overestimating the enjoyment and preference of screen time activities when compared to having a conversation.

Study 4 method

o 210 participants o Participants were asked to forecast their affect and loneliness while sitting alone, talking to a stranger, or using their smartphone however they would like. o also ranked these activities in order of preference o After actually engaging in these activities, participants experienced having a conversation as the most enjoyable activity (most positive affect and least negative affect), followed by using their smartphone, and then sitting alone (least positive affects and most negative affects) o Participants also experienced having a conversation as the least lonely activity, and thus it elicited higher levels of social connection, followed by smartphone use, then sitting alone. Actual rank order preference o When asked to rank order the three activities, participants preferred having a conversation, followed by using their smartphone, followed by sitting alone. o which is different to the ranking of the five activities whereby participants still ranked TV and texting as more preferable than conversation, even after experience the most favorable affect while having a conversation.

Study 1 method

o 271 participants o They asked participants to imagine what it would be like to come into the lab and engage in each of these activities for 7 minutes Forecasted positive and negative affect for 5 activities: Sitting alone Conversation with stranger Watching TV Browsing social media Texting a friend Ranked their preference for engaging in these activities o Research suggests that people are not good at forecasting how they will feel in the future. Thus, we wanted to know if people forecast, or expect, that they will enjoy screen time, perhaps even better than sitting alone or talking to a stranger. Sitting alone: Asked to sit alone in a room and JUST THINK. Conversation: Asked to talk with a person (confederate) with whom they've just met Watching TV: Asked to watch whichever Netflix show they wanted Browsing social media: Asked to passively use social media, Were allowed to comment on posts, but instructed to not have direct conversations with anyone (e.g., DM) Texting a friend: Asked to text a good friend. Were also abled to use WhatsApp or any other direct messaging app. The order in which they imagined these activities were counterbalanced. o After forecasting what it would be like to engage in an activity, they filled out the following scale: - On a scale form 0 to 100, participants were asked to forecast how much they would feel each emotion. - Positive affect items include: Engaged, interested, happy, and excited - Negative affect items include: Bored, irritable, sad, and anxious - They completed this measure for each of the five activities o After imagining each of the 5 activities, participants also ranked the activities in order of preference, with 1 as most preferred and 5 as the least preferred. Forecasted affect (positive or negative affects) o Participants forecasted that watching TV would be the most enjoyable (most Positive affects and least Negative Affects) o They also forecasted that Sitting Alone would be the least enjoyable (least PA and most NA) o Social media, texting, and talking to a stranger were forecasted as being less enjoyable than watching TV and more enjoyable than sitting alone, although they did not differ from one another. Forecasted rank order preferences: o While participants ranked TV as the most preferred—closest to 1—Conversation was their least preferred—closest to 5— followed by Alone. o Together, these results suggest that participants might expect that watching TV, and perhaps even social media and texting, might be better overall than talking to a stranger. o This can be contrasted to participants' forecasted preferences via the rank order item, in which talking to a stranger and sitting alone were ranked as the least desirable activities, with television, social media, and texting similarly preferred.

Perceive injustice

o According to some social psychological theorists, people perceive justice as equity - the distribution of rewards in proportion to individuals' contributions. If you contribute more and benefit more than Jamie does, you will feel exploited and irritated; Jamie may feel exploitive and guilty. Chances are, though, that you will become more sensitive to the inequity than Jamie will be. o We may agree with the equity principle's definition of justice yet disagree on whether our relationship is equitable. o Those with social power usually convince themselves and others that they deserve what they're getting. This has been called a "golden" rule: Whoever has the gold makes the rules. o Critics argue that equity is not the only conceivable definition of justice. Sampson argued that equity theorists wrongly assume that the economic principle that guides Western, capitalist nations are universal. Some noncaptialis cultures define justice not as equity but as equality or even fulfillment of a need. Equality = same outcomes. Equity = outcomes proportional to people's contributions.

Avoidant Attachment (fear and dismissal)

o Approximately 2 in 10 infants and adults exhibit avoidant attachment, one of the two types of INSECURE ATTACHMENT. Although internally aroused, avoidant infants reveal little distress during separation and little clinging upon reunion. Avoiding closeness, avoidant adults tend to be less invested in relationships and more likely to leave them. They also are more fearful to engage in uncommitted hookups and are more likely to be sexually unfaithful to their partners in both straight and gay relationships. o Avoidant individuals may be either FEARFUL ("I am uncomfortable getting close to others") or DISMISSING ("It is very important to me to feel independent and self sufficient"). More college students in the US had a dismissing attachment style in the 2010s (vs. the 1980s), and fewer had a secure attachment style. The researchers speculate that this shift may be rooted in changing family structures and an increasing emphasis on individualism. o Dismissing - Low anxiety but high avoidance - Negative model of others and positive view of oneself - Secure self, not trusting, dismissing of intimacy, seeks independence and distance, causal sex, break ups o Fearful - High anxiety and high avoidance - Negative view of others and negative view of oneself - Preoccupied with relationships (ruminates), not trusting, fearful of and avoids intimacy, break ups o Why attachment matters: Avoidance - less support provision to partners [] responds to request for support in cold ways - less frequent intimate sexual activity but more casual sex - attending more to alternative partners - emotional and physical infidelity

Genuine Altruism and Empathy

o Are such anonymous benefactors- along with lifesaving heroes, everyday blood donors' and Peace Corps volunteers- ever motivated by an ultimate goal of selfless concern for others? Or is their ultimate goal some form of self benefit, such as gaining a reward, avoiding punishment and guilt, or relieving distress? o Lincoln said that all helping is selfish and until recently, psychologists would have sided with Lincoln. o \ Distress over someone's suffering motivates us to relieve our upset, either by escaping the distressing situation (like the priest and the Levite) or by helping (like the Samaritan or Lincoln). But especially when we feel securely attached to someone, reported both Batson and a team of attachment researchers led by Mikulincer, we also feel empathy. o When we feel empathy, we focus not so much on our distress as on the sufferer. Genuine sympathy and compassion motivate us to help others for their own sakes. When we value another's welfare, perceive the person as in need, and take the person's perspective, we feel emphatic concern. When empathic people identify with someone else's distress, they want to help them; when they identify with others' positive meotions, they also want to help them feel happier - the."random acts of kindness" approach to altruism. o To increase empathy, it helps to get a small dose of what another feels. o in humans, empathy comes naturally. Even day old infants cry more when they hear another infant cry.

How to keep the spark alive

o Arousing activities o Arousing activities can lead to increase in relationship quality. Muise had people do novel activities and others do something not novel and other couple had better marriage or whatever. Exciting activities result in increased sexual desire and more relationship satisfaction .

Attachment over time

o Attachment system develops over time o Our attachment as children predicts our attachment later in life o How we are treated as a child predicts our adulthood relationship behavior/ quality. o Longitudinal study - predictor: maternal caregiving at 18 months [] looked to see if it was sensitive or controlling - dependent variable was attachment at age 22 - Avoidance and anxiety dimensions - Friends, parents, romantic partner - results: [] More sensitive, less controlling maternal caregiving at 18 months --> less avoidant, less anxious attachment at 22 years. But not equal for all partners. Mother's caregiving during infancy does not predict child's attachment to mother at 22 years.

Reward theory of attraction

o Attraction involves the one who is attracted as well as the attractor. Thus, a more psychologically accurate answer might be, "I like Carol because of how I feel when I'm with her." We are attracted to those we find satisfying and gratifying to be with. Attraction is in the eye (and brain) of the beholder. o The point can be expressed as a simple reward theory of attraction: those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards, we like. If a relationship gives us more rewards than costs, we will like it and will want it to continue. o "Friendship is a scheme for the mutual exchange of personal advantages and favors whereby self esteem may profit". o We not only like people who are awarding to be with but also, according to the second version of the reward principle, like those we associate with good feelings. Conditioning creates positive feelings toward things and people linked with rewarding events. o We are less likely to take a liking to someone we meet while suffering a splitting headache. o Experiments confirm this phenomenon of liking - and disliking- by association. When an experimenter was friendly, participants chose to interact with someone who looked similar to her, but if she was unfriendly, they avoided the similar looking woman. o The simple theory of attraction - we like those who reward us and those we associate with rewards - helps us understand why people everywhere feel attracted to those who are warm, trustworthy, and responsive.

Do people help when they are happy or sad?

o Both happiness and sadness previously shown to increase helping but likely for different reasons o Happiness: helping could maintain a positive mood, or could simply be a side effect o Sadness: helping could dispel negative mood - Negative state relief hypothesis: People help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress

Infants and caregiving

o Bowlby identified three types of babies - Secure babies: caregivers are responsive, sensitive to expressions of need - Anxious/ ambivalent babies: caregivers are inconsistent, hit or miss or chaotic, expression of need are ineffective - Avoidant babies: emotionally unavailable and/ or rejecting caregivers. o Our dependence as infants strengthens our human bonds. Soon after birth, we exhibit various social responses - love, fear, anger. But the first and greater of these is love. As babies, we almost immediately prefer familiar faces and voices. By keeping infants close to their caregivers, strong social attachment serves as a powerful survival impulse. o Deprived of familiar attachments, sometimes under conditions of extreme neglect, children may become withdrawn, frightened, silent. After studying the mental health of abandoned children for The Who, psychiatrist John Bowlby (1980) reflected, "Intimate attachments t =o other human beings are the hub around which a person's life revolves.... From these intimate attachments [people draw] strength and enjoyment of life." o Researchers have compared attachment and love in various close relationships - between parents and children, between friends, and between spouses or lovers. Some elements are common to all loving attachments: mutual understanding, giving and receiving support, valuing and enjoying being with the loved one. The same brain areas associated with maternal attachment are also activated when adults think about their romantic partner. Passionate love is, however, spiced with some added features: physical affection, an expectation of exclusiveness, and an intense fascination with the loved one. o Passionate love is not just for lovers. The intense love of parent and infant for each other qualifies as a form of passionate low. year old infants, like young adult lovers, welcome physical affection, feel distress when separated, express intense affection when reunited. and take great pleasure in the significant other's attention and approval. Of course, infants vary in how they relate to caregivers, and so do adults in how they relate to romantic partners. This made Phillip Shaver and Cindy Hazan (1993,1994) wonder whether infant attachment styles might carry over to adult relationships.

Attachment in Adulthood

o Bowlby said attachment behavior happens throughout life o So a number of researchers have studied it o There are differences between adult attachment and infant - Sexual system - symmetry in terms of tales they play - both are giving to relationship and have similar contributions. - "felt security" without physical contact - whereas babies need the physical contact.

The bystander effect

o Bystander passivity during emergencies prompted social commentators to lament people's "alienation," "apathy," "indifference," and "unconscious sadistic impulses." By attributing the nonintervention to the bystanders' dispositions, we can reassure ourselves that, as caring people, e would have helped. But were the bystander such inhuman characters? o Social psychologists were unconvinced. They staged ingenious emergencies and found that a single situational factor - the presence of other bystanders - greatly decreased intervention. By 1980, they had conducted four dozen experiments that compared help given by bystanders who perceived themselves to be either alone or with others. A person was as likely to be helped by a lone bystander as when observed by several bystanders. o Sometimes the victim was actually less likely to get help when many people were around. o In a meta analysis of 105 studies, the presence of more people during critical situations lowered the chances that people would help. Even children as young as 5 are less likely to help when other children are present. o Why does the presence of other bystanders sometimes inhibit helping? Latane and Darley surmised that as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem or an emergency, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action. o Unlike the smoke filled room experiment, each of these everyday situations involves the desperate need of another person. In such situations, a bystander effect occurs: people are less likely to help someone when other bystanders are present.

What is Conflict?

o Conflict is when people (seem to) have incompatible actions or goals - Can be between individuals, groups, nations - At least one party needs to perceive the conflict. o Conflict signifies involvement, commitment, and caring. if conflict is understood and recognized, it can end oppression and stimulate renewed relationships. Without conflict, people seldom face and resolve their problems. o Peace is the outcome of a creatively managed conflict. Peace is the parties reconciling their perceived differences and reaching genuine accord.

Self-disclosure; disclosure reciprocity

o Deep, companionate relationships are intimate. They enable us to be known as we truly are and to feel accepted. o We discover this delicious experience in a good marriage or a close friendship - a relationship where trust displaces anxiety and where we are free to open ourselves without fear of losing the other's affection. o Such relationships are characterized by self disclosure. As a relationship grows, self disclosing partners reveal more and more of themselves to each other. o Not only do we like those who disclose, we also disclose to those whom we like. And after disclosing to them, we like them more. Lacking opportunities for intimate disclosure or concealing distressing information, we experience the pain of loneliness o The most reliable finding is the disclosure reciprocity effect: Disclosure begets disclosure. We reveal more to those who have been open with us. But intimate disclosure is seldom instant. (If it is, there person may seem indiscreet and unstable). Appropriate intimacy progresses like a dance: I reveal a little, you reveal a little - but not too much. you then reveal more, and I reciprocate. "What are the effects of such self-disclosure? Humanistic psychologist Sidney Jourard (1964) argued that dropping our masks, letting ourselves be known as we are, nurtures love. He presumed that it is gratifying to open up to another and then to receive the trust another implies by being open with us. People feel better on days when they have disclosed something significant about themselves, such as their being lesbian or gay, and feel worse when concealing their identity (Beals et al., 2009). Those whose days include more deep or substantive discussions, rather than just small talk, tend to be happier. "

Relatedness

o Desire to interact with, be connected to, and experience a sense of caring for others o If they feel relatedness with the money. If helping friends you'd feel more happy about giving money to others Would it make you happier to give your friend a Starbucks gift card or go to Starbucks with your friend and buy him/her something with the gift card?

Kin Selection

o Our genes predispose us to care for relatives. Thus, one form of self sacrifice that would increase gene survival is devotion to one's children, a primal form of altruism embedded in parents' brains. Comapred with neglectful parents, parents who prioritize their children's welfare are more likely to pass their genes on. Although evolution favors self sacrifice for one's children, children have less at stake in the survival of their parents; genes. Thus, parents will generally be more devoted to their children than their children are to them. o Kin selection - favoritism toward those who share out genes. o The kin selection principle implies that nature (as well as culture) programs us to care about close relatives. o Some evolutionary psychologists note that kin selection predisposes ethnic in-group favoritism - the root of countless historical and contemporary conflicts.

What is considered attractive for men and for women?

o Despite variations, there remains "strong agreement both within and across cultures about who is and who is not attractive". o To be really attractive is, ironically, to be perfectly average. Across 27 nations, an average leg length to body ration looks more attractive than very short or long legs. o With both humans and enamels, averaged looks best embody prototypes and thus easy for the brain to process and categorize. Let's face it: perfectly average is easy on the eyes (and brain). o Computer averaged faces and bodies also tend to be perfectly symmetrical - another characteristic of strikingly attractive (and reproductively successful) people. If you could merge either half of your face with its mirror image - thus forming a perfectly symmetrical new face - you would boost your looks Evolution and Attraction o Psychologists working from the evolutionary perspective explain the human preference for attractive partners in terms of reproductive strategy. They assume that beauty signals biologically important information: health, youth, and fertility. And so it does. Men with attractive faces have higher quality sperm. Women with hourglass digures have more regular mentrual cycles and are more fertile. Over time, men who preferred fertile looking women out reproduced those who were as happy to mate with postmenopausal females. o Evolutionary psychologists also assume that evolution predisposes women to favor male traits that signify an ability to provide and protect resources. o When judging males as potential marriage partners, women, too, prefer a male was it to hip ratio suggesting health and vigor. Social Comparison o What is attractive to you also depends on your comparison standards. o To men who have recently been gazing at centerfolds, average women or even their own wives tend to seem less attractive. Viewing porn simulating passionate sex similarly decreases satisfaction with one's own partner. Being sexually aroused may temporarily make a person of the other sex seem more attractive. o It works the same way with our self perceptions. After viewing a very attractive person of the same gender, people rate themselves as being less attractive than after viewing a homely person. Such extraordinary comparison standards trick us into devaluing our potential mates and ourselves and spending billions on cosmetics, diet aids, and plastic surgery. The Attractiveness of those we Love o Not only do we perceive attractive people as likable, but also we perceive liable people as attractive. o Discovering someone's similarities to us also makes the person seem more attractive o the more in love a woman is with a man, the more physically attractive she finds him.

Screen time and well being

o Different types of screens not just one type o Screen time is associated with - Loneliness - Depression - Anxiety - Sleep Disturbance - Less Happiness o However, these relationships are correlational--- So what does this mean??? What kind of conclusions can we draw, or can we not draw, from these results? o We do not know actual cause o Screen time --> poor well being but we don't know that screen time casques poor well being or poor well being leads to more screen time or a 3rd variable

What other emotions other than happy and say may lead people to help? Guilt

o Distress is not the only negative emotion we act to reduce. Throughout recorded history, guilt has been a painful emotion that people avoid and seek to relieve. o As Everett Sanderson remarked after heroically saving a child who had fallen onto subway tracks in front of an approaching train, "If I hadn't tried to save that little girl, if I had just stood there like the others, I would have died inside. I would have been no good to myself from then on." o To examine the consequences of guilt, social psychologists have induced people to transgress: to lie, to deliver shock, to knock over a table loaded with alphabetized cards, to break a machine, to cheat. Afterward, the guilt laden participants may be offered a way to relieve their guilt: by confessing, by disparaging the one harmed, or by doing a good deed to offset the bad one. The results are remarkably consistent: People will do whatever can be done to expunge the guilt, relieve their bad feelings, and restore their self image. o Our eagerness to do good after doing bad reflects our need to reduce private guilt and restore a shaken self image. It also reflects our desire to reclaim a positive public image. We are more likely to redeem ourselves with helpful behavior when other people know about our misdeeds. o Among well socialized adults, should we always expect to find the "feel-bad/do-good" phenomenon? No. One negative mood, anger, produces anything but compassion. Another expectation is profound grief. people who suffer the loss of a spouse or a child, whether through death or separation, often undergo a period of intense self preoccupation, which restrains giving to others. In short, the feel-bad/do-good effect occurs with people whose attention is on others - a state of mind that apparently makes altruism more rewarding. If they are not self preoccupied by depression or fried, sad people are sensitive, helpful people.

Individual Differences in Prosocial Behavior

o Does everybody help to the same extent? o Gender - Women [] Long term, nurturing relationships whereas - Men []situations that require heroic acts

what is attachment?

o Global orientation toward relationships. o Schemas: are we valuable? Are other people a good source of relational support/ availability? o Model of self/ model of others o Global Orientation toward relationships - general level o How do I behave in relationships ? o Internal working models, relational schemas - Self (Am I worthy of love and support or not?) - Others (are people supportive/ available or not) - Relationships in general (are they a good thing? rewarding or not?)

Sadness (Determinants of Prosocial Behavior)

o Helping could dispel negative mood o Negative state relief hypothesis: People help in order to alleviate their own sadness and distress o The benefits of helping also include reducing or avoiding negative emotions. Near someone in distress, we may feel distress. A woman's scream outside your window arouses and distresses you. If you cannot reduce your arousal by interpreting the scream as a playful shriek, then you may investigate or give aid, thereby reducing your distress. o Altruism researcher Krebs found that Harvard University men whose physiological responses and self reports revelaed the most arousal in response to another's distress also gave the most help to the person. o Sure enough, the brains of "extraordinary altruists" - people who donated a kidney to a stranger - reacted more strongly to images of fearful faces. Their amygdala (the part of the brain that reacts to fear) was also larger than average. o Happy people are helpful. o Examples: o In Australia, Forgas and colleagues had a confederate offer either a mood boosting compliment or a mood deflating criticism to a salesperson. moments later, a second confederate, who was "blind" to the mood induction condition, sought the employee's help in locating a nonexistent item. Those receiving the mood boost made the greatest effort to help. o If sad people are sometimes extra helpful, how can it be that happy people are also helpful? o Experiments reveal several factors at work. helping softens a bad mood and sustains a good mood. A positive mood is, in turn, conducive to positive thoughts and positive self esteem, which predisposes us to positive behavior. In a good mood - after receiving a gift or while feeling the warm glow of success - people are more likely to have positive thoughts. And positive thinkers are likely to be positive actors... which explains why, even after controlling for other demographic factors, extraordinary acts or altruism tend to come from happy places. The areas of the Untied States with the happiest people are also the places with the highest rates of kidney donation.

Happiness (Determinants of Prosocial Behavior)

o Helping could maintain a positive mood, or could simply be a side effect of helping o Rewards that motivate helping may be external or internal. o We give to get. Thus, we are most eager to help someone attractive to us, someone whose approval we desire. In experiments, an in everyday life, public generosity boosts one's status, while selfish behavior can lead to punishment. o Rewards may also be internal, often focused on increasing positive emotions. Nearly all blood donors agree that giving blood "makes you feel good about yourself" and "gives you a feeling of self satisfaction". Feeling good helps explain why people far from home will do kindness for strangers whom they will never see again. o Helping's boost to self worth explains this do good/ feel good effect. One month long study of 85 couples found that giving emotional support to one's partner was positive for the giver; giving support boosted the giver's mood. People who volunteer and help others report finding more meaning in life. Some have even suggested that health care providers should actually prescribe volunteering to improve mood and physical health. Volunteering likewise benefits morale and health, especially when self initiated rather than required. o Making donations activates brain areas linked with reward. Generous people are happier than those whose spending is self focused. In one experiment, some people given an envelope of cash were told to spend it on themselves, while others were directed to spend the money on other people. At the day's end, those who spent their money on others were happier. o Other research confirms that giving increases happiness: - A survey of more than 200,000 people in 136 countries found that, virtually everywhere, people report feeling happier after spending money on others rather than on themselves. Givers are also less prone to depression than non givers. - Giving employees "prosocial bonuses" - charitable donations to spend on others, or on teammates rather than themselves - produces "happier and more satisfied employees" and higher performing work teams. - Purchasing a goody bag for a sick child improved people's mood enough for others to notice their increased happiness

Zero sum thinking

o Outcomes need not sum to zero o Most real life conflicts - like the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons, are non zero sum games. The two sides' profits and losses need not add up to zero. Both can win; both can lose. Each game pits the immediate interest of individuals against the well being of the group. Each is a diabolical social trap that shows how, even when each individual behaves rationally, harm can result. No malicious person planned for the Earth's atmosphere to be warmed by a CO2 blanket. o Not all self serving behavior leads to collective doom. In a plentiful commons - as in the world of the 18th century capitalist economist Adam Smith - individuals who seek to maximize their own profit may also give the community what it needs...

Romantic/ Passionate Love and The role of novel, arousing activities two factor theory of emotion

o Passionate love is a cross cultural universal thing o What is passionate love like? typical features: - Swift onset - relatively short duration (declines over time) because missing commitment - Idealization of the beloved. put them on a pedestal. They can do no wrong. - Cognitive preoccupation with (only) the beloved - Intense emotions (often fluctuating). Hurt easily by the person. - Sexual desire o Passionate love is emotional, exciting, intense. Elaine Hatfield (1988) defined it as "a state of intense longing for union with another". If reciprocated, one feels fulfilled and joyous; if not, one feels empty or despairing. Like other forms of emotional excitement, passionate love involves a roller coaster of elation and gloom, tingling exhilaration and dejected misery. "We are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love," observed freud. Passionate love preoccupies the lover with thoughts of the other, involving the same reward pathways in the brain as addictions to substances. o Passionate love is what you feel when you not only love someone but also are "in love" with him or her. A theory of passionate love: o To explain passionate love, Hatfeild notes that a given state of arousal can be steered into any of several emotions, depending on how we attribute the arousal. An emotion involves both body and mind - both arousal and the way we interpret and label that arousal. In this view passionate love is the psychological experience of being biologically aroused by someone we find attractive. o if indeed passion is a revved up state that's labeled "love", then whatever revs one up should intensify feelings of love. In several experiments, college men aroused by reading or viewing erotic materials had a heightened response to a woman - for example, by scoring much higher on a love scale when describing their girlfriend. Proponents of the two factor theory of emotion argue that when the revved up men responded to a woman, they easily misattributed some of their own arousal to her. o According to this theory, being aroused by any source should intensify passionate feelings - provided that the mind is free to attribute some of the arousal to a romantic stimulus. In a dramatic and famous demonstration of this phenomenon, Dutton and Aron (1974) had an attractive young woman approach individual young men as they crossed a narrow, wobbly, 450 foot long suspension walkway hanging 230 feet about British Columbia's rocky Capilano River. The woman asked each man to help her fill out a class questionnaire. When he had finished, she scribbled her name and phone number an invited hum to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. Most accepted the phone number, and half who did so called. By contrast, men approached by the woman on a low, solid bridge rarely called. Once again, physical arousal accentuated romantic responses. o Scary movies, roller coaster rides, and physical exercise have the same effect, especially with those we find attractive. The effect hold true with married couples, too. Those who do exciting activities together report the best relationships. And after doing arousing rather than mundane laboratory task (roughly the equivalent of a three legged race on their hands and knees), couple also reported higher satisfaction with their overall relationship. Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder. o AS this suggests, passionate love is a biological as well as psychological phenomenon. Research by social psychologist Aron (2005) indicates that passionate love engages dopamine rich brain areas associated with reward. o Love is also a social phenomenon. Love is more than lust. Supplement sexual desire with a deepening friendship and the result is romantic love.

Reducing ambiguity and increasing responsibility

o Helping should increase if we can prompt people to correctly interpret an incident and to assume responsibility. o Witnesses heard a bystander interpret the incident: "Say, look at her. She's shoplifting. She put that into her purse." Still others heard this person add, "We saw it. We should report it. It's our responsibility." Both comments substantially boosted reporting the crime. o Leonard Jason and collaborators confirmed that personal appeals for blood donation are much more effective than posters and media announcements - if the personal appeals come from friends. o Helpfulness increases when anonymity is reduced. like when researchers had bystanders identify themselves to one another. o Helpfulness also increases when one expects to meet the victim and other witnesses again. o In short, anything that personalizes bystanders - a personal request, eye contact, stating one's name, anticipating interaction - increases willingness to help. o Personal treatment makes bystanders more self aware. And self aware people are more attuned to their own altruistic ideals. Note that people made self aware by acting in front of a mirror or a TV camera exhibit increased consistency between attitudes and actions. By contrast, "deindividuated" people are less responsible. Thus, circumstances that promote self awareness - name tags, being watched and evaluated, undistracted quiet - should also increase helping.

Socializing Altruism overjustificatoin effect Moral Exclusion

o How might we socialize altruism? Here are five ways: - Teach moral inclusion - Model altruism - Learn by doing - Attribute helping behavior to altruism - Learn about Altruism Teaching Moral Inclusion o Moral concern encircles diverse people. o Moral exclusion - omitting certain people form one's circle of moral concern - has the opposite effect. it justifies all sorts of harm, from discrimination to genocide. Exploitation or cruelty becomes acceptable, even appropriate, toward those whom we regard as undeserving or an nonpersons. To a lesser extent, moral exclusion describes those of us who concentrate our concerns, favors, and financial inheritance upon "our people" (for example, our children) to the exclusion of others. o More exclusion also describes restriction in the public empathy for the human costs of war. o We early become numbed by impersonal big numbers of outgrip fatalities. o A first step toward socializing altruism is therefore to counter the natural in-group bias favoring kin and tribe by personalizing and broadening the range of people whose well being should concern us. o Inviting advantaged people to put themselves in others' shoes, to imagine how they feel, also helps. To "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," one must take the others' perspective. Modeling Altruism o Previously, we noted that seeing unresponsive bystanders makes us less likely to help. people reared by extremely punitive parents, as were many delinquents and chronic criminals, also show much less of the empathy and principled caring that typify altruists. o Real life modeling - If, however, we see or read about someone helping, we become more likely to offer assistance. If they had earlier witnessed someone helping a woman who'd dropped books, female shoppers in a real life experiment then became more likely to assist someone who had dropped a dollar. - It's better, noted Robert Cialdini and co workers, not to publicize rampant tax cheating, littering, and teens drinking, and instead to emphasize - to define a norm of - people's widespread honesty, cleanliness, and abstinence. o Media Modeling - Do TV's positive models promote helping, much as its aggressive portrayals promote aggression? Prosocial TV models have actually had even greater effects than antisocial models. - Prosocial TV models have actually had even greater effects than antisocial models - Susan Hearold (1986) statistically combined 108 comparisons of prosocial programs with neutral programs or no program. She found that, on average, "If the viewer watched prosocial programs instead of neutral programs, he would [at least temporarily] be elevated from the 50th to the 74th percentile in prosocial behavior - typically altruism." - Other media also effectively model prosocial behavior, partly by increasing empathy. Recent studies from across the world show positive effects on attitudes or behavior from prosocial media, including playing prosocial video games and listening to prosocial music lyrics. o learning by doing - erbin Staub has shown that just as immoral behavior fuels immoral attitudes, helping increases future helping. Children's and adults learn by doing. In a series of studies with children near age 12, Staub and his students found that after children were induced to make toys for hospitalized children or for an art teacher, they became more helpful. _ When children act helpfully, they develop helping related values, beliefs, and skills, notes Staub. Helping also helps satisfy their needs for a positive self concept. - On a larger scale =, "service learning" and volunteer programs woven into a school curriculum have been shown to increase later citizen involvement, social responsibility, cooperation, and leadership. Attitudes follow behavior. Helpful actions therefore promote the self perception that one is caring and helpful. And that compassionate positive self perception in turn promotes further helping. o Attributing helpful behavior to altruistic motives - Another clue to socializing altruism comes from research on the over justification effect: when the justification for an act is more than sufficient, the person may attribute their act to the extrinsic justification rather than to an inner motive. For example, if you pay a child to help you in the kitchen, she might come to believe she helped for the money rather than because she wanted to. Rewarding people for doing what they would do anyway therefore undermines intrinsic motivation. We can state the principle positively: BY providing people with just enough justification to prompt a good deed (weaning them from bribes and threats), we may increase their pleasure in doing such deeds on their own. - Daniel Batson and associates put the over justification phenomenon to work. In several experiments, they found that University of Kansas students felt more altruistic after they agreed to help someone without payment or implied social pressure. When pay had been offered or social pressures were present, people felt less altruistic after helping. - In another experiment, the researchers led students to attribute a helpful act to compliance ("I guess we really don't have a choice") or to compassion ("The guy really needs help"). Later, when the students were asked to volunteer their time to a local service agency, 25% of those who had been led to perceive their previous helpfulness as mere compliance now volunteered; of those led to see themselves as compassionate, 60% volunteered. The moral? When people wonder, "Why am I helping?" it's best if the circumstances enable them to answer, "Because help was needed, and I am a caring, giving, helpful person." - To predispose more people to help in situations in which most don't, it can also pay to induce a tentative positive commitment, from which people may infer their own helpfulness. Researchers observed that only about 5% of students responded to a campus blood drive after receiving an e-mail announcement a week ahead. They asked other students to reply to the announcement with a yes "if you think you probably will donate." Of those, 29% did reply and the actual donation rate was 8%. They asked a third group to reply with a no if they did not anticipate donating. Now 71% implied they might give (by not replying). 12% of these students - more than twice the normal rate - showed up to offer their blood. o Learning about altruism - Experiments revealed that once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits helping, they become more likely to help in group situations.

People are more isolated than ever before

o Increase in loneliness - by 2030 loneliness will reach obesity? o People are more isolated and spending time alone o More people are living alone o in 1985 people said 3 people they could confide in and it went to 2 by 2004. o can be detrimental to our health. o One reason why people are spending Time alone is because they are staring at screens. o More people are living alone, from 13% in 1960 to 28% in 2018 o Average number of close confidants has decreased from ~3 in 1985 to ~2 in 2004. o Number of people with zero confidants has tripled since 1985. o A lack of social relationships is a greater mortality risk than obesity o Their has also been a decrease in the size of our social networks. o This significant increase in isolation is serious, and may even be detrimental to our health. As research has shown that a lack of social relationships is a greater mortality risk than obesity. o There are many different factors that may be leading people to become more lonely and isolated, one of these possible factors is the amount of time spent looking at screens.

Divorce and the detachment process

o Individualistic cultures have more divorce than do communal cultures. Individualists marry for "as long as we both shall love," collectivists more often for life. Individualists expect more passion and personal fulfillment in a marriage, which puts greater pressure on the relationship. o "In one pair of surveys, "keeping romance alive" was rated as important to a good marriage by 78% of American women and 29% of Japanese women (American Enterprise, 1992). Eli Finkel and his colleagues (2014, 2017) argue that marriage has become more challenging in individualistic recent times as couples expect more fulfillment from marriage but invest fewer resources in it—a potentially impossible equation. Even in Western society, however, those who enter relationships with a long-term orientation and an intention to persist do experience healthier, less turbulent, and more durable partnerships (Arriaga, 2001; Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Enduring relationships are rooted in enduring love and satisfaction, but also in fear of the termination cost, a sense of moral obligation, and inattention to possible alternative partners (Adams & Jones, 1997; Maner et al., 2009; Miller, 1997). For those determined that their marriage last, it usually does. Those whose commitment to a union outlasts the desires that gave birth to it will endure times of conflict and unhappiness. One national survey found that 86% of those who were unhappily married but who stayed with the marriage were, when reinterviewed 5 years later, now mostly "very" or "quite" happy with their marriages (Popenoe, 2002). By contrast, narcissistic people enter relationships with less commitment and less likelihood of long-term relational success (Campbell & Foster, 2002)." o Our close relationships help define the social identity that shapes our self concept. Thus, much as we experience life's best moments when relationship begin -when having a baby, making a friend, falling in love - so we experience life's worst moment when relationships ned, with death or a broken bond. Serving bonds produces a predictable sequence of agitated preoccupation with the lost partner, followed by deep sadness and, eventually, the beginnings of emotional detachment, a letting go of the old whole focusing on someone new, and a renewed sense of self. Because humans often mate with more than one partner, we must have evolved psychological processes for cutting ties, a mechanism evolutionary psychologists dubbed the "mate ejection module". However, deep and long standing attachments seldom break quickly; detaching is a process, not an event. o Among dating couplee, the closer and longer the relationship and the fewer the available alternatives, the more painful the breakup. Surprisingly, Roy Baumeister and Sara Wotman report that, months or years later, people recall more pain one spurning someone's love than over having been spurned. Their distress arises from guilt over hurting someone, from upset over the heartbroken lover's persistence, or from uncertainty over how to respond. Among married couples, breakup has additional costs: shocked parents and friends, guilt over broken vows, anguish over reduced household income, and possibly less time with children. o When relationships suffer, those without better alternative or who feel invested in a relationship (through time, energy, mutual friends, possessions, and perhaps children) will seek alternatives to exiting the relationship. Rusbult and colleagues explored there ways of coping with a failing relationship. Some people exhibit loyalty - by waiting for conditions to improve. The problems are too painful to confront and the risks of seperation are too great, so the loyal partner preserves, hoping the good old days will return. Others (especially men) exhibit neglect; they ignore the partner and allow the relationship to deteriorate. With painful dissatisfactions ignored, an insidious emotional uncoupling ensues as the partners talk less and begin redefining their lives without each other. Still others will voice their concerns and take active steps to improve the relationship by discussing problems, seeking advice, and attempting to change. o Healthy marriage are not necessarily devoid of conflict. Rather, they were marked by an ability to reconcile differences and to overbalance criticism with affection. In successful marriages, positive interactions outnumbered negative interactions by at least a 5-1 ratio.

What is love?

o Loving is more complex than liking and thus more difficult to measure, more perplexing to study. People yearn for it, live for it, die for it. o The influences on our initial liking of another - proximity, attractiveness, similarity, being liked, and other rewarding traits - also influence our long term, close relationships. The impressions that dating couples quickly form of each other therefore provide a clue to their long term future. o Indeed, if North American romances flourished randomly, without regard to proximity and similarity, then most catholics (being a minority) would marry Protestants, most Blacks would marry Whites, and college graduates (also a minority) would be as apt to marry high school drop outs as to marry fellow graduates.

social Norms

o Often, we help others not because we have calculated consciously that such behavior is in our self interest but because of a subtler form of self interest: because something tells us we ought to. We ought to help a new neighbor move in. Norms, the oughts of our lives, are social expectations. The prescribe proper behavior. Researchers who study helping behavior have identified two social norms that motivate altruism: the reciprocity norm and the social responsibility norm.

Study 3 method

o One advantage of the first three studies is that various forms of screen time can be compared to one another (e.g., texting versus social media usage). However, using one's smartphone may occur in such a way that texting, social media usage, and internet browsing happen concurrently and/or via quick multitasking. Thus, a more ecologically valid measure may be to compare using one's smartphone to sitting alone and talking with a stranger. o Thus, from these two studies we can begin to see that people maybe be overestimating the enjoyment and preference of screen time activities when compared to having a conversation. o One advantage of the first two studies is that various forms of screen time can be compared to one another (e.g., texting versus social media usage). However, using one's smartphone may occur in such a way that texting, social media usage, and internet browsing happen concurrently and/or via quick multitasking. Thus, a more ecologically valid measure may be to compare using one's smartphone to sitting alone and talking with a stranger. o Thus, a more ecologically valid measure may be to compare using one's smartphone to sitting alone and talking with a stranger. Thus watching TV, texting, and social media were consolidated into one smartphone condition. o Participants were asked to forecast their affect and loneliness while sitting alone, talking to a stranger, or using their smartphone however they would like o And ranked these in order of preferences. o Participants forecasted that having a conversation would be the most enjoyable (most positive affect, similar negative affect to smartphone), followed by smartphone, then sitting alone (least positive affect, most negative affect). o Participants also forecasted that having a conversation would be the least lonely, and thus would elicit higher levels of social connection, followed by smartphone use, then sitting alone. Forecast Rank order preference: o When participants ranked the activities, they also preferred having a conversation over using their smartphone, with sitting alone as the least desired activity.

Proximity: Impact and why is proximity so attractive? and Mere Exposure Effect

o One powerful predictor of whether any two people are friends is sheer proximity. Proximity can also breed hostility. But much more often, proximity prompts liking. o Mitja Back and his University of Leipzig colleagues (2008) confirmed this by randomly assigning students to seat at their first class meeting and then having each make a brief self introduction to the whole class. One year after this one time seating assignment, students reported greater friendship with those who happened to be seated next to or near them during that first class gathering. o Though it may seem trivial to those pondering the mysterious origins of romantic love, sociologists long ago found that most people marry someone who lives in the same neighborhood, or works at the same company or job, or sits in the same class, or visits the same favorite place. Interaction o Even more significant than geographic distance is "functional distance" or how often people's paths cross. o Interaction enables people to explore their similarities, to sense one another's liking, to learn more about each other, and to perceive themselves as part of a social unit. o In one study, strangers liked each other more the longer they talked. o With repeated exposure to and interaction with someone, our infatuation may fix on almost anyone who has roughly similar characteristics and who reciprocates our affection. o Why does proximity breed liking? One factor is availability; obviously, there are fewer opportunities to get to know someone who attends a different school or live in another town. But there is more to it. Most people like their roommates, or those one door away, better than those two doors away. Anticipation of interaction o Proximity enables people to discover commonalities and exchange rewards. But merely anticipating interaction also boosts liking. Researchers discovered this when they gave university of Minnesota women ambiguous information about two other women, one of whom they expected to talk with intimately. Asked how much they liked each one, the women preferred the person they expected to meet. Expecting to date someone also boosts liking. o The phenomenon is adaptive. Anticipatory liking - expecting someone will be pleasant and compatible - increases the chance of forming a rewarding relationship. Mere exposure o Mere exposure to all sorts of novel stimuli - nonsense syllables, Chinese calligraphy characters, musical selections, faces - boosts people's ratings of them. o" Do the "words" nansoma, saricik, and afworbu mean something better or something worse than the words iktitaf, biwojni, and kadirga? Told these were words in Turkish (they are not), University of Michigan students tested by Robert Zajonc (1968, 1970) preferred whichever of these words they had seen most frequently. The more times they had seen a meaningless word or a Chinese ideograph, the more likely they were to say it meant something good (Figure 1). " o The mere exposure effect violates the commonsense prediction of boredom - decreased interest - regarding repeatedly heard music or tasted foods. Familiarity usually does not breed contempt, it increases liking. o However, there is such a things as too much exposure - if repetitions are incessant, liking eventually drops. music provides a vivid example. o mere exposure has an even stronger effect when people receive stimuli without awareness. In one experiment, women heard music in one headphone and words in the other; they were asked to repeat the words out loud, focusing attention towards the words and away from the tunes. Later, when the women heard the tunes interspersed among similar ones not previously played, they did not recognize them. Nevertheless, they liked best the tunes they had previously heard. o We like familiar people and perceive them as happier. Nd people we like seem more familiar. o Mere exposure's negative side is our wariness of the unfamiliar - which may explain the automatic, unscious prejudice people often feel when confronting those who are different. o We even like ourselves better the way we're used to seeing ourselves.

Reciprocity Norm and social capital

o One universal moral code is a reciprocity norm: To those who help us, we should return help, not harm. We "invest" in others and expect dividends. Politicians know that the one who gives a factor can later expect a favor. Mail surveys and solicitations sometimes include a little gift of money or personalized address labels, assuming some people will reciprocate the favor. o The reciprocity norm also applies within marriage. At times, you may give more than you receive, but in the long run, the exchange should balance out. In all such interactions, to receive without giving in return violates the reciprocity norm. o reciprocity within social networks helps define the social capital - the supportive connections, information flow, trust, and cooperate actions - that keep a community healthy. neighbors keeping an eye on one another's homes is social capital in action. o The norm operates most effectively as people respond publicly to deeds earlier done to them. In laboratory games as in everyday life, fleeting one shot encounters produce great selfishness than sustained relationships. o When people cannot reciprocate, they may feel threatened and demeaned by accepting aid. Thus, proud, high self esteem people are often reluctant to seek help. Receiving unsolicited hep can take one's self esteem down a notch. Studies have found this can happen to beneficiaries of affirmative action, especially when affirmative actions fails to affirm the person's competence and chances for future success. o Asians, for whom social ties and the reciprocity norm are stronger than for North Americans, are therefore more likely to refuse a gift from a casual acquaintance to avoid the perceived need to reciprocate. o The practical moral is that we should offer our children and our friends needed support but not provide so much support that we undermine their sense of competence.

DO we get the help we ask for? and egocentric bias

o People underestimate how likely others are to help them - sometimes by as much as 100% o Why? - Egocentric bias: hard to understand what others are thinking/ feeling - We underestimate how much social pressure there is on others to say yes [] Saying no is awkward and embarrassing! [] As help seekers, we downplay the social costs of saying no but as helpers, we see how hard it is to say no!

Make people feel guilty

o Previously, we noted that people who feel guilty will act to reduce guilt and restore their self worth. Can awakening people's guilt therefore increase their desire to help? o In an experiment where people were made to feel guilty, in both cases 58% of the now guilty laden individuals shortly thereafter offered help to another experimenter who had "accidentally" dropped something. Of those not reprimanded, only one third helped. Guilt laden people are helpful people. o Cialdini and Schroeder offer another practical way to trigger concern for self image: Ask for a contribution so small that it's hard to say no without feeling like a Scrooge.

What leads to conflict?

o Realistic group conflict theory o Prejudice o Naïve Realism o Misunderstanding other's values o Zero-sum thinking o Social Traps o Increases in power lead to decreases in perspective taking

Social Exchange Theory

o Rewards and Costs Rewards: feel good, recognition, gratitude, reciprocity o Costs: Take resources, might put at risk/ look foolish o Several theories of helping agree that, in the long run, helping behavior benefits the helper as well as the helped. Why? One explantation assumes that human interactions are guided by "social economics." We exchange not only material goods and money but also social goods - love, services, information, status. Social Exchange theory does not contend that we consciously monitor costs and rewards, only that such considerations predict our behavior.

Love over time

o Romantic love has a limited life span - 18 - 30 months o When relationship lasts, companionate love appears to be what lasts... o Most common responses among couples married over 15 years when asked why their marriages had lasted: - "My spouse is my best friend." - "I like my spouse as a person."

Do people enjoy using their smartphone more than social interaction?

o SO based on the studies, we know that your smartphones makes it less likely that you will interact with a stranger. o and when you are using your smartphone while interacting with friends or family it makes the social interaction less enjoyable o But what we do not know is do people actually enjoy using their smartphone? And if so, do they enjoy using it more than face to face social interactions? o Well, that is what my lab and I decided to test across four different studies.

Evolving Motives

o Second, motives often change, At first, people are eager to make some easy money, then to minimize their losses, and finally to save face and avoid defeatThese shifting motives are strikingly similar to the shifting motives during the buildup of the 1960s Vietnam War. At first, LBJ's speeches expressed concern for democracy, freedom, and justice. As the conflict escalated, his concern became protecting America's honor and avoiding the national humiliation of losing a war.

Model of Self / Model of Others thing ATTACHMENT STYLES WHICH I THINK APPLIES TO THIS

o Secure o Preoccupied o Dismissing o Fearful Range of anxiety and avoidance from low to high: Pos view of self of neg view of self: o Low anxiety = positive model of self. You don't questions your own worth. o High anxiety = negative model of self, question if valuable enough for your partner. SO you are constantly seeing if he is thinking about leaving Avoidance: Positive model of others or negative model of others. Question reliability of others. Uncomfy with closeness. o Low anxiety and low avoidance SECURE ATTACHMENT. - Secure of own value and value of others - They show good relationship behaviors o Negative model of self and positive model of others PREOCCUPIED OR ANXIOUS. - They want relationship but question their own worth - preoccupied with wondering if partners going to leave them - Possessive o Positive model of self and negative view of others DISMISSIVE. - Do not want closeness. - Do not feel comfortable with being vulnerable. - leads to casual sex - Lots of looking for alternative partners if they are in relationship. o Parn

Attributing the varying attachment styles to parental responsiveness

o Some researchers attribute these varying attachment styles, which have been studied across 62 cultures, to parental responsiveness. Cindy Hazan (2004) sums up the idea: "Early attachment experiences form the basis of internal working models or characteristic ways of thinking about relationships." Thus, sensitive, responsive mothers - mother who engender a sense of basic trust in the world's reliability typically have securely attached infants. In fact, one study of 100 Israeli grandmother - daughter- granddaughter threesomes found intergenerational consistency of attachment styles. o Youths who have experienced nurturant and involved parenting tend to later have warm and supportive relationships with their romantic partners. However, young adults whose parents were divorced did not differ in attachment style from those who parents were still married. Attachment styles may be partially based in inherited temperament. A gene is more commonly found in faithful, married men, another gene intros who are unmarried or unfaithful. o The effects of attachment can last a lifetime: In a 22 year longitudinal study, infants who were securely attached to their mothers became adults who struggled to feel more positive emotions. o Attachment styles also have obvious impacts on adult relationships: In an analysis of 188 studies' avoidantly attached people were less satisfied and supported in their relationships, and anxiously attached people experienced more relationship conflict.

Assume Responsibility?,

o Sometimes an emergency is obvious. According to initial reports, those who saw and heard Kitty Genovese's pleas for help correctly interpreted what was happening. But the lights and silhouetted figures in neighboring windows told them that others were also watching. That diffused the responsibility for action. o Few of us have observed a murder. But all of us have at times been slower to react to a need when others were present. Passing a stranded motorist on a busy highway, we are less likely to offer help than if on a country road. o To explore bystander inaction in clear emergencies, Darley and Ltrane (1968) stimulated the Genovese drama. They placed people in separate rooms from which the participants would hear a victim crying for help. TO create that situation, Darley and Latane asked some NYU students to discuss their problems with university life over a laboratory intercom. The researchers told the students that to guarantee their anonymity, no one would be visible, nor would the experimenter eavesdrop. During the ensuing discussion, the participants heard one person after his mic was turned on, laps into a seizure. With increasing intensity and speech difficulty, he pleaded for someone to help. o Of those led to believe there were no other listeners, 85% left their room to seek help. Of those who believed four others also overhear the victim, only 31% went for help. Were those who didn't respond apathetic and indifferent? When the experimenter came in to end the experiment, most immediately expressed concern. many had trembling hands and sweating palms. They believed an emergency had occurred but were undecided whether to act. o After the smoke filled room, the woman in distress, and the seizure experiments, alkane and Darley asked the participants whether the presence of others had influenced them. We know their presence had a dramatic effect. Yet the participants almost invariably denied the influence. Which reinforces a familiar point: We often do not know why we do what we do. That is why experiments are revealing. o "Compassion fatigue" and "sensory overload" from encountering so many needy people further restrain helping in large cities across the world. o When bystanders are friends or people who share a group identity, increased numbers may, instead, increase helping. o Training programs can also change attitudes toward intervening in situations of sexual assault or harassment. As the #MeToo movement that began in 2017 demonstrated, sexual harassment can often continue for years when bystanders do nothing.

Social Responsibility Norm

o The reciprocity norm reminds us to balance giving and receiving. If the only norm were reciprocity, however, the Samaritan would not have been the Good Samaritan. o With people who clearly are dependent and unable to reciprocate, such as children, the severely impoverished, and those with disabilities, another social norm motivates our helping. o The social responsibility norm decrees that people should help those who need help, without regard to future exchanges. o This social responsibility norm has a long history. o If a person on crutches drops a book, you honor the social responsibility norm as you pick it up. Even when helpers in Western countries remain anonymous and have no expectation of any reward, they often help needy people. However, they usually apply the social responsibility norm selectively to those whose need appears not to be due to their own negligence. Especially among political conservatives, the norm seems to be: Give people what they deserve. If they are victims of circumstance, such as natural disaster, then by all means be compassionate. If they seem to have created their own problems (by laziness, immorality, or lack of foresight, for example), then, the norm suggests, they don't deserve help. o Responses are thus closely tied to attributions. If we attribute the need to an uncontrollable predicament, we help. If we attribute the need to the person's choices, fairness does not require us to help; we say it's the person's own fault. o The key, determined from studies, is whether your attributions evoke sympathy, which in turn motivates helping.

Mirror Image perceptions

o To a striking degree, the misperceptions of those in conflict are mutual. People in conflict attribute similar virtues to themselves and vices to the other. o When two sides have clashing perceptions, at least one is misperceiving the other. And when such misperceptions exist "It is a psychological phenomenon without parallel in the gravity of its consequences... for it is characteristic of such images that they are self confirming." If A expects B to be hostile, A may treat B in such a way the B fulfills A's expectations, thus beginning a vicious circle.

Notice the event?

o Twenty minutes after Eleanor Bradley has fallen and broken her leg on a crowded city sidewalk, you come along. Your eyes are on the backs of the pedestrians in front of you and your private thoughts are on the day's events. Would you therefore be less likely yo notice the injured woman than if the sidewalk were virtually deserted? o To find out Latane and Darley had Columbia university men will out a questionnaire in a room, either by themselves or with two strangers. While they were working (and being observed through a one way mirror), there was as tased emergency: Smoke poured into the room through a wall vent. Solitary students, who often glanced idly about the room while working, noticed the smoke almost immediately - usually in less than 5 seconds. Those in groups kept their eyes other work. it typically took them about 20 seconds to notice the smoke. Time Pressures o After collecting their thoughts before recording a brief extemporaneous talk (which, for half the participants, was actually about the Good Samaritan parable), Princeton theological seminary students were directed to a recording studio in an adjacent building. En route, they passed a man sitting slumped in a doorway, head down, coughing and groaning. Some of the students had been sent off nonchalantly: "It will be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well head on over." Of those, almost two-thirds stopped to offer help. Others were told, "Oh, you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago... so you'd better hurry." Of these, only 10% offered help. o Reflecting on these findings, Darley and Batson noted that the hurried participants passed on by the person in distress even when en route "to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan, thus inadvertently confirming the point of the parable. (Indeed, on several occasions, a seminary student going to give his talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan literally stepped over the victim as he hurried on his way!)" o Are we being unfair to the seminary students, who were, after all, hurrying to help the experimenter? Perhaps they keenly felt the social responsibility norm but found it pulling them two ways - toward the experimenter and toward the victim. o In another enactment of the Good Samaritan situation, Batson and associates directed 40 University of Kansas students to an experiment in another building. Half were told they were late, half that they had plenty of time. Half of each of these groups thought their participation was vitally important to the experimenter, half thought it was not essential. The results: those leisurely on their way to an unimportant appointment usually stopped to help. But people seldom stopped to help if they were late for a very important date.

How can we increase helping?

o Undo the restraints on helping - Reduce ambiguity and increase responsibility - Make people feel guilty o Socialize altruism - Define positive norms - Attend altruism lectures - prosocial media

Is the drop in romantic love inevitable?

o Variability in changes in romantic love and marital quality - Although couples on average experienced declines in marital quality over the first four years of marriage, 10% experienced an increase - Among couples married 30 years or longer, a small but significant number report high levels of passion (e.g., "I melt when I look into my partners eyes.") - 90% show decline or stability in marital quality o Intimacy drives long lasting desire to be with each other o It is possible to keep passion

Reciprocity

o We like those who like us. But why? o Liking is usually mutual. Proximity and attractiveness influence our initial attraction to someone, and similarity influences longer term attraction as well. o If we have a deep need to belong and to feel liked and accepted, would we not also take a liking to those who like us? Are the best friendships mutual admiration societies? Indeed, one person's liking for another does predict the other's liking in return. One common way to show interest in someone - asking them questions - is especially effective in increasing liking. o Discovering that an appealing someone really likes you seems to awaken romantic feelings. Experiments confirm it: those told that certain others like or admire them usually feel a reciprocal affection. A dash of uncertainty can slo fuel desire. Thinking that someone probably likes you - but you aren't sure - tends to increase your thinking about it, and feeling attracted to, another. o It's a general rule of life: Bad is stronger than good. Attribution o Flattery will get you somewhere. But not everywhere. If praise clearly violates what we know is true - if someone says, "your hair looks great," when we haven't washed it in 3 days - we may lose respect for the flatterer and wonder whether the compliment springs from ulterior motives. Thus, we often perceive criticism to be more sincere than praise. In fact, when someone prefaces a statement with "To be honest", we know we are about to hear a criticism. o Our reactions depend on our attributions. Do we attribute the flattery to ingratiation - to a self serving strategy? Is the person trying to get us to buy something, to do a favor? If so, both the flatterer and the praise lose appeal. But if there is no apparent ulterior motive, then we warmly receive both flattery and flatterer. o Aronson speculated that constant approval can lose value. When a husband says for the five hundredth time, "Gee, honey, you look great," the words carry far less impact than were he now to say, "Gee, honey, you look awful in that dress." o

The Fundamental Attribution Error

o When Muslims have killed Americans, Western media have attributed the killings to evil dispositions - to the primitive, fanatical, hateful terrorists. When an American soldier killed 16 Afghans, including 9 children, he was said to be experiencing finical stress, suffering marital problems, and frustrated by being passed over for a promotion.

Mating acitivity

o When you add additional complexity it takes longer to decide and you are more unsure of your value o High people pair up quickly with high value people o Low people kind of have to settle o People can guess if they are higher or lower value o In real life we match within our range o no real world evidence that... o is there more to matching than base value? yes. What 2nd round showed you. We take in much more information then their base value and we have our own unique preferences. White slip represented personal preferences o Yes there is level of matching but less degree than we saw with original matching game. o There in no consensus in the real world. But in game we knew what we were looking for: high numbers. o What have we learned: - Matching isn't just about society driven value, personal preference does exist. - Kind of flies in face of computer example ? Actual Online Notes: The pairing game was an exercise in understanding attraction and relationship initiation 1st round o Students were randomly assigned a numbered card and placed the card on their forehead (facing out), without looking at it o Students then began to pair up with other students with the goal of matching with a high value partner o Offers are made by extending a handshake - potential partners can either accept or reject o When you have found a partner, do not look at your card. Make a guess about the value of your card and have your partner do the same. Make notes of your guess and then look at your card. 2nd round o Students are randomly assigned a numbered card and place the card on their forehead (facing out), without looking at it. o Students then begin to pair up with other students with the goal of matching with a high value partner o Each person has a card with unique alterations in value, meant to reflect personal preferences o Offers are made by extending a handshake - potential partners can either accept or reject o When you have found a partner, do not look at your card. Make a guess about the value of your card and have your partner do the same. -------------------------------------------------------- o Romantic partners are similar to one another on many dimensions o Why? o On dimensions like religion, education, and attitudes - people are more likely to encounter similar others o On dimensions like popularity and physical attractiveness - The matching hypothesis: people have a preference for similarity desirable partners - people internalize their own mate value. Repeated experiences with acceptance and rejection from others leads them to figure out their mate value and settle for the best mate they can realistically obtain The original pairing game o Actively designed to illustrate mate selection process o Typically, the "desirable" people pair up first, and the low value cardholders ultimately settle for each other "in a crestfallen sort of way" o The pairing game constantly produces matching correlations of at least R = .70 o Students can typically guess their mate clue fairly accurately after playing the game o But.... - In real life, matching correlations are not nearly this large - No real world evidence that desirable people pair up faster than undesirable people IS there anything more to it? o YES o Emerging research: the original pairing game may incompletely capture or even misrepresent certain elements of the real world mate selection process. o According to east wick and buck (2014), "the game produces matching correlations that vastly exceed the matching correlations that emerge in real life couples: when researchers assess third party, consensus- driven ratings of popularity and/ or attractiveness, the matching correlations range from approximately R= .20 among pairs who have met online and have started communicating to R = .40 in established couples." How does this work in the real world o In the original pairing game, consensus is perfect - All students see the same value on a given partner's card o In real life, consensus about potential partners' mate value is far from perfect - lots of variability in people's judgements of others' romantic desirability and attractiveness - these subjective judgements are more important predictors of romantic outcomes than are consensus based judgements - Because of these idiosyncrasies (IE different people like and value different things), most people will be able to pair up with a partner who is especially desirable to them. The amount of matching should be modest. A new pairing game o In this version, each person has a "mate value" (card value) that reflects consensus: king is higher than 9 etc o But, students were awarded 3,6,9, or 12 additional points based on the partner's suit o This represents idiosyncrasies across people. We all see kinds as having more value than 7's, but I might actually like a 7 of hearts better than a king of spades, whereas you prefer the king of spades Results of new pairing game o Matching correlation (IE the correlation between the card value of the student who made the offer and the student who accepted the offer) was lower in the new version of the game (R= .55) than in the original version of the pairing game (R = .86) o There was less of a difference in how much time it took high value vs lower value card holders to pair up in the new version of the game compared to the old version o Students had a harder time figuring out their own mate value (card value) in the new version. What have we learned? o Exercise illustrates that there are independent ways of achieving happiness in a romantic partnership: - Obtain a consensually desirable partner - obtain a partner who is especially desirable to you o Not about the "haves" and "have nots" - Even if we agree to some degree about who is attractive as a partner, we also hold unique preferences, which mean that we are not all interested in (or competing for) the same small set of partners.

Bowlby: Attachment Theory

o Why do human infants form close bonds with caregivers? - Promotes proximity which increases felt security under stress - Innate attachment system has evolved - adaptive o Childhood experiences create "internal working models of self and others" - IWMs influence personality development and social behavior - Attachment system activated in stressful situations o Bowlby - Studied parent child bond

Rusbult's Investment Model

o Why do relationships last? o Satisfaction is not the most important predictor of relationship stability MUCH more important: commitment - regardless of what happens we are going to stick together o Commitment is - tendency to maintain a relationship, to feel psychologically attached to it, for better to for worse. - Commitment involves a long term orientation, intent to persist, and a feeling of attachment o Investment model o 3 factors that lead to commitment which leads to stability of relationship - Satisfaction with relationship: Does this fulfills my needs? (rewards - costs > comparison level?) - Level of investment in relationship - things one would lose if the relationship ended (e.g. house, time with the kids, shared friends, status, intimacy). Resources arched to relationship that you can't take with you if you leave -Quality of alternatives: alternative others or what would my life look like if I was not in this, maybe single, If you have high want of alternatives that lets to less commitment. Are my (realistic) alternatives attractive?

Derogation of alternatives: a study

o do people in committed relationships engage in behaviors to there their relationship. Seeing other things as less attractive alternative. o Thought they would see people in committed relationship would say people were less attractive because they were committed to their relationships and this is what happened. But people only do this if this was someone they could actually be with. Opposite sex. One of ways to keep our relationship is to downplay others attractiveness. Procedure: o View advertisements; some depict young, opposite sex models o Rate physical and sexual attractiveness of he models o Report own dating status Results: o Men not dating rated women as more attractive than men dating and same for women.

Helping During Emergencies Kitty Genovese

o in 1964, 28 yr old bar manager Kitty Genovese was attacked by a man with a knife as she retuned from work to her Queens, New York, apartment house at 3:00am. Her screams of terror and pleas for help aroused some of her neighbors. Some supposedly came to their windows and caught fleeting glimpses at the attacker left and then returned to attack again. Not until her attacker departed for the second time did anyone call the police. Soon after, Kitty Genovese died. o Later analyses disputed the initial New York Times report that 38 witnesses obsersved the murder yet remained inactive - it was probably closer to a dozen, and two actually did call the police. o

Misunderstanding other's values ADD MORE FROM NOTES

o recall that conflict is a perceived incompatibility of actions or goals. o Many conflicts contain but a small core of truly incompatible goals; the bigger problem is the misperceptions of the other's motives and goals. o In earlier chapters we considered the seeds of such misperception: - Self serving bias leads individuals and groups to accept credit for their good deeds and shirk responsibility for bad deeds. - A tendency to self justify inclines people to deny the wrong of their evil acts. ("You call that hitting? I hardly touched him!") - Thanks to the fundamental attribution error, each side sees the other's hostility as reflecting an evil disposition - One then filters the information and interprets it to fit one's preconceptions. - Groups frequently polarize these self serving, self justifying, raising tendencies. -One symptom of groupthink is the tendency to perceive one's own group as moral and strong, and the opposition as evil and weak. Acts of terrorism that in most people's eyes are despicable brutality are seen by others as "holy war". - Indeed, the mere fact of being in a group triggers an in group bias - Negative stereotypes of the out-group, once formed, are often resistant to contradictory evidence. o So it should not surprise us, though it should sober us, to discover that people in conflict form distorted images of one another. o Show social psychologists Ervin Staub and Daniel Bar-Tal (2003) a group in intractable conflict and they will show you a group that - sees it own goals as supremely important - Takes pride in "us" and devalues "them, - Believes itself victimized, - elevates patriotism, solidarity, and loyalty to their group's needs, and - celebrates self sacrifice, and - suppresses criticism o Opposing sides in a conflict tend to exaggerate their differences. On issues related to abortion and politics, partisans perceive exaggerated differences from their adversaries - who actually agree with them more often than they guess. On immigration and affirmative action, proponents aren't as liberal and opponents aren't as conservative as their adversaries suppose. Opposing sides also tend to have a "bias blind spot". They see their own understandings as not biased by their liking or disliking for others, but those who disagree with them seem unfair and biased.

Main types of similarity

oDemographics - Age, Ethnicity, Culture, Religion, Education, IQ o Personality - Extraversion, neuroticism o Values & Attitudes Newcomb's (1956) "Experimental Dorm" - 17 males - free housing! - Measured attitudes prior to arriving (sex, family, politics) - Greater liking with similar attitudes