Social Psych Final

small samples and stereotypes

A few interactions shape your schema of a certain group even if not representative Ex. Drigoat's daughter on college tours getting a bad tour guide

leadership

A lot of military research Some random things - taller people more likely to be leaders Personality all over the place - introvert to extrovert Situational variables What kind of table are you sitting at? Rectangular vs. circular table - head of the table becomes the leader when rectangular table; formal vote or just analyzing conversation flow Ex. Jury duty - last day, one guy in suit, rushes to the head of the table, came time to select the jury foreman, he was selected

attitudes and schemas

A lot of similarities in structure Organized knowledge/feelings about topics → same issues (quick categorizing, seek consistency, etc.)

accuracy in relationships

Accurate judgement of partner's ATTITUDES and VALUES is important in determining degree of fit Ex. On first dates you're so concerned with impression management that you misrepresent your attitudes and values (Oh I love bowling! Now you're stuck going bowling when you hate it)

Muhammad Ali Effect

Ali was a huge celebrity, talked a lot about how great he was, reporter dug into his background, didn't get good grades in school, but was socially promoted, struggled with reading, reporter confronted him, "I never said I was the smartest of all time; I said I was the greatest of all time" → we pick the talents to judge ourself on Ex. Business school - academics vs. schmoozers What is the best predictor of success as a businessman? Picked what they were good at

participant bias

Anxiety over the fact that they are being observed, judged, measured --> unnatural behavior; combat by ensuring anonymity

external validity

Are participants behaving naturally? Not changing their behavior because they know they're being measured, observed, etc.; Use of deception increases external validity

social impact theory

Arousal is a function of the strength of audience, immediacy, and number Strength - higher status audience → more aroused Immediacy - how close to the audience are you, how aware of their presence are you; closer → more aroused Ex. "Home team advantage" stronger in sports where the crowd is closer - away team hears the hecklers, home team feels the support; basketball, hockey vs. football, baseball Talk to the back of the room to decrease arousal, responses less immediate Number - how big is the crowd; more people → more aroused; every additional person has a slightly less additive influence (5 to 6 causes greater increase in arousal than 49 to 50)

Johnny Rocco Study

At college got people's attitude about crime enforcement against minors Subjects contacted to take part in social interaction study way later in the semester Purposefully recruited 5 people who were very conservative and 1 person who was very liberal Johnny Rocco found throwing rocks through an abandoned houses' windows Group of 6 must come up with a unanimous decision on what to do with him (juvy to slap on the wrist) Beginning people felt each other out Conversation changed dramatically once the viewpoints established; all attacks on minority Normative - don't rock the boat, we have to come to a unanimous decision, be more like us Informative - stats about why juvy works 85% of minority subjects conformed If the minority was a confederate, in on it, they stuck their ground → we want to kick that person out of the group If there were two minority subjects made it a lot less likely you would conform (around 40%)

attitudes as utilitarian

Attitudes work to reward us. We get something out of having our attitudes. Ex. It is no wonder that rich, white men are conservative, because that political attitude favors them in terms of tax rates, etc. It is no wonder that laborers are more democratic because it favors them in terms of unions, social programs, etc.

message learning source factors

Attractiveness (Halo Effect) Credibility - commercial with someone in a labcoat talking a drug; Marcus Welby (tv doctor); actual experts Power

avoidant fearful

Avoidant people with high anxiety want to be liked; are aware of potential partners, but worried they will get hurt; can't trust people (2D space analysis)

avoidant dismissive

Avoidant people with low anxiety are lone wolves; not worried if they can trust other people or if they're liked, just keep a distance (2D space analysis); extremely negative schemas about others' worthiness of love

historical examples of riots

Baltimore Riot following death of Freddie Gray (2014) 40 business burned to the ground Police cars damaged NBA/NCAA Championship Riots UMD won → cars overthrown, bricks thrown in celebration at College Park Race Riots (1960s)

hedonism

Behavior that causes you pleasure or pain is more likely to cause you to make an internal attribution; doesn't need to be directed at you Ex. Dog lover sees a dog owner hit their dog → more likely to think that person's a jerk vs. someone who isn't a dog lover is more likely to think the dog was misbehaving, etc.

biofeedback and aggression reduction

Being able to calm yourself down to overcome the arousal, automatic appraisal factors of aggression Anger management classes include biofeedback training - deep breathing, go to your happy place, etc. Research shows it can work Related to response delay accommodation study

arousal and attraction studies

Bridge Study: bridge over a very deep gorge - suspension or sturdy; female "ranger" in the middle of the bridge would stop men and asked them questions about the park; men would be asked questions about their interaction after - did you find her attractive? would you like her phone number?; men on the suspension bridge were much more likely to find her attractive, ask for her number, and actually call her; shows misattribution of arousal to attraction. Lingerie Study: Men given earphones so they "hear their own heartbeat"; shown slides of lingerie models; randomly assigned one where heart gets faster later asked how much they liked each one; liked the one where they thought their heart was beating faster

heider's levels of responsibility

Building a case for it being an internal attribution; "legal" approach; evidence people use this especially when things happen that affect them Ex. Snowball hits your head, turn and see three people Association - Does the person look like they're related to/involved in what occurred? (Ex. standing in the direction snowball came from) Causation - Does it look like they caused the event? (Ex. 1 person shaking snow off glove, they caused it) Foreseeability - Could they have known that what they did would affect you? (Ex. Could they have known the snowball would hit you?) Intentionality - Did they mean for it to hurt you?(Ex. Did they mean to hit you (sorry vs. laughing)?) Justifiability - Where there extenuating circumstances (Ex. Did you hit them first? Did someone hold a gun to their head?)

attitudes providing expectations

By sharing our attitudes, we give people an expectation of what it is like to interact with us.

avoidant attachment

Can depend on consistent care, but it's cold; phase 1: doesn't go very far, picks one toy, doesn't interact with mom; phase 2: barely notices mom left, goes back to playing; phase 3: barely notices mom's back; will not want to be/will have trouble being close to people as an adult; 20% of the population

secure attachment

Can depend on consistent, warm care from mom; phase 1: explore, bring toys back to show mom, mom gives positive feedback; phase 2: notices mom is gone, but goes back to playing; phase 3: excited mom is back, says hi to mom, goes back to phase 1 behavior; will be able to have healthy close relationships as an adult; 60% of population

variables affecting groupthink

Central Leader Gatekeeper Pluralistic ignorance Self-censorship Pressure to uniformity

conformity

Changing one's beliefs or behavior to be consistent with group standard; in other words, following normative behavior

love and close relationships research

Close relationships research on love has been less able to predict behaviors/outcomes Might have to do with how we measure love

love as self-expansion theory

Comes out of hippy, eastern-religion obsession; idea that life is a growing, self-development process; love is also a self expansion process; you meet someone who is exciting, bring things you enjoy, start to adopt some of each other's traits; become a unit integrating and expanding together

Warding Off Alternatives

Committed people more motivated to make alternatives go away through denigration (yeah he's cute, but he's stupid) or their behavior (mentioning they're in a relationship when introducing themselves to an attractive person; wear a wedding ring; making sure they avoid interactions with attractive people, etc.)

diagnostic ratio test

Comparing the rate of outgroup traits to the rate of humanity's traits

dependence

Comparison of outcomes to Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt); more dependent on the relationship at hand if you think the CLalt is worse and v.v. (grass is greener); if you are satisfied, but have an enticing CLalt → cognitive dissonance → usually drag the CLalt down by focusing on their flaws or boosting outcomes by focusing on partner's merits

obedience to authority

Complying with a person or group perceived to be an authority; Alter our behavior out of a direct command

message learning message factors

Comprehensibility - have to understand arguments; can't be too technical, disorganized Number of arguments - more arguments for case → persuaded; includes repeated arguments Fear arousal - people more motivated to brush their teeth when they see gross pictures of mouth infections; " " smoking

physical attractiveness close relationship studies

Computer Dance Study: Kids given a randomly selected date to dance that they had to go with; only criteria was that guys were taller; surveyed after the dance; could predict whether they were attracted to their date based only on their date's physical attractiveness --> Physical attractiveness means a great deal for first impressions Diary Record Study: Participants rated on their attractiveness and kept diary about quality and quantity of interactions for 2 weeks; more physically attractive people had more opposite sex interactions; both attractive and unattractive women had equally satisfying interactions, but unattractive had to initiate more; attractive men had much more interaction and unattractive men had mostly same-sex interactions

controlled processing

Concentration, putting effort into it Perform tasks more slowly, takes more effort Concentrate on one thing at a time New or difficult task Highly motivated, has meaning to you Individual difference variable - some people have a high need for cognition, like to be in controlled processing Takes energy (ego depletion) Ex. when first learning to drive a car

characteristics of successful minority behavior in groups

Consistency - position has to be maintained; if the minority wavers even a little bit the majority pounces with social influence techniques Confidence - can stem from moral stance, personality characteristic (charisma) Independence/objectivity - they don't have a stake in the matter; they just purely believe it's right; no ulterior motives Really hard to sway the majority without those characteristics - majority stance of jury going into deliberation → final decision 65-75% of the time

sociological approach to riots

Conventional Wisdom - Social Rage (sociology approach) Dramatic events (assassination, unpopular verdicts, etc.) crystallize social rage for underlying reasons (racism, poverty, etc.) → self-destructive behavior due to breakdown of families, media influences, etc.

love as self-expansion research

Developed ways of measuring self-expansion using concrete cognitive psychology tools, such as schemas; people who reported being more in love had more overlap with their self schema and "other" (partner) schemas; demonstrated this overlap was linked to commitment, longevity of relationship, forgiveness, trust, standard measures of relationship function, etc. → theory taken much more seriously, despite touchy-feely, hippy origins Ex. Study on population at risk for being in love (college freshman - 30% reported they fell in love at some point during freshman year); write down who you are this week and whether you fell in love this week; increase in breadth and depth in self-description after falling in love

empathy approach to helping behavior

Different for people who are high in empathy or low in empathy. For someone low in empathy, they are distressed when they see someone in need. Their goal is simply to relieve their own stress. If they think there are potential rewards, they will help. If not they will simply flee. People high in empathy are altruistic. Help no matter what the cost/rewards are Emotion: distress; helping mode: egoistic (want to alleviate their own distress); behavior: help or flee Emotion: Empathy; helping mode: altruistic; behavior: help People higher in empathy more likely to help

differential parental investment

Different parental roles - women need resources; men need a successfully born child Women are obviously sure that the child is theirs, but men aren't 100% sure → less investment Childbearing isn't physically taxing on men like it is on women→ less investment Men can have many different children with many different partners in a short amount of time, women can't → less investment

behavioral intention

Different things contribute to behavioral intention Attitude/Strength of Attitude Subjective norms Perceived behavioral control

causes of social loafing

Diffusion of responsibility, deindividuation, free riding

attitudes predicting behavior

Do attitudes predict behavior at all? Ex. 1934 hotel Called hotels - what's your policy on having Chinese people in your hotel? Showed up with a Chinese person - remarkable inconsistency in what they said on the phone vs. their behavior (in both directions) Ex. 1969 meta-analysis of 31 attitude behavior studies → no relationship→ uproar

commons dilemma

Do maximize my own self-interest versus do I restrain myself for the good of the group in terms of harvesting natural resources Ex. Do I take my sheep to eat grass every day or do I go every third day? Ex. Whaling excessively, no more whales to catch. Ex. Water usage in a drought

compliance

Doing what we are asked to do even if we prefer not to "Mindless conformity"; the use of heuristics Use of subtle tricks to activate a heuristic Works under automatic processing Copier study, "because" increased compliance

general affective aggression model (GAAM) example

Drigoat young new professor, played pickup basketball with students 3 teams of 5 in the gym Drigoat on the court (intergroup competition) playing against guy who was a "banger" but didn't like being banged back Drigoat loses, gets off the court, but watches banger Banger playing a guy who bangs back, getting aggressive Going for a rebound get tangled up Banger sucker punches guy, punches him again when he's down, then runs (turned out he was not a student) Factors: A lot of visible tattoos - potentially high testosterone Situational variable - reciprocity, frustration Team sport - intergroup competition Demonstrating negative affect Likely an automatic appraisal - heightened level of aggression Not a student - deindividuation, didn't have to face normative consequences later on

contingency model

Efficacy of leadership depends on morale of the group Very low or very high morale - task leaders Medium morale - socioemotional leaders A lot of times you need two leaders, good cop bad cop, someone to keep them on task and help them feel good Best leaders act as both and know when to use each style

prisoner's dilemma game

Either 2 groups or 2 individuals; need to decide whether to stay silent (cooperate with the other person, x) or confess (defect, y); can talk to the other individual/group; if one cooperates and the other defects, the defector could go free; if they both cooperate they both get lesser sentences; if both defect, both get harsher sentence; generally individuals choose to cooperate (~90% of time); groups more likely to defect (~50% of the time) because groups are more competitive and more deceitful when talking

riot behavior once started

Emergent norm - what constitutes acceptable behavior changes in riot situation Contagion - arousal and behavior is contagious Deindividuation

message learning

Emphasis on persuasion Looking at different factors linked to persuasion: Source factors Message Factors Recipient Factors Medium factors

operant conditioning and attitude change

Environment can either reward or punish you; influences behavior B.F. Skinner - believed everything about us is a product of operant conditioning Ex. University administration debating whether to have a spring fair; research assistants called students to survey their thoughts on having a spring fair; control group - whenever anyone said something positive ("I think it would be fun") research assistants would respond with "uhuh" vs. experimental group reinforced with "good, good"; experimental group more likely to vote for spring fair More likely to embrace attitude when receiving reinforcement vs. when receiving punishment

love styles from colors of love theory

Eros; Mania; Pragma; Ludus; Agape; Storge

components of attitudes

Evaluation (affective): emotional component, how you feel. Belief (cognitive): what you believe about a topic matter can directly affect what you feel about it. Affects your evaluation. Evaluation and belief are the two most important components of attitude Behavior: Should behavior be a component of attitude or should it be the outcome of attitude? Ex. You believe exercise is good for you so you exercise, therefore your behavior is part of your attitude

social comparison theory

Even when we have objective standards about how well we're doing or how good we are at something, we still compare ourselves to others Ex. You know an 80% is 80 out of 100 but you still think about your grade in terms of how all your friends did We're motivated to compare ourselves to similar others; different others don't help us rank ourselves Ex. Drigoat playing basketball with 8-year olds vs. NBA players vs. people of similar athleticism Related to behavior and event schemas Social media is a social comparison nightmare Study that people feel worse about their life if they see a lot of positive posts about their friends' lives Study - Bs comparing to As vs. Cs; felt worse about yourself if you compared to As but also did better on next test, motivation to improve

conformity studies

Ex. Early study: Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Our eyes tend to be in motion a lot, we can't stare without moving a lot Flashed stationary dot in a pitch black room and told subjects to make ratings about how far they saw the dot moving The dot does not actually move When they are alone there is variance in how far they say it moves When they are with others they arrive at a consensus with regard to how far it moves by trial 3 They are being influenced by each other to arrive at a group standard and that notion of trying to be like other people is what's at the heart of conformity Ex. Asch Line Study One subject, others were confederates Subject is always 6th person in a group of 7 Given a target line, have to say which of 3 lines is the same as the target line; obvious answer Confederates would get the line wrong Asch thought that no one would give the wrong answer because he thought conformity was based on information social influence 72% of subjects gave a wrong answer at least one time

self-awareness studies

Ex. Halloween study Invites trick-or-treaters into the house There's a bowl of candy and bowl of change out The researcher leaves the room Manipulate whether there's a mirror or not behind the bowls Kids wearing masks more likely to take more than one piece of candy and/or money When there's a mirror less likely to take more than one piece of candy/money Ex. UNC Bank study Walk into bank, hallway that's all mirrors on one side and windows on the other side Rated attractiveness Watched behavior as they walked alone Attractive people watched themselves in the mirrors Unattractive people purposely avoided looking at the mirrors Ex. Public Health studies People who went through self-awareness exercises were able to cut down on drinking

social exclusion and aggression

Ex. Lab setting Strangers come to a lab, get separated, brief interaction over a headset, pair up into groups of at least two - who do you want to be in a group with?, person told either everyone wants to be with them or no one does, given the chance to act aggressively to the other people - exclusion → aggression Ex. Chat Rooms Researcher sets up chat rooms, lets someone join then tells them they need to leave, watch them when they leave → aggression Bullies are often people who have been socially excluded

obedience studies

Ex. Milgram Ex. "Death dealing nurses" Call to nurse's station for patient with diabetes for injection saying that they should give a dosage of medicine that will kill the patient 40% of the time, the nurses did that Ex. "Security uniform study" Planted car next to a free parking space Someone with a uniform would tell a dude to put a quarter in the meter next to them Someone with no uniform would say the same thing 50% of the time the dude with no uniform people would put quarter in 80% of the time the uniform people would put quarter in

examples of elaboration likelihood model

Ex. People vs. OJ - DNA testing was new; expert witness gave a very technical, incomprehensible argument → jurors tuned out; paid attention to more peripheral things - attractive celebrity, race issues Ex. Campaign Nixon vs. Kennedy - first televised debate; viewers could tune out and use peripheral cues like how young, attractive, tall Kennedy was vs. how old, ugly, short, and sweaty Nixon was; people who listened to the debate actually favored Nixon Ex. political elections - need a strong argument, but more people likely to pay attention to peripheral cues - attractiveness, snappy slogans, balloons at rallies, songs playing in the background Ex. " " advertising products First computers were mad expensive so the people buying them were intelligent → central route processing Today everyone has computers → peripheral route processing, "I want the pink one" Trial attorneys tend to be attractive

weapons effect

Ex. Truck study, "weapons effect" Light turns green, truck doesn't go, back of the truck there is a rack - either a gun or a contractor's level, people were much more aggressive when it was a gun - honked more often, louder, more likely to shout, do hand gestures, counterintuitive because guns should indicate a dangerous situation, but guns also activate violent schemas Ex. Dunk tank study, "weapons effect" On a table in the back of the dunk tank area they had lots of different objects - toy rifle or badminton racket, more money made on people throwing the ball to try to dunk someone when the gun was on the table Weapons effect is an overt prime - you can see, it, it can get into your short term memory

influence of schemas on memory

Ex. Watch video of Laura puttering around Made half the things she does and touches stereotypical of a diner waitress and the other half stereotypical of a librarian Recall test - recall all of the objects and things she did Given schema activation of librarian or waitress either before or after watching tape Schema before watching video improved memory - orients you to what you're paying attention to Did better with things relating to your schema whether you were activated before or after Ex. Watch video of car slowly going off the road and hitting a tree "Hit" vs. "smashed" - activates different schema that affects your recall Smashed - car moving faster, broken glass, crumpled front end Ex. Told 3 memories of when you were a child, 1 false; most people will begin to "remember" things about the fake memory

cognitive dissonance studies

Ex. participants led into a room with three boxes; one full of nuts and bolts, two empty; sort all the nuts into one box and bolts into another box, super boring; as participant leaves "hey could you do me a favor, could you tell the people in the waiting room how fun the experiment is" for group A $1 or group B $20; when you go to get paid the person asks you how interesting the task was Learning theory - $20 is reinforcement, more likely to say it's exciting Cognitive dissonance theory - $1 group seems like a bad person because they lied to an unsuspecting person for only a dollar; more likely to say it actually was exciting to resolve this moral tension Ex. Research coming out that smoking causes cancer; people who smoked didn't want to believe that Ex. Initiation Study Females sign up to take part in a small group discussion; need to do a task before participating in discussion; control - read a list of words (sexual body parts) to a male researcher; experimental - read sexually explicit passage to male research assistant; discussion already started so you can't join but you can listen in; it's about "the birds and the bees" - literally about birds and bees, very boring; go to get your credit, person asks did you like it? Would you be willing to come back and participate in a discussion like that?; people who read list said they were bored; weren't willing to come back; people who read sexually explicit passage said it was interesting; were willing to come back Cognitive Dissonance: embarrassing "initiation task" and all I got was a boring conversation; reduce tension by saying discussion was interesting (initiation worth it) or initiation wasn't that bad Ex. Eating Grasshoppers Study Fill in questionnaire about taste perception, likes, dislikes; researcher comes in and is either neutral or mean; do me a favor - eat some fried grasshoppers?; automatic processing - 99% of people say yes; fries them up in front of you; how much did you enjoy eating it?; neutral - gross, wouldn't want to eat them again; mean - grasshoppers were good; would eat them again; tension - why would I do something gross for a guy who was just a jerk to me? Reduce tension by saying he was joking, wasn't actually a jerk, OR I didn't do him a favor, I wanted to do it, I liked it

types of accomodation

Exit - Active destructive ("F you") Neglect - Passive destructive (ignores partner) Voice - Active constructive ("Why would you say that? It hurt") Loyalty - Constructive passive (pretend it didn't bother them); often not even noticed by partner

learning origin of stereotypes

Experience is vital for creation and maintenance of stereotypes, prejudices, etc. Negative experiences leads to stronger stereotypes Limited experience leads to stronger stereotypes

flaws in sociological approach to riots

Explains too much - have these conditions all the times, but riots don't always happen Explains too little - often riots result from good news (UMD) Crowds are not riots waiting to happen

bystander effect experiments

Falling Some participants alone, some with others Play recording of someone falling in the next room If you're alone you get up and help If you are with two other people there's a pause, delay to see who is going to help Smoke Smokes comes out of vent If you're alone you get up; if there's other people you don't If the two people you are with are confederates told to do nothing, you do nothing

yerkes-dodson model

For any task, there's an optimal level of arousal where you will perform your best Too low - not into it, not motivated Too high - overwhelmed choke Curve varies task to task; probably linked to how well-learned the task is Ex. Tiger Woods playing golf in his prime - optimal almost at any level of arousal vs. Drigoat - optimal at low arousal, dips after any more arousal

catharsis and aggression reduction

Freudian, psychoanalytic theory (based on id impulses) Need to be able to release animosity, violent impulses in a socially acceptable manner (punching pillow, screaming home alone, playing an aggressive sport) Some studies found it can decrease aggression, but many more studies find it increases aggression by increasing arousal; also studies showing it has no effect --> poor strategy

types of physiological responses used to measure stereotypes

Galvanic skin response, pupillary response, facial EEG, head movements

anxious-ambivalent attachment

Gets inconsistent care, sometimes smothering and warm, sometimes ignoring, can't figure out if mom loves them; phase 1: explores a little, keeps checking to make sure mom is watching/is still there; phase 2: freaks out; phase 3: happy mom's back but becomes angry, hits her, asks her where she went; will want to be close to people as an adult, but will have trouble due to trust issues; 20% of the population

Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS)

Given pairs of overlapping circles and asked to pick which circle pair represents you and your partner; as the circles overlap more, they get bigger; couples that reported good measures tended to choose circles that overlapped more and v.v.; this scale just as effective as 60 question self-report survey they developed → other researchers starting using the IOS scale because it was quick and easy → generating a lot of research → well accepted theory; some criticism that too much overlap threatens an individual's identity, scary, anxiety-provoking

Michelangelo phenomenon

Having a partner who views you as you ideally want to be causes them to behave in ways to illicit that ideal self in you; the opposite can be true Ex. If I want to be well-read and I have a partner who thinks I am, my partner will engage me in behaviors like joining a book club, etc.; research looks at your friends evaluating your progress towards ideal self, seeing how good someone is for you

physiological ways to measure attitudes

Head movements - when we agree with something, we have subtle head movements that imply yes whereas when we disagree with something, we have subtle head movements that imply no Galvanic skin response - you can measure the electric conduction on a person's skin. Just shows whether you have little/no response to the topic or you have a large emotional response Pupil response - pupils dilate when you look at an attitude thing flashed on screen that you like. Pupil's dilate more for things that you don't like. Facial EMG - little sensors on your face that are linked to muscles that we use in smiling/frowning. Muscles you use when you smile are being activated when shown attitude stuff flashed on screen.

sociobiological approach to helping behavior

Help to insure survival of genes Kin selection - more help if genetically related, the closer the tie genetically the more help is given, our kids that have our genes, found in multiple cultures - shows that it isn't a cultural phenomenon but applies to the entire human species, helping rates are different among different cultures though Reciprocity - help when can (at low cost) so can get help when needed, served an important adaptive function - more help is given in every society and as a result more people are able to survive

testosterone and aggression

Higher levels of testosterone (spit, blood) → more aggression, men and women Could differentiate between violent vs. nonviolent criminals in a prison population Could see correlation in violent video game behavior Higher levels of testosterone more likely to have a visible tattoo When you take their photo, high testosterone people smile less often Looked at adventure seeking behavior, careers (firemen, policemen, vs. psychologist) Pubescent boys (testosterone levels spiking), higher spikes correlate to delinquent behavior

operationalization

How am I going to measure these variables? How am I going to cause the behavior I want to observe/study? Am I actually manipulating what I think I'm manipulating? Ex. Aggression - puffs of air into an animal's eye, writing a bad review of a research assistant, punching a pillow, etc.

cognitive interdependence

How much you cognitively think about you and your partner as a couple can be an indicator of how much the relationship means to you, how much effort you're willing to put into it, etc. Study: prompt - tell me about your relationship; analyzed prompt, especially for pronouns; good outcomes associated with use of "we", "us"; poor outcomes associated with use of "me", "her", "him"

cognitive approach to close relationships

Humans are very dependent on another person's care when we are born; important socio-emotional bond between care-giver and infant; plays huge role in trust and intimacy schemas, affecting adult relationships

operant conditioning and aggression

If people are rewarded for behaving aggressively more likely to behave aggressively; punished, less likely Shapes behavior and schemas Research on gangs - initiation behaviors, etc.

reciprocity effects

If someone attracted to you, you try to feel same way; We like people who like us

multi-method approach

If you can demonstrate support for the same theory using multiple methods it's more likely to be true (experiment, survey, observational study, etc.)

learning/modeling and aggression reduction

If you reward non-aggressive behavior and punish aggressive behavior, aggressive behavior will decrease, especially in kids Token economy studies in classrooms, on the playground etc. (gold stars → movie) Modeling - have older elementary school kids are trained and rewarded to be "conflict negotiators/peacekeepers"; little kids act less aggressively because they want to be like the older kids (positive models)

social learning/modeling origin of stereotypes

If you see someone else reinforced or punished for having an attitude it can affect your attitudes; modeling is when you see someone behave in a way and you copy them (imitation) Ex. Children model parents; parents' stereotypes are passed down to the child; if parents are punished for stereotypes then the child is less likely to develop them

IAT

Implicit Association Test; given a list of word pairs to memorize; measures response latency (how long it takes to answer); good for measuring undesirable attitudes and beliefs Ex. Lithuanian and Lazy - if the two words are closely associated in your mind, you'll respond Y or N faster; if they aren't closely associated, it will take longer

factors affecting attitude strength

Information - more information you have on a topic, the stronger your attitude, the stronger the relationship to behavior Direct experience - direct experience with topic → stronger attitude Ex. University over-accepted, not enough housing → freshman lived for a month on cots in the gym What do you feel about kids having to live in the gym? Protest - target behavior; Did you take part in the protest? Attitudes of kids living in the gym strongly predicted whether they went to the protest or not; kids in dorm showed almost no association Personal importance - how important the issue is to you; affects someone you care about, not necessarily direct experience Ex. Go on cruises in the arctic to see glaciers; don't live there, but becomes more important Measurement timing - closer attitude measured to when you do the behavior, stronger association

Belmont Report

Informed consent - voluntary, must understand what you're doing, can't experiment on prisoners, mentally handicapped, etc. Risk (to participant) vs. Benefit (to science) Debriefing - what was the study about, participant leaves in same state they arrived in, follow up if necessary → development of Internal Review Board (IRB) to approve ethics of study before it is conducted

message learning recipient factors

Intelligence - highly intelligent people less likely to be persuaded, but also less likely to flip-flop Esteem - " " high self-esteem

interdependence theory

Interactions are really important for any relationship; interactions lead to outcomes (rewards and costs) that are a product of what you want to happen and how you behave as well as how the interaction partner acts and what they want; you affect your partner's outcomes and they affect yours

discontinuity effect

Intergroup behavior is much more competitive than inter-individual behavior

self schema formation

Introspection Look to others

theory evaluation

Is the theory testable? Does it fit the data? Does it use parsimony? Does it generate research?

historical examples of groupthink

JFK administration and Cuba → Bay of Pigs Train Cuban ex-pats; incite a revolution against Castro from within Bay of Pigs a giant swamp, couldn't actually move Castro immediately captures them and parades them around to humiliate them Looked back at notes from roundtables - could see where things went wrong "New Coke" - changed the ingredients in coke and were going to get rid of old coke; stock plummeted; reason Pepsi was a success Launching of The Challenger; Sally May teacher on the flight; broadcasted nationally; it exploded a few minutes after launch; why did they launch when there were questions about the engineering?

learning theory approaches to attitude change

Learning Theory dominated psychology in the 1930s and 1940s as an answer to psychoanalytic theory (Freud, unconscious) How some change in the environment affects your attitude Classical Conditioning Operant Conditioning Social/Observational Learning

types of surveys

Likert scale - method of summated ratings uses 1-5 pt scales (agree - disagree, etc.). Tends to measure the beliefs surrounding an idea and sums up what the total is, the summation of those beliefs gives the attitude regarding that idea as a whole. Inside out approach Ex. How much Drigoat likes Dallas - more negatives than positives, therefore he has a negative attitude regarding Dallas Semantic Differential - uses ratings of opposite adjectives to rate the attitude concept. Basically takes the global topic, then you're given pairs of opposing adjectives. Outside in approach

automatic processing

Little awareness Perform tasks more quickly Often inflexible; something you'll do the same way every time; routine Tired/distracted/low motivation → automatic processing Allows for multitasking Ex. driving a car for an experienced driver - get home and you don't really remember how; brushing your teeth Infomercials on late at night to prey on tired, ego depleted, automatic processing state

confirmation bias

Looking for consistent info and ignoring inconsistent info to maintain the stereotype Ex. Hannah study - mansion, trailer, easy and hard questions, smart or dumb

strange situation study

Lots of observation in participants home about what the mother does in response to the child's needs; 2 year olds from observation studies brought to a room full of toys with a chair where the mother could sit; Phase 1: child free to explore; Phase 2: distract child and take mom out of the room; Phase 3: distract child and bring mom back

ways to reduce competitive group behavior

Make decision tied to you individually, unify groups for a common cause, have leaders get along (--> more positive view of other group), positive intergroup example (when someone in your group is friends with someone in the other group)

self-serving bias

Make internal attribution for success and external for failure (ego protection device); people who suffer from major depression flip the self-serving bias - good things are external and bad things are internal; feeds depressive cycle; cognitive therapy focuses on shifting attribution tendencies Examples: gambling - winning vs. losing streaks at slot machines; I have a certain superstitious routine vs. the house always wins insurance claims - single car accident; the curb came out of nowhere; the sun was shining in my eyes grades in school coaches in press conferences after their team wins, loses - talent and hardwork vs. field conditions, other team, referees marital behaviors - when couples going through therapy talk about things going on; good internal we work hard, motivated; bad external bringing work home, mother-in-law meddling

sociobiological/evolutionary approach to aggression

Male Sexual Jealousy - crime stats in US and Canada - #1 cause of homicide of women Child Abuse - adopted children or stepchildren (no genetic link to parents) more likely to be abused

mate poaching

Men lure a female away from their partner by focusing on the resources they can provide; women lure males away from their partner by focusing on their attractiveness and their willingness to be exclusive

mate preferences

Men value physical attractiveness because it is a sign of physical health → more likely to carry and bear a child successfully Some research on waist to hip ratio - the ratio that men found most attractive was directly linked to the ratio that allowed for successful birth (some controversy) Women value resources; body symmetry in men linked to social dominance --> resources

performance behavior in groups

More arousal when performing alone vs. in a group - crowd paying less attention to you, diffusion of attention Ex. Dimming light to indicate nervousness at a talent show - single performers more nervous, groups less nervous, bigger groups even less nervous

Infidelity

Much less likely to cheat if committed Ex. Drigoat study: observed participants during the semester and on spring break (where attractive alternatives were present); committed people not less likely to go on spring break, but had less interactions with people of the opposite sex, etc.

accommodation and relationship success

Much more destructive response in failing relationships, which leads to a downward spiral; couples who are highly committed just need to avoid destructive, don't necessarily need to always be constructive

mutuality of commitment

Mutuality of commitment leads to better relationship; non-mutuality leads to the increased power of the non-committed person and therefore selfish behavior by the non-commited person

social comparison and schema generation

Need to compare ourselves to others, especially when we don't know where we stand (form of evaluating oneself); look to how other people are acting if we don't know how to act (especially in unfamiliar situations); the way others define a schema influences our definition, feelings towards it, etc.

conformity is increased if...

No social support Group attractiveness Status effects: medium status people conform more Social comparison effects come into play

helping behavior norms

Norm of reciprocity - in places where the norm is high, there is more help given Social responsibility - when you see somebody in need of help, you should give help when it's needed, similar to altruism, tend be more religious Social justice - you give help when you feel like the person deserves your help; if there's a legit reason for you giving that person help; judgment Ex. Friend asks to borrow notes because they were sick and couldn't make it or because they were lazy, more likely to give notes when the person was sick because that's a legitimate reason We've moved from a norm of social responsibility culture to a norm of social justice

how to reduce selfish behavior in social dilemmas

Normative/Informative social influence Smaller groups Identifiability Operant Conditioning Legal Measures

Milgram Experiment

Obedience study to understand the actions of the Nazis during WWII Confederate - fake participant, always the learner Real participant - teacher Learner memorizes word pairs Shock confederate every time learner gets answer wrong Confederate intentionally answers wrong pretty often Voltage goes up to 350 V then three red XXX settings Teacher given a 25 V shock to know how real it is Learner strapped in At 100 V learner screams they want to stop Researcher says "While the shocks might be painful, they're not paralysing, Please continue for the purpose of the study" At 150 V learner really screaming, says he has a heart condition 300 V "my heart hurts", then won't respond 350 V dead air 65% shocked learner all the way through the three red XXX settings Debriefing after the study, teacher relieved it wasn't real Another researcher followed up on participants - 6 months later, serious disruptions to their lives (insomnia, obsessive thoughts, depression, missing work, effects on social life, PTSD) because not a great thing to learn about yourself → uproar in the community, government stepped in, Congressional hearings over ethics

kelley's cube

Often have more information than just info from that behavior in that moment 3 dimensions → "cube" Consensus (Social Desirability) - Are they behaving just like everyone else or are they acting differently? Is there behavior socially undesirable? Different → internal attribution Socially undesirable → internal attribution Consistency - Is this behavior consistent with their normal behavior? Yes - internal attribution No - external attribution Distinctiveness - you have seen them in similar situations so you can extrapolate Same - internal Different - external Ex. Late student Consensus - Is everyone late or just them? Consistency - Is he late to every class? Distinctiveness - Is he late to literally everything? Gray area when there's conflicting information - allows for more ambiguity (cube, 3D space)

vivid samples and stereotypes

One bad or particularly memorable experience shapes your schema of a certain group even if not representative Ex. You get mugged in Rome and now you think Rome is a very dangerous city, you hate it, etc.

central nodes and schemas

One experience leads to assumptions about related topics Ex. Halo effect - physically attractive people are assumed to have other positive qualities - warmer, kinder, more personable; they wear a "halo" due to central node of attractiveness being grouped with and closely related to other positive characteristics in neural network Same thing with warm vs. cold people → impacts impressions a great deal You can have unique central nodes (Drigoat with "suck", triggers after trauma)

learning approaches to helping behavior

Operant conditioning Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation Extrinsic - you get an external reward Internal - you're doing something because you want to do it Overjustification effect - when an expected external reward decreases one's intrinsic motivation to do something Social learning Modeling In experiment, people are significantly more likely to put money in the bucket if people in front of them give money

social exchange approach to helping behavior

Operant conditioning with some sort of cognitive appraisal of likelihood of getting reward and if rewards outweigh the costs Ex. Good Samaritan subway study A confederate falls down on a train: two conditions - falls normally, falls and a dye pack of blood pops open, people less likely to help if person is bleeding because it's "gross" - cost outweigh the reward of helping Ex. Good Samaritan professor study Either person has certain time to give a talk to group of students or they are just told to go give a talk to students, on their way to talk they pass an old guy slumped over on his side on a bench, Religiosity, body characteristics, priming didn't predict whether they would help - only predictor was if they had time to help, people who had a time limit were less likely to help Physical attractiveness The rewards of helping a physically attractive, single person is greater than when they are either dating someone or ugly Communal vs. exchange More likely to help people we are friends with, our family, who we expect to interact with in the future because there will be greater rewards. For exchange relationships, you don't expect there to be interactions in the future, so you are less likely to help because there are less potential rewards. Mood effects - more likely to help if you're in a good mood

causes of fundamental attribution error

People are visually salient and surroundings are less so, we tend to focus on them vs. the environment, circumstances, etc. Making internal attributions helps us feel that they are more predictable - stable expectations; pay attention to things that confirms schemas vs. changing environment

Would people rather have their partner say "I love you" or "I'm in love with you"?

People tend to pick "in love" because it's a special category; can love lots of things, but are only in love with one person

norms and aggression reduction

People will follow strong norms (ex. churches, funerals, etc.) Hard to establish a norm, but very effective once established

children and physical attractiveness

Physically attractive infants have more interactions with adults. Teachers show bias towards attractive students Study found mothers spend more time with their child in the hospital if they think their infant is attractive. Cookie Study: 9 and 10 year olds tried to get other kids to eat a cookie; attractive girls just had to ask people to eat the cookie; unattractive girls had to use sales techniques/logical reasoning; attractive boys would use charm techniques; unattractive boys would be forceful and threaten others

manipulation check

Post-study survey to check people's moods during the study. Where they feeling the emotions you wanted them to or something else? (i.e. were they high in frustration and even in all the other emotions or were they high in anger instead)

history of ethics in psychology studies

Pre Milgram Experiment - ethics up to the individual researcher; their moral compass Post Milgram Experiment --> Belmont Report

message learning medium factors

Print vs. video - print works better; putting more mental energy into the task; more active Face-to-face vs. media - face-to-face more effective; " "

basic differentiation of helping behavior

Prosocial - helping for a variety of reasons Altruistic - helping when there isn't any benefit to yourself; recognize a need in someone else and you want to help them There's a debate on whether there is true altruism

balance theory

Relationship between 3 things - are relationships in balance? Multiply to a negative → imbalance Resolve balance - something has to give, usually the weakest link Ex. Girlfriend, girlfriend's roommate, Drigotas + Drigoat and gf + gf and roommate - Drigoat and roommate Drigoat and roommate must become friends or Drigoat and gf break up or gf and roommate don't room together anymore

halo effect

Research has demonstrated that physically attractive people are assumed to have other positive traits (intelligence, kindness, etc.); less likely to be convicted of a crime, more persuasive, make more money, etc.

genetics and aggression

Research in other species - can breed more aggressive behavior Mice studies - breed most aggressive males and females, same in next generations, etc., a few generations → very aggressive mice Looked at mice brains - hippocampus differences Twin research in humans Identical twins (same environment, same genes) have higher correlation of aggressive behavior than fraternal twins (same environment, different genes) Possibility of identifying "aggression genes" and doing interventions (gene therapy, behavioral therapy?)

modeling and aggression

Research on kids Ex. Bobo Doll Study 4 year olds watched an adult do things in a room full of toys, Bobo doll - blow up doll with sand at the bottom, One group adult taps bobo doll on the head, moves on, One group adult punches bobo doll in the face, Kids who saw the adult punch the bobo doll were more likely to play with the bobo doll and were more likely to punch it Ex. Research on the effects of media on little kids Cities on the border of Canada and US, same size US kids exposed to violent TV shows, Canadian kids not, US kids more aggressive on the playground, → being able to block channels

Matching hypothesis

Research on physical attractiveness of couples shows partners are usually of same attractiveness level; exceptions due to evolutionary reasons Theory 1: we have knowledge of where we stand as far as physical attractiveness and therefore pair up with someone who is on our level. Theory 2: we all go after the most physically attractive people; the most physically attractive people pair off first, leaving the less physically attractive people to pair off

accommodation studies

Response Delay Study: Respond immediately to hurtful remark or wait 7 seconds; immediate - much more likely to be destructive; 7 seconds - much more likely to be constructive Drigoat study: Couples kept record of any times their partner hurt them or they hurt their partner; partners in good relationships recognized when they hurt their partner; bad relationship didn't; If loyalty behaviors reported, not noticed by partner, but neglect behaviors noticed

bases of social power

Rewards - they have the power to reward you, ex. Your boss pays you, promotes you, etc. Coercion - less effective than rewards because you get used to the punishment Expertise - they know more than you do Ex. If your computer is broken, you are going to suck off the IT guy Drigoat's friend needed help with his girlfriend, and he was like bro get me a beer and then we will talk about it, and lo and behold his friend got him the beer Information - they have information that makes them powerful (president's secretary, etc.) Referent power - want to be like someone so you respect them; charisma Ex. you obey your older brother because you respect him Legitimate authority Ex. policemen, elected officials, clergymen, etc. You go the speed limit around firemen even though you know they can't pull you over

reducing competitive group behavior studies

Robber's Cave study: Kids at the camp separated into two groups, allowed to name themselves; created competition between groups then tried to reduce competition; first tried lots of simple contact (facilitating interactions between groups) → no reduction in competition; needed higher level goals (challenges that both group levels needed to solve together); next scenarios where they needed tools from both teams to get water & help truck → worked; last had a olympics competition - the whole camp against another camp → worked Jigsaw classroom study: Students randomly put into small groups; needed to work together to master material → interdependent; dramatically reduced racial stereotypes, reduced intergroup competition, improved standardize test scores; more effect way to teach

factors affecting commitment

Satisfaction positively related to commitment; quality of alternatives negatively related to commitment; investments positively related to commitment; LOTS of research showing the same pattern - all three factors directly affect commitment, but commitment is the only direct predictor of relationship outcomes

structure of schemas

Schemas are dynamic, yet stable. They have central nodes and fuzzy boundaries

social learning and aggression

See someone else's aggressive behavior rewarded or punished affects whether you behave aggressively Very important for kids

self-discrepancy theory

Self esteem based on how your actual self compares to your ideal self The closer you are to your ideal self, the better you feel about yourself on that dimension There are multiple ways to have low self esteem - if your ideal self is way too ideal or your actual self is not that great → different therapeutic mechanisms (Ex. exercising to improve body image or cognitive therapy to lower ideal body image) Also explains how sociopaths feel like they are completely fine, normal people in terms of morality

self concept

Self schema Cognitive component

love as self-expansion and arousal

Self-expansion is exciting, that arousal → attraction Ex. Married couples doing poorly, seeking therapy; each write down privately 10 things they could do together that would be pleasing (going to dinner, going to the movies) and 10 things that would be exciting (hang gliding, scuba diving); half the couples to do one thing off the pleasing list once a week for 6 weeks; other half had to do something off their exciting list once a week for 6 weeks; exciting group dramatically increased self-expansion and also other measures of function, sexual intimacy, etc.; "rekindling their love"

impression management devices

Self-monitoring Self-promotion Self-regulation these devices are tiring, hard, ego-depleting (why you feel exhausted after a job interview)

ego protection devices

Self-serving bias Self-handicapping Basking in Reflective Glory (BiRGing) Muhammad Ali Effect Downward Comparison

social cognition bias strategies

Small sample errors (vivid cases) Underuse baserate information Availability heuristic Representative heuristic Overconfidence

demand characteristics

Something in the procedure tips off the participant as to what the hypothesis is and therefore how they are expected to act/respond; basically ruins external and internal validity; need to run pilot studies to work out kinks in the procedure, probe participants to see if they can spot the hypothesis, ask them what tipped them off; more a problem in experiments vs. observational studies; more likely to occur in studies where subjects know they are participating in a psych study

classical conditioning and attitude change

Stimulus produces an automatic response Ex. Pavlov's dogs If you pair a neutral stimulus (bell) with a stimulus (meat powder) that produces an automatic response (salivating) enough times the organism will start to display the automatic response (salivating) in response to just the neutral stimulus (bell) We have automatic responses to things - puff of air → blink; food → salivate; fear → fight or flight; sexual stimulation → boner Ex. Drinking shitty beer in college (Bush beer); commercial included attractive, scantily clad women playing volleyball; conditioning to associate arousal/desire with Bush beer Can be hard to do classical conditioning for attitude change because there aren't too many common automatic responses across all people Extinction also happens quickly - association dies out eventually when you don't have the original stimulus for a while (dog salivating less and less without meat powder) Ex. Jaws; neutral piece of music (dun dun dun dun); associate it with shark attacks early on in the movie; later in the movie only need music to induce fear response; horror movies have been using that ever since

schemas and aggression

Stronger neural networks for aggressive things, more aggressive schemas → aggression Schemas can be activated more quickly and by more things (depth and breadth) Measured by IAT and behavioral component Theories about how those schemas are built - operant conditioning, social learning, exposure to violence - all true People with strong schemas primed more easily and act more aggressively Even people without strong schemas can be successfully primed to act aggressively overt priming - weapons effect covert priming - millisecond flashing of words related to aggression or not; after computer test, aggressive behavior measured; those primed with aggression, more aggressive

attachment style adult relationship studies

Study 1: Secure partner and anxious-ambivalent partner; secure partner rates pictures of people of different levels of attractiveness; anxious-ambivalent convinced partner was lying about how attractive they thought the people were Study 2: Female in couple brought into another room; told she has to memorize words, will get shocked if she's wrong; bring her back to waiting room; secure woman turns to bf, talks to him about it, he reassures her, calms her down; avoidant woman is clearly distressed, but when bf asks she says she doesn't want to talk about it; anxious-ambivalent woman freaks out, yells at bf when he tries to reassure her

Minimal Group Paradigm

Study relating to social identity theory Split people into groups, give someone money they can only give out (cannot keep any of it); will give all to own group

general affective aggression model (GAAM)

Systems model - within any one situation where someone behaves aggressively, you can look at the system of variables that might of caused it and how these variables cumulatively lead to the behavior Input variables - personal variables, situational variables Present internal state - cognitions (schemas, priming), affects (emotions), arousal Appraisal Processes - decision about whether to behave aggressively Automatic Appraisals - not thinking, just acting; "crime of passion"; linked to more aggressive behavior; directly related to above variables; more scattered, instinctual, emotional, "flying off the handle' Controlled Appraisals - premeditated aggression, planned behavior Leads to aggressive behavior and target response (what the target of your aggression does in response, can lead to more aggression via the reciprocity effect)

familiarity effects

Tend to be inclined to like people who remind us of people we know because it decreases our anxiety (unless it's someone we hate, then inclined to dislike them) Ex. Drigoat dated a girl in 5th grade who was great but then he moved; he met a girl that looked like her at his new school so he started dating her; she was a terrible girlfriend and he stayed too long

egocentric bias

Tend to remember self-referenced things better than non-self-referenced things Helpful tool for memory, studying, etc. Also tend to remember in our favor Ex. Husbands and wives both claim they do 60% of the housework, chores, helping with the kids, etc. obviously can't true

importance of theories generating research

The amount of research done on a theory indicates how exciting the theory, how good it is at predicting behavior, how important it is, etc.

correspondence

The degree to which you fit together as a couple, mutually benefit each other, more rewards than costs to both; affected by the extent to which you like and care about the same things; increases pleasure in interactions and number of interactions because we are being rewarded; the more you interact in a variety of settings the better you can determine if you have it; leads to good relationship outcomes

heuristics approach

The heuristics of the message activates matters more (attractive, looks credible, etc.) Automatic processing - not thinking it through; can be persuaded by weak, repeated, illogical arguments

proximity effects

The more we are exposed to someone more inclined we are to like them (Can become negative) Ex: college dorm; you like people in your own dorm more; people in high traffic areas are the most popular

cognitive response theory

The nature of the response to the message matters more - positive or negative Controlled processing - actively engaged, thinking about the arguments

Reasoned Action Model/Theory of Planned Behavior

Theory explaining why attitude is a bad predictor The best predictor of behavior is behavioral intention

competing responses and aggression reduction

There are emotional states related to aggression (anger, frustration) If you can get people to feel the opposite emotion, they'll act less aggressively when they have the chance Research on humor - watching a funny video vs. neutral, boring video

schemas as dynamic

There is a lot of room for schema to grow when first encountering object/concept; changeable, malleable when experience limited

investments

Things you would lose if the relationship ended Ex. kids, money, stigma of going through divorce, shared traditions, etc.

illusory corellations

Thinking two things are related when they are not Ex. Stick figure study, told some where drawn by paranoid people, decided stick figures with big eyes were drawn by paranoid people

passionate vs. companionate love theory

This theory has some staying power in the field; research showing passionate increases in first year of marriage, but starts to decrease at about 3-4 years → very hard to maintain, get habituated to it; companionate love is not related to time, but it is a much better predictor of people staying together

reciprocity and aggression

Tit for tat → tends to escalate aggressive behavior

surveys and attitudes

Top down approach - person who design the survey tells you what to respond to → researcher may miss out on some aspects of attitude; surveys do not show the whole picture about a person's attitude. Use it to predict something about a person's behavior. Social desirability affects answers Surveys are passive

Sternberg's triangle theory of love

Tried to combine already established elements in the field; there are 8 different types of love based on how much of each dimension you feel (magical one night stand, old married couple, etc.); ideal love is to feel high in all three; still recognized as an important theory, but follow-up research fell flat as far as its ability to predict things

elaboration likelihood model

Two routes to persuasion - central route processing vs. peripheral route processing Central route similar to controlled processing - paying attention, analyzing the argument Peripheral route processing similar to automate processing - not motivated to pay attention, use heuristics, peripheral cues How motivated are you to pay attention? → central vs. peripheral How comprehensible is the argument? Comprehensible - central Incomprehensible - peripheral Eliminated "turf war" between heuristic and cognitive response approaches

personality and aggression

Type A - high in need for achievement and power, tend to be more successful in their careers, more likely to be in positions of leadership, tend to be higher in instrumental aggression (aggression to get ahead) and physical aggression, more likely to die younger of stress related illness (heart attack) Type B - more laid back, lower need for achievement, don't put themselves in stressful situations as often, lower in aggression Narcissism - believe you're better than people, people should show you respect, less based in reality → personality disorder (DSM), higher in aggression, tend to be their most violent when they think people aren't given them the respect they deserve; research in prison populations and student populations Empathy - low empathy, high aggression

social psychological approach to riots

Unifying Event - mass of people together; spontaneous (people flooding the streets after UMD game) or planned (march or protest) Convergent Norm - need a substantial number of like-minded people in the crowd who would favor mob behavior; potential troublemakers have to have the confidence that there are other people who will follow their lead The Instigator - once someone starts mob behavior, the odds of other people getting caught go way down → group following suit; instigator weighs risk of getting caught (crowd/police ratio) committing symbolic, catalyzing event and weighs probability of everyone joining in (convergent norm) The Incident - symbolic, catalyzing action, or sacrificial action and arrest (rock through window, lighting a fire, etc.)

evolutionary approach to close relationships

We are all mammals with drives to survive and reproduce; these theories work on the macro level, but are not good for making predictions about actual ongoing relationships, whether things are going well, going badly, why etc.; these theories also perpetuate gender stereotypes

cognitive origins of stereotypes

We are cognitive misers; exaggerations based on limited processing

social cognition bias

We do not act rationally all the time because we are cognitive misers; actively concentrating is hard, we take the easy way out a lot of the time → automatic processing Ex. Copying machine study "Can I cut in front of you?" 50% let them cut "Can I cut in front of you, I have someone's notes?" 80% "Can I cut in front of you because I have to make copies?" 80% Stupid reason - duh everyone needs to make copies, that's why they're in line for the copier - but "because" indicates an important reason; people stop listening after that and let them cut

social exchange theory

We examine the rewards we get and the cost we incur out of interacting with someone, our COGNITIVE ​assessment of these will affect if we like someone or not Ex. Men and women doing tasks in a room; known which women are single and which are not; men more likely to help single women when they drop something Ex. For most men to ask girl out they need an 80% chance she'll say yes

seeking consistency with schemas

We ignore inconsistent information and pay attention to consistent information (confirmation bias) because we are "cognitive misers" who don't want to put a lot of info into thinking about and rearranging our schemas; related to stability of schemas Ex. Halo effect - ignore negative aspects of an attractive person Ex. Political views - ignore valid points of other party, only focus on where you disagree

positivity effects

We like being around people that are more positive. Universally liked personality traits = more positive and less neurotic

cognitive motive/balance theory approaches to attitude change

We like things to fit together → motivated to have attitudes and behavior line-up; rearrange conflicting attitudes; don't like being in a state of tension, dissonance Ex. 1950s, got involved with a doomsday cult; believed world was going to end on May 30th; May 30th came and the world didn't end → "We saved the world"; cult still had meaning, didn't leave life and spend all my money for nothing

small imperfections

We like when people have small imperfections to humanize them; don't like when people are perfect Ex. Two lecturers that both give lectures in the same way and are just as charismatic, but one of them drops their things during the presentation; audience rates the imperfect one a lot higher

attitudes allowing for organization

We organize information in terms of attitude structures. Ex. When you think about Johns Hopkins you have a bunch of different beliefs about Johns Hopkins. Those opinions get organized in a way that forms your attitude.

similarity effect

We tend to look for people that are similar to ourselves (age, race, education, economic level). Similarity of attitudes and values matters a great deal in both friendships and romantic relationships. Personality does not seem to have as much of an effect (leads to idea that opposites attract).

belief accentuation

We tend to minimize differences between ourselves and our own group members and maximize differences between ourselves and out-group members; more likely when comparing with a competing group or when it's an issue we are passionate about Ex. Pro-life study; 2 to 4 ingroup more similar than 4 to 6 outgroup

arousal and attraction

We use ANS arousal as a sign of attraction

seeking meaning with schemas

We use little bits of info to predict behavior, schemas help us extrapolate more info about a concept, person, thing, situation

categorizing quickly with schemas

We use schemas to take a little it of info to put a person, concept, situation, etc. into a box so we can seek meaning Ex. She's pre-med, he's a lax player, etc.

correspondent inference theory

We want to be able to say that someone's behavior corresponds to who they are (internal attribution) We have knowledge of a person's choices in behavior Common effects - similar outcomes/characteristics of all choices Non-common effects - unique outcomes/characteristics of choices Can make a strong internal attribution when there's a non-common effect among many common effects More non-common effects → less sure Ex. Colleges JHU vs. Carnegie Mellon vs. U Chicago - all good schools, in cities, strong in sciences, but mom went to JHU → JHU JHU vs. small liberal arts schools - too many non-common effects to make a strong attribution First theory to talk about personalism and hedonism

subjective norms

What will other people think of me if I do this behavior? Ex. Were you sexually active your freshman year? What are your attitudes about sex, being sexually active? What do your friends think about being sexually active? Women - their ATTITUDES; men - SUBJECTIVE NORM, the attitudes of their friends Ex. Matters ITO public service announcements (condom use in 80s during AIDs epidemic) - some targeted at people's attitudes (they're really effective), some subjective norm based (it's the cool thing to do) Ex. Smoking cessation - attitude (fear of physical effects) vs. subjective norm (gotta swipe it left)

fundamental attribution error/correspondence bias

When making attributions about other people, more likely to make an internal attribution; leads to belief in a "Just World" - people get what they deserve; positive - you get a promotion because you're a hard worker; negative - you're homeless because you're an addict, have no motivation, etc.; relates to blaming the victim in rape cases Ex. Randomly assigned to give a speech: pro-choice, pro-life; everyone knew they didn't choose their side; people who were watching were asked to give a bunch of ratings including where do you think they stand on abortion; more likely to think they stood on the side of the speech they gave even with strong external knowledge Ex. Asking vs. answering trivia question → intelligence; strong external reason why some people seem smarter than others (some are asking a hard question they know the answer to, some have to answer that question), but still made internal attribution of intelligence

frustration and aggression

When people are frustrated → more likely to be aggressive Ex. told they have an easy task, can't solve it If people frustrated then can't act aggressively then they will act aggressively in next available opportunity Boss chews you out, can't act out aggression without losing your job, so drive more aggressively on the way home

alcohol, drugs, and aggression

When people are under the influence of alcohol, their cognitive abilities and impulse control are impaired, more likely to be aggressive Alcohol has some self-fulfilling prophecy effect, we know how drunk people are "supposed" to act Ex. Domestic violence research (experimental research) Had people drink different amounts Activated aggressive stereotype schemas Let them act aggressively Got odorless and tasteless alcohol from the government (eliminates self-fulfilling prophecy effect) Would mix shakes based on body mass Lots of debriefing to make sure they didn't go home wanting to hurt their partner, family

flattery effects

When people compliment you more inclined to like them, even when you know it isn't sincere

arousal and aggression

When people have high ANS arousal, aggressive behavior increases (ready to fight or run)

norms and aggression

When there are strong norms against aggressive behavior you won't see aggressive behavior Ex. Church, funerals, classrooms vs. a bar, athletic event If you can establish a strong norm against aggression, people will follow it

attribution effects

When things are going well, people make external attributions when their partner hurts them and internal attributions when their partner does something nice for them; When things are going badly they make internal attributions for bad things, external attributions for nice things Ex. Partner is late to pick you up; good - probably traffic; bad - that lazy jerk Hard to switch back from negative attribution pattern because your behavior stems out of it; upward trajectories not as steep as downward trajectories in relationships in general

denigration

When trying to make a rival to potential partner look bad men focus on issues of resources (he drives a crappy car, has a bad job) and women focus on attractiveness level and sexual trustworthiness (she's ugly, a slut); can be effective

reactance

When you feel like something is taken away unfairly we tend to want that thing even more, increase attitude towards that thing ("reverse psychology") Ex. Parent didn't like person teenager was dating; you can't see them → value relationship a lot more Motivational component

pain, heat, noise and aggression

When you feel pain you want to give someone pain back When it's hotter out, when they're bombarded with noise, they're more likely to act aggressively

illusion in relationships

When your partner views you a little higher on TRAITS, relationship tends to be more successful, function better

crowding and aggression

Why are there higher crime rates in cities? → Theory about higher density of people Ex. large group of people, half hour in a cramped room vs. spacious room, --> taking back their personal space by acting aggressively

Sacrifice

Willingness to do things they like but you don't (go to their office party) or not do things they don't like (quit smoking); thinking about your partner's outcomes

schemas as stable

With more experience, schemas become resistant to change; takes a lot of energy to rearrange world view

social/observational learning and attitude change

You don't have to be the direct recipient of the operant conditioning for your attitude to be changed Can observe someone else's attitude being reaffirmed or attacked and it will influence how you change your attitude Not as powerful as operant conditioning

scapegoat theory

a form of downward comparison meant to make the in-group feel better about itself Ex. In the south during desegregation, stereotypes about african americans were strongest among poorest whites

external stable attributions

a situation/environmental factors that are consistent, reoccurring Ex. Do poorly on a test → shitty professor

inductive theory development

a specific example that inspires investigation into a broader phenomenon Ex. Murder and rape of Kitty Genovese in the middle of an apartment complex, no one came to help her even though she screamed, there were people home, etc. --> research on the bystander effect

stereotype threat

a threatening stereotype against you will affect your performance Ex. Mini golf study; groups of blacks and whites playing; blacks did badly when told it was a mental game; whites did poorly when told it was an athletic game

Latane's 5-step model

a-theoretical, explanation of whether someone will help Step 1: Notice the event In order to help, you must realize something is happening Often people are distracted and don't even notice Ex. Good Samaritan study - being in a hurry: didn't even notice the old guy slumped over on a bench Step 2: Interpret as emergency Pluralistic ignorance - others not helping, must be a problem Potential costs to interpreting wrong - can be embarrassing if you help someone that doesn't need it Step 3: Take responsibility Bystander effect key Diffusion of responsibility plays a role in not helping at this step Many theories could account for helping at this step (learning, social exchange, sociobiology, norms, etc.) Step 4: Know how to help If someone appears to need medical care and you're not a nurse or doctor, then what? If you can't offer appropriate help, you likely won't try Step 5: Implement help Many reasons why other situational variables get in the way of helping (someone else attempts, events prevent it, etc.)

self-regulation

ability to return to a set point when your system gets excited; calm yourself down, hype yourself up; put on the necessary front

commitment strongly linked to...

accommodation, warding off alternatives, sacrifice, and infidelity

different types of group tasks

additive tasks, compensatory task, dysjunctive task, conjunctive task

self esteem

affective/emotional component of the self

influence of schemas on perception

affects our expectations, motives, moods, and activation Ex. Hannah Study Little girl walks to school, takes an oral exam, gets some easy questions wrong and some hard questions right Manipulate socioeconomic status of house she lives in (mansion, picket fence, nice lawn vs. trailer, peeling paint, unmanicured lawn) How did she do on the exam? Rich house → did well on exam, got hard questions right, smart; poor house → did poorly on exam, got easy questions wrong, dumb Confirmation bias for all the things they associate with education, support at home, etc. and wealth Ex. Telephone study South 1940s; game of telephone Stimulus: subway car - people of many races, well dressed black man and white man in overalls, white man is holding a knife looking at black man At the end of the telephone line white and black man roles reversed In the middle people didn't pay much attention, filled in with schemas about wealth and criminality Ex. Go into an interview expecting someone to be introverted or extroverted you will leave the interview thinking that Ex. Violent video games → frequent activation of aggressive, violent schemas → quick to find words about violence in word searches

archival research

analyzes data collected by a non-social psychology related source (newspapers, databases, etc.); high external validity because participants did not know they were being observed for a psychology study

deductive theory development

applying general phenomenon to specific example, theory Ex. ego depletion research

physiological variables affecting aggression

arousal, pain, heat, noise, alcohol and drugs, testosterone

attitudes as value expression

attitudes are a summary of what we believe. It allows people to judge whether you're someone they want to interact with. By expressing an attitude, you share parts of your personality with people. Often times we talk about our attitudes to say what we're really like

learning theory and close relationships

attraction based on rewards and punishment

trait approach to close relationships

based in physical attractiveness, personality, or other traits

social identity theory

because some of our social self-esteem comes from the groups we identify with we think our group is better than others and therefore that other groups are worse than us

self presentation

behavioral component of the self

companionate love

being best friends, secure each other, attachment, liking each other, similar to outcomes correspondence

storge

best friends, being comfortable and close with them, companionate love

Basking in Reflective Glory (BiRGing)

boost self esteem by associating ourselves with groups that are doing well; name-dropping Ex. Looked at the number of students wearing Michigan gear the Monday after football games Many more people wearing Michigan gear if the team won vs. if the team lost

how to combat groupthink

brainstorming

free riding

can conserve energy while still reaping the benefit of the outcome because of the effort of the other group members; potentially evolutionary strategy

attitude measurement relevance

can measure attitude and behavior generally or specifically but need to match them up for a stronger relationship Ex. Do you like exercise? vs. do you like running? - running attitude better predictor of how often they ran Ex. Birth control study What are your attitudes regarding "birth control" vs. "birth control pills" vs. "using birth control pills" vs. "using birth control pills in the next two years" more specific --> better predictor of whether they used birth control pills within 2 years

availability heuristic

can't do exhausting, comprehensive search of our knowledge, first examples that come to mind inform decision Ex. Who has been in more movies, Tom Cruise or Bill Murray? People will say Tom Cruise because he has been in more blockbusters even though Bill Murray has been acting for way longer Ex. What is more likely, being in a plane crash or car crash? People will say plane crash because they are more televised even though car crash much more likely

socioemotional leader

care about keeping people happy, care that everyone feels like their voice is being heard

aggression reduction strategies

catharsis, learning/modeling, biofeedback, competing responses, norms

pragma

checklist (6'2", investment banker, etc.)

taste aversion

classical conditioning that has to do with disliking food; very strong, very resistant to extinction; survival tactic for poisonous food Ex. You have a stomach virus; eat meatloaf for dinner; virus makes you vomit, but now the thought of meatloaf will make you nauseous Problem with chemo Ex. in the wild - coyotes eating sheep; give coyote meds that will make it nauseous; eats sheep, gets sick; comes next night; video tape of coyote coming to sheep pen and stopping in its tracks

elements of Sternberg's triangle theory of love

commitment; passion (similar to passionate love); intimacy (similar to companionate love)

types of social dilemmas

commons, public goods, general social

social influence

compliance; obedience; conformity

flattery and compliance

compliments work - even when people feel that flattery might be insincere Wine and dine (restrictions on lobbyists)

gatekeeper in groupthink

controls access to the Central Leader; usually has a certain opinion and therefore feeds information supporting that opinion to the Central Leader and keeps people with other opinions or info away → Central Leader thinks it's a really good idea KEY factor in groupthink Ex. Invasion of Iraq - Dick Cheney was the Gatekeeper; kept national security advisors away with other info/opinions; allowed people who agreed with invading to have access to Bush

schemas for people

descriptions of people in your life (ex. roommate), celebrities, public figures, etc. (ex. Trump); their appearance, personality, likes, dislikes, etc.; "that's such a typical Sally thing to do"

potential biases in psychology studies

design problems (demand characteristics), experimenter bias, participant bias

satisfaction

determined by how your outcomes compare to your Comparison Level (CL); If your outcomes exceed your CL than you will be very satisfied; if your CL exceeds your outcomes you will be unsatisfied

attitude measurement

direct - survey, interview indirect - physiological measures, bogus pipeline, implicit association test

stereotype measurement methods

direct: self reporting, diagnostic ratio test indirect: physiological responses, IAT

reasons for intergroup competition

discontinuity (fear schemas), social identity theory, diffusion of responsibility, social support for greed (once someone brings up idea of being greedy --> social support), deindividuation, reciprocity effects (once one group chooses to defect both keep defecting), ingroup - outgroup bias, group norms (competitive behavior becomes normative behavior)

implications of attachment styles

display mostly under stress; linked to lots of outcomes (academic success, social life/anxiety, leadership, getting in trouble); important in relationship schema formation → close relationship formation as adults; lots of secure people in relationships; never see two avoidant people in relationships (one night stands); see anxious-ambivalent people with secure people, but often tumultuous relationships because anxious-ambivalent people obsess over small doubts in their partners and blow them out of proportion; style is malleable depending on experience

performance behavior

doing a task in front of a group

pressure to uniformity in groupthink

don't rock the boat, Gatekeeper enforces norms by kicking dissenters out, punishing them

additive task

each member tries to maximize their output, but only group effort measured; especially prone to social loafing; avoid social loafing by making sure individual performance is called out

experience and schema generation

experience vital for schema generation; acquire a lot of schemas at an early age; labelling objects, concepts, etc.

schema generation

experience, modeling, social comparison, genetic predisposition

experimenter bias

experimenter influences participants to act in a way that supports hypothesis (self fulfilling prophecy) - unconscious, subtle body language, the way they asked the question, etc. prevent by using standardized instructions, recorded instructions, blind the experimenter to the hypothesis, the group that the participant is in, etc.; hard to control blinds sometimes

ludus

game-playing, the hunt, winning them over

individual difference variables affecting aggression

genetics, schemas, and personality

commitment

get you to commit to some sort of course of action, and you blindly keep going

conjunctive task

group is a good as its worst member; have to work as a team, in harmony, in unison; ex. Rowing, mountain climbing, building card houses with one person placing a card at a time

fuzzy boundaries and schemas

hard to completely separate schemas, multiple can be activated by one concept Ex. "desk" activates chair, table, homework, books, etc.

aggression research operationalization

hard to keep it natural and ethical Ex. shock, loud noise, blowing a puff of air into an animal's eye, writing bad, public evaluations of people, etc.

self-monitoring

how good you are at picking up behavioral cues and adjusting behavior to fit in people can be high or low self-monitors it can be hard to get a good read on a high self-monitor's true personality

affective component of commitment

how much does the relationship mean to you (cognitive interdependence)

motivational component of commitment

how much effort are you putting in to make this work

internal validity

how sure are you that your findings are causational; lack of randomization, lack of control, etc. all threats to internal validity

schemas for events

how to act in certain situations; what is going to happen; reduces anxiety about that situation; new situation → anxiety and social comparison Ex. Going to the doctor - sign in, wait for a while, vitals taken, wait, examination, check out, leave Ex. Going to a nice restaurant vs. McDonald's --> different event schema

accommodation

how you respond when your partner hurts you

brainstorming

idea generation followed by evaluation First stage - idea generation without any evaluation Once you exhaust all possibilities go back and weigh pros and cons of each Also leads to more creativity Ex. Research on object fixation Individually come up with ideas, in group, or brainstorming Group increases number of solutions - ideas spark other ideas Brainstorming method even more powerful - no self censorship, don't get sidetracked on only one idea; can still spark

normative/informative influence and social dilemmas

if you can establish a norm of how we're supposed to behave and enforce that if you act differently, people won't like you --> people are less likely to act different from the norm.

parsimony

if you have two explanations, the simpler one is preferred Ex. Hans the horse could allegedly do math problems; the real reason behind it was that the human trainer was signaling the horse, not that the horse was some math prodigy --> the simpler answer was true

underuse baserate information

ignoring baserate information (stats, facts) and making a decision contrary to that Ex. Better odds of finding a red ball when only 1 in 10 or 9 in 100? People will say 9 in 100 because they don't think they can find the one red ball despite stats saying otherwise

path analysis

in correlational studies, can look at the influence of confounding variables on the relationship to potentially separate them out

contact effects

increased proximity and familiarity increase attraction

group variables affecting aggression

intergroup competition (discontinuity) Ex. Video games, sports and unsportsmanlike, aggressive behavior (strong correlation, even when comparing two aggressive sports - football vs. wrestling)

internal stable attributions

it is something about the person that is consistent (personality, traits, genes, etc.) Ex. Do well on a test → I'm smart; I'm a hardworker

legal measures and social dilemmas

last resort; can institute legal ramifications for social dilemmas that continually occur; effective because people believe they will get caught and face public consequences; if the dilemma has low risk of getting caught, people are more likely to go against the norm and break the law Ex. HOV fines

bogus pipeline

like a fake lie-detector test, believe that a machine measures your attitudes. Then they ask questions about socially undesirable attitudes (sexism, racism), which people are much more likely to admit to when they believe they are under lie-detection. Ex. Do you like apples? You get hooked up to a "lie detector" machine, it'll light up green if you're telling truth or red if you're lying. Given a pretense that the machine works on silly questions. Then you are asked about socially undesirable topics: do you like rough pornography? People admit more to having socially undesirable opinions than on direct measurement processes.

actor-observer effect

likely to make internal attributions about other's actions but external attribution about our own; evidence that effect is stronger for negative events that happened to us → ego defense; actors have more information about reasons why they are acting than the observer; observer simply isn't aware of external factors; want consistency in other people similar to Fundamental Attribution Error; visual Salience - can see others acting vs. when we are acting we only see the environment, can't see ourselves Ex. Visual Salience 8 subjects, 2 were randomly chose to have a debate, randomly assigned to debate topic Sat at opposite ends of the table Other subjects randomly assigned to sit behind one debater 2 video cameras, one behind each person Debaters and observers made attributions Observers tended to make more internal attributions about the person they were opposite, were looking at them the whole time vs. the back of the head of the other person Came back later and either watched video from same or opposite perspective When people watched themselves, the actor-observer effect flipped Ex. Roommate Major Asked college students why their roommate chose the major they chose vs. why they chose the major they chose Much more likely to make internal attributions with roommate vs. external with themselves

minority influence in groups

majorities are very powerful when it comes to conformity, but sometimes the minority can sway the majority Easier when you have social support

small sample error/vivid cases

making sweeping generalizations, decisions based on very few examples, power of first impressions Ex. looking at colleges, bad tour guide --> hate college; nice restaurant, bad waiter --> hate restaurant

sociobiology effects

mate preference, male sexual jealousy, denigration, and mate poaching

overt influence of schemas on behavior

may not be explicitly aware of it, but at the conscience level Ex. Guy given survey that a girl filled out, middle of the road answers, but manipulate the attractiveness of the women in the picture Women arrive just thinking it's a social interaction study Men who think she's attractive act warmer, friendlier, are positive, funny, open and vv. if she's not attractive Women also responded to his behavior - warm vs. cold Attractiveness randomly assigned - no relation to his response Ex. People primed with "old" adjectives walked like old people; read the words → overt Ex. Music influenced wine choice - when asked why they chose a bottle of italian wine gave other reasons besides the fact that italian music was playing in the store Ex. Interviewer thinks you're an extrovert or introvert → asks questions, behaves in a manner that elicits that response from you

Characteristics associated with higher consistency between attitude and behavior

measurement relevance and strength of attitude

schemas for groups

membership categories of groups: demographic, majors, political group, state, etc.; stereotypes

persuasion approaches to attitude change

message learning cognitive response theory heuristics approach elaboration likelihood method

large intragroup issues

mob behavior - riots and panics

investment model

model showing that commitment is the central factor determining relationship success; accounts for ups and downs in relationship; research shows commitment predicts all other findings in all types of romantic relationships across all continents and cultures

interviews and attitudes

more bottom up because even though the researcher is asking the question, the respondent can respond however they want which allows attitude to emerge despite interviewer not necessarily thinking to ask something directly.

personalism

more likely to make internal attribution if behavior is directed at yourself Ex. If someone flips you off vs. flips someone else off

schemas for self

most complex schemas; have more info than anyone else about ourselves; different "selves" (Hopkins self, high school self, family self, etc.); pick things that differentiates you in a given setting Ex. In the Social Psych classroom - "I'm a mol/cell major, I'm from New Jersey, I'm a freshman" At Towson mall - "I go to Hopkins"

passionate love

obsessive thoughts, arousal, physical contact, lust, romanticism

importance of theory fitting data

obviously if the evidence doesn't support the theory it won't be accepted 97% of papers get rejected from the social psych journal (JPS) because there is some sort of flaw in the interpretation of results or design

overconfidence

once you've made a choice you inflate the likelihood that you're correct Ex. more than half of people will say they think they did above average on a test - not possible

norm of reciprocity

one of the strongest norms, obligation to return the favor, happens with similar levels of behavior (christmas card to christmas card) As it's own strategy - you do something small for something larger Ex. Soda Study: 2 subjects filling out 2 personality survey during break between tests confederate leaves - comes back either empty handed or with two sodas, gives you one Take second survey Confederate involved in charitable organization; raffle ticket fundraiser, would you be will to buy raffle tickets? Soda significantly increased likelihood of buying raffle ticket even though soda $.50 and raffle ticket $5 Ex. Christian group hanging out at airports; taking flower increased likelihood of staying to talk to them, take a pamphlet, and donate; even though people throwing out pamphlet and flowers immediately Ex. Psychology prof. - car ran out of gas; young guy pulls up in a pickup truck; guy takes him to get gas; gives him his card; 1 week later guy shows up in a suit; has job interview; truck's in the shop; can I borrow your car?; kid totals the car; psychologist has to pay for it under his insurance; even experts in the field fall for norm of reciprocity

smaller groups and social dilemmas

one of the ways to get people to act with more restraint is to break them down into smaller groups. When people in a big group, people feel like their actions have less of an effect. Ex. Dorms solving social dilemma. Smaller groups work better

learning theory approach to aggression

operant conditioning, social learning, and modeling all affect aggression

measurement issues in psychology experiments

operationalization and manipulation checks

multi-trait approach

operationalizes variables in different ways (ex. different ways of frustrating them), if different operationalizations lead to the same result, theory is more likely to be true

schemas

organized structures of information that influence, perception, memory, and behavior; neural networks; how you group and relate things

compensatory task

output dedicated to accuracy; ex. Unanimously agree on room temperature estimate; less prone to social loafing because accuracy → controlled processing

eros

passionate love

mania

passionate love run amuck, obsessed, overwhelmed, interfering with ability to function, anxiety about not being with them, like a personality disorder

deindividuation

people can't tie your actions to your identity, frees us up to act non-normatively, act differently from people's expectations Ex. Halloween study - self-awareness, masks Ex. Darkness study Six strangers, no windows, door shut, do whatever they want Changed whether the room was dark or not Had a positive experience in the dark, freed them up to be open, say personal things, etc. Ex. Suicide study Listened to the police scanner went to the scene of suicide jumper Larger crowd, higher up the person was, the darker it was, the more likely someone was to yell jump

conscious bias

people don't want to use extremes so they are always in the middle even though they may really be one of the extremes

realistic conflict theory

people tend to have the most extreme stereotypes about groups they are in conflict/competition with Ex. Italians and Germans competing for dockworker jobs, so they had extreme stereotypes against each other; less extreme stereotypes against Polish who worked elsewhere

schemas influence...

perception, memory, behavior, and decision making

most common types of schemas

person, concept, self, group, event (script)

theory vs. phenomenon

phenomenon - a noticed pattern without an explanation theory - hypothesis about what is causing a phenomenon; more valuable Ex. People who write about trauma are less likely to visit health center and report fewer health related issues (phenomenon) possibly because they come to some sort of terms with the trauma (theory)

physiological approach to close relationships

pheromones and arousal

pheromones and attraction

pheromones and smell play a big role in attraction in other species, but research in humans produced weak/mixed results Ex: 2 groups of women living together in two parts of city (hs student); on the same cycle - pheromones?; Collected sweat and brought it to women on opposite houses; Ended up on same cycle

schema for concepts

physical objects, hypothetical concepts (ex. love), intangible things (color, music, etc.)

types of variables affecting aggression

physiological, individual difference, group, situational

bystander effect

presence of other people in an emergency situation makes it less likely you'll help; also applies in non-emergency situations

informative social influence

pressures based on the desire to be right

normative social influence

pressures based on the desires to be liked

covert influence of schemas on behavior

priming, unconscious, flashes of words people don't report seeing but there's evidence they get in at some level Ex. Aggressive words --> aggressive behavior, "buy popcorn" during movie increased popcorn sales, etc.

representative heuristic

put more weight into description, stereotype, even though statistically the description is not likely to be the cause Ex. feminist bank teller just as likely as anyone else to donate to a generic charity. perhaps less likely because that is such a niche demographic, but you focus on the description - feminists care about social justice, charity, etc.

operant conditioning and social dilemmas

rewards tend to work better in situations of social dilemma but punishment also works

comparison level for alternatives (CLalt)

schema of outcomes for the next best alternative (a different partner, not dating anyone, casual hookups, etc.)

comparison level (CL)

schema of relationship expectations; unrealistic at first because it is based in the media

secret relationships and attraction

secret relationships can be very arousing, exciting → very sexy Can also be very taxing to keep a secret Often times relationships suffer once they are no longer a secret.

3 attachment styles

secure, avoidant, anxious-ambivalent

modelling and schema generation

seeing someone else's schema expression and imitating it; especially important in children

evaluation characteristics of schemas

seek meaning, categorize quickly, seek consistency

self-awareness

self-focused attention Physical means - mirrors, recordings of themselves, etc. Cognitive means - manipulate them to make them think about themselves

agape

selfless, giving to help someone else, all about the other person

perceived behavioral control

sense of whether you can control your actions enough to be able to do this behavior Internal locus of control - if I study, I'll get good grades External locus of control - doesn't matter how much I study, my grade is a crapshoot Link to behavioral intention and behavior itself Ex. Dunking - I want to do it, my friends would think it's cool, but I don't know if I can and I'll look stupid if I mess up → not going to do the behavior even with strong attitude and subjective norm due to lack of behavioral control Kids in school - reading is fun, reading is cool, you can do it

stereotype

set of BELIEFS about attributes of group

situational variables affecting aggression

social exclusion, frustration, provocation/reciprocity, norms, crowding

downward comparison

socially compare to someone who is worse than you

theoretical approaches to helping behavior

sociobiological, norms, and learning, social exchange, empathy

colors of love (love styles) theory

sociological theory, different people have different schemas about love; how they evaluate when they are in love depends on their love style; developed scales to measure style and people tend to identify with one; could be seen in their relationship patterns (ex. ludic people have serial relationships because once the hunt is over they get bored, etc.); similar to Sternberg, didn't generate a lot of research, not a lot of successful use of the model to predict important relationship behaviors

central leader in groupthink

someone who gives the go ahead on the big decision (Kennedy, CEO of Coke, etc.) - when it's only one person making the final decision they might not have access to all info or might have skewed access leading them to make a bad decision

external unstable attribution

something about the environment/situation that is not usually true Do poorly on a test → construction outside breaking concentration

internal unstable attributions

something about the person that is not usually true, unique to that situation Ex. Do poorly on a test → I was sick; I had a headache

panics

survival instinct, fight or flight, autonomic nervous system arousal Historical Examples: Ex. Hillsborough Soccer Championship (England 1989) 3 sections of standing only seats behind the goals; didn't let enough people in before the game; open doors right before play started; opened 1 section first before opening other 2 sections; people pushing, turned into a stampede, people got lodged against front gates and 70 were suffocated to death; once people realized something went wrong tried to get out by climbing over front gate, climbing over people who had fallen, etc. Ex. Who Concert (1981 Cincinnati) Sold out "farewell" concert, but lots of people around the stadium trying to scalp tickets; someone opens a side door, emergency exit; everyone rushes towards door at once; 14 people trampled to death Ex. Nightclub Fire (2003 Rhode Island) Stage firework/sparklers went off too high; ceiling burned quickly; stampede to get out - 95/110 people trampled or burned to death

self-promotion

talking yourself up

leadership styles

task leaders and socioemotional leaders

task leader

task-oriented, getting things done, keep people on track, they don't care about people's feelings or opinions

motivational origins of stereotypes

tend to be ethnocentric (culture comparison)

groupthink

tend to think group thinking is better than individual thinking, but sometimes mental efficiency, reality testing, and judgment of group deteriorates due to group pressures

importance of testable theories

testable theories have more validity psychoanalytic theory, Freud, etc. has to do with conflicts in the unconscious affecting behavior can't test things in the unconscious --> less respected

social dilemma

the conflict between wanting to maximize self-interest against the interest of the group as a whole

dysjunctive task

the group is as good as its best member; ex. Math team; often other pressures that don't allow the best person to emerge (not popular, quiet); their input can be ignored

identifiability and social dilemmas

the more your behavior is tied to you publicly, the more likely you are to show restraint

attribution

the way we assign cause for people's behavior (others and ourselves)

operant conditioning and schema generation

there are rewards for forming one type of schema, costs for forming other types of schemas which shapes schema development

conformity is reduced if...

there's social support - at least one other person gives the right answer someone gives an even worse answer than the majority the response is given privately

looking glass self

thoughts about ourselves are in part determined by other people's reactions to us use other people as a "mirror"

genetic predisposition and schema formation

twin studies show similarities in color preferences, taste preferences, etc. --> genetic influence on schemas

self reporting stereotypes

unconscious bias - not wanting to use extremes may not report socially undesirable stereotypes

law of scarcity

under commitment Limited time offer; One time deal, Call in the next 2 minutes. Activating a sense of REACTANCE, that something is being taken away from me unfairly

lowballing

under commitment You get someone to commit to a course of action, and then once they committed, you alter the parameters so that is much larger now. Since people committed, they automatically just go with the changes Ex. ask them to come to something then tell them once the'y've committed that it's at 7am Ex. Car sales tactic They commit to getting a car with no extra features with a salesman, he says it'll be in tomorrow, then the next day salesman says whoops the car you wanted isn't here anymore, but we have one with extra features, you end up buying one with extra features. Illegal because it is extremely effective for sales

foot in the door

under commitment You get someone to do a small thing for you, and then you get them to do a larger thing: this works because the small thing starts a course of action, and then the large thing seems like a continuation (asking for just the big thing alone will be less probable) Ex. Ask neighbors to put up a drive slow sign or ask them to sign a petition then a few weeks later ask about the drive slow sign Petition group more likely to put up sign

social loafing

under intragroup behavior many hands do not make light work; don't work as hard in groups as when you're alone Ex. Shouting study - easy to maximize Measured how loud they yelled People yelled much louder by themselves than when in a group of three than when in a group of six Ex. Did other studies where people placed in cubicles with headphones on, told you're yelling in a group, less loud even though it's only you the whole time Ex. Clapping study " "; even at a cheerleading camp Ex. Also seen in sports events Individual times vs. relay splits in swimming Study where splits weren't announced vs. they knew the splits would be announced Faster splits when splits were announced

that's not all

under norm of reciprocity Someone throws in something for free, sweetens the pot Ex. Cupcake Study Set up table in high traffic area Cookies and cupcakes, but no signs about prices How much? $1 - cookie and cupcake How much? $1 - cupcake and for you I'll throw in a cookie for free More likely to spend when cookie free Ex. Late night commercials Ex. Free samples at Costco

door in the face

under norm of reciprocity target behavior in mind; ask for a bigger favor; come down and ask for smaller favor; "doing something for them" Ex. Zoo Study Upper level students were research assistants Approached stranger students Target behavior: chaperone a group of underprivileged little kids to the zoo Ask them to be a Big Brother/Big Sister; then come down to chaperoning Ex. Watergate - mastermind went to Nixon and co.; let's rent out this fancy yacht, throw a party, alcohol and drugs, call girls, take photos and blackmail them; NO - what if we break in?

prejudice

unfavorable ATTITUDES about a group; GLOBAL evaluation

discrimination

unfavorable BEHAVIOR towards a group

functions of attitudes

value expression, provide expectations, organization, utilitarian

quasi-experimental variables

variables you might want to keep track of, but would be unethical or impossible to control (gender, relationship status, whether someone is a twin, whether someone was abused as a child); decreases internal validity because it can lead to confounding variables

male sexual jealousy

very strong link to domestic violence (#1 cause of a woman's murder is at the hands of a man who they once had a relationship with) Ex. Couple hooked up to ANS monitors; Role playing - imagine your partner having sex with someone else, imagine your partner falling in love with someone else, very vivid; Men much more worked up about sex scenario;Women much more worked up about love scenario Evolutionary explanation - men upset because genes of someone else are being passed down; women upset because they fear their partner leaving them and their child and then they won't have resources

attitudes

we have a tendency to evaluate objects/issues favorably or unfavorably

gain-loss hypothesis

we like someone more when we've earned their approval; losing esteem has the same effect Ex. If girl A likes you at a 3 and girl B likes you at a 7, but then girl A likes you at a 7 and girl B likes you at a 7, you will like girl A more because you were able to gain her approval

ingroup-outgroup bias

we think our own group members are superior and the out-group as inferior with negative traits based on a cognitive bias; this effect is accentuated if you have a motivational reason to feel like you are better than the out-group (ex. in competition with them)

cognitive dissonance

when attitude and behavior don't line up → state of tension, dissonance → alter behavior or attitude so that they agree Certain things necessary for tension - public behavior; has to be a choice (if researcher had made you lie, you wouldn't have to take responsibility for the behavior)

ego depletion

when we are weak, tired, have to put a lot of effort into a task, we are more likely to give into temptation; infomercials play off of this state Ex. Fasting, some given a granola bar, then put in a room with plate of cookies and radishes, told to eat radishes, more likely to sneak a cookie if weren't given a granola bar --> ego depleted

self-handicapping

when you fail at something you purposely set up an external reason beforehand as to why you failed; more likely to happen when it's public behavior Ex. Anagram tasks - easy group; hard group "Study on drug" - "thought it improved performance, but actually impaired cognition" People in easy group didn't want to take the pill because they're expecting another easy task People in hard group took the pill so they would have an excuse as to why they did poorly on the hard task

self censorship in groupthink

when you have doubts, you're less likely to voice them because you think maybe you just don't know what you're talking about

social facillitation

when you perform in front of people → autonomic nervous system arousal → dominant response enhanced vs. when doing something alone If this is a well learned task, something you're good at, you've practiced - arousal makes you perform better V.v. for if you don't know the task, haven't practiced, etc. Different aspects of autonomic nervous system activated when you're good vs. bad Good - challenge, motivation Bad - threat, choke, arousal overwhelming Ex. Maze study Easy vs. hard maze; in front of a group of 10 people or alone How long did it take them to get through the maze Easy maze - faster when people watching vs. alone Hard maze - slower when people watching " " anagrams, shooting free throws also true for cockroaches possibly ??

group polarization

you become more extreme in your opinion when in a group Normative social influence - want to belong to a group Informative social influence - people in the group convincing you with facts Studies on everything from political views to book club Used to be called "risky shift" Ex. How willing are you to believe that someone should make a risky choice You either made a decision by yourself or in a group as to whether a college grad should start his own business or join the family business When you're in a group you're more likely to tell him to go for his dream even when he has a low chance of succeeding Ex. Small liberal arts college (Bennington) Very liberal policies and values Contacted incoming students and got their opinions on political issues - a lot of variety, some liberals, some conservatives, etc. Once they were at Bennington everyone moved to the left, group of like-minded individuals Tracked once they graduated, tended to slide back to where they were originally

general social dilemma

you could maybe maximize your own self-interest but if everybody acted that way there'd be a problem for the group as a whole; anything that doesn't fall into the two other categories

diffusion of responsibility

you don't feel 100% responsible for output because you are in a group so the responsibility for the output is spread among the group members

public goods dilemma

you have to actively do something to maintain the resource. Do you contribute to it or depend on the fact that other people will maintain it? Ex. recycling, NPR, PBS

pluralistic ignorance in groupthink

you think other people know more, have more info than you do; leads to self censorship