Social Psychology Exam 3

Another Reason Why We Like Attractive People

"radiating effect" of beauty Kernis & Wheeler, 1981 i. the beauty of another radiates on us ii. more attractive when you've got a hot friend iii. two people interacting, your friend is hot and people think you are hot too iv. when not linked to the friend, the friend is less attractive now b. benefits us to be close to hot people (because then people think you're hot because your friend is hot) c. if you are dating someone who is hot, you're more hot d. dating someone not so hot, you aint as hot -do looks matter in relationship? -Walster et al., 1966 -1. Research assistance have to rate the attractiveness of all the people attending dance ---> multiple assistances, multiple ratings for 1 person 2. "do you like your date?" "want to see them again?" 3. biggest predictor if they want a second date: a. how attractive they are ****physical attraction determines whether the person wants to see their date again by the way: -little/no relationship b/n looks in youth and latter happiness. Hot in college? more likely to get married, but not more satisfied w/ marriage or more content with life

Why Are Looks So Important?

"what's beautiful is good" stereotype: a. assume physically attractive people possess desirable personality traits -Snyder et al., 1977 attractive person has a halo -- men change their behavior when with an attractive person (they are nicer, more generous true: more friends, better social skills, more sex false: more intelligent, better personality, better adjusted, higher self-esteem

Prejudice

- Affective - How do you feel about X? - Overall attitude (evaluation, valence +/-) - Negative feelings towards others based solely on their membership in a different social group In-group favoritism: a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members.

Discrimination

- Behavioral - How do you behave toward X? - Negative behavior directed against people because of their membership in a particular social group

Stereotypes

- Cognitive - What do you think about X? - A generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members - A schema about a social group

Least Coercive - Most Coercive

- Conformity - Compliance - Obedince

Stereotype Threat Study Results

- Non-diagnostic (no threat) --> ~equal levels in performance among both races - Diagnostic (creates desire to disconfirm stereotype) --> black students performed worse

Compliance Techniques

-Foot in the Door -Door in the Face -Low-balling -Disrupt, then Reframe

More Conditions that lead to Conformity

-Group Size -No Allies in the Group -Personality Characteristics -Cultural Differences

Compliance (pt2)

-a change in behavior due to a direct request from another person -often comply "mindlessly" -Langer et al., 1978 -and often fall prey to various "techniques"

Describe Asch's (1956) experiment. Identify how the situation in Asch's experiment differed from the situation in Sherif's experiment. Describe the basic findings of Asch's experiment. Explain why these findings were surprising.

-asch found that people would conform, at least some of the time, to the obviously wrong answer of the group -asch vs. sherif's experiment -asch experiment results are normative social influence usually results in public compliance but NOT private acceptance of other peoples ideas and behaviors and sherifs uses private acceptance and social influence -most surprising- people were concerned about looking foolish even in front of complete strangers RESULTS: Asch line study showed a surprising level of conformity, given how obvious it was that the group was wrong in its judgments. 76% of the p's conformed on at least one trial; only 24% of p's NEVER conformed at all. Most p's conformed on 1-3 of the 12 trials in which the group gave the wrong answer. However, a sizable number of p's conformed to the group's incorrect response nearly every single time

Obedience to Authority

-behavior change produced by the commands of authority -Milgram, 1963; 1965; 1974 -study concerns learning and punishment -2nd person is a confederate posing -draw straws, whoever draws one straw will be the teacher, other learner -2nd person (learner) goes in other room and has to memorize repeated works given by the teacher -if learner gets it wrong, teacher will apply a shock for being incorrect -teacher is always the the P and the confederate is the student -confederate says he has a heart condition -after 45 volts (person sounds ow) -after 90 volts (persons ow stops) -after 150 volts (I'm done let me out) -160 volts (i have a heart condition, stop) -experimenter continues to say "u must continue" -how many of these men would go all the way and give 450 volts to the stranger with a heart condition who has now stopped responding all together? -can someone of higher authority get the P to do something they don't want to do? -what would you do? -most said quit after 135v; none said all the way -psychiatrists' opinion: 1/1000 would go all the way -yale psych majors: that is sick and twisted no one would do that

the results

-everybody gave 15,30,40 volts of electricity -just under 65% 28/40 P's delivered 450 volts to a stranger with a heart condition Findings: obedience to authority is why this happened -IV: NOT ONE -this study is just a really interesting demonstration -65 is a lot bigger than your hunch that no one would do this -there is no comparison--- only a demonstration (ur expectation makes the results worse

The Initial Attraction: Arousal

-excitation transfer -arousal caused by one stimulus is added to arousal from second stimulus and combined arousal is attributed to second stimulus -Dutton & Aron (1974) a. arousal from multiple sources but you misattribute them to the 1st stimulus of the person b. are you more into the person while on a date at the fair or at a boring lecture? i. Measure of attraction: ii. IV - participants take a survey while on a bridge (arousal) iii. DV - research assistant is attractive and who will call based off of where they are on the bridge iv. Will call the assistant more when on the tall bridge rather than sturdy bridge v. Misinterpret the arousal of bridge with the arousal of person c. More likely to write sexual context with the picture of the woman looking in the mirror while on the bridge than while on sturdy ground secondary sources)

Low-Balling Cialdini et al., 1978

-gen psych students were called on the phone asked to be in a research study -Control: invitation to a study at 7am -low balling condition: invitation to study, would you like to participate? Yes? Great! it starts at 7am, you dont tell them the time until after they commit -**increase compliance by low balling -**Compliance DOUBLES -twice as many low ball experiments show up compared to the control

Close(r) Relationships

-how do we move from those 1st initial encounters that we talked about, to close, more intimate relationships? -one answer: rewards -as rewards pile up, we become more attached

Explain whether being motivated to be right makes you more or less susceptible to informational social influence. Explain how informational social influence can backfire

-in situations where it is important to be accurate, the tendency to conform to other people thought informational social influence INCREASES -using other people as a source of information can backfire when they are wrong about what's going on

Need to be Liked or Accepted

-normative social influence -often results in public (not private) acceptance -and NOTE: both types often operate jointly -Crandall, 1988 Study with sororities (all women) with questionnaires -Questions asked: -Eating behaviors to maintain weight/lose weight for fitting in -How many people do you like in the sorority? -Popularity - who's fitting in vs who is not? !!Findings: -Different norms for eating behaviors in different sororities -Women liked more when closer to the norm of eating behavior -The women who do what the other people are doing (conforming)-- people like you more -Once you know the norm, you decide whether or not to follow it (following norm---> liked) (not following norm--->liked less)

Social Exchange Theory

-people are motivated by a desire to maximize profit and minimize loss in their social relationships -basic premise: relationships that provide more rewards and fewer costs will be more satisfying and endure longer

Extensions/Corrections to Social Exchange Theory

-people most content with relationships when the ratio between what they get out of it and what put into it is similar for both partners -equity theory: Idea that people are happiest when the rewards and costs experienced in a relationship are equal for both parties -over and under-benefited over-benefited -getting all kinds of stuff (money, dinner) compared to the other person (more work) you should feel guilty bc you are over-benefited and be less satisfied under-benefited -your putting in more than he is -people are sensitive to equity

Exchange & Communal Relationships

-people operate based on reward model when in exchange relationships - characterized by an immediate tit-for-tat repayment of benefits -exchange oriented -your psych professor -in communal relationships, partners respond to each other's needs and well-being over time, without regard for whether they give or receive benefit -family members, friends, children -Clark & Mills, 1979 -male, single, heterosexual college students -they meet Debby (attractive female) -IV: type of relationship the males are motivated to have towards Debby -randomly assigned to get 1 condition: Debby is new to an area, single, all kinds of things in common (politics, eating habits, music) -guys are interested to have a communal relationship with Debby -other half of P's: Debby from here but moving soon, in a relationship, politics/music/politics opposite from your own -motivated to have an exchange relationship -told you're going to play a game w letter (scrabble) and create words from tiles -by design, things are set up so that p's have 1 tile always left over -you and Debby have now been taken to separate rooms -experimenter says: oh great you're done, I see you have an extra tile, would you like to give that one to Debby? they all give it to Debby 2nd IV: what Debby does in response to you giving her this extra tile 1/2 p's: thanks so much other 1/2 p's: thanks so much I appreciate it, let me give you some of my points (repayment + thank you) DV: how p's feel about Debby after this 1/2 p's communal other 1/2 exchange

Minority Influence

-process by which dissenters produce change within a group -how? i. Consistency ii. Shown circles and ask what color it is iii. Every circle is blue 1. Confederates sometimes say that the circle is green (wrong) 2. When the minority is consistent (always saying green) over time you can get the majority to claim they see a green circle 1/3 of time 3. Difficult to make minority make majority feel deviant 4. Afterimages - informational social influence -Moscovici et al., 1969 -normative vs. informational social influence -private vs. public acceptance

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted

-proximity increases odds that we'll meet someone -familiarity puts us at ease -beauty draws us in -what determines whether sparks fly in getting acquainted stage? -lets consider 4 things...

Disrupt then Reframe David & Knowles, 1999

-research took place around Fayetteville -Control: RA go door to door "hi i am raising money for local homeless shelther, we are selling greeting cards, that's a bargain, would you like to buy one it is $3? -Uncontrolled: "hi i am raising money for homeless shelter, I'm selling greeting cards for $3 that is 300 pennies" -Compliance doubles -construct: conflict arises, approach-avoidance conflict, -we come up with scripts to get out of the situation (make up an excuse) -you disrupt peoples avoidance script and then you refrain as an approach (300 pennies) rearrange it as approach -if you leave out the reframe it will not work -disrupt first, then refrain as an approach (only way it works) -you will double compliance

Discuss the consequences of resisting normative social influence. Describe Schachter's (1951) "Johnny Rocco" experiment and discuss its results.

-resisting normative social influence can lead to ridicule, ostracism, and rejection by the group -johnny Rocco experiment -juvenile delinquent -p's were asked to nominate one group member who should be eliminated from further discussions -they nominated the deviant (one who went against the group's norms) -they assigned unimportant tasks or boring tasks to the deviant

Ethics

-should these studies have been conducted? -what if the results indicated that everyone disobeyed? -in a survey sent to Ps, 84% were glad to have participated, 15% were neutral, and 1.3% had negative feelings toward the experiment

More Extensions/Corrections to Social Exchange Theory

-something else to consider - our investments in relationship... -investments = anything put into relationship that will be lost if leave can be tangible (couch/car) can be less tangible (welfare of children) -Rusbult & Martz, 1995 -are all relationships built on exchange? -done at a battered woman's shelter (field experiment) -researchers ask in survey: question being: what predicts whether this woman will go back to the jerks that are abusing them? -relationship satisfication=low -what do you have invested into this relationship? -# of children, whether you have a couch -FINDINGS: the single best predictor of who returns to the men who abused them is the number of investments -more things you put into that relationship the more likely you are to return to that abusive relationship - Satisfaction, Investment, Alternatives

Physical Attractiveness: How Important are looks?

-teachers rate better-looking children as smarter, more likely to succeed -judges set lower bails and impose smaller fines on attractive suspects -across occupations, attractive men and women earn more money -physicality gives advantages - Halo Effect

Identify when people will conform to normative social influence. Describe social impact theory. Identify the relationships among the strength, immediacy, and number of influence sources, and subsequent conformity.

-the likelihood that you will respond to social influence depends on 3 variables: 1. strength: how important to you is the group? 2. immediacy: how close is the group to you in space and time during the tempt to influence you? 3. number: how many people are in the group? -Social impact theory predicts that conformity will increase as strength and immediacy will increase

The Initial Attraction: Familiarity

-we're attracted to those we see and become familiar with 2 factors 1.proximity, Festinger et al., 1950 a. Being close to someone increases our interest 2. Knock on doors and questions: "who do you like the most in this building?" "who is most like you in this building?" a. People would say the next door neighbor rather than the 2 door down neighbor (functionality of distance matters) b. Physical distance is more likely to be in common with c. Functional distance as well Closer you are to someone, the more you spend with them, the more you like them 2.exposure a. How often you see someone b. Four women's photographs taken (not in general psychology) i. 1st woman comes to class and pretends to be a student in this course but doesn't talk to anyone ii. 2nd comes half of course iii. 3rd comes for ¼ iv. 4th never comes to lecture c. their attractiveness was rated, likelihood y'all would be friends, similarity i. attractiveness was higher for student that came the entire time ii. exposure to person increases their attractiveness and our attraction

More on Mate Selection

-why do men and woman want different things in a mate? -evolutionary pressure? -women can go against the evolutionary pressure -Gangstead, 1993 asks for buss's data & get the data -reanalyzes buss's data taking into account an additional variable -when women say they want a potential partner with all of those things it's bc they can't get that any other way -reason why women want different things than men is bc of gender discrimination due to social forces NOT evolutionary forces, if you rank order the 37 countries and see which women have that ability, as those coutnries offer more and more gender equality the preference of women come ever closer to those of men, as gender discrimination goes down, women report that much more when looking for a mate, where women have access to resources suggesting that the reason why we find some gender discrepancies has more to do with social forces (lack of resources or access on their own) -world= sexist place women have photograph taken twice and then asked to draw a picture of themselves (2 wks apart) if they were to go out that night -asked to come in before ovulation and after findings: menstruating/ovulating wearing clothing that is more revealing (shorter skirts etc.) draw pix of them wearing more revealing clothing

Identify 3 characteristics of the group that increase conformity to normative social influence. Identify what size group induced maximum conformity in Asch's experiments. Discuss the effects of having an ally on conformity to normative social influence.

1. (when the group grows larger) as the size of the group increases, so does the normative pressure it exerts, but each additional person has less of an influencing effect, if we feel pressure from a group to conform, adding another person to the majority makes a much bigger difference if the group is small rather than large (when the group reaches 4-5 conformity does not increase as much) 2. (when the group is important) normative pressures are much stronger when they come from people whose friendship, love and respect we cherish bc there is a large cost to losing this love and respect 3. (when one has no allies in the group)

The Four Prods

1. Please continue 2. The experiment requires that you go on 3. It is absolutely essential that you continue 4. You have no other choice, you must go on

3 Important Factors...

1. Victim -learner seated in same room as P -obedience to authority goes down to 40% 2. P's required to physically grasp victim's hand and force it onto metal plate -down to 30% 3. procedure -two aspects seem particularly important -personal responsibility and chain of command -transfer orders, 54%; execute order, 28% -gradual escalation in this study, p's say "i have to stop" and experimenter says "no i am sorry you must go on" P's say "i cant be responsible for this" experimenter says "im responsible please continue"

Describe three conditions that make people more likely to conform to informational social influence.

1. people are more likely to conform to informational social influence when the situation is ambiguous 2. when they are in crisis 3. or if experts are present

Social Exchange Theory 4 Basic Concepts

1. rewards -gratifying aspects of relationship that make it worthwhile -sexual, dinner being cooked, all aspects of relationship 2. costs -work it takes to maintain relationship -all of his annoying habits, anything you have to endure/put up with in the relationship 3. comparison level (expectation) high comparison = expect high reward, low costs low comparison= expect high costs, low rewards -what expect relationship to be in terms of rewards and costs 4. comparison level of alternatives -likelihood you could do better -no messages/alone = comparison of alternatives is low -ppl texting you asking you to go out = comparison of alternatives high

Stereotype Threat

Apprehension experienced by members of a group that their behavior may confirm a stereotype

3 Important Factors that Increase/Decrease Obedience

Authority Figure -lab moved to rundown suburban office -down to 48% -experimenter replaced by another P -down to 20% -experimenter issues commands by phone -down to 21% and/but consider a field experiment by Hofling, 1966 -nurses at hospital receive phone call and caller is a man "Dr. so and so" and asks nurse to deliver drugs to such patients -the nurses have never met doctor -this action violates the protocol for hospital -100% of nurses do it -point is

Why Do People Conform?

Reason 1: evolutionarily adaptive -Something good about conforming to other people - surviving, reproducing, difficult to do these things without others -You should want to affiliate and connect with others -It should be evolutionary adaptive and helpful to your survival -The better you get along with others the better you get goals done "Chameleon Effect" -Chartrand & Bargh, 1999 -when and why (fitting in) -Conformity helps with the interaction of others -Research @ NYU - fill out a questionnaire but it isn't about that 1. The confederate (the person in the room with the participant) will either rub head or shake his/her leg during 30 mins - IV (these actions are minimally and not noticeable (not consciously aware of)) 2. Do participants mimic the confederate? - DV 3. How many times do the participants do the movement of the confederate? a. Participants conform to what the confederate is doing b. Shake head of confederate makes shake head of participant c. Unconsciously conforming (not going out of way to conform) when the participants were asked what the purpose was after the experiment they didn't recall the movements of the confederate and that they did it too Reverse to the confederate mimicking the participant now 1.Ask participants if they would hang out with the confederate again? 2. They like them more, have more in common, enjoy hanging out with confederate when the confederate has mimicked the participant 3. We like people who confirm to us more so than people who don't a. They will get more along - fitting in and thriving for survival

Another Reason People Conform

Reason 2: need to know what's right/correct -People help us make sense of what is going on around us when the situation is ambiguous (common) -"informational" social influence 1. autokinetic effect a. Allusion (no lights - completely dark and suddenly a dot of light comes up) if you stare at that light long enough you're going to think it's moving (even when it's not) b. Staring at stuff makes your head move you have no external point to reference (objectively) to compare the movement to so it looks like the light dot is moving 2. Participants estimate the amount of movement of light a. While alone they give different estimates of movements of dot of light b. When with others, the estimations converge and conform to one answer c. By the time the study is over, the average estimates are almost identical across people and become an average value of all of the answers given individually 3. Motivation to have an accurate depiction can come about by getting help from others (conforming for an average) 4. They are not going along - they are public statements with personal belief 5. Often leads to private acceptance -If it was just to manage impressions, when they are by themselves again they should revert back to beginning answers but that isn't what happens 1. They give responses that are similar to when they were with others 2. Shows that once people conform for informational social influence it is driven by what is right not by what is socially acceptable -Most likely when situation is ambiguous, a crisis and when others are experts--> lean on others when we think they know more than us in that area -Sherif, 1936

Compliance

a change in behavior due to a direct request from another person -often comply "mindlessly" -Langer et al., 1978 Excuse me, I have 5 pages. May I use the Xerox machine? -...because I'm in a rush -...because I have to make some copies

Door in the Face Cialdini et al., 1975

a. Control: researcher approaches participants and most say no (some say yes) b. Best way to increase volunteerism is to ask for volunteers c. Uncontrolled: volunteer for 52 weeks? NO? then just this Sunday (say yes doubled) d. Ask big task first and then compliance will come for the small request e. Start big then later go small i. Don't want to do what I want? Just do a percentage of what I want! ii. Meet in the middle iii. This request has to be genuine

Foot in the Door Freedman & Fraser, 1966

a. Participants who are home and answer the phone when it rings b. Phone caller asks if they can come to the person's house and look through all of their stuff - Control: some say yes (most say no) c. Uncontrolled: Some asked if they'll take a survey two weeks prior - they do and when they are called back asking to go through their stuff then they are doubled in compliance to let these strangers go through their stuff d. Big idea - Start small then later go big e. When someone makes an easy request to you-- see yourself as a helpful person i. Earlier request will create compliance (double!!) ii. Make the first request small and then (because people want to be consistent) they will do the bigger task when asked later

Mate Selection: Evolution of Desire?

are men and women attracted to different things in a mate? evolutionary perspective Female: reproduction is costlier (time/effort/resources) -Be choosy, look for a mate who has money, power, educational history, personality char. ambition men- physical attractiveness Male: play the field bc it doesn't cost you much -you just need a potential date 15 mins -goal: give your genes to go through time (get more dates for more offspring survival) -signs of health/reproducibility -large breasts, big lips -finding women with sexual chastity/& who value themselves A. Attribute choice; age discrepancies -Buss, 1989 UT professor -looks at responses of P's from 37 different cultures with over 10,000 p's -questionnaire: what are you looking for in a mate? (qualities that are important to you) -findings: compared to men, women have an interest in partners who is ambitious, high in power, and decent amount of money (resources) -men: physically attractive, sexually chased (value sexual chastity) both men and women want sense of humor and good natured -age discrepancies women: looking for a male who is a few years older than you men: every single culture men recorded they want a woman who is a few years younger than them B. Jealousy -Buss et al., 1992 -our class -sexual jealousy gender differences -women: should be choosy, have resources and stick around

Some Conditions that Lead to Conformity

awareness of the norm -even when it's wrong! -pluralistic ignorance: people mistakenly believe that own thoughts and feelings are different from those of others, even though everyone's behavior is the same -our class; Prentice & Miller, 1996 -The more awareness of norm the more likely to conform (even when it's wrong) -Misperceive the norm (pluralistic ignorance: people mistakenly believe that own thoughts are feelings are different from those of others, even though everyone's behavior is the same) -The action is the same but your reason for it is different -You like Taylor Swift because of her musical talent but everyone else just likes her to follow the norm -No one raises hand because they get it but you aren't because you don't get it (though everyone is doing the same thing yours is different reasoning) -Drinking alcohol (everyone is drinking) you keep drinking because you don't want to look like the one who doesn't like it 1. Everyone else keeps going so I guess I will too a. Drinking @ Princeton i. How comfortable are you drinking? ii. How comfortable is the typical student at your university? (perceptional estimate) iii. Responses showed average is higher (incorrect perception) (pluralistic ignorance - misperceiving norm) iv. People who drink less later are the ones who are told that they perceived the norm wrong - so you can stop because low-key everyone else wants to stop too

First Encounters: More Getting Acquainted IV

being hard to get -keeping secrets 1. 2 teams (1 woman + 1 man) competing @ cards 2. 1 condition: no extra instruction 3. 2 condition: play footsie with person across from you (the enemy the other team) 4. 3 condition: play footsie and KEEP IT A SECRET 5. how attracted are you to your teammate and other? a.** Only condition where person on other team is attractive is 3 condition Being hard to get (having hard time getting to know them) flames the attraction -Wegner et al; 1994

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted IV

being hard to get is different than playing hard to get pratically hard to get-- married already, dating someone else, far away geologically -closing time @ bars 1. rate attractiveness @ 9pm, 12am, 2am 2. everyone gets prettier towards the end --> attractiveness increases over time -Pennebaker et al., 1979

Conformity

change in perception, opinion, or behavior due to the real or imagined influence of others

Cultural Differences

collectivist: emphasis on group have more conformity than individualistic

No allies in the group

if 1 person breaks and gives a right answer then the conformity goes down (ally in the group makes conformity go down) i. Even if the ally is not a good one (ex: visual blind ally) ii. No allies = conformity

Similarity and Implicit Egotism

implicit egotism -positive associations linked to self spill over to enhance attraction to things similar to self -Name of username is the 1st 3 letters of name vs not i. More likely to feel something when the 1st 3 letters remind them of self 1. Number on shirt (birthday vs not) a. Men more excited to meet woman with birthday on shirt 2. Issue with implicit egotism, self-esteem might not be good a. If they have bad self-esteem they will not find someone to remind them of self -Jones, Pelham, et al., 2004

Need to Know What's Right

informational social influence -often leads to private acceptance -most likely when situation is ambiguous, a crisis, and when others are experts

The Power of the Situation

is this about aggression? -experimenter demands P stop while learner demands P to continue - down to zero (0%) what about the presence of others? -1 drops out at 150v; other at 210v - down to 10% could it happen today? -no correlation b/n amount of obedience and year study conducted -Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1995

Group Size

larger the group the larger conformity up to a point (after 6-7 people the conformity diminishes again)

Personality Characteristics

less likely to conform as you get older (don't give a damn) i. Women more likely to conform in situations ii. Not many other than that

A Third Reason Why People Conform

need to be liked or accepted -"normative" social influence -Asch, 1951 Normative social influence 1. Line judgment task - shown a standard line and some comparisons lines and which one of the comparison lines are closest to the standard lines 2. Trial 3 - everyone before you gives the wrong response a. What do you say? b. Do you give the correct answer or the answer given by the previous people (even though incorrect)? c. They give the incorrect answer - to fit in 3. Often results in public (not private) acceptance - they don't believe what they say they just say something to go along with others If given the opportunity to give the answer privately (writing it down while recording the experiment) the conformity drops to zero - conforming to others to fit in when having to speak it publicly

Emotional or Sexual Infidelity?

our class answered this Q -think of a serious, committed romantic relationship that had in the past, that you currently have, or that you would like to have. imagine that you learn that the person with whom you've been seriously involved became interested in someone else. what of these 2 options would distress or upset you more? 1. imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to that person -emotional jealousy -evolutionary answer: women more than men 2. imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person -sexual jealousy -evolutaionary answer: men more than women

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted III

playing hard to get -phenomenon is hard to get! -Walster et al., 1972 -i. people don't like people who play hard to get 1. the person is seen as snotty, rude, unpleasant -seems we like those who are selective -1. person plays hard to get for EVERYONE but you 2. speed dating and rate interest of everyone a. people like those who like them and only them -Eastwick & Finkel, 2008

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted II

reciprocal liking -people like those who like them -..and who come to like us even more! i. Easiest way to get someone to like you - tell them you like them. ii. Balance of relationships: we like those who like us iii. We like people who COME to like us OVER time even more 1. At end of each session: you overhear conversation between experimenter and person 2. 1 condition: 1st encounter the person liked you and the last encounter liked you LESS 3. 2 condition: liked you beginning and likes you even after 4. 3 condition: doesn't like you and still doesn't like you 5. 4 condition: doesn't like you but over time comes to like you iv. people like those who like them v. like the 4th person even more so -Aronson & Linder, 1965

First Encounters: Getting Acquainted I

similarity -Newcomb, 1961 i. People like similar others. ii. Ex: Randomly assigned roommate for free housing 1. IV - roommate is either similar or not similar (ex: ideologies, personalities, opinions, demographics, race, ethnicity, environment, attitudes) 2. DV- do you like your roommate? a. More likely to like them/room with them again if they are similar share similar demographics and opinions -why is similarity important for attraction? a. usually rewarding - your other person looks at world the same way (which is validating for our perception of world) b. similarity is "matched"- people go find most attractive person they can get successfully (not the MOST attractive person in the room overall) a. Average "attractive" value matches with other's average value b. Has to be attainable c. implicit egotism-attracted to people like us because we like us

Discuss examples of normative social influence from harmless trends and fads to more sinister forms of conformity. Describe the changes in cultural standards for physical attractiveness in the last century both for women and for men.

trends/fads: there is a tendency amongst most people to conform to these changing fashion trends with time, early adopters=youth -on the other hand, changes in womens attire that are highly westernised are condemned as threat to cultural traditions by the stereotyped beliefs dominant in the patriarchal family system in our society

The Banality of Evil

what would you do? -the trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic; that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions, and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together - Arendt, 1963

How Much Ps like Confederate Clark & Mills, 1979

y-axis: evaluation of another person (higher #'s = you like them more) -exchange condition -p's like Debby more when they were repaid by Debby -communal condition -the exact opposite happens -when Debby thanks you, you think she is great -but when she thinks you + repays you -telling you this is an exchange relationship (i don't like you like that) -interested in this person goes down

% of Men & Women More Upset by Emotional Infidelity

y-axis: percentage of responses -women compared to men are more distraught by emotional infidelity than men